Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Scott Mayers

Preamble to Charter of Rights....

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm making arguments for why that preamble should be removed and you comment on your feelings? The list of postings here are responses to others as I try to answer each where possible. 

My 'feelings' weren't mentioned . . . . but, your 'reading comprehension' should be.  If you don't believe in 'anything' . . . . so be it.  No big deal. Disregard the pre-amble. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

The preamble would be lacking justification to exist there given the 'Constitution' is a literal and formal work. Thus if it is a trivial note of appeal, why then not begin with, 

"In that Canada is founded upon the formation of the United States,.." 

The point is that this too has realistic truth about the people of 'foundation'. So that preamble is still superfluous and for being UNNECESSARY in a legal document, would need to be removed so as not to confuse those like the above religious posts believing it assures that their Judaeao-Chrisitian beliefs are also intended. 

I also argued how it preconditions the capacity to create RELIGIOUS biased laws under the banner of 'culture' as it protects UNIQUE religious beliefs and not all beliefs.

I don't like religion in politics as it creates a means for government to excuse the rights of censorship and censure (via punishment) out of beliefs that are pretended to be universal without proof. 

It is not 'denying' anything historical to speak against the preamble. I'm against the presumption that the words IMPLY some 'supreme authority' of "God' as to any moral motives for a country's constitution. 

 

EDIT (added point): It happens to be a 'historical fact' too that Canada was founded upon reserving and isolating a human population like animals on "reservations". Why is this not there too? 

What's really happening here is that you are using the preamble to the charter of rights as an excuse to vent your hatred of Judeo-Christian beliefs and white Canadians.

The clause that you cited has no legal ramifications whatsoever. It just hurts your feelings.

 

EDIT: What countries, cultures don't have some skeletons in their closet? You want to point out Canada's flaws, our country has had a grand total of less than 5,000 slaves going back to before our nation was even formed. There are countries in the ME that still have slaves after more than 2,000 years and they still administer the death penalty for blasphemy. Canada is doing just awesome dude. 

If you're looking for a chance to do some real virtue-signalling or direct some hatred towards towards shitty people in backwards cultures you should start with Iran, Pakistan, etc. There's a reason why there's no immigration into those countries, and why they don't need border walls to stop people from just waltzing in, looking for a place to settle down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm making arguments for why that preamble should be removed and you comment on your feelings? The list of postings here are responses to others as I try to answer each where possible. 

Wrong.

 You're lying about the legal implications of the preamble to the Charter to start a conversation about changing it. And if you're being honest, when you talk about the need to change the preamble, it's exclusively because of how you feel about it, since we've already established that it has no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Your "arguments" are nothing more than a combination of lies and your own insecurities. That's a non-starter for an actual conversation. This thread just illustrates your need to see a therapist or to grow up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:
2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

If a god existed, it would be 'natural' and thus already implicit IN NATURE, regardless. "God" implies more than what is of nature but BEYOND our capacity to detect.

So? Nothing wrong with that.

Then why not replace the word, "Supremacy of God', with "the inevitable power of Nature beyond Man's control"? And then, given this 'equal' phrasing demonstrates something not necessary to say, why any special preamble? If one is needed without bias to anyone: "The following is Canada's Constitution'" ....Oh wait, then why not leave that out too given the title already says what it is!!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Then why not replace the word, "Supremacy of God', with "the inevitable power of Nature beyond Man's control"? And then, given this 'equal' phrasing demonstrates something not necessary to say, why any special preamble? If one is needed without bias to anyone: "The following is Canada's Constitution'" ....Oh wait, then why not leave that out too given the title already says what it is!!?

Because that would accomplish nothing, you just want to remove all religious references in the preamble, because you are a militant atheist who hates on religion. There is no need to change anything, changing it will not do anything beneficial, you want it gone because you have animus towards the religious.

There are far bigger problems with the Charter than the preamble, you focusing on the preamble makes no sense, aside from hating on something religious.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:
3 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

The preamble would be lacking justification to exist there given the 'Constitution' is a literal and formal work. Thus if it is a trivial note of appeal, why then not begin with, 

"In that Canada is founded upon the formation of the United States,.." 

The point is that this too has realistic truth about the people of 'foundation'. So that preamble is still superfluous and for being UNNECESSARY in a legal document, would need to be removed so as not to confuse those like the above religious posts believing it assures that their Judaeao-Chrisitian beliefs are also intended. 

I also argued how it preconditions the capacity to create RELIGIOUS biased laws under the banner of 'culture' as it protects UNIQUE religious beliefs and not all beliefs.

I don't like religion in politics as it creates a means for government to excuse the rights of censorship and censure (via punishment) out of beliefs that are pretended to be universal without proof. 

It is not 'denying' anything historical to speak against the preamble. I'm against the presumption that the words IMPLY some 'supreme authority' of "God' as to any moral motives for a country's constitution. 

 

EDIT (added point): It happens to be a 'historical fact' too that Canada was founded upon reserving and isolating a human population like animals on "reservations". Why is this not there too? 

What's really happening here is that you are using the preamble to the charter of rights as an excuse to vent your hatred of Judeo-Christian beliefs and white Canadians.

The clause that you cited has no legal ramifications whatsoever. It just hurts your feelings.

 

EDIT: What countries, cultures don't have some skeletons in their closet? You want to point out Canada's flaws, our country has had a grand total of less than 5,000 slaves going back to before our nation was even formed. There are countries in the ME that still have slaves after more than 2,000 years and they still administer the death penalty for blasphemy. Canada is doing just awesome dude. 

If you're looking for a chance to do some real virtue-signalling or direct some hatred towards towards shitty people in backwards cultures you should start with Iran, Pakistan, etc. There's a reason why there's no immigration into those countries, and why they don't need border walls to stop people from just waltzing in, looking for a place to settle down.

If it is superfluous in meaning that YOU may present as trivial, and given that it concerns non-religious people for its legal intent to set up a biased SPECIAL set of freedoms for merely a subset of the whole population, then my demand of its removal should be acceptable in logical terms to you. But it appears that you think it MUST be there or you wouldn't feel threatened should it NOT be there!

 

Trying to turn the tables on me regarding 'hate' is odd. The fact that the constitution favors a unique subset of people based upon SPECIFIC cults and NOT the individual's rights, any 'freedoms' presented of those not of the protected groups are biased by those religious conditions. This is like if you had five children but gave favoritive precedence of 'superiority' to only a few of them, say three arbitrarily. The two LEFT OUT are neglected should you have a rule that permits the 'favored' children to eat first. While it may SEEM that it lacks direct means of 'hate', it still exists but is worse given the fact that the 'favoritism' is just a way to hide that you are abusing those left out. It would be the condition of those two children of the example starving. And if they complain, they get accused of 'hate'?

I am born here on this Earth and have every right to complain, regardless of your will to shut me up. You are basically asserting that you KNOW that my conditions are as good as your own and that I should appreciate it as though I lived through your state of prosperity. Does 'peek-a-boo' still surprise you too? [ie, that you require believing only what you see in your eyes as existing?]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Because that would accomplish nothing, you just want to remove all religious references in the preamble, because you are a militant atheist who hates on religion. There is no need to change anything, changing it will not do anything beneficial, you want it gone because you have animus towards the religious.

There are far bigger problems with the Charter than the preamble, you focusing on the preamble makes no sense, aside from hating on something religious.

And you sound like a skin-head demanding intolerance of rational thinking if it threatens your hardened cult's beliefs. 

For me, I don't mind one playing pretend on ones' own time and place. Those 'cultural' realities are a part of us all, ....even me. But the Constitution is a serious document supposedly for us all. Thus it requires keeping favor to the least minority for shared rights: the individual without presuming something intrinsic about their preference of play or art.

Religious concepts are 'art' to me and so I don't 'hate' it as a general right of one's "conscience". However, it VIOLATES my own rights (as well as most peoples) in practice for how laws  are operating to exclude powers of individuals for mere associations of 'favor' by some arrogant snobs in power wanting to conserve their own interests at the expense of everyone else. I WILL 'hate' those artificial beliefs where they are such as to IMPOSE upon me or others. As such, that preamble is an IMPOSITION and only designed to set up protection clauses that VIOLATE others discriminately (not to mention, 'hatefully'!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

And you sound like a skin-head demanding intolerance of rational thinking if it threatens your hardened cult's beliefs. 

:lol:
Not hating on the religious is not an intolerance of rational thinking.

Lulz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just to clarify, Scott, is it religion you hate or do you actually hate God?

Why do religious people think non-religious people hate THAT WHICH DOESN'T EXIST? :blink:

Do you 'hate' the Joker from Batman? 

My argument is against the preamble. Do you hate me if that clause didn't exist? Do you require God MAKING you 'good' or 'bad'? I know if I were God, I'd be pissed at you for spitting in my face when I expected you to live 'free' of FORCED thought. If some being put us here and is NOT universally available to present their case, why SHOULD anyone trust what it is THROUGH arrogant con artists demanding you have 'faith in God' through THEM, not God??? Just leave his contact number behind if you got it. 

OR, do you NEED that preamble as though the 'idolism' of the statement is placing your god's signature on it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

:lol:
Not hating on the religious is not an intolerance of rational thinking.

Lulz

I see that you are just trying to distract attention away from the issue? I already pointed out that what you DO ON YOUR OWN is your right as long as it does NOT infringe upon mine ("classic liberalism") But the Constitution is a biased religious document because it specifically defines protected behaviors for SPECIFIC religions/cultures It sets the stage for censorship laws (by those privileged peoples' power of vetting) which VIOLATE the right to one of free speech, free media, and free association. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I see that you are just trying to distract attention away from the issue? I already pointed out that what you DO ON YOUR OWN is your right as long as it does NOT infringe upon mine ("classic liberalism") But the Constitution is a biased religious document because it specifically defines protected behaviors for SPECIFIC religions/cultures It sets the stage for censorship laws (by those privileged peoples' power of vetting) which VIOLATE the right to one of free speech, free media, and free association. 

The supremacy of god being mentioned in the preamble is not infringing on anyone's rights. Protecting specific religious groups has nothing to do with the supremacy of god being mentioned in the preamble either.
/shrugs

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

And you sound like a skin-head demanding intolerance of rational thinking if it threatens your hardened cult's beliefs. 

Much ado about nothing . . . . .   disregard the pre-amble Scott Mayers.  You, trying to link your hatred of any 'belief system' other than your own is getting tiresome.  Perhaps 'light your hair on fire' about something important

download (6).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

My argument is against the preamble.

Sorry. You are right. The simple answer is God was put into the preamble in order to get the Constitution passed. The feeling at the time was without the inclusion of God, the effort would not have the support from sectors of the religious community. Since it passed, it is clear that the non-religious community did not have the power to block it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

If it is superfluous in meaning that YOU may present as trivial, and given that it concerns non-religious people for its legal intent to set up a biased SPECIAL set of freedoms for merely a subset of the whole population, then my demand of its removal should be acceptable in logical terms to you.

There's no legal intent, or effect, period. You're lying again.

Quote

But it appears that you think it MUST be there or you wouldn't feel threatened should it NOT be there!

Don't put words in my mouth just to try make your petty argument into something that it isn't. Your a liar, not a mindreader.

 

Quote

Trying to turn the tables on me regarding 'hate' is odd. The fact that the constitution favors a unique subset of people based upon SPECIFIC cults and NOT the individual's rights, any 'freedoms' presented of those not of the protected groups are biased by those religious conditions. This is like if you had five children but gave favoritive precedence of 'superiority' to only a few of them, say three arbitrarily. The two LEFT OUT are neglected should you have a rule that permits the 'favored' children to eat first. While it may SEEM that it lacks direct means of 'hate', it still exists but is worse given the fact that the 'favoritism' is just a way to hide that you are abusing those left out. It would be the condition of those two children of the example starving. And if they complain, they get accused of 'hate'?

You are a hater. This thread was started because of your hatred for Christianity.

The constitution doesn't favour a certain subset, learn to read.

Quote

I am born here on this Earth and have every right to complain, regardless of your will to shut me up. You are basically asserting that you KNOW that my conditions are as good as your own and that I should appreciate it as though I lived through your state of prosperity. Does 'peek-a-boo' still surprise you too? [ie, that you require believing only what you see in your eyes as existing?]

I'm not trying to shut you up. You can keep lying if you want, that's in the Charter. I'm just pointing out that you're a liar and a hater.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Sorry. You are right. The simple answer is God was put into the preamble in order to get the Constitution passed. The feeling at the time was without the inclusion of God, the effort would not have the support from sectors of the religious community. Since it passed, it is clear that the non-religious community did not have the power to block it.

Thank you for the acknowledgement of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You are a hater. This thread was started because of your hatred for Christianity.

The constitution doesn't favour a certain subset, learn to read.

and

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm not trying to shut you up. You can keep lying if you want, that's in the Charter. I'm just pointing out that you're a liar and a hater.

I already told you that I don't 'hate' the religious person. I SEPARATE the logical function of government from its emotive and just as art is "culture", so is religion and music, and personal hobbies, etc. These are arbitrary to one's particular behaviors in life and have no universal ground of appeal. Governments are 'secular' systems but get abused when it utilizes artificial contstructs about one's environment as though they were 'genetic'.

A recent example shows what is occurring due to those interpreting their own right to special treatment of the Constitution. While it deals more with the parts that recognize the 'distinct status' of First Nations Peoples, the attitude of the hyper-cultural significance of 'social justice' organs here in Canada are able to be transfered to real laws. The MMIW organization falsely associates a speaker's coincidental relationship to a prior convicted murder RELIGIOUSLY interprets the poet, George Elliot Clarke as 'evil' as they fear the FREE SPEECH would affect them. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/pamela-george-elliott-clarke-lecture-1.5411701 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/

This begins with that preamble because the Anglican and Catholics, themselves associating the traditional wealth of Upper and Lower Canada, had to find a means to get their own unique protections in law. Because they cannot do so without recognition of the Indigenous to the same right, they too were bought upon the same right to make laws concerning religion (via 'culture' presumptions). 

George Elliot caved in. But if you saw the emotive appeal by the MMIW, that gives you a sample of what more will come of people SEGREGATED and empowered through embracing Nationalistic ideals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

But if you saw the emotive appeal by the MMIW, that gives you a sample of what more will come of people SEGREGATED and empowered through embracing Nationalistic ideals. 

First he trashes on religion and now he trashes on nationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

First he trashes on religion and now he trashes on nationalism.

Speak for yourself. [Or do you NEED crowd support for your inadequecy to argue logically?] 

Look up "Nationalism". You don't seem to think this odd in a climate of most NOT people to liking it be default. (?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Speak for yourself. [Or do you NEED crowd support for your inadequecy to argue logically?] 

Look up "Nationalism". You don't seem to think this odd in a climate of most NOT people to liking it be default. (?) 

Nothing wrong with nationalism and popularity has nothing to with it whether it is "odd" or not. Why you'd even bring up argument ad populum to support your attacks on nationalism, when fronting like a master of logic, that is beyond me.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

However, it VIOLATES my own rights (as well as most peoples) in practice for how laws  are operating to exclude powers of individuals for mere associations of 'favor' by some arrogant snobs in power wanting to conserve their own interests at the expense of everyone else.

Can you give an example of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The simple answer is God was put into the preamble in order to get the Constitution passed. The feeling at the time was without the inclusion of God, the effort would not have the support from sectors of the religious community.

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

and

I already told you that I don't 'hate' the religious person. I SEPARATE the logical function of government from its emotive and just as art is "culture", so is religion and music, and personal hobbies, etc. These are arbitrary to one's particular behaviors in life and have no universal ground of appeal. Governments are 'secular' systems but get abused when it utilizes artificial contstructs about one's environment as though they were 'genetic'.

A recent example shows what is occurring due to those interpreting their own right to special treatment of the Constitution. While it deals more with the parts that recognize the 'distinct status' of First Nations Peoples, the attitude of the hyper-cultural significance of 'social justice' organs here in Canada are able to be transfered to real laws. The MMIW organization falsely associates a speaker's coincidental relationship to a prior convicted murder RELIGIOUSLY interprets the poet, George Elliot Clarke as 'evil' as they fear the FREE SPEECH would affect them. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/pamela-george-elliott-clarke-lecture-1.5411701 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-george-elliott-clarke-cancels-talk-at-university-of-regina-amid/

This begins with that preamble because the Anglican and Catholics, themselves associating the traditional wealth of Upper and Lower Canada, had to find a means to get their own unique protections in law. Because they cannot do so without recognition of the Indigenous to the same right, they too were bought upon the same right to make laws concerning religion (via 'culture' presumptions). 

George Elliot caved in. But if you saw the emotive appeal by the MMIW, that gives you a sample of what more will come of people SEGREGATED and empowered through embracing Nationalistic ideals. 

1) You say that you don't hate the religion/religious persons who created the Charter, and then you tell lies to make other people fear them. What could possibly prove/disprove your level of affection for something than the types of lies you tell about it? Actions speak louder than words. Get it?

2) I thought that you despised the fact that indigenous people have reservations. You talked about reservations as though they are prisons for indigenous people. Now you hate the fact that they have 'distinct status', which is a significant part of the whole 'reservation' concept. Which is it? 

3) Indigenous people, and people of all religious affiliations or lack thereof, get all the protections in the Charter of rights. Period. The indigenous people get more say in what happens on their own land. That's it.

This fundamental ideal that all people get all the protections of the Charter, Constitution, etc is the main reason why, for example, foreign laws which discriminate against women can never be part of the Canadian legal system. Girls are born with the same rights to property, inheritance, divorce, etc that boys have and no other system of law can contradict that. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, Marocc said:
On 1/3/2020 at 2:53 PM, Scott Mayers said:

However, it VIOLATES my own rights (as well as most peoples) in practice for how laws  are operating to exclude powers of individuals for mere associations of 'favor' by some arrogant snobs in power wanting to conserve their own interests at the expense of everyone else.

Can you give an example of this?

Example: Employment incentives defined with priority to be given to those minorities who are racially identified as Aboriginal, then new Immigrant,  women, and then at the end of the list of priorities, the white male. Poverty does not discriminate against people based upon race, sex, or ancestral cultural factors. There will always be pluralities of inbalanced genetic classes who are more or less representative  in ANY ecomonic class. Yet, this IS what our system is saying.

The wealthier establishment here are generally understood as 'white' and 'male' as two genetic classes. * So given the assumptioin that racism/sexism is what that common plurality's success is due to, a NEW stereotype is implied: that if you are OF that genetic class, you too OWN the qualities of those racist and/or sexist behaviors that lead to the larger plurality of some other race/sex on the impoverished side of the economy to fail.

So when laws act to favor a plurality class on the bottom based upon GENETIC identities rather than one's ENVIRONMENTAL conditions in common with others, it SEGREGATES the poor and penalizes those who are left LAST on any priority list the race/sex deemed to share the discriminatory association of their rich genetic-class. If the problem IS about those who are 'white' and/or 'male, for instance, it can only be of those whites or males who BENEFIT at the top of the economic ladder, not the bottom. Yet those at the bottom ARE receiving this kind of discrimination regardless of their lack of real qualities of character. They are the ones who become the 'scapegoat' by false assumptions. 

This is one example of significance that is actually occurring everywhere in North America. And the only one's who fight back are forced to do it through the very racist and sexist stereotypes such laws are declared to fix. Thus, you get the extremes who EMBRACE some ethnicity of the stereotypes of those races or sexes. All those unaffiliated and don't associate with those extremes are expected to shup up least you be appearing to side with those extremes.

And this begins with presuming genetic identity coincides with ones environmental identity from a Constitution favoring it under the guise of 'culture'. And since 'culture' is a bi-word to most for their own religions that also associate most with racial ones,  AND our Constituion is designed to assign specific Cults as requiring attention, the preamble acts as the initiating factor that permits all of this to occur.

 

* Note this happens to be my own genetic class and why I use this, but there are also other 'race' based classes that get biased too, like how the South Asian person here in North America too may be stereotyped as intellectually and economically advantaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...