dennisK:
My bad. You did indeed call my argument ignorant, not me. I simply drew the lines.
It's obvious you're looking for a fight and using this discussion to try and instigate one. I have a hunch you've been laying in wait for a newbie and it's fish on. OK, I'll shake my head one more time but after that, it'll be time for you to cast again. Today's not a good day to be netted
The premise of my argument is simple. I'm Canadian, pure Canadian, deeply Canadian and I'm not allowed to do something that another group of Canadians are allowed to do and the other group is defined (by others) as a race. It's simple. My STAUS...is Canadian. I don't want special recognition; I just want equal recognition. And my own country, by definitions described by my own governement, fails to do that.
No, I've not read the Magna Carta, and I have no intention of doing so. 700 year old "common law"? It's fluffy bunk that allows wimpy politicians to hide behind it, feign importance and shout indignance while vote trolling.
Years ago Canada was a nation that could not and did not succesfully defend itself nor call on allies to help defend itself against a hostile force and slow invasion. It was taken over, and we...the citizens, are the result. Right or wrong, that's what happened. I'm not appologiizing for it, I'm simply acknowledging it. It's the eptome of how the world's borders are/were/will be formed.
Entitlement. That very word defines the very root of the problem. No one earns anything anymore and why should they? Because if I'm entitled to something...I'll just sit on my my friend and wait for it to land in my lap. I'm getting pretty sick and tired for repenting and expecting to continually repent for a natural series of events that occured long before my time and trying to reach a compromise that cen never be defined, as the boundaries, rules and expectations are constantly changing. As I said in my original letter to Mr. Bell, "who wins? What is the hopeful outcome?".
DennisK, you attempt to justify this STATUS based division as something that has a right to pervade our society. I obviously disagree and semantics and vocaublary aside, the basis for this disagreement is the same basis for the slow degredation of our nation through the attempted recognition of "distinct societies" thought the creation and association of multiple sets of rules. How can we ever be one nation if our neighbours and I have different rules? No nation has ever been built like this. But nations certianly have failed because of this. Unfortunately, unless this changes, Canada is likely to fail as well. What we're seeing on the west coast is the ever broadening crack in the unity that's defined under the maple leaf. Arguments like yours only serve to push the wedge in a little deeper. Quit trying to justify segregation or the acepted norms that define segregation and put your obvious intellignece towards unification and fairness.
What a place this could be if only we all did that.
Nikko