Re Re: Discrimination is required.
I wish an full exchange of ideas was possible but that will result in censoring here. I'll risk one response to an oft felt if, not so reasonably said response (thumbs up for that!).
""Discrimination is foundational to being Canadian, it is a requirement." I would add to that the Constitution is effectively chiseled in stone in Canada and cannot adapt to the changing needs of the Confederation. Racial discrimination, and the others, will forever be required regardless of the horrific outcomes, which in the case of Canada is ongoing. That is also by design, to change we would need to change the union itself.
".....non-discrimination in any direction should give an ideal outcome if starting from a level playing field. But the playing field is already tilted towards a certain group of people based on history. For the US and Canada, that's mostly the white males whose ancestors' patriarchical society killed most of the original inhabitants of the land and enslaved a whole bunch of other people from somewhere else to work that land....."
All successful societies, particularly those in Canada when Europeans started arriving after 1000AD have been patriarchal. By successful I mean "able to endure longer than others" because that is the only measure that matters before the modern age.
That history is something to keep in mind when looking at those killing most of the original inhabitants of Canada. The proper legal term in Canada are Aboriginals which include, Indian, Inuit and Metis. Those are the terms in our foundational documents so I tend to use those when suggesting we change our laws.
If ancestors committing mass genocide precludes a person from having equal rights we need to revisit the special status of Indians and Inuit as both have a foundational history, of mass genocide. Those groups are here today because they purged their land of all others.
Genocidal conflicts horrified the Europeans that saw it first hand and that it has been well recorded, including the attempts to use those genocidal conflicts to European military advantage.
Today we have more evidence than the writings of a person from hundreds of years ago.
Recent DNA studies have shown that the Beothuk were distinct from the Mi'kmaq. It now appears that the original reports of the Beothuk being under threat of genocide from the Mi'kmaq were accurate. Given what we know of the situation with other groups at the time of European arrival that shouldn't be surprising and should bring into question the claims being made by the Mi'kmag that they deserve compensation due to Beothuk genocide.
DNA has been even more revealing of genocide than recorded history when it comes to the Inuit. In Canada we use the term "Culturally Displaced" when referring to the genocide of the Thule or the "Proto-Inuit" but generally we do not refer to it at all. Our history books will avoid the topic when they can. Many (most?) Canadian school children are told that "Whites" in Canada committed genocide but are not told of other larger and more complete genocides of North America.
So complete was the Thule genocide that today there are no Thule left in Canada and the DNA studies have shown that there was less intermixing between the groups than between todays Europeans and the Neanderthals. Some Canadian classrooms have been told that, Neanderthal displacement, was genocide but not the Thule displacement. Smart Canadian students know not to ask why but the treatment of those students that do ask shows all others how to be a good Canadian.
The Inuit did not just purge Canada of Thule but also Greenlanders and Icelanders who prior to the arrival of the Inuit had been trading in Canada for hundreds of years. There is a case to be made that the genocide of the Greenlanders by the Thule was the result of the genocidal conflict with the Inuit. That Canadian conflict drove the Thule deeper into Greenland and south where the indigenous white Greenlanders had been living for hundreds of years.
Of course indigenous by definition only applies to those from Asia. Even if a land is devoid of humans Europeans cannot be considered indigenous, so I used that term incorrectly. (sarcasim, yes, but not as much as it should be IMO)
Hopefully the above very different, politically incorrect, views on our Canadian history will give lots of search terms for an individual to find comfort in what they have already been told or begin to question what they thought was decided history.
Either way I hope it brings into question the idea that rights and responsibilities should be given based on being assigned to certain groups.
And bring into question the idea that the different rights and responsibilities of those in the groups should be based on the genocidal actions of that group in the past.
As for level playing fields we are very far from level, that is most easily seen in access to education and job placement which for some groups is fully supported and not at all for those in other groups. More racism is not the solution to racism.
Tagline (because this is a site with those that have used them): "Judging people by their gender, race and social satus is wrong, I wish those privileged white men would get that."