![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As you can tell by the title, I am absolutely informed on this topic. I am so totally a world renowned researcher on this topic.
... No, no I'm not.
But school said I needed "evidence" for my opinion, so here's my evidence, all condensed into a small blog post because I'm lazy and this will be late otherwise.
The Flaws Within A Flawed System
Essentially, this question is asking if I'm comfortable with my human rights being infringed upon by the Canadian government.
My answer to this question is a resounding "Hell no, where did you even get that from, get the hell out of my house."
Who the hell is comfortable with their rights being infringed upon? If I told you that I didn't like your hair colour and I was gonna bypass the law to make it illegal, would you like that? No?
Congratulations, you my friend are 99% of the population.
Sure, the law should exist in rare cases, like some sort of murder cult. Or the mass suicide cult Heaven's Gate. Things that actively harm another human or animal life, or the environment, should be allowed bypass by this law.
But this is the exact bypass that can be used to reenact horrible things. Technically, under this, I could remove all religious rights and send children exclusively to Christian schools. I could force children to speak English and only English, and only allow them to see their parents through a metal fence for two hours every month.
Oh, wait, this was a thing already. That's called a residential school, and I just spoke about my grandmother's story at one in New Denver. She was taken by the Canadian government, thrown into one, and she never came out the same.
Call me offended by the question, call me outraged. But it's an incredibly offensive one to me - like I said, it's essentially asking if I want the government to have the freedom to reenact this.
No, no I don't. But I'm also not stupid enough to say that it should be straight up removed, because that doesn't solve the problem. The notwithstanding clause should be reserved for incredibly rare situations as an emergency option. It should be used only when life is in danger and protected under these laws. It shouldn't be used to ban a goddamn niqāb in Quebec.
Unless used in emergency situations, it should be a vote like a law and enacted like a law, keeping the clause however that it can only be enacted for five years at a time. This should not be an option thrown around in regular conversation, but one reserved for the most dire situations.
Sincerely, a totally legit "researcher" who hates this question.
Sources:
Heaven's Gate - Heaven's Gate
Watchman Fellowship - Heaven's Gate Timeline
Doukhobor Genealogy Website - Schools of the Boundary: The Doukhobor Schools
My grandmother, the greatest source of all (and also a survivor of a residential school)
... No, no I'm not.
But school said I needed "evidence" for my opinion, so here's my evidence, all condensed into a small blog post because I'm lazy and this will be late otherwise.
The Flaws Within A Flawed System
Essentially, this question is asking if I'm comfortable with my human rights being infringed upon by the Canadian government.
My answer to this question is a resounding "Hell no, where did you even get that from, get the hell out of my house."
Who the hell is comfortable with their rights being infringed upon? If I told you that I didn't like your hair colour and I was gonna bypass the law to make it illegal, would you like that? No?
Congratulations, you my friend are 99% of the population.
Sure, the law should exist in rare cases, like some sort of murder cult. Or the mass suicide cult Heaven's Gate. Things that actively harm another human or animal life, or the environment, should be allowed bypass by this law.
But this is the exact bypass that can be used to reenact horrible things. Technically, under this, I could remove all religious rights and send children exclusively to Christian schools. I could force children to speak English and only English, and only allow them to see their parents through a metal fence for two hours every month.
Oh, wait, this was a thing already. That's called a residential school, and I just spoke about my grandmother's story at one in New Denver. She was taken by the Canadian government, thrown into one, and she never came out the same.
Call me offended by the question, call me outraged. But it's an incredibly offensive one to me - like I said, it's essentially asking if I want the government to have the freedom to reenact this.
No, no I don't. But I'm also not stupid enough to say that it should be straight up removed, because that doesn't solve the problem. The notwithstanding clause should be reserved for incredibly rare situations as an emergency option. It should be used only when life is in danger and protected under these laws. It shouldn't be used to ban a goddamn niqāb in Quebec.
Unless used in emergency situations, it should be a vote like a law and enacted like a law, keeping the clause however that it can only be enacted for five years at a time. This should not be an option thrown around in regular conversation, but one reserved for the most dire situations.
Sincerely, a totally legit "researcher" who hates this question.
Sources:
Heaven's Gate - Heaven's Gate
Watchman Fellowship - Heaven's Gate Timeline
Doukhobor Genealogy Website - Schools of the Boundary: The Doukhobor Schools
My grandmother, the greatest source of all (and also a survivor of a residential school)
