Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Again, it says it IS reserved to citizens, not that it should be reserved to only citizens. It’s an explanation, not a prescription. That’s also where it says “Participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of its impact upon the actual outcome of elections … Denial of the right to vote affects one’s dignity and sense of self-worth” both of which you disagreed with/mocked, so it’s cool you can trash one part of the doc while holding up the others for your poorly interpreted gospel.
Who is dissing the charter? You just don’t seem to understand what it is and why it’s important. You think its purpose is to gatekeep rights because you believe yours can be watered down and diluted, but it’s actually to protect rights. Here’s an explanation:
40 years before the Charter, indigenous people couldn’t vote. 40 years after, it’s fair ask if things have changed and we can do even better than what the charter set out. It’s called progress and fairness, something mentioned above. If that makes me an SJW “dissing the charter”, I guess your position makes you a bigot who hates the idea of immigrants having rights. Fair? Or can you form an opinion like a big boy?
Neither of us is proposing we roll back charter rights. But one of us is absolutely proposing we limit the charter’s scope. Who might that be?
|
If I reserve a table does that mean it’s not only reserved for me? If your reading is correct, that ‘reserved for citizens’ means not only citizens, then it’s just like all the other rights. Why call that one out specifically??
Meanwhile you’re dodging providing a clear definition of who voting rights ought to apply to in your mind.
If you want a debate, state your position clearly and succinctly.