Our Global Constitution - by Moses

1. The Right to Life
2. Privacy Rights
3. Freedom of Speech
4. Freedom of Thought
5. Freedom of Association
6. Freedom of Assembly
7. The Right to Trade
8. The Right to Buy and Sell
9. The Right to Give a Gift
10. The Right to Accept a Gift

Countless other Rights and Freedoms protected by Amnesty International, enforced by the United Nations (superceeding G-20).

When protecting the Canadian Constitution, it is paramount that the constitution we have supercede the Criminal Code.
In other words, my Freedom of Speech is a Freedom, therefore, if an Officer of the Law tells me to shut up, I still have the right to speak. This may seem a simple observation, however, it is a common way of defending oneself should that person be obtained by the Law for no just cause.

Typecast Prejudice A

As we see a Democratic perspective in the Western World, this tolerance of each-other, allows us to embrace a principle of socialization. I agree with you, I disagree with you, and I agree to disagree with you, are sentiments that best describe this tolerance level aforementioned. When tolerance is taken out of the equation, we see hate crimes, suicide, murders, and Wars.
Preconceived notions appear as a trigger mechanism to deflect guilt. A person that feels bad about disliking Jews, will in all likelihood bad mouth a Jewish person to rid himself/herself of this guilt. The instant gratification of this trigger compounds and eventually something has to give, leading to hate crimes. A Man or Governments' ideology that is constantly flustered and has zero tolerance towards a mistake, is much more prone towards people commiting suicide within their population (ie. York, England circa 1730 a.d), or murder. It was in 1915 that Prince Ferdinand was murdered by a German Military Coup, and, with zero-tolerance towards this assination, the Astro-Hungarian Empire fought against Germany to begin World War 1.
In this facist state, orders are given, and people are killed until their Government is overthrown. This in its' essence is the argument of Orthodox versus Secular ideology. In other words, how literal do we have to be in each context?

Typecast Prejudice B

No Jews, Coloured, or Natives Allowed were marked on signs in front of most (96%)Golf Courses in Canada and the U.S.A up until 1950. As people of ethnic diversity immigrated to the Western World, a dichotemy erupted. 400 years repeated itself in Jamaica up until Prime Minister Manley stepped down from Power.
The dichotemy that erupted were results of vicious slanders towards ethnicity. This guy is a Jew, therefore he is cheap, dirty, and manipulative. This guy is Irish, therefore he's a drunk, and a stupid one at that. This guy is 'Black', therefore... It was Tuesday, June 22/10 at 5:00PM on City TV News that the follwing report was shown - Searching for a 'Brown' skin male, 6 foot 170 lbs, 17-29 years of age (not even a sketch was shown). This generalization is obscene.
By having someones' number by stipulation of race, colour, or creed, is plain and simply gentrification.
At the point of such definitive generalizations, we as people lose a much more common perspective; subjectivity and identity. No two people are exactly the same. We may have similar belief structures, however, there will always be an undefined element in every and all comparison.
People are not algaebraic, we're flesh and blood. Under an umbrella of Freedoms, we become unique. To live blindly against a reactionary perspective at all times is like denying that the Sun rises from the East. In other words, there will always be perspectives that are unpopular, yet valid. In a realm of intolerance towards dissidants, we see not only a Police State, but Facism.