Talk:Anti-Chinese legislation in Canada

Douglas Jung
The article Douglas Jung states:
 * During his childhood, the Government of Canada passed numerous pieces of legislation that disenfranchised Chinese in Canada.

I know about the immigration restrictions, of course, but 'disenfranchisement' usually means the removal of voting rights. Does anyone have any information abot this? If so, it should probably be included on this page. --Saforrest 20:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See Won Alexander Cumyow and accompanying talk page; user JimWae may have more details, also. Municipal voting rights were stripped in 1890, provincial in 1875, although some Chinese still voted because they were naturalized British subjects, having acquired that status either in HK or once in BC/VI. Also, the Exclusion Acts still did not block ALL Chinese, as corporate individuals, merchants and students could still go and return unimpeded (trade being trade, as even now with the compromises being done over the Falun Gong and other issues because of the $$$ to do with oil, tourism, real estate, financial services etc)Skookum1 07:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PS details of the date and texts of the various disenfranchisements (NB non-Chinese voting requirements were often changed, though for different reasons and in different ways; in one case in BC the property requirement, and I think the age requirement, was re-instated. See Joseph Morton refs on linked pages if not on Cumyow's, e.g. on History of Chinese immigration to Canada.Skookum1 07:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Link change: Chinese vs Chinese
I know the latter is Wiki-standard - in regard to nationalities from nations. But in the case of Douglas Jung, or say Alexander Won Cum Yow and others, they were born in Canada - not in China. Perhaps Chinese would be more appropriate? Hmmm. On the other hand, this would apply only to the disenfranchisement and certain other measures, not the Immigration Act and Head Tax. Douglas Jung, for example, never had to pay the Head Tax; nor would Alexander W.C. Yow.Skookum1 06:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-foreigner legislation in China
Just curious, and not meaning to flame...well, certainly to provoke discussions of when an article is inherently POV or not. Because it would seem fair to me if Wikipedia ALSO had an article on the history of anti-foreigner laws in China (imperial, national-republic and communist, as well as post-communist). Don't try and pretend there weren't any, or that they don't matter; if they didn't matter then Britain and the other European Powers would never have sought to find ways to get past them, the result of which was (among other things) the Opium Wars and the Spheres of Influence. What kind of restrictions, for example, are there on the immigration and conduct of non-Han who might wish (for whatever reason) become citizens of the PRC or Taiwan, or of the old Republic of China or its dynastic predecessors? Surely this is a valid historical topic. And the existence of articles like this one (and its American and European counterparts) without a similar reflection of the institutionalized biases and bigotry of Chinese civilization can only be implicitly POV. Is there also, again just curious (but not really) an article on pro-Chinese legislation in Canada, i.e. the liberalization of laws, the various multicultural policies and laws protecting the right of people to prefer Chinese culture to the Canadian mainstream, etc.?Skookum1 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)