Leaderboard

This. It is fundamental, politics be damned.

That is no proof that what I said is, as you put it, “not true”. Have you forgotten that PET’s first stint as prime minister spanned 1968 to 1979? That’s the period in which I joined the public service. That’s also the period when PET oversaw generous compensation packages. He also grew the public service from 198,000 employees in 1970 to 273,000 in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Hiring As for PET's fiscal policies during that time frame: “The Liberals won the election but by 1975 the inflation rate which had been 10.7% in 1974 had climbed to 10.9% and showed no sign of abating. Trudeau was forced to rethink all of the options and when he introduced the Anti-Inflation Act in Parliament it contained wage and price controls for various segments of the economy. The legislation was only one part of a program that also imposed limits on Federal government expenditures, tighter monetary policies and government restrictions on fiscal policy. Wage increase were to be restricted to 10% during the first year of the program, and then 8% and 6% during the following two years. These restrictions applied to all Federal government employees and employees of companies that employed over 500 works. The implementation of these policies was overseen by the anti-inflation board which had the ability to recommend the reduction in prices of consumer goods, wage rollbacks and rebates to customers of various services. By 1978 the effects of the wage and price controls, all though not definitive, were viewed as a failure and were phased out. Within a year the anti-inflation board was dissolved. The program was generally disliked by Canadians and the government intrusion into the free market economy had many unforeseen results which created more difficulties then were solved by the program. “ http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/trudeau/wage_&_price_controls.htm Restricting public service wage increases to 10% is a clear indication that previous to that measure said increases were higher. And even so, back then a 10% wage increase was nothing to sneeze at.

ANYTHING that codifies or even recognizes religious nonsense has no business in Parliament. Religion has proved to be a disaster for anyone or any place that let's it dictate their laws, life or customs, so let's just do what good government should do and separate church completely from state. Who gives a flying purple frick what the hell someone says about another's "religion" - whatever the hell (word chosen carefully) that is supposed to be. Look: we have 7 billion people living on a nice, little one billion room planet. If the religious fruitcakes want to call each other names and kill each other, it is simply Darwin's observation of the weak cleaning out the mentally deficient if we are to have any chance of surviving as a species.

Baloney. That's the lies that progressives spread about conservatives who dare question this motion. So, an MP read hate mails to show Islamophobia. How do we know they weren't fabricated hate-mails? Furthermore, why is it a specific protection for Islam. Why not create protection for all religion, if they're really set on doing something like this?

So, when are these American and Canadian feminist women going to demonstrate against the evil of Islam and it's anti-women policy? Muslim women are treated like cattle. They have no rights. Would it be that these feminists might be to afraid to demonstrate against Islam because they may have to fear being called racist? I guess that it is much easier to just go after Trump(white guy)because they know that they can get away with it without fear of any backlash or being called racist.

I'd worry more about my home turf. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/08/trudeau-trump_n_14646334.html

Maybe some of you moderate conservatives could take a few moments to condemn the messages left for Khalid, calling her names and threatening her life. Because silence means you agree, right?

I disagree as I have tried to explain. Instead of the word "racial" we should use the term "place of origin" roots. Languages are the most reliable indicator to identify geographic roots not racial roots. Race means nothing. Its an obsolete word. Its time we throw the term race in the garbage where it belongs.It has no scientific meaning. I suppose if is used in a way to say positive things, fine but unfortunately race has always been a term used in a negative way and in a way that disrepects peoples' cultures, ethnicities, religions. Arab peoples are a collective of all genetic types. So are Jews. So are Turks for that matter. So are all of us.

I don't quite understand the "islamophobia" thing, either. What does that mean? If someone rips the headdress off a Muslim woman walking down the street, that's assault. We already have laws against that. If someone refuses to hire someone or fires someone for being Muslim, we have laws against that, as well. And legal recourses for the person discriminated against. If someone like Bissonette shoots up a mosque, is that not dealt with by the authorities? What exactly are they after with this? If I have a discussion on my facebook about child marriages in Islam and say anything negative about it, is that Islamophobia? This is what worries me, because some, here on this site, feel anything negative about Islam is "Islamophobia" and racism. Who decides what's offensive? Muslims? Because everything seems to offend them.

1. The usage of the term Islamophobia. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the term and it's historical usage, but, for example, the Islamic Human Rights Commission (as does the Southern Poverty Law Center) considers Maajid Nawaz (liberal UK Muslim who is a member of the UK Lib-Dems and advocate of reforming Islam) an Islamophobe. I could go into far more detail if you want me to. 2. The failure to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Even if we were to completely ignore the entire history of the usage of the term Islamophobia and were to adopt some sort of definition such as 'discrimination against Muslims', it would make no sense to use the word Islamophobia instead of Muslimophobia to describe that. 3. The failure to make a distinction between Islam/Muslims and race. The way it's worded could be argued to suggest that Islamophobia is racism, even though Islam is not a race, nor are Muslims. It's almost like the LPC suffers from Ben Affleck syndrome. 4. Wording of 'while ensuring community-centered focus'. To me this suggests government funding of religious institutions such as mosques, which the current government has already done with some of its infrastructure funding. This is a violation of secularism. 5. They are going to form a 'committee' and make recommendations to the house on the issue of 'Islamophobia'. Given the history of where this is headed in the past, and the tendency of the LPC to form committees, stuff it with ideologues, and then get the conclusion they want while trying to trick the public that they are just following the recommendations of a neutral and objective committee, this is very likely going to lead to the committee suggesting restrictions on freedom of speech. The LPC has already moved against freedom of speech, including bill C-16 (potential to jail or fine people for using incorrect pronouns) and the LPC's attitude towards the Gregory Allen Eliot trial (the LPC, if you have been following people like Patty Hadju, have indicated that they are concerned by the ruling of the trial and are looking at ways to 'combat internet hate').

This whole motion is a slap in the face to Stephane Charbonnier and the other liberal atheists of Charlie Hebdo who were murdered in Paris. 2 days before Charbonnier was murdered he finished 'Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia and the True Enemies of Free Expression'.

Yes, the author of that article was equally hyperbolic. She made ridiculous assumptions, misstated the purpose and scope of the study and came to wild conclusions. Some Conservatives have followed along because what she said reinforced their already bigoted fear.

You know who can't be trusted on issues of culture and race? The incestuously close political/academic/media elites and their determination to impose the same groupthink they all espouse on the rest of the country. Witness that virtually every national columnist and newspaper has issued repeated condemnations of Kellie Lietch for daring to suggest we interview potential immigrants on whether their values are compatible with ours. Even though 70% of Canadians told a Torstar poll they were in favour. Hell, 80% of Conservative supporters who were polled liked it but that hasn't stopped nearly every Tory candidate from denouncing her, too. It just shows what a vast gulf there is between the elites and ordinary Canadians.

In 1883 you'd have been hard pressed to find any of these guys in top hats who didn't think natives were savages. And the residential school idea, to 'civilize' them, probably seemed like a great idea to most of them.

You don't give an inch. It'll be the beginning, believe me. You make it easy for them to take away that right if you give an inch. ESPECIALLY when they didn't give a clear definition of Islamophobia. You don't know what could fall under its meaning. Any criticism of it could also be it!

So you're for the motion...and the study...and the possible (or probable) law that follows? What is Islamophobia?

President Trump continues to strip away Obama era rules that impacted the coal industry, just like he promised he would do. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule

Right, and Canada already has blasphemous libel laws on the books.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemous_libel#Canada

Yeah. Like that MP who put out this ridiculous motion. And all pundits who lap it up. Islamophobia indeed. Before you know it, you're under blasphemy law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law There is no clear definition for this so-called Islamophobia! Simply pointing to the Quran to show the teachings that motivate jihadist could easily be deemed as, "Islamophobia."

Oh boy...more targeted hate speech laws that undermine Charter Rights for political expediency....must be Canada....again. Where are the laws protecting Christians, Jews, First Nations spirituality, pagans, etc ?

Which performing monkey will play politics at the Oscars?

The gall of these hypocrites to fight for equality when they have a tiered system that labels actors being A-list, B-List, C-list..... Imagine if we put that same divisions on the population? To have A-list, B-list, C-list Americans? Of course they do! These actors think themselves A-List Americans who can have the influence on government! Just think back to Streisand fawning on her Bill Clinton.....or Clooney raising millions for his Hillary. Their celebrity status automatically make them see themselves as A-list. Hollywood and all its so-called elite people should lead by example. You don't want walls? You want unfettered equality? Put your money where your mouth is. Down with your walls! If you can't, then just STFU. You people aren't watched for your brains. You're paid to entertain. PERFORM!

So, why don't we just abolish free speech altogether and be done with it. We have in Canada a thing called the Charter of Rights which states that all people are suppose to be equal, no exceptions, and yet our politicians are debating in parliament as to whether there should a law that forbids any criticism of Islam. Who is behind this and why, and what is their purpose?

"... fight British wars..." Is that how you view World War II? A British War? In Fall 1940/Spring 1941, if Churchill, the UK, Australia etc. - all alone - had not opposed Hitler, then our modern world - this 21st century - would be completely different. ===== For Americans, the war started in December 1941. For Russians, it started in June 1941. For Canadians, it started in 1939.

You said they launched an ICBM. He corrected you and explained how they didn't. Why not move along instead of trying to spread alt-facts?

Please point to me where in that "archived" document it spells out the percentage wage increases negotiated for public servants during PET's time. I have read said document and did not see it.

Sounds applicable to me. Just my opinion.

I was referri9ng to your sad comment about Canadians not liking themselves. Certainly not my impression.

I do. At the time I was a wide eyed twenty-something who joined the federal public service as did thousands when he opened the job floodgates. Oh how we loved Pierre when he not only hired us, but showered us with wage increases of 10 to 12% annually and benefits to match. Vote Liberal, get freebies! We'll pay you and pay ourselves. Ah, the golden days.....

You answered your own question there. As to the other part all I can say is what part of Vancouver do you live in, I must never have been there.

Oookay. And I assume not in the way we joined them at Dieppe!

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that. Canadians prefer intelligent people to run their country. That's why 84% don't like him.

Dreaming and hoping for impeachment from a foreign country does not mean it will happen. Desperation takes on many forms.

Then why don't you pack your bags, cross the border, and go carry a sign around in support of the Orange Oligarch. I'm sure he'll appreciate your presence.

Yes. Several, or so it seemed.

Because it's not the white hats vs. the black hats, unless you're a conservative who sees things as black and white... good vs. evil... us vs. them... Most people realize that this is a nuanced issue where Israel is not pure good or pure evil... and the same for the other side.

What do Americans care about beyond navel gazing?

So you are celebrating American ignorance?

A history lesson on Iran vs US http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/35281450-78/u.s.-needs-to-own-history-with-iran.csp With President Trump and the neocon Democrats talking more about military action against Iran, a little history lesson is in order: In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed the shah of Iran, a brutal dictator who ruled with an iron fist until 1979, when he was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution and its leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Unhappy at the removal of “our” dictator, the U.S. began heavily arming Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who waged a brutal war against Iran — including extensive use of chemical weapons — from 1980 to 1988. Any discussion of Iran should be in he context of the above history. In particular, we need to concede that the people of Iran are quite justified in not having a high opinion of U.S. foreign policy in their region. I won’t claim that throughout the history cited above, Iran has behaved in exemplary fashion, but for the U.S. to claim that Iran is “destabilizing the region” after what the U.S. has done to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., is a towering example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Partners in crime often are I suppose.

I think the biggest foreign policy blunder Trudeau has made was not cancelling Harper's deal to sell arms to the Saudis. I'm sure it is providing some good jobs but a bit of a black eye for the country.

I don't think you encourage good foreign relations by snubbing the incoming leader of such a longstanding neighbor as the US by using facetime in lieu of an invite for a face to face.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but by BS are you trying to suggest he didn't attend all those meetings/summits?

Exactly. Which is why I showed you evidence that he hasn't fallen from grace. Not in Canada, nor in the US.

Sick of hearing Trudeau blurt "middle class" so often everywhere he goes. I mean, what about those who have no hope of being middle class, and there are millions of them.

A motion like this one is just rhetoric. It has no legal effect what-so-ever. The wording proposed by the Member of Parliament from Erin Mills in Mississauga is a young Muslim woman who was concerned about Islamophobia. She wanted to make a feel good statement. The bottom line is "feel good statement" through motions are rhetoric. They have zero legal meaning. Criminal Law in the Criminal Code of Canada already has hate sections that could be invoked and are more generic in reference.. Provincial human rights commissions already invoke such rhetorical references in their decisions. In the grand scheme of things its just more rhetoric.

I was hoping that would happen.

I concur.... delete @drummindiver's profile...

Syria has long been in Moscow's geo-political sphere and influence. Russia wants a warm water port for the region and its interests. It is logical that the Russian Federation would be involved in settling this long civil war.