Leaderboard

Henceforth, grants will only be awarded to universities which agree to hire, promote, and push forward young academics who meet their diversity quotas. Merit, being a racist white concept, is not included in the criteria, of course. https://fcpp.org/2019/06/09/canadian-government-imposes-social-justice-on-all-universities/

How much clearer do you need them to be? Elizabeth May specifically said runaway global warming and human extinction. The Extinction Rebellion has extinction in its name for a reason. Their claims not only do not align with mainstream climate science, but some of their claims, such as runaway global warming, are unphysical. The green party doesn't understand climate science, but they're not going to get called out on it because the other parties don't understand climate science as well. There are empirically based estimates of the impact of climate change on global GDP, and many of them are summarized by the IPCC's assessment reports. The magnitude of impact is a few % points of GDP, hardly the collapse of the economy. The strong precautionary principle is insane and self-contradictory. If you apply the strong precautionary principle to itself, then it says that you should not follow the strong precautionary principle since there is a risk of significant negative impacts by following it. What you should do instead, is have a pigouvian tax, where the pigouvian tax is estimated while taking risk aversion into account. As William Nordhaus, the winner of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his work in Climate Economics, has done.

Yes and it undermines an important Indigenous cause. In politics the message should be clear, sensible, and focused. It’s like leftists hijacked the inquiry, much as environmentalists have hijacked Indigenous activism. There are actually many Indigenous people who would like to have decent paying jobs in the resource sector, just as there are Indigenous people who believe in lower taxes and greater self-reliance.

I appreciate you digging into the weeds on this and being specific. Cultural genocide is much more arguable than the broader term genocide, which is misleading and inflammatory. Policies were enacted, particularly the Indian Act, that treated Indigenous people as second class citizens. These policies have changed and it’s important to remember both that, for First Nations, there has always been the question of whether Indigenous groups wish to consider themselves Canadians and there are financial benefits to having Indian status, not just free land. That’s why the larger discussion of how to improve Indigenous affairs is problematic. Who decides what constitutes improvement and who pays for it? If it’s really about self-reliance and self-government, the government is encouraging that. If it’s about transfer of more taxpayer income to Indigenous affairs, particularly if the request is being made without any conditions of accountability attached, an informed public is unlikely to support that for sensible reasons. On the particular matter of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, there are policies that should be enacted right away, such as the ombudsman, police training, and far better outreach and protections for women on and off reserves. Those may have additional costs attached to them that are well worth paying. Don’t drag guaranteed basic income, land claims, or wider discussions about how many more services and benefits government should provide the population. Those are outside the purview. Their inclusion seems ideological and will simply get people’s backs up, even though some of those items certainly warrant consideration for a host of reasons.

1. Freedom to be who you want. To look how you like and to... yes... pursue happiness. 2. 'Accommodate you' meaning 'treat you with basic respect' ie. don't discriminate, assault, abuse etc. Not much to ask. 3. You do have that right. It's in the Canadian Human Rights Act. 4. I looked that up. So the father wants to go on FOX News to subject his son to international ridicule and bring him into physical danger ? Wow, he sounds like a real peach of a dad. I would say that the court was right on that: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/legal-dispute-between-trans-child-and-father-takes-new-turn-over-freedom-of-expression

Most Canadians don't know that genocide isn't just murder, but can also be a sustained and devious campaign of removal of rights, removal of children, maintaining conditions of life that are destructive to Indigenous Peoples. But Canada's governments knew that: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-threatened-to-abandon-1948-accord-if-un-didnt-remove-cultural-genocide-ban-records-reveal "Canada was ready to abandon 1948 accord if UN didn’t remove ‘cultural genocide’ ban, records reveal" In fact, Canada did not sign on to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. First, in 1951 Canada's government amended the 'Indian' Act to remove 1880 ban on Indigenous ceremonies and dance, ban on access to the courts for redress by Indigenous Peoples, and other laws that repressed Indigenous lives, rights and cultures. https://canadianhistory.ca/natives/timeline/1950s/1951-revised-indian-act The revisions to the Indian Act passed in 1951 encompassed something of a revolution in the treatment of Natives by the Canadian government. Having cleaned up the laws somewhat, Canada finally signed the UN Convention on Genocide in 1952. Canada was then bound to pass a domestic law against genocide ... but still did not do so until 2000 (Prime Minister Paul Martin), 4 years after the last of Canada's government run 'Indian' Residential Schools closed (Saskatchewan 1996).) Obviously, by their own actions, our governments knew in 1948, 1952 and until 2000 that they were committing genocide: acts committed or omitted with "intent to destroy" Indigenous Peoples' "as such" - their cultures and land rights. Canada always intended to eliminate Indigenous Peoples "as such", to take full control of traditional Indigenous lands ... Btw ... the UN did not include "cultural genocide" as a category, but covered it in the "acts" of genocide instead: Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Freedom to what? Force society to cater to their delusions? Look, if you think you feel like you're Anne of Green Gables and dress and act like her, knock yourself out. Just don't demand everyone else play along and accommodate you. You, in fact, do NOT have that right. Look at what's happening right now. Some father in BC was recently convicted of "family violence" (my quotes) because he won't call his boy a girl, or girl a boy, I can't remember which. That is an abrogation of free speech in favour of forced speech. I don't do forced speech and nobody is ever going to force me to. Now in the case of the transgendered, as I mentioned previously, I would respect their wishes to be called by their preferred pronoun/name. Anyone else can go f*** their hat.

Then you need to realize that Canada has no economic strength...at least none that is coming from creating wealth. Instead, all we seem to do is sell of our finite resources and hope that some magic trick of Casino Capitalism is going to magically lift us up by our own bootstraps.

That was before the tanker ban bill. Look - environmentalists do not see Trudeau as a friend either. Maybe he's trying to actually find a middle way ?

Your Zionism is not very funny. But what else can one expect from Zionists anyway but just more cuckoo-cuckoo nonsense talk.

I already joined you in the First Cold War, cousins, and I for one never stood down because in actual fact neither did the Communists, 15 minutes notice to launch on warning hair trigger alert, has never stood down. You have to understand though, due to its weak and watered down constitution, with no free speech in a practical sense, and no property rights at all, Canada has already fallen to the "Progressive" communists who are in league with China against American freedom as a fifth column inside the perimeter of Fortress North America. So those of us who are with you, are already caught behind enemy lines, a new Iron Curtain between us and our rights endowed by the Creator. The speech banning, gun grabbing, totalitarian enemies of freedom have come to rule here by way of their proxies in academia, the unions and associated state propaganda arms, and we have no First nor Second Amendment to defend ourselves from them. The Chinese are already the masters here, why do you think they are throwing such a hissy fit over Meng Wanzhou? Beijing simply cannot believe that their sycophants in Canada would ever defy them, even though obviously their Canadian proxy is not doing it willingly. Big Daddy Trump, President of Canada, don't stop driving a wedge between Ottawa and their masters in Beijing, that's the only thing protecting us right now. In terms of the wider operational picture in the Western Pacific which will end up coming down to defense of freedom of navigation, now that ABM 72' and INF 87' are defunct, America needs to ramp up the pursuit of a comprehensive counterforce option in the event it becomes necessary to preempt the PLA at the breach. Eagle with thunderbolts in talons grasped; Peace Through Strength.

The Liberal Party of Canada has simply erased Canadian history and replaced it with their own dogma. So that they can fabricate narratives to their own purposes, as all totalitarian regimes do. This hundred million dollar report is just more Orwellian Liberal Party of Canada propaganda. Particularly pandering and funneling money to the totalitarian apparatchik college academics who were paid to write it. Two birds with one stone, a boondoggle for their proxies, who then fabricate the self serving narratives.

Where do you come up with this stuff . . . ? Please proof-read.

Should ask the Jews in France if they feel "protected" by their Muslim brethren.