Leaderboard

You conclude this once they've been convicted of committing terrorism. We still subscribe to innocent until proven guilty in Canada.

The hard right is not pleased. The prospect of having a Toronto-based lawyer leading the party irks them. I guess they prefer to lose on principle over and over. And the super principled hard rightists can go to Bernier who is 'continuing the fight' while receiving a fraction of what 4th party also-rans Social Credit received in my lifetime.

Why do you use the name Yukon. You think if you use a Canadian sounding name it disguises who you are? Really. Zogs can not be allowed to exist. Finish it. Don't make veiled threats. Explain how you intend to kill ZOG(s). Explain it. Do you want to use a nuclear bomb, anthrax, please enlighten me. Next when you use your translator try get the verb and adverb or noun and adjective references to both be plural or singular. You might also want to use capital letters. Now in regards to the use of the word pathognomonic. It is only intended to be used for a physical medical condition, not any opinions you disagree with. In fact using your reasoning if we were to apply the term that way, which disease then do you have given your desire to kil Zog(s)? You think that is a healthy adjusted response? You came on this forum to engage in anti Israel rhetoric recycling yourself with yet another Canadian sounding name. Have the integrity to state what your beliefs are and who you are. Don't male veiled threats and pretend to be Canadian. You are an arm chair terrorist. Its easy to sound tough behind an anonymous name. You come on this board demanding Zionists be wiped out. You have done it before on this forum under different aliases. You know where to find me whatever alias you want to use. Yah yah, Zionism is a cancer that needs to be wiped out. Oh I remember. The name changes but the hate remains identical. So do the deficiencies in your syntax, grammar, and spelling. You are precisely the kind of person Argus and I have debated over how to identify and deal with. Oh hell I just go by smell. I do not need to interview.

Based on MacKay's record of betrayal, if he becomes leader, in 6 months he will merge us with the Liberals and suck up to Trudeau.

Argus the determination of all immigration processes the way it works now is not binding or finalized or begin to become applicable until you step foot on Canadian soil so from that practical perspective its a moot point whether the Charter applies. Getting back to the interview process, it has been seen as redundant if you use a point system and verify the information obtained on the point system. Whether that is right or wrong I leave to others. I myself think an interview process of any kind leads to people prepping for it and giving canned answers. This brings us also back to other issues such as: 1-what questions would you ask 2-how would you know the answers are not true. The fact is to try determine 1 is a dog's breakfast. Good luck getting agreement on that. In regards to 2, its a huge problem because forensically at this time, the specialists we do have who detect lying or look for possible violent individuals have specialized training that is costly and would not necessarily be accurate. Also for the Charter to not apply you would have to do the interviews overseas and even that is not a guarantee because the Supreme Court of Canada could still say the Charter applies to anything a Canadian legal process or official does anywhere since it originated from a decision in Canada. Interestingly Donald Trump stated to Congress he likes our points system for economic class immigrants. In the US they still interview everyone. Quick as you come up with an interview process, bingo: https://www.visaplace.com/blog-immigration-law/preparing-for-your-immigration-interview-plus-25-sample-questions/ Now may I be serious without getting into a dispute. I do have a Master's in Applied Psych and a Master's in Law and some profiling training. I never use it to say I am smarter or more educated than anyone when they have opinions. All I will tell you from it is I would love to finish my doctorate so lend me another 80,000. From my knowledge of it which I make no claims is 100% absolute, I do know that criminal profiling used to detect criminal characteristics to create a profile can be quite accurate. I know for example one of the first psychological profiles ever done, was by a Harvard Psychologist hired by the OSS in WW2 and you can find that profile on the internet and it was about Hitler and historic hindsight has proven it quite accurate. The problem is criminal profiling would not use techniques germaine to determining whether someone had the "right" cultural values. That would be too general in concept for it too work. It's a complex exercise requiring any profiler to have had experience in investigation for many years before they train to use profiling techniques: http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/605/383-392.pdf and for that reason even if it was to be used on all prospective immigrant applications it would be costly, time consuming and require sending highly trained profilers overseas. So its just not going to happen. Psychological profiling of criminals is NOT the same as psychological personality testing for personality types like the ones used to determine if you are compatible with others or even the ones used taking a test where the person chooses from a list descriptions that best describe how they are feeling (used to try predict the likelihood of a mental illness) The self identifying inventory tests are not stand alone. You then need to follow up with an extensive psychiatric evaluation that could take months, even years. People with specific personality disorders identified may not have disorders relevant to determining their suitability to be Canadian or that would prevent them necessarily from working or being compatible with others. I can tell you the idea of using criminal profilers to search for a particular criminal type in all immigrant applications is impractical and not designed for it. I took one class in Virginia City on hand-writing analysis but it was only an introduction level course. I do know you can train a CBSA officer to detect possible forgery from looking at handwriting and signatures on a passport. I do know the course and info they provide CBSA and Visa officers on examining passports and hand-writing for possible forgery and counterfeiting and they do give them interview technique training but there is a limit to what they can teach and this training is not the training a true profiler or forensic investigator would have. I do know the very experienced CBSA and Visa officers are better at detecting people "lying" then less experienced ones because years of investigative experience has made them more aware or in tune with non verbal language or more aware of certain repeating patterns of answers that serve as a red flag to them of possible lying. That is why the research we have as to the accuracy of profiling says even if you want to screen someone accurately you can't just rely on a test you still need to have a very experienced questioner using the test who has years of investigative experience. Manipulative personalities, people who lie, who are anti-social, might be terrorists, they learn to feedback what you want to hear to escape detection. It is by no means easy to pick up. Some of the best homicide and sex crimes officers, some of the best doctors have missed the signals. I know some profilers say criminals lack empathy which they look for. Is our immigration system defective? Yes of course. So now when I found out what report you refer to it refers specifically to a concern you have I now better understand it. I originally thought you were complaining about CBSA procedures. Now I know your concern, and all I can say is the Senate report you raised has recommendations that I think are of course valid. Few if any have been followed up on and should be but as you see they focus on many issues. The best way to see this issue is there will be no one quick fix. Argus in certain jobs I have witnessed mistakes about people we were sure were "bad" who were innocent and vice-versa. That did not make me righteous, just the opposite, humiliated. Humility is what you are hearing in me not righteousness. I do not claim to speak for anyone but me but I do at times speak to the history of Jews when it becomes necessary not as a preacher but as someone trying to prevent myths or generalizations that might lead to unfair assumptions. Its hard to wash the blood of the innocent off one's hands even years later. That is not righteousness talking, its humility. Like I said I scrub toilets. I just know the shit gets under the fingernails and won't come out easy. The job also makes me smell. I am well aware of that and try shower. I would not be alive if non Jews did not challenge the negative generalizations about Jews to give my grandparents a way to escape what they did and come to Canada. I have had to do and witness things that make me deliberately know hating Muslims or anyone else will not win or achieve anything just keep the cycle of violence going. Its the people who do not doubt things I worry about. A person without doubt as to decisions that lead to violence or death is the person I watch.

Defining First Nations Title protects the rights of the people who own the land. This is a decision that improves the law.

(I'll take a mea culpe on the election donations convictions: That was no-more MP Dean del Mastro. And "forced" is what it is when your employer pressures you to do something illegal ... to keep your job. Extorted would be more accurate, though bribed is also true. If you don't see the problem with that, you don't comprehend fundamentals of democracy: Governance isn't a 'business'.) Poilievre's offence (punished by Elections Canada) was making government funding announcements with Conservative Party logos on his shirt and on the ceremonial cheques. Very poor understanding and no respect for keeping partisanship out of governance. In any case, the good news is ... Poilievre is OUT. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-potter-what-if-poilievre-really-does-value-his-family-more-than-work If there was a common denominator to it all, it was that Poilievre is not super well-liked. He’s a notorious partisan who is widely seen as a major player in helping reduce question period to the level of schoolyard taunts and fratboy antics. He would not have been much of a leader anyway: I just can't imagine him in an international context. He's barely tolerable on a back bench. No couth. Lol

it's ironic, and really pathognomonic for the wickedness of the vast majority of states today, that only such a pariah as north korea and zimbabwe condemn the terror poured by Israel on powerless and poor palestinians. With the help of western imperialists, the Jews once plundered (the better) half of the territory on which the palestinians lived. Now, the Jews want to plunder still more territory, and the international community says nothing. Wonderful ! And some clowns here want to shame us for canada being at least this time on the side of the more moral and principled position.

Countries have the right to secure their own territorial borders. That's a basic tenet of sovereignty. If people try to cross and that country doesn't want them to they can use force including military force if necessary. Similarly, a poor old person in a wheelchair doesn't get to cross a police barrier just because they're a poor old person in a wheelchair. Having sad circumstances doesn't automatically give you the right to break rules/laws. People don't have a right to make up their own reality and their own facts and push it on other people to accept.

To start with you are probably referring to the Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007 which defines a child soldier as: "A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes." The above is not a law. It also when drafted contemplated children in state armies when it referred to armed force or armed groups and this is why before the above principles were drafted: " n 2000, the UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict to protect children from recruitment and use in hostilities. The Optional protocol is a commitment that: States will not recruit children under the age of 18 to send them to the battlefield. States will not conscript soldiers below the age of 18. States should take all possible measures to prevent such recruitment –including legislation to prohibit and criminalize the recruitment of children under 18 and involve them in hostilities. States will demobilize anyone under 18 conscripted or used in hostilities and will provide physical, psychological recovery services and help their social reintegration. Armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a country should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities anyone under 18. The Protocol entered into force in 2002 and has now been ratified by a majority of the world’s countries.." (link for above quotation is: https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/) The UN does not make laws. It can make recommendations through enunciaated principles as to how nations should act but they are not legally binding. The UN can draft a convention. Countries can then voluntarily sign on to that convention and undertake to incorporate in their domestic laws the principles enunciated in the conventions they sign. You removed the Paris Principles from their actual contextual and reference points which was not terrorist groups and did not quote the actual convention that would be relevant. You will also note the protocol's last sentence which clearly like any law of any nation or any principle of the UN is not recognized and is in fact rejected by terrorist groups. The UN did provide this "training manual" as to the subject of trying to prevent recruitment of terrorists who are youth: https://read.un-ilibrary.org/children-and-youth/prevention-of-child-recruitment-and-exploitation-by-terrorist-and-violent-extremist-groups_dee195f7-en#page1. So I question calling a child terrorist a child soldier. and then stating laws exist defining the two as the same. Next, the concept that Omar Kadr was not responsible as an adult would be comes from taking the Youth Offender Act of Canada, arguing what Kadr did would be considered homicide in Canada and therefore then making the assumption he would get a lesser sentence and be held to a lower standard of criminal culpability than an adult. That assumption comes from the Declaration of Principles in the Youth Offenders Act that states: "The youth justice system must be separate from the adult system and must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability." The Youth Offender Act's incorporation of the above principle came about because Canada signed a convention and agreed to apply the above principle from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Youth Offenders Act calls first or second degree murde as per s.231 or 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada "serious violent offences". It is important to note the Youth Offenders Act also states; 3 (1) The following principles apply in this Act: (a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by (i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, (b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following: (i) rehabilitation and reintegration, (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, (iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected, (iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and (v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time; (c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should (i) reinforce respect for societal values, (ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community, (iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, and (iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements; and (d) special considerations apply in respect of proceedings against young persons and, in particular, (i) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms, (ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system, (iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, and (iv) parents should be informed of measures or proceedings involving their children and encouraged to support them in addressing their offending behaviour. Act to be liberally construed (2) This Act shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1). It is the above wording in its totality used to argue Kadr was entitled to a diminished sentence. It is further argued the above act did take into consideration child terrorists because it states: "Orders (2) A youth justice court has exclusive jurisdiction to make orders against a young person under sections 83.3 (recognizance — terrorist activity), 810 (recognizance  — fear of injury or damage), 810.01 (recognizance  —  fear of certain offences), 810.011 (recognizance —  fear of terrorism offence), 810.02 (recognizance  —  fear of forced marriage or marriage under age of 16 years) and 810.2 (recognizance — fear of serious personal injury offence) of the Criminal Code and the provisions of this Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require. If the young person fails or refuses to enter into a recognizance referred to in any of those sections, the court may impose any one of the sanctions set out in subsection 42(2) (youth sentences) except that, in the case of an order under paragraph 42(2)(n) (custody and supervision order), it shall not exceed 30 days." However and this is what I would like to point out, this same act goes on to state: Included offences (2) If the Attorney General has given notice under subsection 64(2) of the intention to seek an adult sentence and the young person is found guilty of an included offence for which an adult is liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years, committed after he or she has attained the age of 14 years, the Attorney General may make an application under subsection 64(1) (application for adult sentence). 2002, c. 1, s. 69 2012, c. 1, s. 180 Hearing — adult sentences 71 The youth justice court shall, at the commencement of the sentencing hearing, hold a hearing in respect of an application under subsection 64(1) (application for adult sentence), unless the court has received notice that the application is not opposed. Both parties and the parents of the young person shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. 2002, c. 1, s. 71 2012, c. 1, s. 182 Order of adult sentence 72 (1) The youth justice court shall order that an adult sentence be imposed if it is satisfied that (a) the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability of the young person is rebutted; and (b) a youth sentence imposed in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in subparagraph 3(1)(b)(ii) and section 38 would not be of sufficient length to hold the young person accountable for his or her offending behaviour." So the automatic assumption Kadr should not have been tried as an adult is incorrect and in Canada there is ample precedent for treating minors as adults in murder cases. I trust that helps shed light on the actual laws that are relevant.

Not really, conservatives in general are very anti drugs and promiscuity/abortion. You sound very tribal, and only seeing through the lens of your ideology.

He released the aid long before the deadline. Also even if he had violated that law, that's not an impeachable offense, as the law lays out the remedy and it does not include impeachment. Many Presidents have violated it, including Obama and Clinton, they weren't impeached over it, and no one even tried, only the TDS crowd is reaching for this straw. If it goes to SCOTUS, they tend to side with legislative branch on this one, not the executive branch, but this example doesn't have to go there, because Trump released the aid.

Personally I prefer women around my age. Younger women are just too irritating, vacuous, insufferable and down right stupid.