TTM

1. Until the fetus is viable outside of the womb it is dependent on the body of the mother and therefore subject to her right to control her own body. An abortion before viability is no more murder than denying someone who needs an organ transplant from you in order to live is murder. A difficult ethical situation on a personal level perhaps, but not one where the state has any right to meddle Also, if your objection is religious in nature, be aware the bible directly encourages abortion in certain circumstances 2, 3. Non- white, European, Christian, heterosexual, sis-gendered, male etc. etc. people are people too, even when some of them say or do silly things Heck, I'm going to go out on a limb and say all people are people. Maybe "all men are created equal". Has a nice ring to it, but for that pesky gendered noun... Fighting for / supporting the rights of "minorities" does not somehow somehow erode the rights of the majority (well, except the "right" to "inborn supremacy"). Although it is understandable that some become uneasy when the playing field is no longer tilted quite so much in their favour. (Also, when exactly did common courtesy get conflated with "political corectness"?) The rest of the "political correctness debate" is just noise at the edges. 4. I would be too, if equality of opportunity was not an unattainable state, much like pure communism or capitalism. === 1. Why are you against bear arms? Bears have rights to their limbs too Nobody outside of very limited circumstances (and simply "rural" does not count) needs a gun. But I'm fine with roughly the level of regulation we have. We'd be in much better shape if it weren't for the constant suckage on this topic from the south 2. As someone with a modicum of scientific education... I'm right there with you 3. We used to be able to debate immigration in a reasonable manner. The white nationalism and conspiracy theories (synonym; alt-right) has drowned out all that 4. One of the cornerstones of the modern welfare state, the most successful type of governance in all of human history

It wasn't a comment on Russia

It was what Russia wanted.

Godwin's Law. You lose

duplicate post

duplicate post

1) For several reasons: (1) I can read and comprehend the contents of the pact (2) most of the governments of the countries that have refused to sign are anti-immigrant, most (all? I've not kept up) of the rest have significant internal anti-immigrant pressure (3) "Sovereignty issues" apply to every international agreement ever signed. It is convenient, and in this case irrelevant. Responding to your comment. Migration is by definition international Bingo. In addition, if declared explicitly non-binding, they cannot be used or interpreted by internal or external courts in a way to bind a government. Regardless, even if it were binding, there is nothing "scary" in there.

"sovereignty issues" are a convenient political smokescreen, nothing more By definition migration involves at the very least two countries: the country being migrated to, and the country being migrated from. It means in accordance with international law. Is it your belief that there is no current international law on the subject? if so you would be wrong

The term reported was "valid", not "binding". Regardless, should the EU decide to make binding regulations on its member states, that would be the decision and prerogative of the EU, and not anything inherent in the document; the EU makes binding rules on its member states all the time ... that is one of the points of the EU. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration Preamble: ... 7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law. ... Guiding Principles: ... 15. We agree that this Global Compact is based on a set of cross-cutting and interdependent guiding principles: ... International cooperation: The Global Compact is a non-legally binding cooperative framework that recognizes that no State can address migration on its own due to the inherently transnational nature of the phenomenon. It requires international, regional and bilateral cooperation and dialogue. Its authority rests on its consensual nature, credibility, collective ownership, joint implementation, follow-up and review. National sovereignty: The Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law. Within their sovereign jurisdiction, States may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities and requirements for entry, residence and work, in accordance with international law. ...

Per my response to Army Guy:

I typically do not watch videos. I will read links to text though. I got about 1 minute into the first video. He seemed reasonable until he started equating Trudeau's "post-national" beliefs with actual loss of sovereignty. Actual loss of sovereignty would require the signing of actual binding agreements and/or changes to our constitution. We have given up some sovereignty through agreements in the past (particularly trade agreements), but not this one. Regarding the Merkle one, I again only watched the first minute. The wording was "valid", not "binding". Meaning it will become an official UN document. OK. It is still non-binding. Those words, along with explicitly upholding national sovereignty are part of the text. Note, I could not find a link to Merkel's actual speech or reports of it. They are wrong. For it to become binding a new agreement (or amendment to) would need to be signed. And yet it is still non-binding. If the government changes they can remove the tax with no penalty, other than to our reputation Not true Its origins trace to the fact of global warming. Canada has not and will not meet any of the commitments it's made in global warming agreements ... and will face no penalties for not doing so. It does not. Look, if you want to say that there might be legislation or regulations resulting from this pact then sure, there might be ... the hope would be that it would encourage non-compliant countries to enact legislation for tracking migrants, ensuring their own citizens have proper documentation, treating migrants with basic human rights, working to limit or eliminate human trafficking, exploitation of migrant labour, and so on, and so on. Since we already largely comply, I fail to see what "scary" legislation or regulation could be justified by its implementation. But the government could implement this legislation or regulation regardless of if the agreement is signed or not. It would have to go through the same processes that any other legislation or regulation would need to to be enacted. It would have the same force and effect regardless. It could be repealed in the same way regardless of if the agreement is signed or not. Opposition to this in terms of "threats to our sovereignty" are a smokescreen. Opposition or support is entirely based on where the parties stand firstly on the very concept of migration and secondly how "thoroughly" human rights should apply to migrants

It follows from that famous quote of Christ "Fuck the poor, I need to take care of myself first"

Look, the two arguments you keep repeating goes like this: (1) if we sign this document it is going to force us to do something we don't want (2) we don't need to sign this because we already do everything this document asks If you can't see the contradiction there, I don't know what else I can add. Pick one or the other. If (1) the response is no, it does not. If (2), the response is no, we should sign as a measure of solidarity and agreement with the rest of the world on the topic I have given you answers: this document creates no special rights, does not require us to change immigration rates, does not affect our ability (or not) to reject refugees, is entirely non-binding, was created openly, was announced months ago, was not debated in parliament simply as a matter of standard governmental practice I say these things and you accuse me of giving "typical Liberal answers". My only conclusion then is that your objections to the pact are almost entirely emotional, rather than rational: I would not accuse you of being "retarded" so much as accuse you of an unwillingness to hear. Ignorance, which you have to a degree admitted, is fine; we are all more ignorant than not. But ignorance combined with an unwillingness to listen or consider is faith, and it can't be reasoned with.

Usually I like knowing I've made an impression...

You are the one that brought this up as "scary" wording in the document. Again you are arguing against yourself. Congrats. You again demonstrate the lack of fundamental understanding of the topic necessary to even participate in a debate. Fortunately this is off topic for this thread. You quote the lack of debate as proof of something nefarious. The simple fact that in Canada treaties in general, and especially those not directly impacting legislation, are not debated in parliament. These agreements are the purview of the executive branch and not the legislative. It is not nefarious, it is standard procedure dating back to Confederation (and prior to).