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).

5 or 6 years ago? taxme was pushing it a week or two ago as part of the UN subversion of our system

The horror ... the horror

The reason we can't see eye to eye is that you see the wprking to eliminate xenophobia, intolerance, and racism as something scary you must fight, as opposed to simply a description of how decent human beings should act I have very little problem making a non-binding agreement to do something I either already do, or would do anyway. Funny that. Well, this proves your lack of any credibility as far as world history. About the only measure in which the world is more dangerous is due to technological advances we have made in killing each other ... which has nothing to do with the UN But I thought you said it was coming to take away our sovereignty? How is this toothless organization you describe going to do this. Or are you arguing the UN should be given teeth to make it more effective? Could you please not try to have your cake and eat it too Non sequitur. I have no idea what you are talking about The compact does not change any nations ability to set immigration rates. If you are talking about refugees and asylum seekers, non-refoulement is already a principle in law, and has been for 50+ years

4. Do you honestly believe these non western people come here with the sole purpose of subverting our western values? Give your head a shake, man. 6b1. Not "nationalism", but "right-wing nationalism", which for the most part has little to do with "right wing" and more to do with "white". 6b2. This is the future, not now (although the impacts are perhaps starting). There are still economic arguments for immigration ... There will always be some reasons for migration. But yes, lower immigration targets if/when this occurs might make sense ... That is not a significant change from the rate for the last 2 decades ... Productivity (wealth generation) would not go down (other than potentially due to loss of consumers) with automation, but the ability of the average citizen would be cut off from this as they can no longer offer their labour for wages. The universal basic income would be a mechanism to distribute this wealth, it would not need to be debt financed. Prior to that it would replace the existing social safety net with one that is simpler to administer, more comprehensive, and more encouraging to retraining, work, and entrepreneurship. ... I don't fear brown people 6b4. "Tariff Man" is the one responsible for this. ... No, blame GM. But it is amusing you can't place any blame at all on Trump when GM itself does ... Your argument is schizophrenic... GM plant closes in Canada, 100% Trudeau's fault ... 2 GM plants close in the US as part of the same set of closures, just GM trying to maximize profits 6b5. Lol. Perversions 7a. When voted in, they were empowered to make decisions on our behalf within the limits of our constitution. What other "permission" do they need? If the majority of the country do not agree with their decisions, they will be voted out when the time comes. 8. I'm sure on the websites you peruse, they talk a lot about this "white genocide".

1. Yes, that would be the point of signing. 2. Yes, should "unexpected consequences" arise, or should we decide we no longer agree ... No. The hope would be that having the world sign it would result in some positive effect. 3. Agreed, this is an arguably marginally problematic statement in the pact, but only if you believe (1) that state funding of media is a good thing and (2) that the CBC is going to start inciting hate against immigrants. Canada could also decide this is problematic as a conflict with freedom of speech and simply not enforce this one statement while upholding the rest of the document ... and there would be zero consequences, except for maybe a few tsk, tsks. Though if the CBC did start encouraging hate crimes I woul expect to see their funding pulled regardless

1a. Mocking the inability of most anyone (you, other posters, those authorities you are getting your misinformation from) to simply point to a line in the document and say "that there is problematic. Without that, I dont see how we can have a real conversation about it. One side says "this pact is full of a bunch of bugaboos" the other side says "here is the text, where are your specific issues" and the first side goes "well, I cant say specifically, but the document is giving off bad vibrations, which is scary and I left my protective crystals at home" (sorry, more mocking) ... You are also assuming they have no ulterior motives, while also assuming those who wrote / agree with the pact do ... confirmation bias or just plain hypocrisy? ... I blow them off because they are divorced from what is actually written in the document, which I can read 2. You said "can high light some of the areas in your source documents that Canada or for that matter most western countries are not already providing" Canada and most Western countries are substantially doing what is in the document, which is why they have no problems signing. I gave you an example from one western country that does not. And "coincidentally", it is also one of the few that doesn't want to sign. ... I would be fine with somewhat reduced immigration as well. But I'm good with anywhere between 0.5 and 1% of total population. Which it is. ... Irrelevant as immigration targets are set nationally and not affected by this document 3. I wouldn't hazard a guess, but large enough Scheer would stoop to saying some things he almost certainly knows is not true to attract back the ones that are eyeing up the new People's Party 4. A handfull is not "so many" 5. Some of my best friends are right-wing! After a while you don't even notice the mouth breathing "Both" types of nationalists though want to limit immigration in order to to protect "white european Christian culture".... 6. I'm suggesting they don't hide under your bed to get you when you're sleeping 7. That would be fine. Although based on recent irrational comments by Scheer, likely to turn into a circus ... Do you know the details of all of the other dozens of non-binding agreements Canada has signed over the years? The document was created openly, the text is freely available, there are news articles detail it and Canada's leadership in helping craft it going back to at least July. It was not widely reported because it was considered (until the nationalist's hysteria--in the traditional sense of the word) not very interesting. Or do you think the government should be telling the media what to report? 8. Lol. So now the compact is toothless. I thought it was an instrument of world domination. Please try to keep consistent 9. National issues not having anything to do with the UN or this document ... Non-refoulement is part of other (binding) treaties that we have signed. It is irrelevant to whether we sign this (non-binding) one ... And yet they are secretly taking away our national sovereignty as part of the vast underground plot of establishing the "New World Order"

1. "I have nothing but vague irrational fears that I can in no way back up from the text of the document. Nor can any of my so-called "sources" " 2. Yes, we treat migrants fairly well. A certain country to the south that is not wanting to sign the document has had its leader call immigrants rapists, terrorists, an infestation, an invasion, etc; tried to ban immigrants based on their religion; forcably separated children from their parents as a matter of policy and for the purpose of deterrence (and in many cases lost track of who the belonged to). A famous conservative pundit from that country recently suggested the military should cross the to the other side of the border and then gun down unarmed migrants seeking refugee status. The rhetoric and actions of other countries with "right wing nationalist" governments or strong nationalist factions can also be used as an example. Coincidentally these are also the only ones that do not want to sign the pact. 3. Yes, he's pandering to the nationalists. 4. Not possible 5. "right-wing nationalist" is a almost always de facto a politically correct way of saying "white nationalist" 6. UN conspiracists are nearly as sad as flat earthers and moon landing deniers 7. So what's the problem then? 8. And also works to *minimize* "irregular migration" (read refugees) 9. ?? Boot them out of the country, just like before.

1. I don't have time to wade through that cesspool. My simple test is if something is believed by the same sort of people who believe that 9/11 was a hoax, it can usually be dismissed. UN conspiracies fall in that same category Per RationalWiki, there's nothing there: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agenda_21 2a. I meant the debt went down and back up. Debt: Deficit: We have the lowest government net debt to GDP ratio of any G7 country 2b. Maybe, but I appreciate most of those programs. Note the GST brings in 6-7 billion per point. Last year I think it was ~33 billion 2c. Purchasing power parity in Canada is at ~80 cents, so the exchange rate is close to where it theoretically should be. 3. Perhaps 4. Multiculturalism is not genocide. Worst case is that in theory "white european culture" may, at some time in the distant future, no longer be the dominant one in Canada. This is not genocide by any definition of the term ... any more than the slow erosion of French culture in Quebec and Maritime Canada is genocide. Note that should "white european culture" become a minority, multiculturalism would make it a priority to protect it. 6a1. I dont think all is hunky dory. I disagree with the vast majority of what our government does and how it does it. But in the details, and not the overall foundation. The modern secular democratic welfare state is empirically the best form of government from all that have been tried. 6a2. A century ... how old are you! 6a3. They have permission. This is how representative democracy works 6a4. Being part of a "global nation" makes Canada no less free than being a part of the Canadian nation makes you less free. Anarchy at any level is not good, and is not "freedom" regardless. Not having (well, having but much weaker and more informal) an overarching framework for national conduct prior to WWII lead to things like ... well, World Wars. 6b1. No. I am to an extent nationalist. Someone could, in theory, be right wing and nationalist without the attendant prejudice, but "Right Wing Nationalists" have a long, consistent, and disturbing history, of using nationalism to mean superiority of race, culture, and/or religion, and to use this "superiority" to justify prejudice, discrimination, hate, and violence. So sceptisism is warranted. 6b2. Debt: In general I would do a combination of temporary tax increases combined with program cuts. As the debt reduced and so the interest spent maintaining I would use that money to first reduce the temporary tax increases then use it for tax decreases, program spending, or accelerated debt repayment as appropriate. Jobs: I am of the opinion that the "hollowing out "of manufacturing is inevitable, and due to the gains in artificial intelligence and automation we are a few decades away from "the end of work", meaning that increasingly jobs, both unskilled but also many white collar jobs as well will be eliminated as huge sections of the workforce are automated away. While this will result in a small amount of new maintenance and computer related jobs, it will not offset those lost, and there will simply not be enough jobs for everyone. Productivity will not decline, but without jobs there will be no way to convert that productivity into income for an increasingly large portion of the population. I would therefor work to implement a universal basic income. In the short term, a universal basic income encourages entrepreneurship and retraining as it provides a measure of security to allow experimentation, and does not "punish work" as most welfare/EI programs do 6b3. That's an exaggeration and you know it. 6b4. Trumps tariffs were one of the major factors GM cited in the plant closures 6b5. I disagree with ~75% of Trudeau's actions. But I lived through Harper where I disagreed with 90+%. And the country survived. It is quite resiliant. 7a. Again, representative democracy = permission 7b. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-farmers-south-africa/