jacee

Police said nobody caused any trouble.

Get your facts straight: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/13/portland-antifa-activist-killed-hit-and-run Rose City Antifa, the city’s longest-standing antifascist group, said in a tweet addressing Kealiher’s death that it “was not related to fascist activity”.Police did not specify a motive.

And you too.

You are dangerously delusional.

Stop the thread drift please, Dougie93 & Queenmandy85. Charles Anthony will suspend you 5 days for that.

Sons means men. There were over 50,000 Canadian WWII women veterans too. No insult was intended to vets, who were not the only "sons" referenced in the anthem. That debate is over, the official version is now gender neutral, but sing it however you want. Personally, I sing "Our home ON native land." Lol It doesn't matter what Trudeau or Scheer say, except they look stupid if they don't know the law. * When no party wins a majority of the seats/votes, the incumbent party can attempt to gain the confidence (majority vote) of the House by partnering with other parties. * If that fails, the opposition parties can then attempt to gain the confidence (majority vote) of the House by partnering with other parties to form government.

Good article clarifying the facts of Parliamentary democracy: "No, the party with the most seats doesn't always govern" https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-trudeau-minority-government-2019-election-1.5324496 But if there is an unclear result on Oct. 21 — and if that result inspires a loud partisan campaign to question the legitimacy of certain outcomes — Canadians will need to understand what history has shown us about how the Canadian political system actually works. ... First: incumbent prime ministers or premiers remain in their positions until they resign. Second: the government does not always end up being the party that holds the most seats in the legislature. Scheer's "modern conventions" mean nothing. The law requires only that the governing party 'win the confidence of the majority' in the House of Commons. Trudeau, is already prepared to do that, in partnership with the NDP. If Scheer sticks to his position that he won't partner with any other party, he has no chance of governing even if he wins more seats but still a minority. A majority government for either is extremely unlikely at this point.

Women are not "sons".

You're probably right, he's catering to alt-rights so he doesn't lose more votes to Bernier, but looking stupid doing it. Unprogressive Conservatives courting the alt-right and the dinosaur fossil-fuel industries have made themselves irrelevant to mainstream society. A Conservative minority can't survive.

That's been the past voting trend - big swings from majority Lib to Con or Con to Lib. But I sense a different mood among voters this time - a general lack of trust, a desire to strip them of majority power, make them work across party lines to hold government together, hold them more accountable to the public: Parliamentary democracy at its best.

With a minority win, compromise is necessary to stay in power. But Scheer is saying that if Conservatives get the most seats, it's somehow their "right" to implement their agenda without seeking support of other parties to form a government that can survive a 'no confidence' vote. It's a ridiculously stupid response: A minority government has no "right" to implement it's agenda, but only the 'right' to seek enough support to do so. (And with a leader who petulantly sits and plays with his phone through the anthem because he doesn't think it should include women ...? Pubescent idiocy that disrespects and excludes half of the population deserves neither respect, "right" nor support to form a government, imo.) So regardless of which party gets the most seats in the minority scenario we are facing, it's already apparent that only Trudeau is capable of forming a government.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-minority-government-1.5323901 Scheer said "we would expect that other parties would respect the fact that whichever party wins the most seats gets to form the government and that they will understand that if Canadians — when Canadians endorse our platform, we will have the right to implement it." ""We're not going to ask other parties for support," HUNH?!?!?!? How the hell is he going to implement the Conservative agenda with a minority - ie, without enough votes to pass even one piece of legislation - unless he seeks votes from other parties? He has no idea how minority government even works? Lol Useless. And won't stand for the anthem for "all of us". Dumb & yuck factors really growing. So ... Liberal. I want to see unwhipped voting, issue by issue. : )I think only major issues -budget, war?- are no confidence votes? I want to see EMay propose this legislation first chance:Developing and implementing a just transition plan for workers in fossil fuel sectors, championed by a lead minister who oversees and reports on progress.Who's gonna say no? : )And ... 30% of fossil fuel subsidies shifted to transition and renewables.That's all. /end rant

It's a necessary adjustment. The odds are still far in favour of white men in positions of power, who still hire white men, so it's still necessary to continue the adjustment to more appropriate proportions of women and people of colour, who meet qualifications.

People can wear whatever they want. Nobody's business. Just cos you don't like it doesn't make it 'law'. Lol

Ridiculous. I'll wear whatever the fk I want for whatever reason I want. You can't limit only some people - just Muslims and Sikhs for example. You have to limit everyone. No woman can ever wear a turban or a headscarf or a face covering for any reason? All women must expose skin to go swimming? Ridiculous! Fk off with that nonsense.

My somewhat sarcastic point is that turbans, headscarves and veils/scarves covering face/balaclavas have always been available fashion choices, and must remain so (weather, bad hair days, etc). Nobody's business. And who determines whether I wear it for religious or fashion reasons? Nobody's business. For that reason, Bill 21 will be struck down by the courts, I believe. To constrain religious fashion is to constrain everybody's fashion, and then it is ridiculous. I can cover my face for weather, but a Muslim woman can't? Ridiculous.

I wonder ... can a man or woman still wear a turban or head scarf or veil if it isn't religious, just a fashion choice? Lol Retention of culture through language is a different issue.

There's lots of solid data. I lived and worked through that era. For example, there were NOT more women doctors when affirmative action began, but only as a result of it - because the white men making medical school admission choices had to be forced to select more women, when qualifications were equal. Incompetent men were still generally hired and promoted to leadership positions more than competent women, and still continued to harass, demean and objectify women in the workplace, especially women more competent than them. That's NOT discrimination against white men. It's a correction of discrimination against women, people of colour and other people marginalized by the white patriarchy, which was and is still over-represented in positions of authority. And you don't EVER get to mansplain women's reasons, unless you provide a link to valid and relevant research. I can't believe we're still having this stupid debate. It's 2019 ffs.

That's not new. It's the old concept. But since human judgement is always involved in those decisions, it turned out that the (mostly) white men in positions of authority still picked (mostly) white men, as they always had. So, yes, the patriarchy had to be 'interfered with' to force the issue. Oh well. Ho hum. Yawn. Old news.

Getting to the point of ridiculousness, in a country that prides itself on freedom of religion and expression.

"he"=she Whose career? Whose reputation? How? Hahahaha

I think you must know why you're wrong: The facts have been provided to you for 50 years now, that I recall. Give a bunch of white boss men a pile of resumes ... all the ones with foreign or female names end up in the trash pile. They hire white men like themselves. That's been proven over and over again. I can't believe that anybody is still pushing that outdated nonsense. We are still nowhere near the balance we need to have of women in powerful positions, and those who make it still have to slog through some creepy mens' sh!t to get there. But the tables will turn!

Oh, you're one of Bernier's white supremacist thugs! I saw video, punching a man and ripping his sign because it celebrated "inclusion". Why is it that white supremacists never want to acknowledge that that's what they are? Ashamed of the truth?

Well, you're certainly saying ridiculous things now. I guess that kind of extremist illogic flies in your social milieu? Lol I guess we can be grateful that you don't aspire to politics. I heard that pathetic loser bigot Maxime Bernier say some pretty ignorant things last night, but I don't think even he would publicly stoop as low as you have ... though his violent white supremacist thug followers might.

The same treatment for all always seems the simplest to simple minds that can't comprehend the complexities of real life. But in reality, racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of personal and systemic discrimination and bigotry do exist, and do result in unequal treatment of some people. It is not "special privileges" to provide laws and means to try to compensate for society's discrimination and mistreatment of some groups of people. Also, in Canada we have, and we will continue to have, 3 sets of laws - Aboriginal Law, French Civil Code, and British Common Law - because we have 3 founding peoples. That won't change. Your nonsense proposals may trick some uneducated and less intelligent people, and may appeal to ill-intentioned far-right bigots and white supremacist propagandists, but your proposals are just nasty nonsense, nonetheless. You disrespect Canada's legal reality, disrespect Canada itself. Love it or leave it!