turningrite

I saw a report on the weekend about Ms. Merkel's position. Of course, she's not running for reelection so is now free to tell the truth, something we won't easily get from our preening emperor-PM - unless at some point he flubs the lines his advisors write for him.

I think Americans tend to be more attached to their American identity than are many Canadians to a Canadian one. Our form of multiculturalism encourages hyphenated identity and often it's the 'Canadian' part that's treated as secondary. We have a Prime Minister who's contemptuous enough of multigenerational Canadians and the accomplishments of their ancestors to haughtily label Canada a "post-national" state. Presumably, for him, the country is merely a blank slate, without an identity and without need of one. We face bigger problems here, by far, on the issue of identity than do our American neighbors.

I read the article you reference and it's quite sobering. Canada's political elites have long been full of themselves about Canada's ability to influence global affairs. And in so doing, they too often forget to take into consideration the interests of actual Canadians. Instead, they hector us and lecture to us. It's kind of shocking that so many people buy into the fluff they sell, which is seldom backed up by anything concrete. I've come to believe that to have any moral influence in global affairs Canada should set an example by withdrawing from the supercilious United Nations and other global gabfests. We should 'just say no' to these moralizing enterprises that allow many countries to hypocritically throw stones at others in defense of virtues the stone-throwers care little or nothing about themselves.

1.) For lower-income taxpayers every little bit adds up. It's the cumulative impact of constantly increasing consumption taxes and other government-driven levies alongside stagnant wages that's generating a resistance to always being asked to 'give a little bit more' by imperious and supposedly well-meaning progressives. I believe bcsapper raises a valid point when noting that too often those who tout the virtues of generosity are playing with other peoples' money rather than their own. 2.) Ordinary people need enough money to live on. In increasingly 'high cost-stagnant incomes' globalized Western economies, that's becoming a more difficult task as each day passes. Look at the situation in France, where ordinary lower-income taxpayers have been protesting for weeks against over-taxation. Although sparked by a looming carbon tax, the protests have broadened to highlight the general failure of government to consider the legitimate interests of ordinary working people. The shell-shocked Macron, another elitist boob as is becoming more apparent by the day, has at least begun to acknowledge the depth of public anger, given that polling suggests over 80 percent support the protesters' cause if not their tactics. To paraphrase the sentiments of one columnist I read last week, too often progressives focus on the end of the world while ordinary workers increasingly have to worry about managing their resources to get to the end of the month.

Why? Are you saying that under the globalist mindset Western countries are no longer considered sovereign entities? If so, I believe you're agreeing with the emerging far-right, which is becoming more influential in much of the democratic West.

1.) Except that it may also force Justin's hand as he doesn't want to provide Trump a pretext to pick on Canada, which is a popular strategy among Trump's base. Canada is a low-risk enemy for Trump and the big risk for JT would be that Trump could threaten to tear up the new USMCA deal if Canada doesn't play along with America's broader trade agenda. Part of that agenda is written into the USMCA's provisions. 2.) This is an issue experienced observers are pondering. Trump apparently believes that only weaklings play fair and observe the niceties of the rule of law. The independence of American institutions up to and including the Supreme Court is being subverted by naked politicization, although to be fair this process began long before Trump's tenure. He's simply exacerbated the situation.

I wouldn't count on the notion that Team Trudeau won't fall victim to Trump's current campaign against China, assuming this campaign at least in part underpins the Meng extradition request. I think Trudeau was scared s***less by the recent NAFTA/USMCA skirmish with the U.S. and likely doesn't want to create a pretext for Trump to pull the plug on the new deal. Trudeau's team desperately needed a 'victory' and insofar as it reached a trade deal, even if highly problematic and weak in several aspects, with Trump's crew, it likely has no stomach for more such high-wire existential shenanigans leading up to the 2019 federal election. I heard when watching a news report last night that the Americans have until the end of January 2019 to make their case for Meng's extradition. And as Trump's intervention, by means of suggesting that Meng could be used as a bargaining chip, has politicized the matter, It could be a very long and stressful next few weeks for Team Trudeau.

Canada apparently acted on the basis of an extradition request duly provided by the Americans. Based on news reports, I believe the U.S. has a few weeks to file the formal extradition application, presumably including the actual charges Ms. Meng faces in the U.S. and evidence to support them. Canadian officials were apparently given a heads-up on the request, which makes one wonder why they didn't inform Ms. Meng of the risk of boarding a flight to Canada? It certainly makes Canada look complicit. Hopefully our officials know what they were doing because based on Freeland's meeting with Mike Pompeo earlier today it doesn't appear the Americans are overly concerned about the blowback Canada is facing from China resulting from our participation in what now appears to be American extraterritorial strong-arming.

Given that many economists are now warning of signs of a looming recession, it will be interesting to see whether the Libs will insist on carrying through on their apparent immigration obsession. The potential for a backlash will surely worsen if the growing immigrant influx leads to major cost increases and program cutbacks for Canadians. In Ontario, which houses about one-half of about all immigrants who've entered the country over the past generation, we already have a massive provincial deficit and the Ford government is moving in the direction of crafting cutbacks. As I believe the Fraser Institute estimates the net cost to taxpayers to pay for social programs to serve newcomers to be in the range of 30 or so billion dollars annually, and as most of those costs are borne by provincial governments, one can extrapolate that Ontario's deficit is substantially attributable to immigration. This generates a risk for real unhappiness and conflict should a recession further erode the province's already precarious fiscal position.

It appears the U.S. has put Canada in a very difficult position. Whether the American intent is to use the extradition treaty between the two countries to exert its extraterritorial clout or more problematically, as Trump has appeared to suggest, to use Ms. Meng as a bargaining chip in a broader trade war between the U.S. and China, Canada's position in this fiasco is increasingly untenable. Were I in charge in Ottawa, I'd tell the Americans to very quickly provide a credible case for Ms. Meng's extradition or Canada will have to release her and allow her to return to China.

One would hope that Muslims who come to Canada moderate their values in order to integrate into largely secular Western cultures in both English and French speaking Canada. But an Environics Institute study released in 2016 suggests this may not be happening. Muslim immigrants not only tend to remain more attached to their own religion and values than to adapt to mainstream values, they are also more likely than not to become more attached to their traditional religious identity and values after arriving in Canada. https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/survey-of-muslims-in-canada-2016/muslim-identity-and-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=bfe39328_2

I agree with much of your assessment in terms of our trading arrangements with China. The reality is that China needs world markets to sustain its economic growth more than do many or even most of the countries it trades with need its markets, which are heavily protected from foreign competition in any case. China's favorable treatment under WTO rules has generated lopsided trade imbalances. But the Americans are increasingly ceasing to act as fair dealers, which is an even more problematic situation for Canada. Our trade with the U.S. vastly exceeds our trade with China but the Americans certainly haven't acted in good faith in recent years, even during the time preceding Trump's reign. The Americans often don't acknowledge or respect trade dispute decisions that don't go their way, as exhibited by their eternal softwood lumber dispute with Canada, and they continue to practice various forms of protectionism despite the existence of trade deals with other countries, which is particularly harmful to Canadian interests due to the extent of our trading relationship with our large neighbor. And in the Meng Wanzhou dispute, which is currently in the news, it's highly problematic that the U.S. may be using an extradition treaty with Canada to enforce its doctrine of exceptionalism as well using Ms. Meng as a bargaining chip in Trump's broader trade dispute with China, as Trump's comments now suggest may be the case. So, as much as it's prudent to be wary of China's lack of adherence to the rule of law we should equally be concerned about the behavior of the U.S. in this same context. It seems that all three of the world's major powers are convinced of the validity and righteousness of their own exceptionalism, but the one that has the ability to cause Canada the greatest damage is the U.S. and not China.

I think that democratic countries that sign such 'non-binding' global pacts are being played. Countries that generally don't receive immigrants have nothing to lose and in any case many of these countries likely wouldn't in good faith implement the provisions of a pact like the UN Compact for Migration anyway. Western countries, and particularly immigrant receiving countries, will on the other hand have their feet held to the fire by globalist nags for even the slightest perceived violations. And the English majors who run this country (Trudeau and Butts) will no doubt insist we incessantly be lectured on our global 'obligations' even though the provisions of the UNGCfM are at this point being portrayed as voluntary. Let's not forget that the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change is also a voluntary, non-binding pact but whatever the degree of adherence to that pact by other participating countries the Trudeau government never ceases to lecture us about the obligations we've undertaken as a result of our involvement in the Paris confab. We have no reason to believe that for Trudeau's crowd 'non-binding' actually means that, except for other countries.

Apparently, the mere mention of M-103 is a trigger for you. Your overreaction to my citing it merely as an illustration of the Lib fondness for moralistic stratagems clearly seems to illustrate this. Hopefully, you've found a safe space.

It's very problematic that we collect victim statistics delineated according to race relating to police behavior while we no longer collect actual crime statistics based on race. From the point of view of academic and statistical objectivity, this renders the victim statistics we collect essentially meaningless. There are clearly problems in the relationship between the police and the black populations in some areas, including the GTA, just as there are between the police and indigenous populations in other areas of the country. But it's difficult to figure out who benefits from the decision to prioritize political correctness over objectivity where crime and race statistics are concerned.

1. & 2.) How does #2 following from #1? Well, have you read anything about the content of the UN Compact for Migration? The pact's verbiage promotes both censorship and propaganda in defense of its aims, which in the context of signatory states that otherwise adhere to democratic values is pretty scary stuff. There's been a lot of public commentary and criticism regarding this aspect of the pact. Some apologists think that democracies, like Canada, can just ignore this part of the document, as it's 'non-binding', after all. But can a reasonable observer imagine that the Libs, with their demonstrated attachment to moralistic stratagems (i.e. M-103, if you need an example), would sign such a pact and not take advantage of its verbiage to impose their preferred narrative? It think it utterly naive to believe they won't. As for your 'ad hominem' critique, please clarify. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the concept? In rhetorical practice, the assertion of an opinion broadly grounded in fairly well understood fact or reputation does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Are you arguing, against common perception, that progressivism doesn't tolerate and promote forms of censorship and assert the value of "acceptable" speech over free speech? 3.) You don't appear to understand the mentality of the current Lib government, which likes nothing better than to burnish its own self-proclaimed moral superiority in support of its agenda. But you need not take my word for this. In her column in today's Toronto Star ('Betting on an eventful campaign year'), Chantal Hebert notes that Trudeau's Libs "...tend to defend their policies with mind-numbing platitudes." What better source of "progressive" platitudes on the immigration file could one imagine than the UN Compact for Migration? I think that those who are convinced the pact's provisions aren't reflective of and/or won't govern the Lib's approach to and defense of their migration agenda likely believe in Santa Claus, unicorns and the tooth fairy.

I think you misunderstand the law.

I believe the deal with Khadr can't be undone, by the Conservatives or anybody else. What can be done is to pass legislation to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again and toughen up rules applicable to Canadians who fight for enemy entities, stripping them of their citizenship rights if necessary. Trudeau, who doesn't believe in Canada (a 'post-national' state, he sniffs), thinks that a 'Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian', while most Canadians probably believe that the rights and privileges accorded Canadian citizens are not necessarily immutable.

Constitutional provisions sometimes have unintended consequences. Just ask many Americans about the Second Amendment (i.e. "the right to bear arms") if you want to comprehend the dilemma.There has been much debate in this country in recent years about Charter and judicial overreach. The Charter altered the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches in Canada. Many who initially saw the Charter as a good idea have no doubt since concluded that it likely ceded too much power to the judiciary. Ultimately, democracy is about the collective power of voters (and not judges) to determine public policy. Undermining this proposition surely can't be considered "progressive" under any historically valid meaning of that term.

I think Scribblet was being sarcastic. And I believe Khadr is inadmissible to the U.S. so he doesn't have to worry about what Trump might or might not do to him.

Your proof? I submit that you know little to nothing about me. I was once a Charter supporter but have become more skeptical of it over time.

Did anyone who seriously thinks the UN Global Compact for Migration can't or won't impact public policy in this country read or hear about former Lib cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy's suggestion that Canada admit the Central American migrants (at least the women and children) who are now waiting in Mexico to be processed by U.S. authorities? And what's his rationale for raising this bizarre possibility? According to Axworthy's G&M piece, doing so would apparently demonstrate Canada's commitment to implementing the principles of recent UN refugee and migration pacts, including the Compact for Migration: "Canadian leadership in meeting this tragedy on our doorstep would be a welcome, tangible demonstration of how the compacts can be a springboard for direct action and lead to improved collaboration on migration and refugees issues." Who believes that Axworthy's philosophy doesn't permeate Lib party thinking? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-not-let-the-women-and-children-in-the-tijuana-camp-resettle-in/

You've got to wonder, for sure. When all is said and done, nothing in recent Canadian history will have served to undermine the reputation of Charter more than the Khadr settlement. If this be the law, or a result of the law, many will conclude that the law is an ass.

China's carbon emissions situation is certainly problematic but India's is perhaps more so. India, too, is addicted to coal-generated energy and has large coal reserves to burn, thus ensuring that its C02 emissions are likely to keep increasing for decades. And its population is set to surpass China's in the not too distant future. Despite being a major energy producer, Canada is responsible for less than 2 percent of global C02 emissions. Even if we reach our 30% reduction target, the global impact will be negligible and will likely be more than offset by increasing emissions in the developing world.

All true. And today there's an article in the G&M noting that Quebecers, too, while wanting to address global warming, oppose carbon taxes that could increase their cost of living. So maybe those in the rest of Canada who are attacked for being backward troglodytes for opposing carbon taxation aren't as deplorable as the Libs want to make them out to be. Carbon taxation is regressive, as are all consumption taxes, and Trudeau's offer to buy off (some) voters with subsidies to compensate for increased taxation makes no sense. It's just another social engineering scheme disguised as climate policy. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-quebeckers-dont-want-to-pay-for-the-carbon-tax/