turningrite

The Lib agenda is insidious. While the UN Compact for Migration isn't legally binding there's little doubt that it will serve to bolster attempts by the Lib government to enhance its framework for large-scale migration, a policy that I suspect it would like to cast in stone. In this context, it would not be surprising were the Libs to implement policies amounting to censorship, which is a particular favorite of the so-called "progressive" crowd. After all, Canada has now signed a UN pact the Lib government could trot out in support of such a policy. The problem with the constant pressure to replace free speech with supposedly acceptable speech is that we won't know what we've got until it's gone. Rational citizens should be very wary about this mentality taking hold.

The points you raise are illustrative of a broader problem with "progressive" analysis, which is geared more to confirming pre-existing assumptions than to delineating objectively demonstrable explanations for statistical differences and outcomes. Jordan Peterson has explained how progressive analysis simplifies and misrepresents reasons for the discrepancy between male and female incomes. But progressivism's objectivity deficit is now so vast that it's difficult to imagine how we might right the ship's course. I read an article in this morning's Toronto Star ('Racism persists in job market, study says') that bemoans the income differential between female workers of colour and white male workers. Once again, "racism" is the go-to explanation even though there are likely many contributing factors, including, well, gender, language barriers, lack of prior labour market attachment, particularly for new or recent immigrants, and lack of Canadian/Western education and/or credentials. Further, cultural issues including the fact that many immigrant women of colour often belong to communities that prefer male breadwinners and/or restrict women to participating in certain occupations, likely factor into any applicable statistical difference. Truly valid statistical analysis requires the comparison of otherwise largely equal entities, isolating the variable for which one is testing. Thus, to determine if racism is a statistically significant barrier faced by women of colour, the incomes of these women should be compared with the incomes of white women with similar languistic, educational, labour market and residency characteristics. To ascribe statistical differences mainly to racism in the absence of valid statistical and academic rigour amounts to misleading propagandizing. But we've come to raise our eyebrows when such analyses are trotted out as if fact rather than confront the often deeply biased premises underlying them. We wouldn't want to offend anyone, right?

To be fair, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for no particular reason. He was nominated for the prize only days after taking office and well before his regime had an opportunity to implement any kind of foreign policy agenda. Some view it as having been a politically motivated repudiation of G.W. Bush's regime. The director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute later commented that he believed awarding the prize to Obama in 2009 had been a mistake. It's notable that Obama is among a very select group of leaders who've won the Nobel Peace Prize prior to or shortly after taking office, one of the others being Aung San Suu Kyi - which is clearly not an enviable comparison. That said, I tend to believe that most of the world has no interest in getting rid of the U.S. despite its sometimes imperious and irritating behavior. It remains the world's most important and powerful democracy and for all its faults is still relied upon for its leadership and in many instances assistance. It is overwhelmingly the first choice of those who wish to emigrate from their homelands and its popular culture is globally influential. It's almost impossible to imagine a world without the U.S., which is why most people have no interest in seeing it disappear.

I think much of the rest of the world is skeptical about JT's leadership qualities in comparison with his more illustrious father. Vanity Fair rates him as an underwhelming heir. All one has to do is listen to Trudeau attempt to speak extemporaneously to understand that he's no intellectual giant nor a competent communicator. He scores a lot of cheap points on his carefully crafted image and to date, in the absence of much substance among the main opposition leaders, he's been given a thumbs up by enough Canadians to gain and possibly to remain in power. To characterize his leadership qualities as underwhelming is in my view being kind to him. https://torontosun.com/news/national/trudeau-makes-vanity-fairs-list-of-underwhelming-heirs#comments

I'm not convinced of your interpretation of P.E. Trudeau. As I said earlier, I think he was more a dilettante than an ideologue where economic policy was concerned. And he did make sure to end federal inheritance, estate and gift taxes, which was surely a gift to his own offspring as well as to others in his socio-economic class (i.e. the wealthy). His rhetoric and antics often appeared to be leftist but his regimes were at times quite amenable to accommodating the interests of the wealthy. It might well be said that the Lib tactic of campaigning from the left (i.e buying votes with taxpayers' money) and governing from the right started under P.E.T., although the tactic didn't achieve full bloom until the Chretien-Martin crew was installed and has continued under Trudeau the Lesser.

Maybe he can run as a Lib candidate in next year's federal election? That would be interesting.

Few people in Toronto will be surprised by any of this. Even though it's no longer permissible to collect crime statistics based on race, few who pay any attention are unaware of the actual circumstances and I think many will conclude that the Human Rights Commission's portrayal of the problem is one-sided. We only have to watch and read news reports on criminal incidents to make our own assessments. It's too easy for activists and human rights investigators to broadly blame problems on "systemic" racism and bias without taking stock of some of the realities within affected communities, including heavy reliance on public support, unstable families where often only one parent is present, lack of role models, lack of formal education and/or training and antipathy to the broader population and the police. These problems won't be easily resolved. In the meantime, I think most people trust the police but want to ensure that police officers are held accountable where necessary.

What people believe politically when they're young is often not indicative of their later political attitudes and affiliations. A few decades ago I considered myself to be what would now be called a "progressive" but my views changed over time. My siblings and I have discussed the fact that we've all become more conservative as we've aged.

I read this morning that the government of Belgium could fall in the wake of that country's government signing the UN's Compact for Migration. This, of course, follows the protests that have emerged in Belgium along similar lines to the bigger ones in France relating to the grievances of lower income working people. You have to wonder whether these conflicts will be contained or, instead, spread to other Western countries. The instability generated by globalism's repression of Western workers and citizens of ordinary means will no doubt be more acutely felt as time passes. One of the most likely scenarios is the election of more populist politicians on both the right and left.

I think one has to separate Marx's analytical framework, which has been highly influential for several generations and remains so today, from his speculative solutions to the problems generated by what he viewed as monopoly capitalism. You are correct that he underestimated the inherent greed of human beings. More importantly, he didn't appear to comprehend that all forms of economic monopoly, whether under private or state control, can be and usually are inherently problematic. I'm not at all sure Trudeau Sr. was a communist. Although a statist or interventionist where public policy was concerned, I think he was a bit of an intellectual dilettante on economic policy and wasn't overtly ideological. I've read that he admitted that he didn't really comprehend economics, which if true was a pretty objective assessment of his own limitations. It's helpful to remember that federal inheritance, death and gift taxes were abolished under his regime, in 1971, moves certainly inconsistent with a socialist or communist perspective.

This is an astute comment. I thought about this too when watching and reading the coverage of this issue over the past few days. It's my understanding that receipt of an extradition request doesn't in its own right mean that Canada will execute such a request unless it is issued for reasons that are consistent with Canadian law. I don't believe the Americans should be able to alter the reasons for extradition simply to comply with Canada's sanctions regime. If we want to demonstrate that we are country governed by fairness and the rule of law the process has to be entirely fair and transparent.

I generally agree with you although I think the concern about immigrants not assimilating extends to groups other than Muslims. It's probably guided more by the immigrants to which various Canadians are exposed.

It's notable that Scheer, like Bernier, stands opposed to the UN Compact for Migration, which is being signed this week by Trudeau's government on Canada's behalf. If Bernier can raise the profile of the immigration file sufficiently to get Scheer's CPC to take a more aggressive stance against the Trudeau government's immigration policies, the CPC might actually benefit. Bernier holds that the CPC under Scheer is just a pale imitation of Trudeau's party and if Scheer, who comes across as affable and ordinary, doesn't seem to offer any kind of substantive alternative to Trudeau, the Libs will win. Bernier's presence in the mix may be the only thing that prevents another Lib majority. As for Singh, I think he and his party are in for a drubbing. The big risk is that NDP voters will move to shore up Lib support if Scheer and/or Bernier gain significant traction.

That's a pretty odd commentary, and the last sentence particularly so. Many believe the rules-based international order, including but not limited to the WTO, has served to fuel the race to the bottom. There's little doubt that corporate globalism, a component of which is the facilitation of international migration, has served to undermine wages in Western economies. We're now starting to witness the political consequences of wage stagnation and suppression in places like France, Belgium and the American rust belt. Where wage arbitrage is an explicit objective of the globalist system, as has been the case to date, the current international order is part of the problem rather than being part of any solution.

Don't forget that Lib supporters, too, are in a minority in this country. Trudeau's party won the 2015 election with less than 40 percent voter support. FPTP can generate unusual results in a multiparty system, as illustrated by the result in the recent New Brunswick election that saw the PC party win more seats than the incumbent Libs despite the Libs winning the popular vote by 6 percentage points. Vote splits in individual ridings become crucial in multi-party elections conducted under the FPTP model. Straw polling done prior to Bernier formally registering his party indicated that his message held appeal across party lines (up to 49 percent according to one poll, as I recall), although admittedly held more appeal among CPC supporters than others. It's notable that Scheer and Bernier have adopted similar positions against the UN Compact for Migration that's being signed this week by the Trudeau government on Canada's behalf. There are likely a lot of votes available for any party willing to directly tackle immigration policy before and during next year's election. It will be interesting to see whether Bernier's party can generate enough buzz to shift CPC policy on the contentious immigration file and whether Scheer can look sincere in this process rather than seeming to succumb unwillingly to pressure. Trudeau has recently benefited in polling due to the renegotiated NAFTA/USMCA deal, but as time goes on if that deal looks less solid (i.e. GM's pullout in Oshawa) and given the looming possibility of a recession, Trudeau could be very vulnerable.

I'm skeptical about the need for special treatment where intellectually competent adults are concerned. 1.) The needs of children shouldn't be addressed in the same context as those of adults. The differences are obvious. To conflate the two amounts to infantilizing adults based on race, gender, religion or other specific characteristics. Is this your intent? 2.) Poorer neighborhoods very likely do generate more crime and my suspicion is that they get more police attention than do wealthy neighborhoods, although my guess (just a guess) is that emergency calls might be responded to more quickly in wealthier neighborhoods than poorer ones. On the other hand, some populations in poorer communities complain that they get what they believe to be too much police attention. This is a issue on which the police sometimes simply can't win. 3.) Again, please leave the children aside as any comparison with adults is clearly problematic. As for greater risk of sexual assault faced by adult women, this is likely a function of evolutionary biology that has applied throughout history. Women, of course, are provided resources because the extent of domestic violence and sexual assault is increasingly acknowledged and understood - at least in Western societies - while there doesn't seem to be a lot of demand or pressure to allocate additional resources to address domestic violence faced by men, although I believe such violence does exist. I suspect, then, that the differential allocation is largely justifiable on the basis of demonstrable demand rather than any kind of discriminatory intent.

When you write about blue dots and earthlings perhaps you should consider that others won't necessarily take you seriously. If you have a coherent point to make, please do so.

Marx remains an intellectual giant of the modern era. Even if social and economic experiments attributed to his inspiration have ended in failure, his analytical framework remains both influential and crucial. Some of its more recent variations, like neo-Marxian identitarianism, are in my opinion intellectually superfluous. But we shouldn't dismiss Marx just because some have opportunistically corrupted his ideas. As for your reference to Trudeau, which one are you talking about? Surely not Justin? I don't associate him with any intellectually important thinkers or leaders.

Huh?

I think our economic and political elites are very happy to see ethno-racial-cultural-religious divisions develop as these conflicts detract from any kind of cohesive reaction to the wrenching economic and social changes that are being imposed by the agenda of corporate globalism. These conflicts provide those in charge with a rationale to impose "solutions" that reinforce their broader agenda. The Western middle class is being eviscerated without much more than a whimper on the part of those being displaced, although we are seeing some pushback in places like France and America's rust belt. Perhaps my perspective, grounded in Marxian analytical logic, is old-fashioned in the context of today's progressives, who've sold out to post-intellectual neo-Marxian identitarianism. But I think it's the self-styled progressives who are being duped and transformed into useful idiots in support of an agenda they don't fully recognize or understand.

I don't believe I've ever cited Agenda 21 in any of my commentaries about immigration, economics or social engineering schemes. You, however, seem fixated on such labeling. Perhaps you should more closely consider the specific arguments made by those who post on here even if you sometimes have to sift through a range of commentaries of varying quality. My academic background is in economic and social history and the interrelationship between the two. I try to provide objective and analytical critiques when considering the merits of government policy.

The Constitution, which subsumes the Royal Proclamation of 1763, precludes cutting off support. What I'm talking about is figuring out a framework that will permit solutions to be developed moving forward. The British-imposed reserve and welfare system is the only model within which many indigenous activists and their supporters (including some politicians) seem capable of understanding reform. It's a counterproductive mindset, in my opinion. Pouring more money into a segregationist victim-based model simply won't resolve indigenous concerns in any constructive context. All subsidy-based economic models generate financial and psychological dependency. So, all sides need to think outside the box of the the 1763 solution, on which indigenous claims are currently based, if true progress is to be achieved.

You can conjure conspiracy theories if it's your predilection to do so. It's an easy and often intellectually lazy form of putdown. However, what we're talking about here is much more concrete. When a former federal finance minister, Joe Oliver, who himself was a member of a government that promoted economic globalization, warns that "the [Trudeau] government intends to embark on this radical lurch to an uncertain future without a debate in Parliament, let alone any public consultation", perhaps it's wise to take note. Other apparently more sensible democracies, including the U.S. and Australia, are giving this pact a swerve. But, for Trudeau's crowd, what's not to like about a pact that promotes censorship and government-mandated narratives among other shiny social engineering schemes preferred by today's uber-progressive tribe? Call it whatever you like, but much of the pact's verbiage is clearly not consistent with democratic principles.

You're being naive, to say the least. What is happening to indigenous Canadians? Well, they've become reliant on subsidies in order to sustain a reserve system and lifestyle that's simply not consistent with economic advancement. Okay, they have the right to live traditional lifestyles, if they wish to do so. But the subsidized segregationist model (imposed under British colonialism) has not generated well-being but rather has led to isolationism, addiction and resentment. Too many indigenous activists seem to see the solution as lying in doubling down on segregation along with vastly increasing subsidies. Will this lead to transformation, or even improvement? I doubt it. Spouting platitudes about "waking up" and "giving them power" isn't going to solve much if not accompanied by a willingness to examine the viability of the underlying segregationist model.

Sage caution from Joe Oliver: "Trudeau should not sign this attempt at international social engineering without extensive public consultation and a debate in Parliament." I don't think people realize how radical the globalist agenda that Trudeau supports has become. When I discuss the issue with others I often notice that eyes glaze over. Few can believe that politicians are transforming the country into a gigantic social laboratory. A lot simply can't comprehend the extent of the sunny ruse to which we/they are being subjected. The social support system ordinary Canadians fought to establish in the post-WWII era simply won't withstand the stress of an open border, particularly because the subsidy class will explode in size. Trying to support this system under the current model will result in a reaction that will make the 'yellow vests' protest by lower-income taxpaying workers in France look like child's play. Those of us living in the most apparent Canadian laboratories for this experiment, the Toronto and Vancouver regions, are already experiencing many of the emerging problems. Populations in these regions are, according to polling, the most unhappy in the country. This won't end well.