turningrite

I agree with you about Trudeau. In relation to the topic at hand regarding Canada's current diplomatic rift with China, polling results published yesterday (link below) clearly illustrate that most Canadians want legal due process to determine the outcome of the Meng extradition request. Lest Trudeau's supporters feel ebullient about public sentiment, however, the results also indicate that there is little appetite among Canadians for a closer relationship with the PRC and, in particular, most (over 80%) have a negative view of the 'basic dictatorship' our PM so admires. So Trudeau's China strategy, if it wasn't already in tatters, appears to have turned to dust. Does Trudeau have a 'Plan B'? He usually doesn't. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadians-support-ottawas-decision-to-arrest-huawei-executive-poll/

Party leaders in Canada are selected and fired in an entirely different fashion than in Britain and Australia, where parliamentary caucuses can force out sitting leaders and choose new ones. Canadian parties have opted to allow party members at large to select leaders and in general their leaders can only be brought down at party conventions after failing to win adequate support in confidence votes. Whether this is an altogether positive approach is questionable. Under our system, party leaders hang on for too long when they're no longer effective and new leaders are often selected by compromise, and, further, special interests can have too much influence. So, it's almost impossible to envisage a scenario where a sitting PM in Canada could be brought down in a palace coup.

Thanks for your support as well as that of others, some of whom have messaged me to among other things provide alternative forums for political debate. The site administrator has assured me the situation on here has returned to a semblance of normalcy. I don't mind others expressing their views but believe the situation had deteriorated to the point that rational discussion and debate had become almost impossible on many topics. It's impractical to ignore somebody when they continue to weigh in on your posts and your discussions and debates with others. It's like trying to swim with one hand tied behind your back. I hope the situation improves and that discussion and debate from this point forward remains productive and civil.

Is it worth it?

It's not worth it. I think reasonable people should leave the site. I've been bullied and harassed all week in a fashion that steadily escalated and need a break. This is not political discussion. I'll look for another place to discuss politics. I used to go to the news sites until a lot of them either shut down comments or set up pay walls. There must be other venues.

I'm dismayed by some of the stuff people post on here and the tactics employed by some to undermine other contributors. I'm tired of being bullied merely for raising rational arguments and believe it personally necessary to take a break from this site. Maybe the reasonable and productive contributors, who can in a civil fashion disagree with one another, should all take a break. Do you know of any other political discussion sites, particularly sites that focus on Canadian politics?

I've been advised not to respond to your posts. Please do not respond to or address my posts or I'll report it as bullying.

We were compelled to participate in Afghanistan due to our membership in NATO. For the past several decades our membership in NATO has been a cornerstone of our national security security and foreign policy regime. The Afghanistan conflict was not an illegal war. It was a legitimate response to a grotesque attack (9-11, remember that?) on a member state by a group, Al-Qaeda, that was being sheltered and assisted by sovereign state, the Taliban-governed Afghanistan. Reading the posts of some on here generates the impression that the terrorists were acting in the cause of justice and peace. All I can say in response to this is WOW! Perhaps some of these people would be happier living somewhere else under a repressive tinpot dictatorship. Personally, I think Khadr should have been billed for his airfare back to Canada. Any abuse he suffered related to his treatment by U.S. authorities. Why did he not sue the U.S.? If his case had ever been heard by jury of his peers (i.e. other Canadians), how much do you think he'd have received? My guess: Not much.

You might want to rewrite your post to make it more accurate by stating that we compensated a man for the Americans "maltreating" him when he was a kid who was taken into custody by the Americans on foreign soil as an enemy combatant... Just saying. The SCC ruling focused on the federal government's "duty to protect" Khadr once he was in U.S. custody and not on the reason(s) he was there. If anything, the case and rulings against Canadian government seems to have been based mainly on arguments of negligence. It's my understanding that Khadr's criminal record under U.S. law was not expunged by the SCC rulings nor has it been expunged in the United States.

I've been told to ignore your posts.

Please stop members from engaging in ad hominem attacks. If I am so attacked, I believe I have the right to respond to the tactic in order to defend my views and reputation. The situation is akin to the oft-noted wife beater accusation. When one is accused of heinous motive, intent or behavior, even if the views one expresses are entirely reasonable, how can or should one respond to such attacks, which are in most cases clearly intended to unfairly undermine the personal legitimacy of a contributor while ignoring the substance of the actual argument? I find the situation one of the most irritating aspects of this site.

First Amendment rights are more-or-less sacrosanct in the U.S. in contrast to Canada where there are more restrictions on speech. Of course, some, particularly on the left, would apparently love nothing more than to abandon free speech in this country and replace it with "acceptable" speech, with the state presumably serving as the arbiter of permissible discourse. This antidemocratic instinct is particularly problematic, and chilling. We sometimes see its impact on sites like this one, where contributors are personally attacked merely for presenting valid arguments or expressing reasonable views that are contrary to the views of some other contributors. Topics related to cultural, religion and immigration issues are particularly impacted by such 'ad hominem' attacks. How should those who wish to engage in rational discussion and debate respond to such attacks? It's a conundrum. Impinging character and motive by labeling contributors as racists, bigots, or otherwise demonizing them for merely expressing often very well argued positions that are contrary to "progressive" views is hardly conducive to the promotion of reasonable discourse.

You seem to have glossed over a lot of facts. Many economists aren't convinced that the official unemployment rate is very meaningful. The legitimacy of the official unemployment rate is undermined by the facts that real wages are stagnant and the labour market participation rate (the percentage of working age people participating in the labour force) remains below pre-2008/09 levels. These latter indicators suggest that the current economy doesn't feature actual full employment. I watched a panel analysis on CNN the other day about the official American unemployment rate, which is even lower than ours, where some participants noted that while more Americans are employed many have to hold two or three part-time jobs in order the survive, thus rendering as nonsense the notion that the current low unemployment rate is an actual indicator of general prosperity. As for immigration, there are lots of problems. The federal government itself analyzed some of these problems, determining that Canada's ability to "absorb" immigrants is declining (see article in link below). The report, which was obtained via an access to information request and then released in the media, is a sobering read for those who believe our immigration program to be swimmingly successful. The Fraser Institute has done what the federal government has failed to do by calculating the net costs (program costs incurred less taxes paid by the most recent generation of immigrants) to taxpayers associated with the recent massive influx of immigrants, pegging it at tens of billions of dollars annually. These costs, unfortunately, are largely hidden as a result of Canada's jurisdictional structure, with much of the burden being borne by taxpayers in immigrant receiving provinces like Ontario, which alone receives about one-half of all immigrants. Is this situation economically or politically sustainable? The experiences in other countries suggest it likely isn't. And then there's the general economy, which is struggling to attract investment, as I pointed out in a previous post. Foreign investment is plunging. Our closest trading partner is no longer reliable and the one that might provide us an opportunity for diversification may not be a palatable or practical choice. https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canada-struggling-to-absorb-immigrants-internal-report-says

The stats provide a different picture. Since adopting a globalist agenda, including high immigration, about three decades ago, Canada's prosperity relative to other countries, including other Western democracies, has declined significantly. And as an article I posted in a prior entry in the string notes, polling indicates that Canadians are increasingly pessimistic about their economic futures. And investors and business are pessimistic as well, as indicated by an article in a manufacturing trade publication (link below). I believe this country is on the verge of a potentially catastrophic fall. https://www.plant.ca/insights/171911/

I think Trudeau is a hopeless idiot and I believe his leadership is a front for corporate globalism. But I'm not a big fan of the CPC either. I didn't support Harper in the last election and actually voted for the local NDP candidate, whom I personally admired. At this point, and given my increasing belief in libertarianism, I'm thinking of voting for Bernier's party in October. But in a theoretical two-way contest between Trudeau's Libs and Scheer's CPC I'd have little choice but to support the CPC. Fortunately, our multi-party system gives us a wider range of choices.

Let's hope Trudeau's Libs don't win in October. If they do, this country will continue its steep downward spiral. Investors are fleeing (see link 1 below) and Canadians are increasingly pessimistic about the future (see link 2 below). Given the Lib record, the prospect of a CPC government should be the least of a rational voter's worries. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/look-how-much-foreign-investment-has-fled-canada-since-the-liberals-took-over https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-appear-pessimistic-about-their-economic-futures-poll-suggests/article36526629/

1.) As I believe I've told you before - but let me tell you again - I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the CPC so you can can back away from your apparent take on neo-McCarthyism. 2.) Quid pro quo...

We choose not to maintain a military capacity similar to Sweden's and our military production decisions are often highly political. We could choose to have no defense at all as the Americans would never allow a foreign power to establish itself on Canadian territory. Our strategic interests are in reality quite limited. In practical terms, Sweden is very close to Russia, an often hostile power, a fact that impacts its willingness to support large-scale military spending. We are very close to the U.S., a militarily powerful ally, a fact that impacts our unwillingness to spend a lot of money on military hardware. We can choose to be inefficient because, well, we have the luxury of a lack of urgency.

There are virtually no legal similarities between the two cases. Sorry to tell you that. As for your other contentions about whether Canada is a de facto colony of the U.S., I think your position somewhat specious. It clearly is a sovereign state under international law. We are an ally of the U.S. and like many other countries often rely on its clout for our own security and as such often comply with and/or participate in its actions. But we aren't technically bound to do so. We didn't participate in the second Iraq war, for instance. We didn't have anything to do with Khadr landing in Gitmo and neither did our Supreme Court allege we did. Canadian liability, oddly enough, was determined to exist from the point that Canadian officials attended Gitmo in relation to Khadr's detention and interrogation by the Americans. How else Canadian officials should have behaved remains a mystery to many. Should they have jumped up and down and insisted on taking Khadr home in a government jet? Would the Americans even have paid any attention had they done so?

If the Saudi export permit is cancelled, production of these vehicles will most likely stop. The sale was probably a bad idea from the outset. The issue of whether Canada has the capacity to maintain strategic military production capacity is another matter. Given our small military and military budget, it is difficult to sustain the position that it's worthwhile to do so on a cost-benefit basis. Some smaller countries, like Sweden, do. But it is neutral.

I don't think you read my post. I don't dispute the role of Canadian officials in the Arar situation. My contention is that Arar's case is not in any substantive fashion similar to Khadr's.

I interpret "we" in this case to mean Canadian taxpayers. In my opinion, it is a correct usage of the pronoun.

This topic doesn't intend to address the practice of "extraordinary rendition" as applied, for instance, in the Arar case. Khadr's case did not involve extraordinary rendition. Arar had no reason to believe that any behavior on his part could or would amount to him being handed over to a foreign government for detention and torture, nor did the Canadian government have a legitimate basis for facilitating such an outcome. Canadian authorities did absolutely nothing, on the other hand, to put Khadr and/or his family members in harm's way. Our government's sin, apparently, was to vicariously validate Khadr's treatment in an extrajudicial system to which he was exposed by his or his family's volition when coming into conflict with the U.S. military on foreign soil. There's simply no comparison to be made between the Khadr case and the other cases you are apparently raising.

1.) How very threatening of you. (Charming!) Are you, by the way, cisgender or transgender - if assuming that you're male is so apparently offensive to you? Please advise of the appropriate pronoun(s) other posters might use when referring to you. That would be considerate on your part. 2.) I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to and supporting a post by GostHacked, so I'll leave it to him to decide whether he thinks it appropriate, or otherwise. 3.) That's just tripe. China's role in Tibet and Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine illustrate that the other major powers have also been accused of abusing their military power and might. The U.S., like China and Russia, refuses to acknowledge the applicability of international law where its own actions and behavior are concerned. America's behavior has not always been perfect - far from it - but it is often expected by much of the world to function in a policing role. Did you watch (Egyptian president) el-Sisi's interview on 60 Minutes yesterday evening? He specifically noted and affirmed the policing role the U.S. serves in international affairs. Unfortunately, American exceptionalism and the influence of its "military-industrial complex" have led the U.S. into disastrous conflicts, like Vietnam and the second Iraq war. On balance, though, I think the U.S. has done more good than harm in the world. And the U.S., a democracy, has the capacity for introspection, rendering it able to acknowledge its mistakes, even if sometimes only after the fact, a trait not generally replicated by the other powers.

That's totally over-the-top. Our military role in Afghanistan was as part of a NATO-sanctioned response to the Taliban regime's support for and assistance provided to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Thus, there was nothing illegal about it. The creation and use by the U.S. of extrajudicial means of dealing with those it deemed war criminals is another matter, but Canada's role in this was so tangential as to render as "vicarious" any ensuing liability on the part of the Canadian government. Vicarious liability in such a context can establish a very slippery slope. For better or worse, the U.S. is our principal ally and it famously and consistently holds that it is not subject to international law. It also applies its own laws in an extraterritorial fashion (i.e. Ms. Meng). Does such behaviour render us complicit in its practices and behavior when for practical purposes we often have little choice but to go along? The Harper government's big mistake, apparently, was failing to make reasonable efforts to bring Khadr back to Canada from Gitmo, but was in fact entirely consistent with his government's general approach to the plight of Canadians ensnared in foreign legal processes and systems.