Abies

He is already appealing in the US. If the widow wants to collect she will have to file in Canada and get a Canadian judge to say that judgement has to be upheld. Choices he made as a kid after being brainwashed by his family. In Canada 18 is an adult not 16 or 15 for that matter. Also there isn't any evidence he threw the grenade and the bar for charging someone for treason is extremely high and unlikely. He was a child soldier full stop. Also nobody made me their 'bitch'. I simply have a brain and I have used it. It is something I encourage you to do. Ironically soldiers are seen as protectors of our freedom but after my exchange with you it turns out it is just a lie. You don't care about the charter or rights at all.

The plea is a very significant part of this argument and that he is appealing his charge at the tribunal.

Khadr took a plea deal. The facts of the case were not tried in the court of law. Khadr took the plea deal so he can come back to Canada. He is still appealing the tribunal ruling. When tried in a real court instead of tribunal none of the evidence would past muster since it was not obtained legally. he was serving the sentence because he plead guilty in exchange for being sent back to Canada after a year. The facts have not been tried in the court of law.

Regardless there is no evidence he threw the grenade and the testimony acquired from Khadr was obtained after being tortured. Khadr was only charged because he was pressured to take a plea deal for better treatment. While you are correct there are no laws on child soldier and I should not be worded as such but that isn’t necessary to my point to be relevant. What is relevant is that in the eyes of the UN he is a child soldier and should be treated as such. This isn’t the same as a youth being radicalized on the internet and committing violence soon after. He was taken by his family to another country at a young age and exposed to violence and extremist rhetoric. Also one of your points contradicts what you are saying. “ You removed the Paris Principles from their actual contextual and reference points which was not terrorist groups and did not quote the actual convention that would be relevant. You will also note the protocol's last sentence which clearly like any law of any nation or any principle of the UN is notrecognized and is in fact rejected by terrorist groups.” It states armed groups and armed forces which covers terrorists groups. So I did not not remove anything from their actual context and reference points.

His family brought him there and he was brainwashed. Under law he is a child soldier since he was below the age of 16 when he was captured. His charges do not hold up for one there is no evidence he threw the grenade and two he was tortured and gave a statement after said torture you described. His award was based on the fact Canadian intelligence violated his rights.

I stand corrected.

I agree that having a transit system to the extent of Shanghai isn't currently realistic, but having a transit system that serves the current population and infrastructure to expand for the future is something provinces should be doing.

If Alberta votes to separate, then begins negotiations between Canada, BC, Saskatchewan and all of the First Nations in Alberta. Landlocked First Nations will most certainly argue to expand their land to connect it to other FN groups and inter provincial borders.

Where are you getting that from my post? Judges don't make laws they strike down laws when it violates the constitution.

I would say politicians removing rights is far more serious than a Judge striking down a law for being unconstitutional.

Still have the First Nations groups in Alberta who will more than likely want to remain with Canada.

I realize that, I did not say it as a serious thing.

Of course, I was only saying so in reference if the government ignored the rules.

Get rid of section 33.

from your source:

That isn't what causes majority of our emissions. The oil and gas sector and transportation contributes the most. Vast majority live in and around the cities. People most certainly have access to other alternative heating sources and transportation sources.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Also Encana was shifting to the US during Harper’s time as PM so it is strange to blame JT.

Per capita we produce quite a bit of emissions.

Quebec is abusing their own citizens by using the notwithstanding clause to prevent those following their faith from holding government and public positions. Women choosing to follow their faith as they please are not participating in their own oppression. And women are beaten and killed for many reasons it isn’t specific to one faith or culture. I do not have to convince you but I will point out the flaws in your argument.

Abuse can come in many forms. Singling out religion is ignoring other abuses such as Quebec’s abuse of it’s own citizens. Hijabs and burqas are harmful when forced onto women but that doesn’t mean every woman you meet wearing one is being forced to do so.

I never said those practices were guaranteed under the charter and I also fail to see how those things are relevant to the conversation. It would be bad faith to assume that defending ones right to practice their religion means allowing harm to others or breaking the law.

Quebec isn’t a nation it is a province which used a law to quash people’s rights. We live in Canada what Belgium, Denmark and France do is irrelevant. What rights come first is also irrelevant they are all guaranteed under the charter.

And uniform and dress codes allow turbans, hijabs and kippahs because we allow people to observe their faiths.

Religious rights are part of human rights. How does a man with a turban make someone feel unsafe, or an orthodox jew wearing his kippah, or a Muslim woman wearing her hijab? This bill has nothing to do with feeling safe or neutral it is about preventing people from following their faith.