TreeBeard

When has a Canadian Premier ever provided amnesty to anyone facing criminal charges? Smith is either utterly stupid, or just lying that she had the powers of an American governor.

Not a good look. You’d think they’d be more careful with the polls indicating a virtual tie race, or worse, for the Libs.

It was a group from 50 years ago in the USA mainly…. Context matters. So why are you using this term to describe activists now?

First, I think red power is a racist term and is probably not a good idea to use that term if your goal is civil discourse. Second, If it was good enough for Britain back then to just claim Canada even though there were people already here, why get upset, or take offence, to an indigenous person saying that now, probably when they are saying it now to make a point, and not actually wanting to literally take your house?

It is in self defence. At least, that’s what the rightwing keeps saying when someone is shot. So maybe we can be happy that this proud boy was able to walk away mostly unscathed?

I don’t know if this was the case here, but given the threats and antics of this violent anti-lgbtq group, it was probably self defence.

You’re saying that the Secwepemc (Shuswap) people didn’t exist?

That’s up to whatever private entity is booking the acts. If they don’t want someone, for whatever reason, shouldn’t they be allowed to not book the act?

The Premier of Alberta thought she had clemency power “like in the USA”. She also spoke to justice officials in Alberta weekly to try and convince them to drop charges on someone. Not a great look for the new Premier…. political interference in prosecutions.

The Supreme Court has had quite a bit to say about secularism and what it means in Canada. Indeed, Canada is definitely a secular coutry, meaning that no one religion is favoured over another. from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html Secularism is closely linked to the notion of “state neutrality” in respect of religion, which the Supreme Court has articulated as follows: A breach of a duty of state neutrality must be established by proving that the state is professing, adopting or favouring one belief to the exclusion of all others and that the exclusion has resulted in interference with the complainant’s freedom of conscience or religion (Saguenay, supra at paragraph 83). While the state cannot favour one religious view at the expense of others, the duty of neutrality does not require it entirely to abstain from celebrating and preserving its religious heritage (Saguenay, supra at paragraphs 87 and 116).

There’s nothing official about it. Officially, we’re a secular country.

You advocate for public officials only promoting Christianity. Call it what you want. Christianity is as respected in law as every other religion. That’s all the respect it gets; equal to all the others. In fact, it is favoured in many cases, like public Catholic school boards. Pluralism doesn’t mean you agree with all religions. That’s not even possible. It means, the country is made up of people from many religions and are all treated equally.

Historically, yes. Absolutely. But that was the past. It’s a bold new Canada where it’s pluralistic, which you said you were in favour of. If you were truly in favour of pluralism, you wouldn’t be advocating for Canada to only be a “Christian nation”.

Funny term…. I thought Christians used that term when they wanted to be inclusive of Jews. Otherwise, why not just say “Christian”?

Judeo? I’m not sure the Jewish people had much part in the founding of Canada. I am more than willing to acknowledge that Canada was founded by Christians. Church of England, to be exact. Are you saying that Canada should only be promoting the Church of England doctrines and prayers? You know…. because of history. But, while I acknowledge Canada was founded by Christians, that doesn’t mean Canada is static. It doesn’t mean that it should never change. We’re making history right now. And, right now, Canada is a secular, pluralistic society with no state religion.