TreeBeard

You digging up those suicide stats you claimed?

Fair point. Done. I give you more credit than @Michael Hardner. I don’t believe that you’re stupid enough to believe all that nonsense, I just think you get your jollies on the forum.

The reason they will need a formal coalition with the Bloc is because without one, they won’t have a minority government as a Lib/NDP coalition will be able to form government before the Cons could try.

You believe the nonsense that women are worse off now due to a more egalitarian society? LOL

I’m pretty certain you think @WestCanMan lies about a lot of things, yet you still talk to him. Or do you think he sincerely believes all the stuff he spews onto the forum?

votes on a bill are one thing Forming a coalition government is something entirely different.

No other political party has ever formed a coalition government with separatists…

That would be a short tenure. And probably be seen as a betrayal in the prairies.

All NATO countries operate in English as well as their native language.

Imagine teaming up with separatists to govern the country. Can you see PP actually doing that?

What are the rates of suicide by year?

The 1st video is a bunch of incoherent ramblings which boils down to “Canada isn’t exactly how I want it to be, blah blah vax inference blah blah”. After that one, I really couldn’t be bothered. A lot of these opinions about how Canada sucks can be summed up as follows: “the party I voted for didn’t get in power. Trudeau sucks. I can’t call people insulting, racist, homophobic names anymore without consequences” …. Canada has moved on from you clowns. Deal with it.

Nonsense. You don’t really know what the judgement says, or won’t quote it directly because it isn’t the bogeyman you think it is, so you just make it up.

This is a different kind of forum, for sure. I think he would continue even if most sensible members put him on ignore, as there is definitely a circle-jerk of like-minded individuals here who feed off each other and the lack of a moderator here.

Because folks like you want laws passed like blasphemy laws to make it illegal to criticize your particular religion. That’s bothersome. Do you think it’s a moral thing, or ever was, for a woman to be forced to marry her rapist? Deuteronomy 22:28–29 28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Nowhere is blasphemy cited in the judgement. The court dismissed the defamation suit. But, because it seems to be the wrong person expressing their views, so you want to see them tied up in a lawsuit for what they said.

I agree…. these happened in the bible. But, God changed his mind on the punishment for being a gay man. Plus, he stopped sending angels and destroying entire civilizations too.

So, this ruling is a step in the right direction?

I thought you were for “free speech”, which would mean less defamation suits in front of the courts and more people who are free to speak their mind without being brought to trial for what they say. Isn’t that what you want?

The court dismissed a defamation suit. Why isn’t this a victory for free speech? ?

This is an odd headline considering that the ruling upholds the “woke” people’s speech and threw out the case against them by the person who felt offended. It’s like the OP didn’t read their own article, or the ruling. The OP seems to say, “I want free speech, but I also want the person using the offending speech to be sued if they’re woke”. (In fairness I couldn’t read the article due to paywall) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/supreme-court-of-canada-barry-neufeld-glen-hansman-defemation-suit-decision-1.6849071

Yes, because they’re written many centuries apart.

The KJV says bats are birds. Leviticus 11 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

So, God changed his mind about killing gay people when it comes to Christians. God said to the Israelites “kill the gays”, but for the Christians, he changed his mind about it.

I don’t think you read the ruling… The court threw out the case of Neufeld suing Hansman for something Hansman said. So, if you’re a free speech absolutist, as you claim to be, you should like this ruling.