suds

Could you be a little more specific? I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court didn't draft Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Ok, so you have a beef with the Supreme Court over the Gladue case. What is it exactly, and why do you blame the Court specifically?

Give me a ruling by the Supreme Court you didn't agree with and felt unfairly punished by. At least then I'll know what you're referring to.

And I judge everyone as individuals regardless of being a minority, marginalized, oppressed, or oppressor. So there we have it. Anything else you want to get off your chest? But if the Supreme Court wishes to take into consideration past transgressions against marginalized groups who they believe were not treated fairly, I have no problem with that either. In general, justice has to be blind but it also has to be fair.

When it comes to rights the Supreme Court has to consider the rights of everyone, not just the majority. When rights conflict they usually tend to side with minority or marginalized groups which is not a bad thing in my opinion. Societies are judged by how their minorities and marginalized groups are treated.

Well obviously then, you have something against trans people. I do not. Although the sports thing with biological men competing against biological women really isn't fair.

I meant no offense to anyone. You gotta lighten up a bit bud! 😉

You mean one that has a vagina?

Good points!

Generally speaking, in Canada mortgage interest is not tax deductible (unless you're renting the residence out) and there are no capital gains as long as it was your principal residence. But there are exceptions. The U.S. does the exact opposite (but again there are exceptions). It would be nice if young people buying their first home and planning on raising a family had a choice.

A former Bank of Canada governor was saying recently that any new government spending should be aimed at increasing economic productivity. Increasing capital gains taxes does the exact opposite. But that doesn't exactly help any government win a few votes short term. Then there's the deficits and mounting debt. Servicing the debt takes a lot of money off the table that could be used elsewhere. If you want to win elections you're far more likely to win if you spend spend spend. Austerity gets you nowhere unless things get really bad. I love democracies, but it does bring with it some inherent problems.

And who exactly wants business to tell government what to do? The governments prime responsibilities in regulating business and the economy is to provide a level playing field for all participants, protect consumers, and to protect assets and property. What's being described here sounds a little coercive in my opinion. It's sort of like ... do exactly what we tell you to do or we're gonna pass laws and force you to do it. It's petty and stupid.

Doesn't Guilbeault or his government have better things to do? Just another sign of a desperate government in free-fall.

Ok have it your way then. Meanwhile, that little chart of world greenhouse gas emissions keeps marching up and up with no end in sight. And that little chart is the only thing we should be concerned about.

From a global perspective a reasonable question would ask.... where should a threshold for world population be set so that climate change was effectively dealt with and that minimal acceptable living standards could be attained by all in a world of finite resources? But they don't really care about world population do they? Or at least it's not very high on their priority list. It tends to make one believe that redistribution of wealth is their main concern.

Here's a liberal I can identify with. A liberal who can actually think for himself....