suds

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I get the gist of where you're coming from. It would be nice to have a constitution and laws that applied to everyone equally. Equality under the law is what any society should strive for. But that should only apply if everything is fair for everyone to begin with. Personally, as long as the courts (and Parliament) don't screw around with my rights, I'm ok with with the courts treating minority or disenfranchised groups a little differently if the goal is to add some degree of fairness into the system. Just don't go overboard, which I have no reason to believe they've done. This is my last post on the subject and it's time to move on.

We're on the verge of one of the largest transfers of wealth ever witnessed in the western world when the baby boomers start dying off in mass droves. How will that affect the housing market if we also cut back on immigration?

Our Canadian Pension Plan has assets totaling over $790 billion. Out of that $790 billion, 13% are invested in Canada while 40% is invested in the U.S. If we really wanted to increase our economic productivity, maybe we should consider bumping up that 13% figure just a tad.

Not to mention tax on investor dividends.

So theoretically, a country where 51% of the population are well off and the other 49% are persecuted, is a wonderful country in your opinion?

In Section 718.2(e) the term 'circumstances' is mentioned twice. It mentions nothing about 'individual circumstances' as you seem to believe. So the Supreme Court interpreted it as meaning 'all circumstances'. It's funny how one little word changes things.

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code applies to the sentencing of ALL convicted criminals. I don't know where you get this idea that it doesn't apply to white people. If you believe it's responsible for the rise in crime, then talk to your Member of Parliament. Parliament is the one who created it. If the Supreme Court advised the lower courts to follow the guidelines set out in Section 718.2, it's because it's the LAW! What exactly do you want the Supreme Court to do? If the Supreme Court found Section 718.2 to be discriminatory and unconstitutional, it could demand Parliament to change it. But it can't because Section 15 of the Charter allows affirmative action. If you're looking for bogeymen, you're looking in all the wrong places.

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....

This is just a wild guess, but there are likely more pro-Palestinian demonstrations around the world because Muslims outnumber Jews about 1,250 to 1. This vote in Parliament is nothing more than crass domestic political posturing. The NDP want the muslim vote which outnumbers the jewish vote by about 4 to 1 and solves nothing. I too would like to see a 2 state solution, but it's inconceivable seeing the two 'living side by side with dignity' (as the present government puts it) as long as an Iran backed Hamas exists.

Fascism has never considered the state and 'corporate interests' to be treated as equals. As with communism, the state controls everything. But as I've mentioned once before there's little difference between fascism allowing private ownership of the means of production and those in charge to take profits, and communism which doesn't allow private ownership but gives those in charge hefty bonuses. The difference is that Communism is more ideologically driven while fascism doesn't care about ownership only about control. If one had to make a choice between fascist and communist economics, fascism makes a lot more sense. China, for example, has come to realize that. It's not really capitalism either is it when the state owns 51% (for control) and not the barrel of a gun.

Fiona Hill is a senior fellow and director at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia. In a July 2016 article posted by the Institute, Hill claims that as far as Putin and his inner circle were concerned, it was Secretary of State Clinton who enticed or financed the 2011-2012 protests directed against Putin when running for his 3rd term. Putin took this as a cover for regime change. To back this up, on March 20, 2017, former FBI James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee (about Russian interference in the 2016 election) that Putin hated Secretary Clinton and preferred Trump as President. Other sources claim that it was Trump or Bernie Sanders. **So, did Putin have a valid reason for interfering in the U.S. election? It certainly sounds to me as if he may have. The U.S. in particular doesn't exactly have a stellar record for NOT interfering in other countries' elections. But they sure get mad as hell when somebody does it to them. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/3-reasons-russias-vladimir-putin-might-want-to-interfere-in-the-u-s-presidential-elections/