suds

Yep, and it was a Democrat President (FDR) in the U.S. who besides refusing to allow the ST.Louis to land also stripped Japanese Americans of all their assets and placed them in internment camps.

You can say a lot of things about Israelis but you can't say they depend on others to fight their wars for them. That's nonsense. Zionism was around a long time before Canada (and the US) refused the MS ST.Louis to land its Jewish refugees in 1939. 254 of the refugees ended up dying in NazI concentration camps. The holocaust was a big factor in increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. And then there was the guilt thing that many in the west had for the Jews and I would include myself there. The Israelis knew in every war they were involved in that if they lost that was the end of them. They would literally be driven into the sea. It's what makes them the way they are, and fight the way they do.

Gee, this Biden sounds amazing! So why do 66.7% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track?

So indigenous people being conquered and leaving (for whatever reason) makes them lose indigenous status and gives it to the conqueror? Interesting.

'decolonization'..... the undoing of colonialism. the cultural, psychological, and economic freedom, for indigenous people with the goal of achieving indigenous sovereignty. 'indigenous'..... being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place. Or sharing common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands. Question.... Is it not true that Jews and Palestinians share a common genetic ancestry in these lands? Is it not true that Judaism's holiest sites are in Palestine and far out date Islam? Is it not true that Jews far outnumbered Arabs specifically in the city of Jerusalem in the late 1800's during Ottoman rule and decades before the British took over? So how is it possible that Jews are not considered indigenous to the state of Israel but are considered 'colonizers'?

I agree except for the fact that Hamas controls the site. And if they had any evidence at all that the IDF caused the blast and not one of their own rockets then the logical thing would be for them to bring in UN inspectors. Not doing so says a lot especially when Israel flat out denies it.

Satellite imagery can give a definitive view of the bomb crater and the extent of damage done and it doesn't match up with any ordnance in use by the IDF. It might not be absolute proof but lacking the ability to do any kind of independent search for bomb fragments it's as good as it gets.

If they get 'rid of Gaza', then what happens to the Palestinians living in Gaza? Do they become Israeli citizens? Or do they re-occupy Gaza? 300 miles of tunnels under Gaza with God only knows what's in them. Whether it's regime change, occupation, unconditional surrender, or whatever.... nothing is going to be easy if the plan is to get rid of Hamas. What is the end game supposed to look like?

Hamas has gone a little too far this time. I can't see Israel settling for anything less than regime change, and I can't see them leaving Gaza until it's a done deal. Israel isn't at war against Palestinians, they're at war against Hamas.

I was referring more to land purchases in Palestine by Jews before 1948. You're referring to the Palestinians who fled Israel after war broke out and their right of return. Yes, I can certainly understand why Palestinians claim Israel stole their land. While at the same time I can see Israel's position in having to deal with the large influx of Jews who were forced to flee Arab lands without compensation. The Israelis also questioned if such a large number of Palestinians could live in peace with the Jews when for the previous decades they could not, and partition was seen as the only solution. Partition is an ugly business (just ask India), and when combined with war this is the sort of thing that happens. But I acknowledge your point.

Just out of interest, how did they 'steal the land from the Palestinians'? Almost all of the land the Jews settled on and farmed in Palestine prior to 1948 was bought and paid for.

In hindsight, after the 6 day war (1967) Israel could have chosen not to become occupiers and handed Gaza and the West Bank back to Egypt and Jordan. This was actually considered by the Israeli cabinet at the time. But chose not to. But long before that, the Arabs could have accepted the UN partition plan which created independent Arab and Jewish states which included an economic union between the two and the protection of minority and religious rights. But chose not to. It didn't help either that when Israel left Gaza (2005) that the Palestinians voted in a Hamas government. I would have to believe (in hindsight of course) that when any opportunity arose to makes things better between the Palestinians and the Jews, both sides chose not to. So it would seem that both sides had a hand in 'creating this monster'. So what to do now? I really have no idea. Commenting on what should have/could have happened in the past is far easier.

Why do I get this feeling it MAY well have something to do with Quebec? ? Not that it's a bad idea or anything. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lithium-mine-val-dor-1.6648344

I agree wholeheartedly. You either support free speech or you don't, there's no middle ground. But if you must have these kinds of protests you are still subject to Canada's Criminal Code Sections 318 and 319.

It would have to be one hell of a bribe. For example, why would Egypt (or Jordan) be interested in inheriting Israel's problems? And would Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza readily give up on the idea of a Palestinian state? The idea makes sense but is it feasible?

I would agree with that, but only on account the US has a 1st amendment while our freedoms of speech and expression are subject to 'reasonable limits'. But consider this....an unprompted Nanos poll came out in March 2022 on national issues that concern Canadians the most. Free speech and freedom came 2nd in the poll at 8.3% behind coronavirus (13.1%) and ahead of the environment (7.5%). Up until then, free speech and freedom was hardly ever mentioned as a concern and was largely attributed to recent freedoms infringed upon by the pandemic and with the freedom convoy. Most movements that make their way to Canada begin in the US in one form or another. The removal or debasement of historical artifacts and figures began in the US with the removal of a single confederate flag way back when. Same with the MeToo movement, both of which played a main part with this cancel culture phenomenon. The same with the 'defund the police' movement (which never quite caught on here) and the Biden administration declaring Trump supporters as enemies of the state. So now we're doing the same debasing and tearing down with the statues and artifacts and Trudeau declaring the truckers as nazis and fascists (not to mention those who refused to get vaccinated). In my opinion what changed things was the freedom convoy. Even if one was against the convoy or approved of the use of the Emergencies Act many must have felt that freedoms were being lost that day. It also grabbed the world's attention.

When identity politics and ideology rules over common sense, stupidity and intolerance sets in. At this point you lose all concepts of right and wrong, and basic rights and freedoms come under attack. Where I disagree with Murray is that in most of these respects it's the US who led the way and to our discredit we only emulated them. Hopefully we can set things straight and demand our governments put country first and not the other way around.

The Judge in this case only granted a request from a LGBTQ advocacy group for an injunction to put the government's policy on hold until a constitutional challenge to the policy could be heard. This 'constitutional challenge' (I believe) is in regards to the charter rights of students under 16 to choose their names and pronouns in the schools without parental consent. Good! Let's get this cleared up once and for all. The Premier of Saskatchewan's opinion on this is that the default position (until this constitutional challenge can be heard and ruled on) should never be to keep a child's information from their parents. The Premier is against the injunction to put the government's policy on hold for how long? 2,3,4 years maybe? So he fires a shot across the bow and says he will invoke the notwithstanding clause to make the policy exempt from any future court rulings on the charter rights of students under 16 for the next 5 years. Would anything have changed if the judge had not granted the injunction? Probably not, but the notwithstanding clause would likely not have been used, at least not at this time. But it's a good way to cause problems for the government.

Yep.

Absolutely. I'm personally glad that choice is available whenever the time comes.

Something tells me he won't.

If you're looking for something 'definitive' I doubt you're going to find it. The only thing definitive is that the Ministry sets curriculum in the classroom and with the texts used. As demonstrated in this case, the Ministry also has oversight on school board policy. If they hear of some board policy they don't like, they'll ask the board to change it. According to the President of the Ontario Public School Board's Association, the elected trustees make all the decisions regarding all the policies of the school board outside of curriculum. I would have to believe the president of the school board association knows what the hell she's talking about. I also understand the school board's use of committees to enact policy and that these committees (besides the trustees) may have parents, teachers, administrators, school council members, etc. among them for added input. But it has to be that the responsibility for any decision or policy set by these committees lie solely on the shoulders of the elected trustees. Otherwise, how would you have it? Would you prefer to have unelected administrators making these decisions? Every school, every school board, every school district, is different to some degree. One size fits all policies likely wouldn't work so the Ministry allows each school board to set their own. That's it, only my opinion, and nothing more to add. Anyone... feel free to jump in. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/what-is-a-school-board-trustee-and-why-should-i-vote-for-them-during-the-municipal-elections-1.6104274

The Ministry of Education requires school districts to develop their own guidelines and procedures for the selection of educational resources that are not on the ministry's list of approved textbooks. From the OP, Ontario's education minister instructed the Peel District School Board (not the librarian) to stop its so-called 'weeding' of school libraries. The President of the Ontario School Board Association has publicly stated that "They (the trustees) make all the decisions regarding all the policies of a school board." It certainly sounds clear to me that it's the trustees that set school district policy and approve reading lists or anything of that nature that are beyond the ministry's list of approved textbooks. Librarians likely have a say but it's the trustees who are ultimately held accountable by the public (and the ministry) and it's only right that they should be. You seem to have this idea that they shouldn't be held accountable. Please explain in more detail if possible.

Try this sometime.... before any municipal election ask someone who they're voting for mayor and they'll likely have an answer. Ask them who they're voting for as councillor and they'll be less likely. Ask them who they're voting for as school board trustee and in most cases you're probably asking for too much.

from the link provided.... Ontario: In Ontario, the Ministry of Education requires school districts to develop their own guidelines and associated procedures for the selection of educational resources that are not on the ministry’s list of approved textbooks (The Trillium List, 2008). The policy guideline, Equity and Inclusive Education in Ontario Schools: Guidelines for Policy Development and Implementation (2014) supports principles of diversity and inclusion in the selection of educational resources. Inclusive curriculum and assessment practices (p. 55) A board procedure is in place to assess learning materials for discriminatory bias. Resources and instructional strategies: are in compliance with the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code with respect to the prohibited grounds of discrimination; show people of different races, genders, and ages in non-stereotypical settings, occupations, and activities; explore the roles and contributions of all peoples in Canada, and the factors that shaped these roles; encourage open discussion of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Code (e.g., race, gender, disability, faith) in society, the community, and the school. From this I would have to say it lies mainly in the hands of the trustees to decide what goes into the school libraries in Ontario. However, I did mention in a previous post that the Ministry of Education of Ontario does have some limited oversight.