suds

Actually it is freaking radical. Is there ANY nation that puts international interests ahead of its own domestic interests? Is there ANY nation that doesn't claim sovereignty over its own borders? (bearing in mind the EU is hardly international in scope and has strict requirements for membership) Would the US, China, India, North Korea, Russia, the Islamic Bloc, Isreal, or even the EU, ever agree to this brand of post nationalism? I have my doubts.

New rule.... when one receives an extremely short and non explanatory reply to a post, it gives the recipient of that short and non explanatory reply the right to assume certain things without being called out on it. ? The next question is WHY would a media person not like the bill? Could it be that others rather than Margaret Atwood also consider it to be 'creeping totalitarianism'? Or is Atwood completely out to lunch here?

So being a media person makes her opinions irrelevant? Why exactly?

Margaret Atwood has (in my opinion) correctly referred to Bill C-11 as a form of 'creeping totalitarianism'. Totalitarianism is evil whether it be communism, fascism, or national socialism to name a few. Now it seems to be taking hold (though very creepingly) in a number of western liberal democracies (of all places). Atwood chose her words carefully as not to imply that C-11 or the government responsible for the bill was evil. Call it whatever you want, but It could lead to restrictions on fundamental freedoms that we all once took for granted.

I know. Nothing gutsy about that.

If Well what do you want him to say? Of course he's running cover for the liberals. In my opinion, foreign interference in even 1 constituency is not acceptable. It's not going to do our country any good if Canadians start questioning the integrity of our elections. But I believe that cat's already out of the bag.

The Churchill-Truman proposals. After the five day episode of Moṣaddeq’s fall and rebound which occurred between 17 and 22 July 1952 and his victory in obtaining the International Court’s judgment that it had no jurisdiction in the Iranian oil dispute, Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State, came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to supporting Moṣaddeq as the only bulwark against communism in Iran. He suggested that the British and US governments should make joint proposals to Moṣaddeq.The Churchill-Truman proposals which were amended and improved several times were first officially presented to Dr. Moṣaddeq on 30 August 1952 by George Middleton and Loy Henderson the British and American ambassadors in Tehran and culminated in the last and final proposal of 20 February 1953 which provided for the following: 1. The management and control of the oil industry in Iran would be in the hands of the Iranians. For the first time Moṣaddeq was to be offered a settlement that did not entail foreign management and control of oil operations in Iran. 2. Compensation to be settled by the International Court of Justice on the basis of any English law of nationalization, meaning in effect, the Coal Nationalization Act of 1946. In paying the compensation, the Iranian government would be required to make payments in cash only to the extent of 25 percent of the proceeds from oil exports. 3. The USA would make a payment of $100 million to Iran against future deliveries of oil to the Defense Materials Procurement Agency. 4. The Iranian government would negotiate a long-term sales contract with an international consortium in which the AIOC would have a share. On 7 March 1953 a communiqué was issued in Washington, stating that the US government regarded the proposals of 20 February 1953 as fair and reasonable and in keeping with the principle of oil nationalization, but on the 20 March, Moṣaddeq made a broadcast speech rejecting the proposals of 20 February. As a last resort, Moṣaddeq wrote to President Eisenhower, who had succeeded Truman, appealing for financial aid. Eisenhower’s response came in a letter delivered to Moṣaddeq by Henderson on 3 July. In the letter, Eisenhower turned down Moṣaddeq’s request for aid on the grounds that it would not be fair to spend US taxpayer’s money assisting Iran, which could have access to funds from the sale of oil if a reasonable agreement was reached on compensation. With that letter, the door for negotiations with Moṣaddeq was finally sealed (Bamberg, pp. 473-87). The failure of Dr. Moṣaddeq to settle the oil dispute coincided with severe deterioration of economic conditions and worsening of the internal political situation in Iran. https://iranicaonline.org/articles/oil-agreements-in-iran Mosaddeq was a nationalist (and not a communist) even though he had support from Iran's communist party. What they both had in common was a dislike for Britain having control over their oil production. Mosaddeq welcomed the US as a mediator in trying to settle the disputes with Britain over the oil embargo and any further oil concession agreements. The US believed Mosaddeq was a person they could deal with and saw Iranian nationalism as the best defense against any communist takeover. The US believed the best way to solve this dilemma was with nationalization and fair compensation. But Mosaddeq put himself in a complex situation with deals made with other domestic political factions and couldn't sign the agreement. The US sees a situation with the economy tanking and all the political unrest as being ripe for communism to move in. It was at this point that decisions were made by the US and Britain that Mosaddeq had to go for the good of everyone.

In hindsight, Chretien keeping us out of the Iraq war was the right call. But was it a 'gutsy call' when somewhere between 70-80% of Canadians were against the U.S. led invasion? When a politician has that level of domestic support behind them it's not a 'gutsy call'.

Well that's what this place is for, right? To cut through all the lies and bullshit. And we can't do that if some facts are censored. I hate to tell you this but mainstream media needs Fox as much as Republicans need Democrats, and vice versa. In a two party system when the pendulum starts swinging too far one way, the other party has to swing it back. Or else you end up with the crazies in both parties running things. The same goes for media.

Locke can imagine sedition and insurrection sometimes as a right and sometimes as an obligation depending on the preconditions. You see them as crimes, and are absolute in your beliefs. That seems to be where we part ways, but there are other philosophers who would agree with your point of view. Tyranny however, is more likely to flourish in societies where government or tyrants have no fear of the people.

The most common definition for 'sedition' (that would apply here) is ....'an offense that tends to undermine the authority of the state'. The father of liberalism, John Locke, saw the use of forceful sedition as not just a right but an obligation with the only precondition being that force is to be opposed to nothing more than unjust laws or unlawful uses of force (by the state). The American, French, and Russian revolutions, were all seditionist movements. The word 'sedition' should not be seen as criminal unless all definitions, preconditions, and existing laws, are taken in their proper context. That said, these OPCA litigants do sound like a bunch of wackjobs and I can fully understand why the judge's patience finally ran out. But there must be some better way of dealing with this then allowing it to go on for years and finally using this Hardy character as a person to be made an example of. Other than the sedition thing, most of your arguments make sense, but so do myata's. It's like you're both on two different wavelengths.

In order for it to be 'sedition' (referred to as 'seditious intention' according to Code), one would have to advocate the use of force (without the authority of law) as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada. Criminal Code Section 59 (4). Has he advocated the use of force?

No, have you? A CBC article (provided by eyeball) claims that...Judge David Paterson sentenced Cameron Hardy, in part to deter others from subjecting the court to the theory known as "organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments.'' It's the 'in part to deter others' I find questionable and the fact that the deterrence involved a simple process crime. As wacky as they sound in this case, should someone be imprisoned or get their sentence extended for their beliefs?

I agree. How does rule of law apply when a judge can purposely make an example out of someone by setting an unreasonably long prison sentence? Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law?

Thanks for the excellent link. Regardless of what the UN's Human Rights Committee thinks, why would any Ontario politician purposely commit political suicide by taking away someone's educational rights that they've had for the last 200 years? I would prefer giving all religious minorities the same rights, except past events have indicated that course of action is political suicide also. Things are what they are for mostly political reasons and are not likely to change anytime soon.

How much would it cost to turn the place into some type of tourist attraction (to keep the heritage people happy), and build a new PM's residence in another location? I've been in the residence a few times (mostly during the Mulroney era), and what I remember it for are all the wrong reasons. If it's not going to be used for anyone actually living there or for entertaining foreign dignitaries, then the costs should be drastically reduced.

So basically any judicial review on the use of the emergencies act becomes a two part affair. 1) was the implementation of the act justifiable in terms of the wording of the act? 2) were all the powers used that limited charter rights justifiable in a free and democratic society? I would place far more importance on 2.

Let's say the courts decide the government was not within the law by invoking the emergencies act. That would also open them up to lawsuits by the protesters would it not?

Yep, I'll admit I'm a nimby. But it's better being a nimby than being a sardine.

We live in a country where we have more land then we know what to do with. It seems crazy to pack us in like sardines just to save a bit on infrastructure. But pack us all in they will just because they can. I'm not the sardine type. I like a little bit of open space, a little bit of privacy. Not thrilled about this idea at all. It goes against the human spirit. And just about the time we all have electric cars (and no place to go), they'll begin rationing electricity. There's an agenda all right and I'm glad I won't be around to see the worst of it.

Technically I suppose we do have a captain, but there's nobody at the helm. We are in a state of confusion. I have never heard of the term but it's an interesting idea. Thank you.

What the graph clearly shows is a certain amount of disdain for our political leaders. I would rather see conservatives win elections based on sound common sense policies the majority of Canadians support rather than because of disappointment with the 'other guy'. But no, they're going to try and appease their base with policies most Canadians don't want and go into elections with one arm tied behind their back. It's time for another common sense revolution.

Since the 1950's, gangs and other armed groups (such as the Tonton Macoute) have played active roles in politics. Politicians have used them as resources to intimidate political opponents and as a means of holding the army at bay. Today with an un-elected leader in place, a constitutional crisis, and an overall vacuum of power, these well armed gangs and groups (that outgun and outnumber the army and security forces) have decided to take over the country for themselves. It would be interesting to see if they would willingly hand back power to any future elected officials. What you're witnessing is a phenomenon, a product that took over 60 years in its making. Governments should work in cooperation with political opponents, and not make enemies of them.

The 'depositors' you speak of were predominantly start-ups and venture capital firms. It's ironic that the very clientele the bank has faithfully served for the past 40 years were the cause of its failure. SVB lent money to start-ups when the venture capitalists wouldn't. When the venture capitalist funding began to dry up, the start-ups began using their deposits to keep their companies going. The belief that something was amiss with the bank (which there was) is what caused the run on deposits. When the bank was forced to sell its holdings of long term bonds at a loss to cover the withdrawals ... the game was over. Ordinarily a bank holding a ton of long term bonds with low interest rates in a time of rapidly rising interest rates isn't the end of the world. But it doesn't work if there's a run on deposits. I agree it has nothing to do with wokeness.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Joe's got everything under control.