suds

Or perhaps the provincial or federal governments which are leasing the land to the home buyers could give some of the proceeds they receive for the leased land to the municipalities. Believe me, I'm no expert on this. How China did things got me going and I'm just throwing stuff out there.

But what if government got into the land leasing business as China does (or used to do) for residential properties? So the builders build homes on land they know is leased for a 100 years (or whatever) to those who end up buying one of their homes and pay a monthly or yearly stipend to the government for the leased land. If buyers can't afford to buy a home at today's prices and mortgage rates, could they afford to buy the same home a few $100,000 cheaper and cut their mortgage payments by 30 or 40%? Of course if they wanted to sell they wouldn't get anywhere near the price of a similar home where the owner owned the property as well. I can see this affecting developers and speculators to a certain extent who own swaths of vacant land and could only sell to those buyers who wanted to outright own their own property. End result, greatly reduced home prices and mortgages, while the government gets another cash flow from those owning homes on government leased land. More choices and alternatives for those who want to get into the housing market are good in my opinion.

I'm sure you've all heard of China's 'ghost cities'. How is it that China 1) has 65 million empty modern homes (apartments actually), 2) is a country where 90% of households are home owners, 3) and 20% of these homeowners own more than one home?? All i know is that China leases out land to developers who do the building, while China creates the atmosphere that attracts business (and job opportunities) which attracts future buyers. So they build a vast number of these 'ghost cities' of maybe a million people each and figure it might take 10, 20, 30 years to fill. Now I realize this has created problems, but better to have too many homes than not enough homes, no? I just don't get it. In Canada we have no shortage of land and no shortage of building supplies. I mean nobody saw this coming?

Apparently the University of Pennsylvania lost over $100 million in funding shortly after Magill's comments.

At a U.S. House Congressional hearing Rep. Stephanic R-N.Y. asked a simple question ..... "Does calling specifically for the genocide of Jews violate (your university's) code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment?" According to Liz Magill of UPenn, you can call for genocide but it's not harassment unless genocide was actually put into practice. It appears to me it's a 'free speech' thing (aimed at Jews only) which overrides any codes of conduct regarding bullying and harassment. In Canada it's different. Section 318 of the Criminal Code plainly says that any person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offense. Which is the way it should be.

You might have a point there. We should never, ever, allow Trudeau to leave the country. We'd all be a lot better off.

There's one way to fix that..... the voting booth.

So the Judge determines that Burkowski did not do or say any of the things her accusers accused her of, and surmised that to (further) justify their incompetence to the public they attempted to 'assassinate her character'. Sound familiar?

My mother had this small crucifix that I never ever saw her wear. I found it in her jewelry box shortly before she died. I bought a small chain and put it around my neck and swore I'd never take it off. Well that lasted about 2 or 3 weeks. I still have it and can't part with it for some reason. Maybe we might all have at least one small religious bone somewhere in our body. I consider myself an agnostic. So... do I get any brownie points for that or what? Oh, and I don't reject social conservatism... it's just not my cup of tea.

Yes, the Court is bound by the Charter, but the Charter is only so many words. It's the Supreme Court Justices that interpret those words. Not an easy job I would think especially when rights conflict. Good post!

I can tell you this.... I'm no social conservative. Any moral judgements of mine on abortion (the killing of human life) has nothing to do with religion. I'm fine with euthanasia as long as the one being euthanized gets the final say. I've voted for Harper, and Harris. I've even voted for Trudeau once or twice (but not the one presently in office). Even voted for the NDP (but that was even further back when I was young and stupid). I hope this helps.

Many things can change over the course of 20 years. In this particular case, same sex marriages became legal in Canada in 2005. Trinity Western has changed by making the community covenant no longer mandatory in 2018. Time changes things, people change, and maybe even Judges. I did take a look at the court briefs for the 2 cases mentioned. I admit they are similar, but not exactly the same, which may have made a difference also.

The difference is that I see it as both a moral issue and a rights issue while you do not. The courts (being the way they are) see it mainly as a rights issue. So it is what it is.

I believe we're getting a little carried away with the Supreme Court. The opening post isn't really about the Supreme Court.

It's simple really. I see it as having more rights and since we supposedly live in a free country I don't consider it to be a bad thing. However, while not supporting abortion as a personal choice I would not force my beliefs on others.

Well that's just it. You can disagree/complain about the Supreme Court all you want, that is... until you need them. It's easy to judge others when not having to deal with all those nasty little unintended consequences that might spring up due to a poorly constructed decision.

I'm sure this isn't what you're referring to but Section 52 of the Charter does give our Courts the power to overrule any part of any law that they believe violates Charter rights. So they are empowered in certain cases to overrule laws made by elected officials.

I could agree with you on our un-elected Senate, but how many in our elected Parliament are lawyers or know anything about constitutional law for example? Are you suggesting that our Supreme Court Justices be elected, or that Parliament should have the ability to override them? I don't really care for either choice as it would just create more problems. We do have a notwithstanding clause. Someone or some judicial 'body' has to have the final say, and in general I believe our 9 Justices on the Supreme Court have served us well.

Fair enough. Anyways that's it for me, no way I'm in your league.

I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' because all the stuff I mentioned actually did happen. What I was trying to say was ..... you can't lay blame on the Israelis for everything. And I still maintain the same thing about the Palestinians. We both agree that they both have to forget the past and deal with the present. And I would think we both agree that Hamas doesn't fit in to any future negotiations outside of the release of hostages.

Well that's the Middle East for you as I've tried to demonstrate in one of my previous posts. And you would be wrong to believe I'm placing blame for the present situation solely on the Palestinians. From 1948 on, the Arab League made almost all of the key decisions for them and many didn't turn out so well likely due to domestic political concerns. You've had Arabs fighting Turks, Sunnis fighting Shiites, Christians and Jews fighting Arabs and Turks, a declining Ottoman empire, mass migrations of refugees, world war, and then throw in Arab nationalism, Zionism, Islamism, the holy lands, and you're sitting on a powder keg waiting for a spark to set things off. Is anyone actually surprised by all the violence and hostility that's gone on over the last two centuries? In the end the British knew the Jews and Palestinians couldn't live together under the same roof and it was pretty evident to most observers. But as I've said before...that's the Middle East for you.

If progress is to be made then you have to deal with the present and not the past. I'm sure Israel made mistakes, I'm sure the Ottomans made mistakes, I'm sure the British made mistakes, I'm sure other Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon made mistakes, and I'm sure the average Palestinian got screwed around by just about every last one of them and they're still getting screwed around. I'm against Israel's building of West Bank settlements, but they built settlements in Gaza too didn't they? And when they voluntarily withdrew from Gaza they left everything standing didn't they? I can't guarantee the same thing is going to happen with the West Bank but it's something that could be negotiated I would have to believe.

Perhaps, but what about accountability to those you claim to represent? When was the last time an election took place in Gaza? When everything is said and done you deserve the type of leadership you vote for. Would you agree with that?

Before any serious peace talks can begin Hamas has got to go. They can release all the hostages they want but they still have to go. The Palestinians must realize that. I've asked before if anyone actually believed that Hamas was doing the Palestinians any good in Gaza and only one reply to the contrary. Or has something changed between then and now?

Good question. The Ottoman Turks used massacres and ethnic cleansing to rid themselves of Greeks and Assyrians during the Balkan wars. When Muslims fled the newly independent Christian countries and returned to the heart of the Ottoman empire they displaced Christians from their homes and gave them to their own Muslim refugees. They used genocide to kill over a million Christian Armenian men while women and children were forced to convert to Islam. To be fair, mass atrocities were committed by ALL sides. The British allied with the Arabs during WW1 to defeat the Turks (think Lawrence of Arabia) which led to the end of the Ottoman Empire. The mandate the British received for Palestine included a national home, one for Jews and one for Arabs. While Transjordan was strictly set aside for Arabs. The mandate officially ended in 1948. When the Arabs refused to accept the partition of Palistine (UN Resolution 181) war broke out between Israel and the Arab League shortly after Israeli independence. Many of the Arab refugees fled to Lebanon. This influx of Arabs in Lebanon created a problem with the power sharing arrangement between Christians and Muslims that eventually led to civil war. Around 1980 in Syria, the government had problems dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood which demanded an Islamic state be put in place. The Syrian army reacted by indiscriminately shelling the city of Hama to a pile of rubble killing an estimated 40,000 of their own people. These are only a few of the events that took place over the last 150 years. Not even a mention of ISIS, Iraq, or Iran. The reasons are varied.... nationalism and religion played a large part. So did power, war, and the refusal to accept a decaying empire. I just don't see where Canada plays such a big role in all of this.