suds

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.

I did indeed read it before posting. It says in the preamble .... 'The Peel District School Board, like every school board in Ontario, is governed by a board of trustees.' from another link... What is a school board trustee There are 72 school boards across Ontario, including English, French, and Catholic boards. The number of trustees for each board depends on the number of students and the regions it encompasses. In Toronto, each ward has its own trustee. “They make all the decisions regarding all the policies of a school board, as well as approving a balanced budget, and hiring the director of education,” said Cathy Abraham, president of the Ontario Public School Board's Association (OPSBA). Abraham said that trustees act as “advocates for our local communities” and make decisions on busing to and from schools, student dress codes, when and where to buy property, and when a school should close. They also set goals for student achievement, well-being and equity. Budgets for school boards can be in the billions. The Toronto District School Board, for example, has an annual budget of approximately $3.5 billion. Abraham says that it’s important for trustees to show they are capable of being fiscally responsible for that reason. What is not under the purview of a school board trustee? School board trustees have no control over the curriculum being taught to children. This responsibility lies solely with the Ontario government. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/what-is-a-school-board-trustee-and-why-should-i-vote-for-them-during-the-municipal-elections-1.6104274

You've got that right! Although I would say to a large degree mostly China.

My understanding is that 'school curriculum' (or what is taught in the classrooms) is set by the Ontario Ministry of Education. School libraries on the other hand requires 'school districts to develop their own guidelines and associated procedures for the selection of education resources that are not on the ministry's list of approved textbooks'. The Peel District School Board is governed by a board of trustees elected by public school taxpayers. So the Ministry of Education decides what goes on in the classrooms and the trustees decide what goes on in the library (with some limited oversight by the Ministry).

In this case, Trudeau did do the right thing in calling out India, but demonstrates the hypocrisy by way of a severe lack of consistency in not calling out China for their aggressions on our sovereignty. We should not stand for others meddling in our elections and threatening Canadian citizens or being behind gangland style executions.

I'm sure the economy matters, but as usual in Canadian politics it's party first. In fact, it would be a great rallying cry for Poilievre to campaign on.... country before party. He would win hands down.

This is a problem that could be fixed relatively easily if voters took the time to do so. If you don't like the way schools are being run or the track record of your trustees, then educate yourself and vote accordingly. If you don't, then activist groups have a far greater chance of getting in the trustees they want. A little bit of effort can go a long way.

It all depends on how one interprets Directive 18. A library that tries to serve the needs of a large diverse student body (with different cultural backgrounds) should have a wide selection of books that serve those needs. It doesn't necessarily mean that every book has to meet those requirements nor would it be even remotely possible to do so. However, this thing about the Board removing all books published before 2008 makes absolutely no sense regardless of how one interprets Directive 18. Has the Board completed its audit and assessment of the books on hand? If it has not then no books should be removed. If it has, then either make the library larger or remove those books necessary to make room for the new ones coming in.

Not as far as I know. He may have been intimidated or coerced into taking remedial training under threat of losing his license but that's about it.