suds

Dispelling all the legal 'bullshiteze', Trump should be disqualified and Biden be impeached. But that could only happen in a perfect world. One is really no better than the other, and are polling about the same for 2024. And the problems that plague America will go on as long as one of them hold office.

If part of the duties of the state guard are to replace the national guard should they become federalized.... shouldn't the state guard have the same resources such as equipment and training as the national guard? Of course they should, and that's the reason why most state guards are highly militarized. If you're going to fund a state guard to handle state emergencies then it should be capable of handling all emergencies. Otherwise why even bother? But as usual partisan politics trumps common sense.

My advice to these homeless refugees in Canada would be to head south. You might be lucky enough to end up in Martha's vineyard.

Who uses paper money anyway? I suppose it's useful if you want to pay someone under the table or leave as tips. But really you're further ahead using reward credit cards.

This is shear nonsense. Another smear job on DeSantis, and people like you buy into it. State Guards are allowed under US federal law, so DeSantis 'created' nothing that wasn't there before. At least 20 states have them and the only real difference between State Guards and the National Guard is that State Guards cannot be 'federalized' because unlike the National Guard they are not part of the US Armed Forces. ALL State Guards fall under the direct command of the state governor. So please explain how the Florida State Guard or Ron DeSantis is any more 'fascistic' than the State Guards of California or New York which are highly militaristic and are also under the direct command of their state governors? You won't because you can't.... because there is no difference except that DeSantis is a republican who could be the next US president. By the way, California's State Guard for example has a maritime patrol, army, and air force, all under the command of the state governor.

A recent AP-NORC poll shows that only 1 in 10 Americans approve of the way democracy is working in the US, or how well it represents the interests of most Americans. How much of this dissatisfaction is created by the practice by both democrats and republicans in utilizing special interest groups and 'client politics' in order to gain political support? When general public policy is based on what a minority of voters believe, you undermine democracy, efficiency, accountability, impartiality, and in a much broader sense... the rule of law. (And please, don't confuse this with minority rights.) In short, this party politics is killing us and don't think it's any different here in Canada. If we must have political parties then the good of the country must come before party. As voters we must insist on it.

I believe the saying goes... ashes to ashes, and dust to dust. The thing is that with so much dust under my bed, I don't know if they're comin or goin.

If you really want to get picky, the elements that make up all life on planet earth either originated from the big bang or the interior of stars. We are all technically star dust. That would include Martians, Vegans, and pretty much everything else in the universe.

If life was stagnant there would be no benefit. But life isn't stagnant. People get older and expect pensions, infrastructure deteriorates, and governments can't help themselves from going into more and more debt. So governments require increased economic growth to generate more and more revenue to sustain funding these (in many cases) unfunded liabilities such as debt, pensions, and infrastructure upkeep. The easiest way to increase economic growth (and revenues) is to expand the workforce and therefore the population as a whole. If this sounds like a ponzi scheme, it is.

We have cold winters, high costs of living, housing shortages, doctor shortages, inflation..... and oddly enough Canada doesn't keep any statistics on the retention rates of newly arrived immigrants. Perhaps because there's no accurate way of doing so. I think I'd try my luck in the US where at least the weather's nicer and the cost of living's more realistic.

You asked 2 questions pal, and I responded to the latter. Somebody can't count.

Please, try and do a bit of research. The filibuster has been used hundreds of times by both parties in the US Senate. In reality, both parties want the filibuster and it's only when they're the majority party that they're against it. Proof? It would only require a simple majority vote to change the rules since it's not a constitutional issue.

I would presume a very high standard would have to be set for the court's to see speech as defamatory. Otherwise you end up with mass self censorship and say good-bye to free speech. I don't believe this particular case passes that high standard.

This I believe is where things get complicated. There's a balancing act between an individual's reputation and the right to free speech. Saying someone is 'bigoted' 'hateful' can be seen as honest opinion or fair comment. How can someone prove they're not bigoted? The acts by the B.C. and Ontario governments were designed to enable the courts an easy way to throw out frivolous lawsuits that were intended to limit free speech. The Supreme Court is bound to those acts (laws). Opinion is usually considered not to be defamatory unless it can be proven it's done with malicious intent. Let's also not forget who started the whole charade and launched the lawsuit.

I agree with that, but what proof have you that the court's are being 'inconsistent'?

It's relevant because Neufeld does sound a bit like a bigot when it comes to certain types of individuals. Although there's not much I can find about the exact wording of his online postings.

I agree that it can be construed as a 'personal attack', but a personal attack on someone they believed attacked them first in a bigoted, transphobic, and hateful way. With the transgender issues one can sound bigoted, transphobic, and hateful, and still be honest in their opinions and make perfect sense. Points taken though.

Nobody called anyone a 'racist bigot' because obviously race doesn't come into play in this particular case. 'Bigot' on the other hand has a more general definition... 'a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices' or 'one who regards or treats members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance' (Merriam-Websters). Would it be fair comment (or opinion) to say that Neufeld was 'bigoted' in his opinions? The Supreme Court found Hansman's comments to not be 'disproportionate'. If the Supreme Court had allowed the defamation lawsuit to proceed, would Neufeld have won? It sounds a bit sketchy to me and I would suggest he grow a thicker skin especially with the way the word 'bigot' is thrown around so indiscriminately today. Again I can't say i disagree with you.

Party A makes what many in the community believed to be derogatory statements of transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ individuals using online posts. Party B publicly denounces Party A calling his views bigoted, transphobic, hateful, and questioned if he should remain a school board trustee. Party A sues Party B for defamation. In response Party B files an application with the courts to dismiss the lawsuit under BC's 'Protection of Public Information Act'. An application Judge agrees with Party B finding the lawsuit has the effect of suppressing debate on matters of public interest and dismisses the lawsuit. A B.C. Court of Appeal disagrees with the application judge's decision and allows the lawsuit to go ahead. Party B then appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada which takes it on. The SCC decides the public interest in protecting Party B's speech outweighed the public interest in remedying the reputational harm to Party A. And that Party B spoke out to counter what it perceived to be discriminatory and harmful speech against transgender and 2SLGBTQ+ youths, and that Party B's statements were neither disproportionate nor gratuitous. So there you have it, name calling and derogatory statements by both sides. In my view it's like the pot calling the kettle black. It's a tough one to call and I certainly don't disagree with the dissenting judge's opinion. I'm glad I'm not a judge, it would keep me up nights.

I agree wholeheartedly. Believe me, I'm as much a free speech advocate as you are and perhaps even more so. But in the case under discussion (here) there was no interference with anyone's rights to express an opinion. One of the party's involved launched a defamation lawsuit against another party who in turn filed an application with the courts to dismiss the lawsuit. It ends up in the lap of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismisses the lawsuit. That's it. Now if you don't agree with the Court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit then that's something else entirely. But there was no interference with anyone's right to express an opinion.

Who would YOU like to see make these determinations? In this particular case it ended up before the Supreme Court which in my opinion 9 minds is better than 1. We know that one of the Justices was against dismissing the lawsuit and allowing it to see its day in court. I wouldn't be entirely against that either but it was out-voted by the other Justices.

For starters you left a few words out.....Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination. And then there's Section 15(2) of the Charter.

The provincial governments of British Columbia and Ontario have determined that speech in the public's interests should be more protected when it comes to defamation lawsuits than speech which is not (and have put it into law). Especially the kind of lawsuits that are intended to 'suppress debate on matters of public interest'. And of course it's the courts that have to deal with these matters. So yeah, some speech is more protected than other speech. After deciding whether it's a matter of public interest, the courts then have to take into consideration whether 'protecting free debate on matters of public interest (without fear of lawsuits) outweighs harm done to the plaintiff'. Now add in constitutional concerns. You're making this into some kind of freedom of speech RIGHTS issue which it clearly is not.

What's wrong with nuclear, specifically the small modular reactors (SMR's) that Ontario's planning on utilizing? Saskatchewan's got the uranium and Canada's the world's #2 exporter of uranium. These reactors are built in factories and shipped to site. Up and running in less than 2 years from start to finish. Include that with increased wind and solar and there's no reason to be burning coal past 2030.

As with most things it depends on the situation. There is no one size fits all policy that I know of. I'm sure you're just gonna love 15(2).