suds

Well actually it does and it doesn't. In order to dismiss this particular 'strategic' (or frivolous) defamation lawsuit the courts were forced to check off a number of boxes according to British Columbia's 'Protection of Public Participation Act'. (Ontario has one too). The purpose of the Act is to promote free speech without fear of a lawsuit of this kind. However this case does go a little further than that. Sections 2b and 15.1 of the Charter have to be taken into consideration. I'm sure we're all familiar with 2b. Section 15(1) of the 'Equality Rights' section states... '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, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability'. If the courts feel that certain marginalized groups aren't being treated fairly then they might be inclined to be more protective of speech that defends those groups. Anybody here have a problem with that? I for one find that line of thinking perfectly acceptable in a liberal democracy.

This might help if you can understand all the technical aspects of the case... https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc14/2023scc14.html

I must be missing something then because nobody's being 'silenced'. Maybe Neufeld doesn't appreciate being called a bigot, but to that I'd say.... grow a spine buddy.

I'm all for free speech, and this is not a free speech issue. This was a contentious issue, both sides had their say, and nobody got sued. The SCC ruled that Neufeld suffered limited harm, was allowed to 'continue expressing his views, and even won re-election over the course of the lawsuit'. In my opinion the lawsuit was frivolous to begin with. TreeBeard (and the SCC) got it right.

If it was just a flag thing, then sure, cover your kids eyes as you marched them off to school. But it sounds like other more pertinent underlying factors at play with the flag being the last straw. It's unbelievable that one flag would cause all this commotion. Since it involves a well organized mass walkout by elementary school kids the finger gets pointed at the parents telling their kids what to do. Another finger gets pointed at some possible religious leader advising the parents what to do. Of course this is pure conjecture on my part but it's worth considering.

Thank you! Your 'tolerance' of others is truly amazing.?

So, if intolerance won't be tolerated.... what do you propose to do with the 1/3 of the school (and their parents) who didn't go to school that day?

I agree completely. Other than a bit of virtue signalling on the school's part what does it actually accomplish? It also creates a problem for next year on whether the flag goes up or down. I would see it as counter productive if it teaches kids to see others as belonging to different groups instead of as individuals. Inclusiveness can be attained by celebrating our differences but might be more easily attained by celebrating what we all share in common. Flags don't teach kids to respect one another.

The best way to deal with your nonsense is to post Durham's conclusions in its entirety and not something cherry picked... Conclusion Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order. In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness. FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities. And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination. Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence. In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time. We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions. Section V discusses some of these issues more fully. This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out. Rather, it is intended to accurately describe the matters that fell under our review and to assist the Attorney General in determining how the Department and the FBI can do a better, more credible job in fulfilling its responsibilities, and in analyzing and responding to politically charged allegations in the future. Ultimately, of course, meeting those responsibilities comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath to follow the guidelines and policies currently in place, guidelines that date from the time of Attorney General Levi and that are designed to ensure the rule of law is upheld. As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old. The promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI's guiding principles of "Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity" are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI' s mission of "Protect[ing] the American People and Uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States.

My bad. Ask a stupid question you get a stupid answer. George Santos was outed by the media and likely Congress felt it had no choice but to investigate. But this Trump thing about asking Russia to find Clinton's missing 30,000 emails is plain stupid. If Trump was really colluding with Russia would he do so on national TV? Or was he just joking around? Removing 'classified information' is now a crime it seems (but only when certain people do it). I honestly think they're planning on writing a book or something and want it as reference material. And I mean Biden would never think of raping a woman (but it did slow down the 'me too' movement to something a bit less radical). We can play this stupid game as long as you want but I'd prefer not to. And btw, does Congress still have that slush fund (funded by taxpayers) to pay off accusers of sexual harassment? Inquisitive minds want to know.

Where in the report does it say that Crossfire Hurricane was justified? In the executive summary under 'The Opening of Crossfire Hurricane' I'm reading things such as 'unevaluated intelligence', being opened without ever having spoken to those who provided the information, no significant review of its own intelligence databases or from other US intelligence agencies, non usage of standard analytical tools typically used by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence, including Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok's 'hostile feelings for Trump'. In addition, the FBI had no information indicating that 'anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials' during the campaign. It then goes on to question why this was so markedly different from the FBI's actions with respect to other (but) highly significant intelligence it received from a trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign's plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir Putin. So where is this 'JUSTIFICATION'??

Durham was correct in my opinion... Durham likely felt it was beyond the scope of his investigation and should be left up to the Attorney General to decide if any changes to guidelines and policies were to be made. And that guidelines and policies are only as good as the 'integrity of those who take the oath' to follow those guidelines and policies. One thing he is not doing is excusing or exonerating those who lied or denied exculpatory evidence in the course of the Justice Department's investigation. So you found one little tidbit of light in a damning report and decided to pounce on it? Too funny.

Time out for a mind game. If the US justice department randomly picked out 1 member of congress per year and went after them (including their close associates and families) with the same zeal and tenacity they displayed against Trump for the last 7 years.... what would they uncover? In fact, why not start with Biden and his close associates and family?

Not just a plain old 'conspiracy theory' either, but the 'mother of conspiracy theories'. And to make matters worse Fox had it right all along, while their fake news press competitors ran with the bs for years because it was good for ratings. If the CRTC does decide to punish FOX news in Canada, I just hope they hold all those other US cable news networks to those same high standards.

Just read the executive summary which is about 11 pages. Or if that's too much, go directly to 'conclusions' at the end of the summary which is about 1 page. If you want all the details in its entirety on how these conclusions were reached, THEN you have to read the whole 316 pages.

I'm no lawyer but I would agree there's a number of things that would require amending perhaps even our constitution. If JT does happen to change his mind, he must know he's stepping into a political minefield.

Liberal policy (as it stands now) is to 'explore options for forcing online information services to publish material based on named sources' (only). In order to do this, existing laws that offer some protection for journalists and sources would have to be amended or circumvented in some way would they not? Or from what I suspect done away with completely. Specifically the 'Journalistic Sources Protection Act (2017). With the JSPA, the burden shifted from a balancing act and places the onus on the authorities to state their case why a sources identity should be revealed which would have to be done on an individual basis. The JSPA also defines the term 'journalist' as 'any person (or corporation) whose main occupation is to contribute directly information for dissemination by the media'.

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'.