suds

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.

Good stuff. It's even scarier then I thought. I would like to put out one other question though. This type of message board that we're on now is considered social media.... right? Illegal hate speech is already regulated by the criminal code.... right? But if Bill C-11 passes with the inclusion of social media content, would the CRTC as regulators be allowed to regulate legal speech on these types of boards? Call it whatever you want, misinformation/disinformation, political speech, none-politically correct speech, or whatever. What could they do, how far could they go, before they start treading on our rights to free speech?

Liberals reject senate amendment limiting the scope of CRTC powers over online content (in particular, including the EXCLUSION of social media content from the bill). "After the bill passes, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how to implement the legislation. It has refused to make that document public until after Bill C-11 becomes law." Does this sound familiar to anyone? It sounds a lot like the Canadian version of 'you have to pass the bill in order to see what's in the bill'. Or rather in this case.... what the liberals true intentions are. If I were a senator, i would not pass this bill. No Canadian should support this bill. This is not what I would call open or transparent.

Thank you, that clears things up a bit. Although I would prefer the senate stick to their guns on this one.

So the liberals have rejected one of the senate's amendments. What happens to the bill now? It's my understanding it's imperative the bill passed by the senate (with ALL its amendments) have exactly the same wording as the bill passed by the house (and vice versa) to become law. Shouldn't it have to go back to the senate?

Time for a bit of comic relief for all you apparatchiks out there...

As it stands now, the first priority of those managing investments in federal pension plans is to act solely in the best interests of those participants and beneficiaries of the plan. ESG will change everything, in fact do the exact opposite. The new priority will not be the best interests of participants and beneficiaries but the best interests of the non-participants and the non-beneficiaries. This in my opinion could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. As with most 'things' the devil is in the details.

The notes (under the chart) claim information used comes from Vanguard, and Bloomberg's ESG data service. I admit they're comparing apples to oranges but is there any better way of doing it? The proponents of ESG claim it will create higher returns. Shouldn't it be up to them to provide evidence to the contrary? I'm also reading in the notes at the end of the study that ERISA requires the fiduciary to act solely in the interests of the (plan) participants and beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. Which is one of the purposes of this study. Is that why the proponents are making these (as far as I can tell) unproven claims? To get around ERISA? ERISA (as I understand it) is a federal act and doesn't apply to state or local pensions.

The PDF i was referring to shows a (2020) chart comparing average net returns of Vanguard mutual funds to comparable ESG mutual funds over half a dozen asset classes for 1, 5, and 10 years. Vanguard wins hands down except for the short term bond funds. However the expense ratios of the ESG funds are multiple times higher which whittles the difference down by about 1/2 I'd say. I tried to post the chart here with little success.