suds

It certainly does close all the loopholes. But what happens when people break laws or infringe on the rights of others? Does the state not have the right to use coercion then? You'd better maybe tidy that up a bit. And don't forget about the First Amendment as Fox has pointed out.

Rome wasn't built in a day either. And in the 1860's a million people died in civil war to set others free. Up to that point in time I doubt the world had ever witnessed anything quite like it. When the Declaration was written it was more of an inspiration to the type of country they wanted to create. And the present day Constitution reflects a lot of that.

Sorry to say this, but someone came up with something a little better... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Actually it's a good time for Danielle Smith to go and state her (and Alberta's) case, because anyone worth knowing (politically) is going to be there. She will likely find common ground with more than a few U.S. politicians. If she did nothing it would be a dereliction of her duties as Premier. Of course there are always a few maroons amongst us who think otherwise.

There would be more than a few obstacles to overcome. But if the EU could do it with the number of members it has, why couldn't Canada and the U.S.? It's worth looking into. Of course under the terms of any agreement some sovereignty would have to be given up.

Que sera sera.

Nothing surprises me anymore. Once you've built up a resistance to the constant insanity you become immune to it.

Can anyone explain what a theoretical multicultural post national state is supposed to look like? I also personally don't like the term 'nationalist'. If one loves or believes in their country I would consider them to be a patriot. It's far less confusing.

Nothing makes much sense to me either. Unless they're purposely withholding evidence for whatever reason, there's very little to go on. Knowing what we know, I'd say there's little grounds for extradition.

I agree. It's time to smooth things over. There's an old saying about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

O'Leary has backed down somewhat over Canada being part of the US. Now he's preaching 'economic union' (with open borders naturally) and I would presume with even the possibility of sharing a common currency. I'd say joining the US is out of the question, but the prospect of an economic union is certainly worth taking a close look at.

So Trump will order the US military to invade Canada and then likely order them to engage in genocide to complete the objective in securing our resources? And we should be preparing our military for combat to defend our sovereignty and democracy? Yeah right. A better plan might be for the US, Canada, and Denmark, to sit down and come to some agreement on how to keep the contested parts of the Arctic out of Russian and/or Chinese control.

from the op.... Poilievre has stated he would make cuts to “corporate welfare.” (Corporate welfare refers to government financial assistance, subsidies, tax breaks, or other favorable policies provided to private businesses including multi-national companies, or to specific industries.) If I was the CBC, I'd be planning for and expecting that a few cuts were in the works for them as well.

That's not really what he's saying is it? I can't see Poilievre firing a government official for simply disagreeing with him. On the other hand, a government official who disagrees but also insists on imposing their beliefs on subordinates regardless of official government policy.... is totally different. Do you also have a problem with de-funding those that have anti-semitic agendas? Or Islamophobic, or racist or ....

It took her long enough to stand up to our own childish narcissistic bully. Better late than never I suppose. At one time I thought she would have made a great PM, but that time has passed in my opinion. What the Liberal Party needs now is some new fresh blood.

If it makes economic sense he will.

Reducing the budget of every government department by 10% would be a good place to start. However, meeting our 2% commitment to Nato might help us avoid the 25% tariff.

I agree and in certain circumstances such as national security and law enforcement it makes perfect sense. It's why all rights are not absolute. But the Peterson thing makes no sense.

Two of Canada's main civil liberties groups the CCLA and the CCF both claim that professional regulators are subject to the Charter (as they should be). They also claim that in Peterson's case there was regulatory overreach especially in demanding Peterson take a re-education program (at his own expense) that had nothing to do with his profession. So, I'm just assuming things but I would assume that the Charter be the big Bible in this case, and whatever restrictions the regulators scribbled down would be the little Bible. Or what's the point in having a Charter? I realize that no two cases are the same but this sure sounds like regulatory overreach to me. Someone at the CCF even suggested that maybe the regulators should be re-educated (at their own expense) in a course on fundamental freedoms. Yeah, that might work eh?

From what you've written here, you don't have a clue what freedom actually is. To put it simply, freedom is the state of not being subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of others. Did Peterson break any laws? Not that I know of. Is there such a thing as the right to not be offended? I don't think so either. I'd say it's a little more than some philosophical concept.

It's good to be King!

That's something else entirely depending on what they're discussing. I thought the topic was freedom of speech, truth/disinformation, and censorship.

Yeah, right. If this is 'truth' why not back it up with some evidence?

Trump has a habit of saying a lot of things not because that's what he wants, but to use as a bargaining chip to get what he really wants. Last time in office he used it as a threat to get Nato members to pay the full 2% of GDP that they were committed to paying. Now they're discussing raising it well above 2%. Why would someone who wanted out of Nato coerce/shame other members into paying their fair share. You tell me.

When we suppress free speech nobody wins. It's like NATO.... an attack on one is an attack on all.