I am Groot

Not talking about the scared straight approach. Talking about blunt talk from people who have charisma and will be respected by those involved. Is there an organized, funded effort on this subject? Not that I've heard of. And my point is they won't until they are willing to admit it's a problem.

For now, but not online except in a few small corners of free speech like this site.

Let's start by admitting it is happening. Because until you recognize a problem you have no hope of solving it. What can be done? I don't know. I'm not a social expert, but how about native elders, male and female touring the country and going into schools on or next to reservations, talking to young adolescent boys and girls, telling them how their future will be impacted, handing out birth control, talking about the way to success (by not having babies early). How about having similar people go into schools with high numbers of black kids to talk specifically to them? How about empowering and helping fund local community leaders, activists, and influencers to help out?

So your complaint about the source is just more of the pointless sneering you do so much these days and serves no actual purpose but as a lame attempt to insult me and put in your new favorite pejorative term for those who disagree with your extreme left social views. Right? I don't think it's that difficult to make the connection between the statistic showing what happens to fatherless children and the crime and poverty that result.

There was a similar case in the UK last year. Some teenager angry at a football player for missing a kick or something called him a 'black bastard' in a tweet and went to jail for it. The thing is, if he'd called him a bastard he'd have been fine. If he'd used a dozen vicious pejorative words to describe him, insulted his wife, cursed him, etc. he'd have been fine. But he included the term 'black' which isn't even an insult in itself. This is how insane these laws are. You can insult someone for their hair style, or lack of hair, for bad skin, narrow eyes or bug eyes, big nose, bad teeth, big mouth, big ears, being skinny, being fat, being short, being tall, being flat chested 9f you're a girl, or having big breasts, being wimpy or a steroid case for guys, having a little dick, being stupid, ignorant, low class, can suggest they copulate with dogs and pigs and horses, or that their mother obviously did, suggest they're fascists or racists or homophobic or islamophpobic or transphobic or any number of other things. But mentioning they're black! EEEEEK! Can't add that to the mix! Probably the same in Switzerland. Calling them fat was fine. Adding that they were a fat woman would be fine too. But fat lesbian? EEEEK! It's stupid and will only lead to more anger, more venom, more hatred. Yes, we're aware of your eagerness for censorship laws and punishing those who have different views than you, Mr. Voice of Reason.

Are you talking about the columnist? Douglas Murray is British.

You don't get to disagree about this, Crazyman How many are 'many'? The statistics are as clear as they can be. The ideal home in which to raise children consists of one man and one woman. That way children get the influence and understanding of both sexes, not merely one. No one is suggesting there aren't kids raised by one parent or one gender who don't grow up to be happy and well-adjusted. But the odds of that are diminished.

I'm a fan of Thomas Sowell. He makes the case that since the number of black single-parent families exploded during the more enlightened time of the 1960s and 1970s (as opposed to earlier), that the cause is more closely related to the liberal welfare state than poverty. In the 1950s, a single girl who got pregnant faced a disaster. She had to find a way to get rid of it or face broad community censure and possibly even starvation if her parents wouldn't support them. With the advent of welfare policies she just had to apply to the government for a house and allowance. And once established it's difficult to eliminate. Because when a 15-16-17 year old girl has a baby and raises it largely alone, that child probably doesn't grow up with much going for it, including a parent's devotion to education and discipline. This becomes self-perpetuating, with young women raising kids, who were themselves raised by young, single mothers. And young boys, who never had a father, not feeling any particular sense of responsibility to their kids. As for anti-poverty groups. They'll never deal with it. They can't. They're fundamentally opposed to what they call 'victim blaming'. Which is also why you don't see government types trying to convince the black or indigenous communities to deal with this. After all, their problems are all our fault. They're all due to racism. So how can we suggest they do anything about them?

Now you can make the argument this isn't exactly politics. But the problems that it gives rise to are always discussed in political terms, including crime, poverty, racism, and inequality. yet when those subjects are discussed virtually no one ever dares to mention the big fat elephant in the room. In the US, the most economically successful communities are those with the fewest single mothers. The most crime-ridden communities are those with the most single mothers. And yet this rarely seems to be mentioned whenever the news carries articles or stories about poverty, crime, or inequality. The statistics, though, are pretty stark. Poverty - Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. Drug and alcohol abuse - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.” Physical and Emotional Health - children living with married biological parents had significantly fewer behavioral problems than children living with at least one non-biological parent. Children of single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to commit suicide, and children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Educational Achievement - Children living with their married biological father tested at a significantly higher level than those living with a non-biological father. A father's involvement in school means more A's, and 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless. Crime - Adolescents living in intact families are less likely to engage in delinquency than their peers living in non-intact families. Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy - adolescents in father-absence homes were more likely to report being sexually active compared to adolescents living with their fathers. Also, being raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree. https://kenhiebert.substack.com/p/the-real-systemic-problem-in-north?r=15ke9e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Might surprise you but just about everyone I know who's been on or near reservations (except one guy) is pretty damned liberal. But they're not blind to what they can see. I mean, speaking about blindness, it's you guys on the far left who insist it's wrong to notice things. Don't look at the most wanted list and see 90% black and brown faces and think... "Uhm, hey?". Don't notice that the most violent, crime-ridden places in Canada aren't the big cities but the smaller places nearest reservations. And whatever you do, when you goobers on the left are sniveling about all the missing and murdered native women don't point out that's largely at the hands of native men.

I agree with what he said. And I don't always. Everyone I know who has spoken about reservations have talked about how their views and values are shaped by generations on welfare. With rights should come responsibilities. Learn some self-responsibility, learn to work hard, and you'll gain more self-respect than standing around with your hand out whining about what a victim you are.

Changing genders is not simply adding a nickname, you silly twat. If it was, you and the other lefties here, like Hardner wouldn't be in such a frenzy over it.

Perhaps these people aren't as divorced from reality as you extremists on the far left. Legal prowess has virtually nothing to do with judicial appointments. Witness our last supreme court appointment. The way illiberal judges have 'interpreted' the Charter makes it unconstitutional to do just about anything they disapprove of.

Hardner, the noble and objective arbiter of all that is good. 😄

For those who at least reluctantly and initially (and with suspicion) accepted the Charter, the issue is not simply something violating the actual Charter. It is the way the judiciary has extended and built on the actual words of the Charter over the years to 'interpret' in ways never imagined by its authors, guided in most respects by their own political and social views. In short, the Charter today, replete with the precedents and interpretations of the judiciary often bears little resemblance to the Charter as written. Beverly McLachlan's view of the Charter as a living instrument which could grow included the idea of the judiciary as the gardeners deciding how it would grow. Then again, she's still contentedly working for the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, which makes her lack of interest in individual freedom and democracy rather apparent.

Abuse meaning being used for anything the Left doesn't like. I think you can drop the mask now. I doubt there's more than one or two people still on this forum who are in much doubt about your extreme partisanship, especially on social justice issues. There isn't a sliver of daylight between you and Jagmeet Singh. The only difference is Singh can, if forced, discuss issues without throwing around blanket insults. This is what, the third or fourth such post of yours recently demanding anyone who disagrees with you be put on ignore? Wouldn't you honestly be happier somewhere else where there's no one to disagree with your extremism? As an alternative, I suppose you can try to volunteer to be the moderator again and simply ban everyone who has ideas you don't approve of. I know that made you feel happy the last time.

People suggest judges must be unbiased if they were appointed under the conservatives, but it's not like there's a lot of choice available to them. The law societies, even more than the rest of the liberal arts faculties in universities, are irredeemably woke. Sometimes it seems to me they regard actual training in the law as secondary to their mission of churning out social justice warriors. We see this now in law societies trying to impose DEI views on their members and insist they sign pledges to that effect. In short, Harper had a helluva time finding conservatives to appoint. He was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired judge in Quebec to the Supreme Court for lack of any conservative alternatives. And the liberals on the supreme court said no.

The dishonesty of the Left is so great they even lie to themselves. Perhaps that's the only way they can justify their hatred and intolerance. They have to exaggerate or 'interpret' or simply lie about what others believe in order to properly demonize them and so ignore their opinions and wishes. It's why the Left no longer supports freedom of any kind. Freedom is anathema to their demand that everyone think, talk, speak and act like they do.

That has been the standard for the entire existence of mankind until very recently. Nor is it exactly something put to bed, as Russia so ably demonstrates. In historical terms, this country would never exist. We have no defenses and are uninterested in erecting any. We are undefended and refuse to defend ourselves. We exist on the suffrage of a more enlightened age. For now.

What a hyperbole-laden woke rant. Are you really that oblivious to history? I mean, just to start with they had no houses to burn down. Building houses was not within their means any more than the wheel. Native bands routinely attacked and slaughtered each other, stole their lands, raped their women, and tortured their men to death. Land belonged to those who could take it and hold it. So it was throughout the world through all of history. Why you weepy lefties insist on trying to portray Britain's relatively benign colonization here as something shocking and horrific with consequences that must endure for centuries is beyond me other than gross stupidity and self-dramatization. We're in today. The natives should simply be told they're lucky enough to be citizens of Canada. All reservations closed, all money sent to natives eliminated. They can move into the cities and towns and work like the rest of us.

This is the same play on words we constantly hear from the far left. Everything that denies them what they want is unkind. Every policy they advocate is good so everyone who opposes them is bad. They want to help people, and all their ideas do that so those who oppose their ideas don't want to help people. I mean, this sort of attitude is both intellectually barren and childish. It's the kind of sneering attitude you hear from know it all adolescents who actually don't know much about anything. I've come to accept there is something intrinsically missing in the lives of these people. They have nothing in their lives that makes them feel good about themselves so they take on this 'noble' undertaking of being white knights to whatever cause will give them a better sense of self-esteem and superiority over others.

Federal Indigenous spending, however, continues to grow faster than overall spending. It is projected to rise from about $25 billion in fiscal 2021-22 to about $35.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of 42 percent in nominal dollars. Indigenous spending continues to rise as a proportion of the federal budget, from 6.1 percent in 2019-20 to 7.7 percent in 2026-27—an increase of 26 percent in seven years. Indigenous spending is increasingly driven by the negotiated settlement of class actions, such as those for Indian residential schools, Indian day schools, Indian hospitals, and boil-water advisories on Indian reserves. The biggest of these settlements is the $40 billion child welfare settlement announced in December 2021. The impact of this settlement upon Indigenous spending is difficult to observe because, under the principles of accrual accounting, much of it is backdated to earlier years. The Trudeau government has missed all its previous budgetary targets for Indigenous spending, so the increases announced in Budget 2022 will probably prove to be underestimates, especially if class actions continue to put unpredictable pressures on Indigenous funding commitments. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/indigenous-spending-in-budget-2022#:~:text=Federal Indigenous spending%2C however%2C continues,42 percent in nominal dollars. If it's useless, can we please have the money back? Money. More money. Self-government. Control over vast lands. More money. I'm reminded of a quote from Thomas Sowell who said that after studying what he called 'lagging groups' all around the world in a variety of countries he determined that the leadership of those groups never want to lead them toward goals that will bring them equality and integration with the mainstream because that would rob them of their power. So instead they advocate policies that will keep them down. We still have the Indian Act because native chiefs insist on keeping it. Everything you say is too woke and too dumb for me to comprehend.

And if I trusted the courts to decide anything based purely on evidence as opposed to their own progressive ideological beliefs I'd be more sanguine about that. But given the courts officially give credence to what a native says his grandfather told him HIS grandfather told him and HIS grandfather told him, and treat that as actual evidence, I'm not too confident.

It hasn't dawned on you that I don't believe they should get a damned thing more or less than what any other Canadian gets, has it?