I am Groot

Canadians don't like to think much about the world outside our borders. And when we do too many of us tend to comfort ourselves by thinking most of those people are just like us. Maybe they speak another language, wear different clothes, eat different foods, but essentially, they're mostly like us. Of course, they're not. It's not considered politically correct to judge them and their cultures and values, but a lot of them are only one or two steps removed from the slavering hordes of barbarians who would overrun more civilized cities from China to Rome. The Chinese and Romans built walls to keep them out. So has Israel. We like to think that man has changed since the days when barbarians, both Christian and Muslim, got over the walls of Constantinople to rape and slaughter at will. But that's unfortunately not true. As Ukraine and now Israel amply demonstrate, the vicious, slavering hordes are still out there, still desperate to get over the walls to where civilized people are so they can slaughter and rape. Only now they use AK47s rather than swords and spears. The world has gotten a lot nastier over the last decade, and a lot more dangerous. But Canada, under the reign of our shallow, vacuous prime minister, continues to prance through the daisies without a care in the world. Other countries, even the less militaristic ones like Finland and Sweden, can get alarmed and start to rapidly build up their militaries. But not us. Other nations can urgently increase production and purchases of military gear, but not us. Other nations can shore up their 'walls' but we have no concerns at all. We don't really know who crosses into our territory, and we don't care. If agents of foreign powers hostile to us want to roam around, threatening people, bribing politicians, spying on us, well, so what? National security is just not any kind of concern for the Liberal government. They care about neither foreign nor domestic threats. Vicious, violent criminals in the streets are to be pitied and shown empathy and forgiveness, for protecting Canadians is just not something that pops into the illiberal heads that rule us. It's not their fault, after all, it's our fault, society's fault. Protection? No interest there. Down south, concern over security is helping the Republicans and threatening the Democrats' hold on power. They can't control the border, in large measure, people think, because they don't want to. They have the same mushy, empty-headed policies of easy bail, slack sentencing, and quick parole as Trudeau does and it's produced the same results: shambling, violent, crazed drug addicts wandering through the downtown assaulting and smashing while the courts smile benignly and then look the other way. And if Trump gets re-elected you can damn well bet he's not going to be showing any sympathy to Canada's freeloading, two-faced government. I think there's a very real chance he'll either dismantle NATO ot throw us out of it as useless. And it would be hard to argue the point. Which would leave us next door to Russia and with a hostile China sticking their nose up there in the Arctic, and no military to assert our sovereignty. But if this concerns Trudeau, there's no sign of it. He's still prancing his way through the flowers without a thought in his head.

If passed, the legislation will allow police officers to ask a person using drugs in any of these places to cease the activity and leave the area for another appropriate area, such as an overdose prevention or supervised consumption site. If a person refuses this direction, the police officer may choose to proceed with enforcement measures, if appropriate. What a joke! Catch a guy shooting up and you can politely ask him to do it somewhere else! Talk about draconian legislation! LOL. And if the addict tells the cop to get stuffed what exactly is the cop to do? Arrest is not really an option. And even if you did arrest them they'd be out on no-bail immediately. It's extremely unlikely the BC crown prosecutors' office would okay any charges, and even if they did the judges would just give the addict a pat on the head and send them right back out there to do it again.

They need to go to prison.

Ibbitson's a comfortably ensconced member of the Laurentian Elites, and has always had a hate on for Poilievre. He's quite content with most of Trudeau's policies. He is an open borders advocate and wants guns banned, for example. So you can take it as a given that anything he writes regarding Poiilevre will be slanted. I'm not a fan of Poilievre myself, mostly for the reasons Ibbitson writes about. But I will vote for him and there's no question Ibbitson will be voting for Trudeau. Poilievre's irritating little mannerisms, his eagerness to politically exploit things, and his cozying up to anti-vaxxers and conspiracy types is annoying, but they're a minor part of his overall policies. What's more important is getting rid of Trudeau so someone can rebuild the country's institutions and reputation, and stop dividing Canadians along racial, sexual and religious lines - which Trudeau does deliberately. And to clamp down on the leftist laxity in crime and punishment. Not to mention immigration and refugees. We also need to stop borrowing money, and it's quite obvious we never will under Trudeau.

Have you seen the one that the jury selected? Personally, I think the other one is better. https://daoustlestage.com/en/project/the-national-monument-to-canadas-mission-in-afghanistan/

Riiight. All we have to do is give every little native village billions of dollars and they'll buy all kinds of stuff!

Not good at admitting you're wrong, are you?

Theoretically, how does the father talk to the media without doing this? I mean, refuse to them his name? That won't get you any interviews at all. And once he talks about his son/daughter it's going to be pretty obvious what their name is whether he uses it or not.

The small, smooth brain types of the Left always believe they're being noble and good and that their policies are to 'help people'. Therefore, anyone who opposes them must not want to help people, and thus want to hurt people. It's a moral stance that removes the need to discuss things by portraying those who disagree as immoral, hateful, evil, etc. Trudeau has been doing it for years.

Hardner is hardcore pro-trans. It's one of those subjects that makes his eyes bulge out of his head whenever anyone disagrees. Islam is another. Any disrespect for Islam enrages him.

Another girl was arrested, charged, and convicted because she posted the lyrics to her friend's favorite rap song on facebook in memorial to them as they had recently died.

Here are the most violent places in Canada: Overall Violent crime Non-violent crime CITY / TOWN POP. CSI % CHNG CSI % CHNG CSI % CHNG Pelican Narrows SK 2,133 1,002.6 +7.0% 2,019.3 +7.8% 604.7 +5.9% Nisichawayasihk (Nelson House) MB 11,198 1,007.7 +35.9% 1,500.2 -3.3% 819.4 +93.4% La Loche SK 2,009 1,034.4 +0.4% 1,476.7 +22.0% 866.3 -10.4% Cumberland House SK 4,190 790.5 +46.4% 1,310.0 +71.3% 589.6 +29.7% Black Lake SK 3,266 1,237.2 -5.3% 1,107.4 -26.4% 1,299.5 +4.9% Sheshatshiu NL 1,049 875.4 -22.5% 1,055.5 -24.9% 810.8 -21.2% Thompson MB 12,329 531.4 +17.3% 991.6 +31.6% 352.0 +4.5% La Ronge SK 5,317 631.3 +12.9% 971.2 +13.8% 500.8 +12.3% Lac Seul ON 3,452 489.9 -25.5% 902.0 -39.2% 329.4 -1.2% Cambridge Bay NU 1,403 486.3 -19.4% 835.8 -31.6% 350.7 -3.0% Rankin Inlet NU 2,698 444.5 +18.4% 676.4 +26.1% 355.6 +13.2% Iqaluit NU 6,991 562.5 +3.1% 673.7 +21.5% 522.8 -4.4% Manawan QC 1,597 278.7 -85.8% 655.7 -80.7% 130.3 -90.7% Elk Point AB 1,394 355.1 -32.1% 563.9 -40.4% 274.6 -23.3% High Level https://canadacrimeindex.com/crime-severity-index?sort=violent_crime_severity_index&min_population=0&province= Uh huh

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.