I am Groot

I don't respect the supreme court. I also don't respect the Trudeau constitution. I don't look to either for truth. Yeah, like it was two years ago in my rearview mirror all you lefties lost your minds about 'mass graves' and we still haven't turned up any. What the hell you been doing all this time? Crying?

Now, now. I cut you some slack as you're clearly not a very well-educated person. Well, or very intelligent or well-read or, well, well-mannered. But anyway. The problem with the Western hemisphere is that it lacked certain necessary ingredients to form higher-level civilizations. One of the most important ones is an animal that can be easily tamed and used to greatly improve productivity as well as provide transportation. I know that we're used to seeing natives racing across the plains on horses shooting at the white soldiers in movies but they had no horses until the Spanish brought them here. No camels. No oxen. No donkeys. They also lacked easily tameable food animals, like cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens. Aside: there are a few breeds of sheep native to North America but despite being closely related to the ones we think of, none has ever been domesticated. There is also a severe lack of grain crops that were easily grown/harvested and produced proper nutrition for large numbers of people. Without all of these, and a few other things the hemisphere lacked, living is a hand-to-mouth thing and there's just no hands left to spare, nor time to spare, for specialization that develops expertise in things like building and mining, developing a written language, poetry, scientific experimentation, etc. etc. I didn't say it was the natives fault that they wouldn't have developed, but they wouldn't have, just as they never had prior to the arrival of the white man. Same goes for Africa, and for mostly the same reasons, plus a few others besides.

Why? The natives never needed such things when they took land away from other natives.

No one has suggested colonialism was an unparalleled good, nor that it wasn't covered with warts. But refusing to acknowledge the good it did is nothing but a dishonest product of the West's habit of self-abasement before any and all minority that rants at them.Just as a start, if the white men had never come to this hemisphere the natives would still be in the stone age, still brutalizing, murdering, enslaving and torturing each other, and still living a hand-to-mouth existence and dying young.

And which of the 'colonized' were pleasant people? Slavery and war were practiced all over Africa by local tribes. Slavery, mass murder and torture were common in the Western Hemisphere before the white man came. India was a brutal, warring shithole before the British colonized it. Who exactly was 'pleasant' back in the day?

All of Canada was conquered. The winners didn't need the losers to sign off on a surrender - especially since the losers were illiterate.

Why are they without voices? Aren't you being paternalistic and infantilizing them? Really? And every one of them was a native, right? Cuz that never happened to any white children...

What about nations colonized by non-Europeans? Why limit it?

CdnFox and Army Guy, you two really need to just bloody well put each other on ignore.

You've always been a woke, culture war twat.

The problem is that progressives, while a minority, congregate in the arts, entertainment, and media, as well as academia. This has allowed them to slowly indoctrinate people, starting in university (and now working their way down into K-12 schools) and through a distorted media lens. And since none of them have more than a few brain cells, no vision or ideas, they take all their cues from the United States. Whatever is the latest political/social fad in the US becomes the same here. And being emotionally immature they seize upon every new fad as of critical importance to the universe and any disagreement as blasphemy in need of punishment. So our history, as benign as it was, is to be singled out as the most horrifically evil in the world and our ancestors must be renounced and condemned for everything they've done which, while it was pretty common in their day, is blasphemy in ours. Egypt can hold grand celebrations of its conquering, slave-taking ancestors but Canada must tear down statues of ours because, well, they made some natives go to school. Also, they came here and took over without permission. Thus the entire country is to be thought of as illegitimate. and continually denounced. Do I need to point out that virtually none of these people could survive in their present occupations without government assistance? That their talents, if I can use that term, would not command sufficient approval or interest among ordinary people for them to quit their day jobs at Starbucks?

That appears to be a misrepresentation of his views. But you know that. Utterly irrelevent.

I realize that's a popular Liberal party talking point but it makes zero sense to anyone with more than half a brain or who is paying any real attention. Which, I concede, leaves out most Liberal voters. Lots of public inquiries have been done in the past which sifted through classified material and were able to determine what was and was not able to be publicly released. More to the point, people don't really care about methodology or sources. They want to know what the Liberals were informed of and when and what they did about it. None of which is going to harm Canada's national security. They also want to know if there's legitimate cause to believe a number of MPs are in the pocket of the Chinese government. Again, this is a threat only to the security of the Liberal Party, not Canada. Further, what they really want is someone honest and unbiased to do an inquiry independent of the government, a person or group with the power to compel documents and testimony under oath. As to NSICOP, they report to the PM and are his creature, with no powers to compel anyone to give them anything. NSIRA, meanwhile is a review agency with oversight of security agencies but NONE of the government itself. Poilievre getting a security clearance is also nothing but a Liberal talking point. All he'll see is what they choose to show him (much like Johnston). He'll have no ability to question, and no ability to speak of what he sees.

No, I actually know something about the law. Been in this country long? You've seemed like kind of an A-hole since you arrived, actually. So at least you're consistent. Yawn.

You provided no links, just a demand everyone wail and rend their flesh in guilt and shame because a portion of native children were forced to go to residential schools during a thirty year period a century ago.

That's not the way it works in defamation suits, son. The plaintiff rarely has to 'prove' you said or wrote what you did. Especially when it's in the media. YOU now have to prove what you said about someone is correct.

The standard is simple. You say something about someone, then you have to prove it's correct to a jury.

To what? And don't say 'the Liberal problem'.

You are such a walking, talking cliche of headline knowledge with no background details! Yes, indeed, schools were established, in part because natives ASKED FOR THEM! But attendance was NOT mandatory until a change made to the Indian Act in 1920. And that act was repealed in 1951. Neither do the Americans but they seem to be doing a decent job showing Ukrainians how to fight Russians.

I did. You didn't. Was made mandatory in 1920. Ended in 1951. Btw, it wasn't even necessarily mandatory. The change to the Indian act actually made it mandatory for native kids to attend either a residential school or a day school. By 1951 a LOT more day schools had been built and very few kids were still in residential schools. The act was repealed and replaced with a different one which no longer required native kids to attend residential schools, though some did anyway. Many more day schools were constructed during the 1950s.

LOL! Here's the guy who had a fulminating fit because I said the same thing to him in an offhand comment and repeatedly demanded apologies, then put me on ignore when I refused casually tossing the same suggestion out! Hypocrisy much, Mikey? But they shouldn't be allowed to compete in womens sports. And the world outside the sanctimonious countries like Canada has already begun to pull back from that idea. https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/65051900

I posted a cite about a month ago that explained the beliefs behind drag queens reading to children and that it was being done specifically to make them reconsider the societal assumptions about being straight and getting married, and make them more open to the idea of 'other sexualities' but it was too long and complicated for him. Despite the fact he's made defending the idea of transgenderism and drag queens the focal point of his online life. Calling drag queens groomers is not incorrect, even if they're not grooming them for sex with themselves personally. And the active work in teaching very small children about homosexuality and transgenderism in schools is pretty damned strange, as well. And largely being pushed by people who are very strong ideologues and proselytizers for some unappetizing things. Posted April 7 I concede it is long, but if you were actually interested in it you could, like I did, skim through much of it to get to the more relevant paragraphs. But you can't really see it in just a couple of brief paragraphs. Kornstein also published the manifesto for the movement, “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood,” with coauthor Harper Keenan, a female-to-male transgender queer theorist at the University of British Columbia. With citations to Foucault and Butler, the essay begins by applying queer theory’s basic premise of social constructivism and heteronormativity to the education system. “The professional vision of educators is often shaped to reproduce the state’s normative vision of its ideal citizenry. In effect, schooling functions as a way to straighten the child into a kind of captive alignment with the current parameters of that vision,” Kornstein and Keenan write. “To state it plainly, within the historical context of the USA and Western Europe, the institutional management of gender has been used as a way of maintaining racist and capitalist modes of (re)production.” To disrupt this dynamic, the authors propose a new teaching method, “drag pedagogy,” as a way of stimulating the “queer imagination,” teaching kids “how to live queerly,” and “bringing queer ways of knowing and being into the education of young children.” As Kornstein and Keenan explain, this is an intellectual and political project that requires drag queens and activists to work toward undermining traditional notions of sexuality, replacing the biological family with the ideological family, and arousing transgressive sexual desires in young children. “Building in part from queer theory and trans studies, queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the normative function of schooling through transformative education,” they write. “This is a fundamentally different orientation than movements towards the inclusion or assimilation of LGBT people into the existing structures of school and society.” For the drag pedagogists, the traditional life path—growing up, getting married, working 40 hours a week, and raising a family—is an oppressive bourgeois norm that must be deconstructed and subverted. As the drag queens take the stage in their sexually suggestive costumes, Kornstein and Keenan argue, their task is to disrupt the “binary between womanhood and manhood,” seed the room with “gender-transgressive themes,” and break the “reproductive futurity” of the “nuclear family” and the “sexually monogamous marriage”—all of which are considered mechanisms of heterosexual, capitalist oppression. The books selected in many Drag Queen Story Hour performances—Cinderelliot, If You’re a Drag Queen and You Know It, The Gender Wheel, Bye Bye, Binary, and They, She, He, Easy as ABC—promote this basic narrative. Though Drag Queen Story Hour events are often billed as “family-friendly,” Kornstein and Keenan explain that this is a form of code: “It may be that DQSH is ‘family friendly,’ in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship. Here, DQSH is ‘family friendly’ in the sense of ‘family’ as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.” That is, the goal is not to reinforce the biological family but to facilitate the child’s transition into the ideological family. After the norms of gender, sexuality, marriage, and family are called into question, the drag queen can begin replacing this system of values with “queer ways of knowing and being.” Kornstein and Keenan make no bones about it: the purpose of what they call drag pedagogy, or the “pedagogy of desire,” is about reformulating children’s relationship with sex, sexuality, and eroticism. They describe drag as a “site of queer pleasure” that promises to “turn rejection into desire” and “[transform] the labour of performance into the pleasure of participation,” and DQSH as offering a “queer relationality” between adult and child. They litter their paper with sexualized language and double entendres, blurring the lines between adult sexuality and childhood innocence. In fact, as the queer pedagogist Hannah Dyer has written, queer pedagogy and, by extension, drag pedagogy seek to expose the very concept of “childhood innocence” as an oppressive heteropatriarchal illusion. “ https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-real-story-behind-drag-queen-story-hour

You seem to be confused. My query was not on how to combine replies to different posts but how to keep them separate. Something you had no answer to either.

As I recall - it being some distance back - he was trying to find someone who would be seen as properly neutral, and not just some tory hack. Well, we'd had a serious of bad choices from Chretien who nobody liked or respected. His choice was better than they were and better than the dumb twat Trudeau chose, or the native he chose after her. Maybe Conservatives just have more respect for the position and want someone in it who will properly embrace the dignity of the Crown - vs Liberals who just want to score diversity points.