I am Groot

Your previous exchange with me was about my statement regarding applying Trudeau's definition of cultural genocide to English Canadians. Now you've jumped back into a different topic. If you think we are guilty of ACTUAL genocide on natives (which even Trudeau doesn't claim) please show me some evidence of it. Also, please explain why there are so many natives still around. It's a moronic claim.

Society is not becoming woke. If that were the case then the court would reflect Canadian values. It does not. Wokeness is not popular among Canadians. It is popular among urban university graduates of the humanities and liberal arts. Further, 'woke' has nothing to do with equality. It does not call for equality but equity. These are unrelated concepts. In many ways, they are complete opposites. Conservatives don't support 'trans rights' because the idea of gender fludity is contrary to evolution, biology, science and basic reality. It's a fad inflated by fanatics and the mentally ill. Conservatives generally don't have much problem with the rest, though they would prefer if it wasn't flaunted as some kind of magnificent life choice. If you want to be gay then go for it. Just don't demand I wave a damn rainbow flag, attend a stupid parade and applaud your bravery. Jesus, just shut the hell up about it. It's not my business. Why do you suppose he had to try to appoint a semi-retired judge? Why would you be sure of that? After more than a decade of Liberal appointees do you think there were a lot of conservative judges to choose from? You have a habit of getting your panties in a twist every time I mention something that is absolutely common knowledge and suggest that you know it too. Stop it. It's silly. My suggesting you know something is not an insult but a determination that you are politically active and sufficiently well-read to know something.

To the extremist left anything which goes against the holy kant of diversity, equity and inclusion is 'hate speech'. The supreme court specifically said this was NOT hate speech, not that I expect you actually read or know anything about the case.

Uh, judges are considered to be the height of wisdom? Why? Do they take wisdom courses or something? Are they selected and promoted based on their IQ? In a perfect world, judges would be selected based upon the clarity and brilliant legal arguments they make on paper or in oral arguments, and moved up the ladder according to how insightful and just they were. But we are not in that world and you know it. Judges are selected according to the following criteria 1 Must be from the province in question 2 Must be bilingual 3 Must be progressive 4 Number of diversity points So we have the latest judge appointed: Michelle O'Bonsawin, as an example. Her primary qualifications are she's a francophone native. While you ought to be appointed to the supreme court after decades of demonstrated legal and judicial brilliance she had been a judge for only six years when appointed. During that time she had not exactly made a name for herself with her insightful rulings. That would require unbiased judges, which we do not have.

It was. But the judiciary has become irreparably politicized over the past couple of decades. It started in law schools, which are the wokest parts of any university you'll find, determinedly graduating legions of social justice warriors. Then came a succession of Liberal governments appointing the most leftward and progressive judges they could find. By the time Harper got into power he couldn't really find anyone conservative to put on the supreme court and was reduced to trying to appoint a semi-retired judge. The ones on the supreme court changed the law and said that was illegal so he had to appoint another liberal progressive.

The other appointed members of the diversity squad, you mean? And they are supposed to be an authority on discrimination? Did they take a diversity course or something? But then, when you're on the supreme diversity squad the law is whatever the hell you say it is.

You really are a waste of skin tissue, aren't you.

We aren't speaking of Canada's indigenous being mishandled. We're speaking of the way the Liberals set about severing English Canadians from their historical past and institutions in hopes of pleasing Quebec.

So hiring or promotion based on merit is now discrimination? Have I got that right? That these governments have little interest in freedom of speech is supposed to be an argument in favor of quashing freedom of speech?

Those are not his claims. Yes, and you exhibit that trait with every post.

No, nor a Liberal apologist. I think you're having trouble reading.

What was he supposedly aware of and how? Specifics. It's not money going to him, you twat! You think China was directing money to him!? The money was directed to others to oppose him. It hasn't been established that the Chinese government acted on anything at that time.

When Johnson met with Erin O'Toole about the interference which allegedly took place while he was leader of the Conservative Party the report was already finished and had been sent for French translation... “To set the scene, Mr. Johnston did not reach out to the Conservative Party, my office, or Pierre Poilievre’s office until the final week of his initial assignment. He waited until the very end to meet with the current and former leaders of the party that had been the central target of the foreign interference he was charged with investigating,” O’Toole wrote. “You might understand how disappointed I was to learn halfway through my meeting that Johnston’s report was already undergoing French translation. I was flabbergasted and realized that nothing I was going to provide to the Special Rapporteur was going to impact his work,” he added. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/erin-otoole-says-special-rapporteur-only-met-with-him-as-report-was-already-being-translated

David Johson, whose lifelong fascination with China, his eagerness to forge closer ties with them, his complete lack of concern for their authoritarian government, his lifelong friendship with Trudeau, and his membership in the Trudeau foundation made him the perfect "unbiased" candidate to investigate possible Chinese interference and Liberal wrongdoing today announced that everything is wonderful, no member of the government had any knowledge of anything, and by the way, visit China! It's a great tourist destination! Oh, he did express deep concern about the information from CSIS getting out to the grimy public, and said the government must work hard at finding the dastardly traitor who seeks to damage the harmonious relationship between Canada and his beloved China. He will, however, conduct 'public hearings' where people chosen for their proper views will get to make those views known while he listens and looks thoughtful while conducting further fat paycheques. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-public-inquiry-david-johnston-to-instead-conduct-public-hearings-on-foreign-interference

Except for all those reports they were sending up the ladder to Trudeau and Blair and the privy council office and the PM's national security advisor, and the foreign affairs minister, you mean? It's a vague possibility that the government was 'in the dark' on these matters, but only if they were so utterly uncaring about national security matters (which I grant you would not be out of character for them) that they couldn't be bothered to read any of the reports or memos.

Yeaah, you're full of shit. Deliberate, orchestrated political interference by a hostile foreign government that includes recruiting and intimidating local expatriates, making their foreign students here illegally vote in candidate meetings, bussing expatriates in from other ridings, and funneling dark money to them is not an accepted tradition in our democracy. I realize that to people like you it would be far preferable to have Canada completely controlled by China rather than risk a Conservative government, but most of the rest of us are not so comfortable with authoritarianism.

Why would he know where the anti-Chong messages are coming from? How would he know what money is being funneled to whom?

This has been the policy of the Liberals for decades now, starting with Trudeau the Elder, and meant to make TROC more palatable to the delicate, dainty, refined tastes of Quebec's Francophones. I realize such things are of no interest to you since, like Trudeau, you're proud of a country that is not a nation and has no 'core identity' but the rest of us have concerns. Basic reality? WTF are you even talking about? How old are you? I don't ask that as an insult, but it's clear you don't have any familiarity with the Canada of say fifty years ago or with the actions and behaviour of Trudeau's father.

That wasn't the point of the article, Mr. Strawman. Though I could make an argument that at least half if not more ARE worse off without much effort. It depends on the criteria you use.

Why? A deliberate policy effort to separate English Canadians from their roots, traditions, history, and institutions fits with the description the Liberals use for cultural genocide. Yeeeaah, bullshit. Try and stop me.

China has an unusual number of 'diplomats' in Canada. Three times more than it has in Australia, more than it has in the UK, almost the same number as it has in the US. Most of them are spies. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/why-does-canada-have-a-disproportionately-high-number-of-chinese-diplomats-1.6408620

Pardon me for going with what the social scientists say, pretty much unanimously, as far as I'm aware. Not that there aren't exceptions, of course.

Certainly, you can. But of course, that would fail if the kettle was, in fact, black. True enough. So all you'd have to do is demonstrate this to a court and they'd throw out the lawsuit against you. However, the SC stated that the speech involved here was NOT hate speech. This ought to mean there should be some interpretation done by the courts if someone gets called names in public, if they are defamed, so to speak. It's interesting that given this court has used hypothetical possibilities or cases to strike down laws, however unlikely those possibilities might be it seems to be saying in this case that since the individual got re-elected, well, all's good. But what about future cases where someone loses their job? Their scholarship? Their place at college because someone started calling them undeserved names? And as one example we could do worse than JK Rowling. As immensely popular and successful as she is, as much effort and money as she's devoted to Left-wing causes since becoming rich, she is now persona non grata to most of the Left and their organizations. There'd be riots at any university which dared to allow her to come speak or read her work. She has to hire a ton more security to protect her everywhere she goes. She's inundated with threats of rape and death. All because she politely disagreed on the holy trans issue. So no, you don't have to praise Hitler to draw thunderous condemnation down on you. And you might well say she's rich enough and powerful enough to survive cancellation, and she is, but many other are not and have been squashed by vitriolic campaigns of character assassination launched by fanatics of the church of woke. But you feel they should have no recourse under the law to sue their harassers. I know it establishes that people who accuse other people of being bigots, racists, homophobes, transphobes, etc., are acting for the noble good of all mankind and so cannot be sued by the wretched, evil, blasphemous heretics who have dared to go against the holy writ of woke.

What part of 'every individual is equal before and under the law' sounds like it allows for deliberately unequal treatment in law, in criminal justice, in hiring and promotion, based solely on race? Now, if the court can point to something being done which is illegal they should order that organization to stop. But they haven't done that. Any more than the government has. Instead, they seem to have taken unequal economic/participation statistics as proof of discrimination. Oddly, they only ever do this when a group can be unequally compared to white men on the downside. If a racialized group is doing BETTER than white people, that's ignored. No one ever suggests that somehow the system is cheating on their behalf and discriminating against whites. The system also doesn't care if male participation at universities or other organizations is lower or even much lower than their numbers in the population at large. They would only care if it was higher.

The modern variant of it.