CdnFox

Still confused i believe. I don't recall saying it was illegal to be transphobic. However - speaking in a fashion that is deemed to be transphobic could well land you criminal hate speech charges depending, and an even lower bar is a trip to the provincial human rights council. As for Peterson, he doesn't say anything negative about trans people, he mostly says nobody should be compelled in their speech by law. It's one thing to say you can't say a word, it's another to say you must. But of course the left MUST make him out to be a nazi and homophobe and transphobe and racist and .. sorry did i miss any of your favorite slanders? the left does love to pile them on

Those two things are not in conflict - if anything conservative support for ev's to the degree their tech has matured is in keeping with their vision of how best to deal with climate change. Well assuming that's true one can still believe climate change exists and also believe ev's aren't a good solution for that. The science is not THAT clear and there are issues. So there's room for debate. That doesn't make them deniers, it just means that they don't think EV's are part of the solution. And i did note in that thread that even those who don't think they're much of a good idea overall did feel that in specific cases they probably would be and they support that. I think i posted earlier an article showing that the republicans are open to climate change policy - they just put a different priority on it and think different solutions are in order. But sure - the republicans ratchet up the rhetoric, and the dems are every bit as bad or worse on the other side, making equally rediculous claims and we wind up seeing this stupid tribal culture emerge where having an intelligent conversation about it (or anything else) becomes near impossible. it's how politics is done these days. Ahhh no. Cimate change wasn't even on the public radar when the first HEV's came on the market. They were sold more as a way to save at the pump and reduce the costs of gas. You may not have been around in the 90's but i remember the marketing well. And 'less pollution in the cities' was a thing, not global warming. So no. And the NEXT big jump to full electric was driven by ELON MUSK. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting he's a liberal? Or some how caved to left wing pressure to start up an electric car company? The reason those things exist is because capitalist entrepreneurs saw a market, and moved to fill it. And that's just how the next round will come. WtF?!?! What country do you live in boy? You can't be canadian and say that with a straight face. You very clearly do not know anything about carbon taxes. Tell me you're not canadian without telling me. You are 100 billion percent wrong in this country. Imagine saying carbon tax only applies to business. I don't know why they would, it's well established that the truth is horrific enough. His footprint is insane. well what IS he doing to minimize those activites? I mean - we're all going to die if we don't, and i thought you said carbon emissions were SUPPOSED to apply to businesses not people. From the PEW research paper i posed. Please pay attention. And even you can't argue that PEW is bias. Uhhhhh - you realize that's an article on the effect of climate policy, which is not what we're discussing. And the rest shows how many believe who the biggest influence is when considering mankind's influence over natrure's in whats causing climate change - Not who does or doesnt' believe in climate change. And there is no column for 'no influence'. And when you look at the republicans its way more than 50 percent who think it's substantial, either moderate or higher. You misread it. In fact it shows that the strong majority of republicans think man causes climate change significantly and for the remainder a good hunk think it does somewhat. Which jives with the previous pew research i posted showing only 18 percent don't thnk climate change is a thing. Thanks for proving MY point - odd thing to do really. Maybe you should have read that more. All that paper shows you is it was correct and you don't know how to read papers And i care why? Sorry but that's not even relevant. As i recall it was AOC or the like who said the trend will be irreversible and we would all die if we didn't get it under control within 4 years. THat was about 4 years ago. Everyone laughed and eventually she had to change her tune. Politicians can say stupid things if they think someone's going to like it,that only shows politicians can be stupid. I knew that already.

Ok - pick five and i'll show you how the rest of the country sees it. The liberals said it was. The military didn't say much when they added seven plus years to the procurement process. So - why would the public believe different? Surely the gov't knows. Well that's a question i can answer. I have a car and have owned cars. But i have no idea how long they keep planes. They don't drive the planes to work every day right? They spend lots and lots of money fixing them so maybe they last longer? i don't know - i'm just a lowly civillian. So when the gov't tells me things are fine who am i to say otherwise? If it was REALLY urgent someone would be making a fuss about it. They really don't. And pretending they do is just as bad as pretending that our military is in good shape. The public thinks some of our gear is old but no big deal. Honestly. Sometimes you hear the military would like new gear but everyone everywhere likes new gear. How bad can it be? So on one side we've got you and your type in the military thinking everyone knows. On the other side we've got the people oblivious thinking everythings more or less fine. And in between, the politicians who get to pretty much get away with whatever they like. You see the problem. Now i get the military has to be careful speaking out officially but some way or another there has to be a serious effort to educate the public. If a politician like PP does it they'll call him a warmonger. He can push a little but it ain't gonna cut it on it's own.

nope -it's done by the left. The left just excuses it or says it's not a result of the person's left leaning beliefs. Pretty much as you tried to do with the pelosi attack. Virtually none of that makes sense or represents a reasoned argument. the fact that i agree with people's right to self defense within parameters does not in any way shape or form speak to my "problems" with antifa. Nor does it limit what issues i may have with antifa. Nor does it suggest i've been 'brainwashed'. Sooooo - you just making crap up at random now or... whatcha doing? The repression of people's right to speak if it's not positively viewed by the left and the willingness to use physical force to enforce that. Sure it is. That's like saying "name one lie donald trump told, but remember that deliberately telling a falsehood isn't lying." Yeah - it is, and you can't make that go away just by declaring it. YOu're not Michael Scott from the Office tv show Nope. they don't. Polls sugggest that they might not see the term as being exclusively bad but they do not want to be considered woke themselves, they think of it negatively when it's applied to them. And it gets even worse when they get polled on antifa. Sorry but the excessive nature of the so called "woke" or politically correct or social justice warrior or what have you is starting to turn people off. That's one of the reasons trump won, and lets face it if he hadn't been so freaking crazy on his twitter and in the media scrums he probably would have gotten elected again. Even you here - i'm usualy the kind to look at both sides of things and consider opinions pros and cons but you come across as SO hate filled and over the top that it's hard to think of your position with anything other than amusement or distain. And that's pretty much how north america is coming to see the left these days. And biden isn't wowing anyone, that's for sure.

Whooopps - i think you got confused again. Although i can certainly understand that you'd want to limit the possible rebuttals to your position.

It's not harrassment in the slightest if you're approaching the principle. And he was ignored and turned away. If he's pinning the trans kids to the wall and demanding they stay out of the bathroom - that's harassment and bullying. But i don't see that in that article. But it would be reversed in this case. And this isn't a 'store'. That is LITERALLY voicing his opinion (i know you meant that instead of rights) which should be his right to do. Protests and counter protests happen all the time. Now - you might think that's a bad idea. I actually tend to as well. But he does have the right to protest and he does have the right to his opinion. ANd there's nothing radical about "boys should not be in the girls bathroom", it's a complex issue Ok - ten internets for 'implied joke' But at the end of the day it's not about our sympathy or lack of it for the kids' cause or beliefs. It's how his rights to those beliefs and to express them were handled. And can we agree that having an opinion shouldn't? (to be honest no employer is going to look this far back and his 'criminal' history won't appear in a search so it probably won't.) I don't recall saying he attempted to dial down the temperature. I think he did it AFTER he tried the more reasonable method of approaching the school and got rebuffed. But it's also worth noting that if the counter protest is why they banned him - that is an event off of school as i understand it. So - now this isn't about any on school policy, this is just they don't like him. Well he's a little bit the victim. They did choose to ban him. That was a choice they made, and it's very heavy handed. They might very well find that's not ok and they overstepped. I'm not saying the kid didn't play a part in all of this but they chose not to discuss the matter with him and then when he took other action they banned him, and when he challegned that they arrested him. He's a child - this is not the way you handle children

Yeah - actually i read your comment wrong originally and mistook it for he could have not said what he said and been arrested. But at the end of the day he still would have been punished by having his education taken away. So it's not like he woudln't have suffered serious punishment. Lets face it - while the arrest is 'shocking' for headlines the suspension is likely the more serious of the two punishments.

I'll thank you to leave my 'stick' out of this young man.

How the hell did you two manage to turn this into a thread about vaccines?

https://globalnews.ca/news/9549813/quebec-amqui-crash-suspect-charges/ Guess you don't need a gun to go on a killing spree

So you should stand up for your rights unless someone tells you not to? Feels like there's a problem with that somewhere.. Well i'll point out that civil disobedience is baked into canadian law - which means you absolutely are entitled if your intent is to challenge the law. Which he appears to be doing. And again - this is all over him stating his opinion. But but but - you've made it clear that that's fine if it's a rule. Nobody has a right to not obey the rule. No, there was no 'tattoing' here - this was a discussion that wasn't started by him because some girls already felt uncomfortable. if you haven't heard the other side - how do you know they're leaving a lot out?

Sure sure - provide your source which shows that was his intent. He went through it at the time, until you actually have the books in front of you it's often not possible to see the full effect and everyone accepted that at the time. And he still stood up and explained it and said this is why we screwed up. So no lie there. Remember - we're looking for evidence of HIM lying. Not you. Well everyone else watching you dance like a monkey to try to avoid it sure has Still can't come up with a single example of Harper lying can you But but but but - there must be at least one! He lies constantly according to you Uhhhh actually both him and duffy and the other person involved agreed that harper wasn't in the room to discuss it when the loan offer was made. Harper just met with him to say one way or another he had to pay the money back to taxpayers. Soooo - not a lie. There wasn't an ounce of deception there. All figures and how they were arrived at were made fully public. Some people thought that the pilots should have been included in the cost but the gov't did point out we're going to need pilots for ANY plane they buy and didn't consider it plane specific BUT - you could see clearly what they did and didn't include. I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a lie actually is? Are you sure you're not a liberal?

that's like saying he had a choice to not speak his mind in the first place. Technically true but if that's your only recourse it's not much of a choice. It's more like being forced to do something that you believe is in violation of your rights. Weren't you just mentioning you hope your kdis stand up to that kind of thing? Why would a child think he'd be treated any more fairly there than at the school? This isn't a private business. This is a publicly funded learning institution. The child has a right to an education. So to put it in a more realistic light - if your business that you own told a customer "we don't like you because you're jewish/black/gay whatever and then had the person arrested for trespass, that woudln't be ok. Ok - so how do you feel about the year suspension he got then. That is undeniably a direct result of his saying his opinon so - you ok with that too?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tasha-kheiriddin-jagmeet-singh-must-pull-support-for-justin-trudeaus-liberals Jagmeet Singh must pull support for Justin Trudeau's Liberals It is up to the opposition parties to take a stand and put country before party, and let the dominoes fall where they may

Either. Or anything else for that matter. LOL - ahhh and here we see the attempt to change the channel trying to slip the 'his gov't' in as well because you can't find a single example of him doing it If you're so sure he did why can't you find any evidence of it? Sure. And he stood up, owned it, said 'there was information we didn't have and in light of that i have to break my promise", put it to a vote in parliament and everyone voted for it. That's called a mistake. He didn't try to hide it, he didn't try to lie about it, he owned it and said sorry for his screw up. So.. was that the closest you could come to a lie? ROFLMAO! I swear to god i can hear you pulling your hair out from here - you can't find a single thing can you Hilarious! Harper wasn't perfect by any means but obviously as you have discovered he didn't lie to or decieve the public - justin trudeau has been caught doing both on a number of occasions now. You were wrong - sorry you're butthurt over it.

Has anyone anywhere suggested a child would suffer trauma from going to one?

First off - YOUR experts? So... you're a member of the liberal party or what? And sorry but if you have dedicated experts then YOU are being JUST as selective as he is. In any case many neutral experts did say it should be possible. But that's not really the issue. The point is YOU claimed he did NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! Which is in fact a lie. He did try and he tried hard. So.. of the two points you tried to make we can agree that one was completely fake news. If you have to lie to make a point - you don't have a very good point. Uhhh no, he just refused to name any. I thought you knew about this? You haven't come up with a single fact yet kiddo. In fact if anything you've been shown to be wrong So lets cut through the remaining drivel. You got caught lying and now you're just resorting to insults and stupidity. Both your stated 'reasons' were wrong. Harper did make a very serious attempt at change without opening the constitution, which is what he promised, and he absolutely did give more autonomy to the provinces and funded their activites so you were dishonest there again. Which suggests you're just a liberal shill who's furious that his attempt to smear harper went sideways on him. You should have asked "your" experts about it first

The suspension appears to be a direct result of his opinion. So if thats a code of conduct violation, it's still being arrested for his opinion. The story didn't start at fox news, it was widely reported and fox picked it up. So he didn't go running to fox news. With ANY newspaper story there is a LIKELYHOOD that there's parts of it that are wrong and parts that are missing. Always. But - so far these facts seem pretty substantiated. And the school isn't denying them. We'll see what a tribunal says.

No, he couldn't. THat's the point. If he'd said that then there was no suspension and he would have been welcome in class. So if he had said they were not different there'd be no trespass.

Well.... actually that's a step backwards. That's what we used to have. They're revamping it to make batteries easier to make without the more expensive newer tech. But sure, if it drives costs down and makes manufacture easier then more power to them. But they still need the same amount of lithium

Sorry but true was correct. I posted actual facts that address the point but all you've provided is an opinion piece that frankly is just stupid. It's not hypocrisy because this is a 'standard conservative tactic'. What the hell does that have to do with it? Or the claim he's not asking YOU to live a carbon reduced life, just gov'ts. Well how the hell is the gov't going to do anything without affecting me? So he IS asking people to live THEIR lives different. But here's my favorite, and it proves me 100 percent correct from your own article -he's not a hypocrite because LOTS OF LIBERALS DO IT!!!! It's so common they've got a term - learjet liberals So there's your proof that liberals just don't actually care that much about climate change. THey want OTHER people to change as long as it doesn't affect them and they're able to burn as much jet fuel as they want That IS hypocrisy kiddo. Sorry. Also true actually The only groups that do are ones that want to 'greenwash' their own activites and LOOK like they're environmentally friendly. They don't even look into the companies they deal with, MOST OF WHOM ARE FAKE. Here's one of the latest; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe Now - if you gave a crap about the environment and you were using offsets, wouldn't you take the time to see if they really WERE offsetting anything? THis problem has been around for ages and nobody serious uses offsets anymore. It's only remaining value is to convince the weak minded that the company cares somehow. Sorry, it's not a right wing cause in the slightest. The vast majority of conservatives believe the climate is changing. Most of them also believe mankind plays some role in that although they do acknowledge other sources (which is legit and often not researched well). They are MORE apt to say we should be learning to cope with it more than trying to stop it right now. ANd there's an argument for that. According to this research below only 12 percent of those who identify as republican think humans aren't contributing to climate change. That's only a few points higher than democrats. ANd in reality, if you look at the numbers by age it's probably more likely to be an age related issue than a republican/democrat issue. Young people are much more likely to think it's not only real but should be a top priority. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/ So you were wrong there - there is no "conservative cause" to deny climate change. oooooo - sorry, you're wrong again. THat's why we have the carbon tax. If the carbon tax isn't about changing how people use carbon fuels and products - why the hell are they charging it to people. I don't know HOW you forgot about that. But 100 percent absolutely it's about changing people's behavior. No, sorry, carbon offsets are a scam to let people greenwash their activities. If you actually cared about the environment you would just invest in green companies. Sorry kiddo but the whole 'offset 'thing was just a scam. And if you think about it a little it kind of has to be. And even if it did work as intended it would still be exactly as i said. You're excusing your own bad behavior by coattailling on someone else's good behavior as if it magically makes your own behavior good. That's not the way the world works. Entirely the same thing. If you print off copies of those doctor seuss books and distribute them you're also liable for a lawsuit and jail time. As noted you get jailed either way. Soooo - yet another miss. So in other words, you feel that YOUR brand of hate and oppression is better than THEIR brand of it. Because you like your subject matter better. Kid - do you really need me to explain why that's a terrible argument? If you absolutely need me to i will but i'm really hoping you can work that one out on your own Sadly the most intelligent argument you've made so far Nice attempt to change the channel. The issue was are they history, not are statues a good thing. So at least you've given up trying to claim they aren't. To address your points i think you can put up a monument to the good things a person did without overriding the fact that they also may have done things that werne't good. Nobodys' perfect, and if you're looking for a 'perfect' hero it's not going to happen. So you just have to make sure that the discussion is inclusive of all the facts, and you can still admire them for the good things they did. Tearing it down is simply denying history. Uh oh - easy muffin, we can hear you drooling and foaming as you type It's not my fault your echo chamber ideas aren't standing up to scrutiny I get your frustration. The left LOVES to pretend it's about truth and facts. It's not. Its about hypocrisy and deception. So when you try to defend it, it falls apart. And that's got to hurt a little. But yes, the right is more inclinded to care about facts and truths and logic than the left these days. Sorry for the inconvenience.

For which you'd be evicted and if your child spoke up they'd be banned for a year. That's basically what's happened. That is absolutely not what happened here. So he will grow up claiming that if you make a reasoned argument about something you will be attacked. So how do you think this child is going to handle things as an adult? Do you think he's now going to respect the idea of reasoned discourse as you suggest? Or is he going to think that you have to attack first one way or another because the moment you raise a valid concern they'll be after you, so better to be UNreasonable right off the bat. If you don't reward the kids for talking in the first place (even if what they say is wrong), then you teach them to hold their wrong ideas in the shadows and deal with these 'threats' some other way.

He got arrested because he said men and women are different. this has already been discussed at great lengths in this thread. If he hadn't spoken out, then his presence there that day would NOT have been tresspass. This is part of his punishment for speaking out. It's not like he broke in or something. And it's ignorant to suggest that believing a man and woman are different is "far right conservative" views. It is a basic biological fact that men and women are different. You can have discussions about gender and whether there's more than 2 of those but it is absolutely true that men and women are different. This was a discussion which came up because WOMEN were uncomfortable with the biological male transgender students using the female washrooms. So it's not like he just started talking about this for no reason. And this wasn't his 'job". This is an educational facility. He's a customer, not a worker. The facility exists and gets public funding in order to make sure the children get an education and like it or not that DOES involve discussing sensitive issues. The fact that the administration handled this in a way that lead to his education being put at risk (the expulsion) and then locked him up rather than find a healthy way to deal with it is a complete failure on their part.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-on-sidelines-as-u-s-britain-australia-move-ahead-on-new-security-deal-1.6311220 OTTAWA - Canada's omission from a military pact involving three of its closest allies is symptomatic of a larger problem in how this country is perceived by its friends, experts are warning, as the U.S., Britain and Australia move ahead on their deal. So - Canada is being left out of important security discussions because the rest of the world thinks we're in china's pocket. Great.

Putin is at war against Ukraine because he wants them back in his empire and believes that war is a legitimate way to add land and resources to his control. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people (many his own) is of no consequence as long as he gets control of the region. 99.9995325 percent of all people, normal or not, on this planet are aware of this.