BlahTheCanuck

The purpose of the notwithstanding clause is that so that courts don't have unlimited power. Courts aren't always right, given that court rulings can often contradict or overrule previous rulings, so giving them unlimited power to interpret the constitution is as silly as giving any other branch of government unlimited power to fulfill its duties. Just as an example - in 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a ban on medical assistance in dying was constitutional. They ruled the opposite in 2015, contradicting and overturning their previous ruling. Which time were they right? If the Supreme Court admits they are sometimes wrong, shouldn't there be checks on their power?

No. Google what a declaration of independence actually means. It is a document that asserts independence of a polity over a defined territory which constitutes a state. The Israelis had one in 1948, while the Palestinians didn't (until 40 years later). The Palestinians of 1948 wanted to be controlled by Jordan+an Egyptian puppet state. A two state solution can create a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but there was no Palestinian state in 1948 when Israel was declared, so the Palestinians can't try to take over a state that already exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Declaration_of_Independence#:~:text=The Palestinian Declaration of Independence,1409) in Algiers%2C Algeria. The story about whether or not they were 'violently kicked out' is more complicated - most of the Palestinians in the 1948 exodus were not violently kicked out, as a Palestinian representative to the UN at the time and the then Syrian Prime Minister admitted. There were definitely cases where they were violently expelled (such Lydda and Ramle), but most fled because of the war as refugees tend to do or calls from the Arab leaders to do so. The UK stopped being committed to establishing a Jewish state as soon as they took control of the territory. They made Palestinian leader al-Husseini their ally, their Peel Commission was going to give the majority of the territory to the Arabs, and they even forbade Jews from immigrating there in the 1930s. They then handed it over to the UN, and the UN failed to solve the issue. Either way none of this really matters from a legal standpoint, because the Palestinians could have declared their own state instead of trying to be controlled by Jordan. Note that just because the Palestinians didn't declare a state back then doesn't mean they shouldn't have a state now - but they don't have a right to claim anything that was Israeli territory after the 1948 war.

Most so-called 'criticisms of Israel' in this day and age are Palestinian and Iranian war propaganda, but there are legitimate grievances with some Israeli policies. With that said, I highly doubt that, for example, if Israel removed the settlements in the West Bank or achieved a ceasefire in Gaza, the Palestinians would be willing to sit down and negotiate to solve the conflict. Also, the UN didn't 'give' the Jews a country - the Israelis declared independence over the territory themselves once the British left and there was (at the time) no Palestinian counter-claim of independence.

Trudeau has already proven he is an inept negotiator when he sought a united front with Mexico in the previous NAFTA 2.0 negotiations and Mexico eventually threw us under the bus, leaving us forced to either accept the worst possible deal or be left out of the agreement altogether. With that said, whether or not Poilievre will be a better negotiator still remains to be seen.

It's both disturbing and unacceptable that there are violent riots in Canada over conflicts on the other side of the world whether it's in the Middle East or somewhere else, and extremely unprecedented for Canada (there have been conflicts in Israel in the past, but no one in Canada went to the streets to riot or block roads over it). Who are these people, and why are they so attached to international issues that they are willing to destroy Canadian streets over it?

Canada is still great. It did not stop being great just because of one incompetent Prime Minister.

1. I am automatically sceptical of any pro-immigration arguments that involve staving off population decline. Population decline due to low fertility is going to be global problem in the near future, including in the countries where the majority of our immigrants come from (India, China, Phillippines, etc.), so what you're doing by mass importing people here is delaying the population decline temporarily while shifting the burden of the population decline from the economies of those countries to the expensive and largely outdated Canadian welfare state. 2. Canada has 350,000 births and 330,000 deaths annually, as well as an emigration rate of about 100,000 per year. This adds up to a total population loss of about 80,000 per year, so we do not need more than 300,000 people a year to maintain our population. 3. Even when we took in 250,000 permanent residents annually for decades, our population growth was one of the highest in the world. I highly doubt that reducing that number slightly is going to make our population fall. According to several economists at the National Bank of Canada, we need our population growth to be below 500,000 annually to get out of the 'population trap' situation we are currently in. FTR, when both permanent and temporary residents are included, our aggregate population growth has been over 500,000 annually every year since 2018 (minus 2020, for obvious reasons). We are already saturated and don't have the jobs, housing, infrastructure, etc. to accommodate all the people currently here. 4. If the cost of increasing our population is importing cheap labour to depress our wages, saturate our infrastructure and subsequently reduce our standard of living to third world levels, maybe increasing our population by that much isn't such a good idea.

Israel/Palestine gets way too much attention in Canadian politics compared to much more pressing issues, partly because of the diaspora tensions surrounding it and partly because it's an American culture war import. Canada has no geopolitical interests in the Middle East, other than a negligible amount of arms exports in terms of total dollar value. I/P is not even one of the top ten deadliest conflicts in the world, lots of other conflicts around the world cause more damage and human suffering and are ignored.

Canada should halt immigration and deport temporary residents until there is a negligible number of nprs in the country. Once the total temporary resident population is below 1% of the national population, then we can start taking in permanent immigrants, maybe between 150,000 and 200,000 a year, as long as the vast majority (70%) are high skilled workers. Total population growth via immigration should be capped from 250,000 to 300,000 per year maximum.