myata

Ukraine never "belonged" to Putin even by that twisted logic. It's been an independent, state, member of the UN for three decades. There's no more justification for Putin's barbarous war than for Hitler's. Why would anyone be looking to apologize and justify actions of a violent, brutal and murderous thug?

How does this matter? Borders in Europe changed hundreds of times. Where's any reason or substance here? Putin today is Hitler back then: same kind of an argument. I want it so I have right to it so it has to be mine, whatever I do. You cannot deny obvious facts. But you can decide on your position, and attitude.

WWII was a "territorial dispute". Hitler thought he had the rights to the whole of Europe et voila. Opposing Hitler had its consequences. That war was preventable (by not trying to defend yourself). Cower to Hitlers, past and modern and see what happens. Like try to discover it, again. Well known stinking for miles brutal and terrorist, that's fact by the way, Hitler and Russia's talking points. Good student.

DeSantis, Carlson Burned, annihilated to dust cities; bombed hospitals, schools and maternity wards. Hundreds, probably thousands of documented war crimes... only a "territorial dispute". A decision to participate in other people's war is an important one; it should not be taken lightly; objectivity and honesty; remembering the lessons of the past and the principles is an important part of it too. "Territorial dispute", really? This is what you call a brutal invasion by a power-hungry dictator; not a bit better than that of Hitler in the past war? "Territorial dispute between Germany and Poland, 1940?"? "Should not have provoked Hitler?" Liar. For whatever reasons, if one begins ones path with a lie of this proportion, what else is there to see? Where would it develop? How can you take it back, words burned into the history? It's sad and pathetic that for whatever reasons this individual has chosen to lie to achieve whatever purposes, appeal to whoever. He does not have to like Ukraine or support it. He can have a different opinion. But he chose to lie. In the world of tomorrow, if Putin is allowed to prevail, run by emboldened and encouraged Putins, Uns and any imaginable crazy dictator stuff with nukes you gonna focus on your more important priorities? Brainless. Stupid. The take is clear: he did not find other, honest ways to make a convincing point. And, there's no reason to expect that having done it in this obvious, as clear as can be moral case he wouldn't do it again. Nothing else to see here. End of the story.

The difference is that for this age group, the risk of a serious Covid disease was minuscule, virtually non existent compared to other causes. There was no rational reason to recommend and promote special treatment in this age group; especially with not very well understood short and longer term effects. Prescribing unnecessary treatment with potential risks to the patient is a violation of the medical oath. In some countries professionals actually remember and understand the meaning of the medical ethics code and the absolutely did not recommend "vaccines" for children, under 18. This country is on a mindless, dangerous trek ready to jump on any reckless bandwagon by a hand wave of some clueless guru.

I'm not so sure in the root cause it would be down to ideology though in this particular case it appears that way. Canadian governments, and the bureaucracies that operate under them are entitled, by the nature and essence of the system to be supreme managers, making decisions of any impact or complexity single-handedly, forcefully, and in complete, total and absolute vacuum of accountability, checks and oversight. There aren't any meaningful, effective checks only pretend imitation ones, and that is the reason why so called "question period" really looks like a circus period and almost never, a meaningful, adult and responsible conversation. In just a few iterations, it's bound to come back to you as: you know best. Always. You're entitled to the right of uncontested and not questioned decisions that are bound to be correct because you know best, and generally are a better, different kind of a human. Any reasonable human being understands, realizes and recognizes that their decisions can be and will be wrong some time. In Canadian governments you lose that ability, drop it as unnecessary feature, and fly over all and any bounds and constraints of the reality itself, because you can. And that is the reason.

This well meaning, benevolent bureaucracy just assumed the right of ownership over the system it was running, without checks and controls for decades. It was supposed to be ours, citizens but oh well. Pretty books don't make active citizens and a functional democracy. It (thinks but it the same in this picture) that it's the only one who knows what is the right way of thinking and it will spare no efforts to make you agree. Because it can.

Trying to narrow it down a bit further: arrested for being persistent in executing the right to express his opinion? These schools are owned by us, the citizens, taxpayers. We did not pass the ownership to anybody else? Since when we do not allow expression of opinions in our schools? Since when we are punishing by exclusion for expressing of opinions? What we will allow next if keep riding merrily and thoughtlessly, down this well trodden path?

Not only temporal connection, but a direct causal as well. Without him making his thoughts known, in a calm and respectful manner, a grossly inadequate reaction of the school would not have occurred; without inadequate reaction, he wouldn't have to exercise his charter right; and then the arrest would not have happened. The solutions of the left are almost always worse than the problems they were trying to solve. To fix mass poverty they had to create mass gulags and still leave everybody poor except of course, their governing elites.

Except for wise and benevolent governments, it's easier (like, a lot) the other way around. And they can.

The country's politics and around are beyond (that is, below) the sanity level of a reasonable grown up. We'll have to live in an insane (like not, the opposite of sane and we just saw and experienced it already) environment and see how it works out. We never thought of mechanisms and conditions that would keep our governments sane and reasonable.

It's not intentional; just the good governments out of all bounds and controls don't know; wouldn't know and can't know where to stop. They are good and we can do anything (like, literally) to do it. Why would they stop anywhere, how? This is similar to the church that taught prayer and humility and took it all the way to inquisition. Governments out of control of citizens is a bad, bad thing. We should have known.

Citizens who create a democracy for themselves can find solution to complex and challenging issues. They will be able to balance interests and maintain the balance between individual interests and communal ones and common sense. - Inclusiveness is not an obligation to accommodate every individual issue, especially of selected, handpicked groups. - Reasonable accommodation is an objective and a direction not a privilege for every desire. Solutions can be found, for example in this case, gender-neutral washrooms from certain age; or more types of washrooms. But it never works in a priest, wise men style of democracy where some, selected few get to decide what is good for the society. That's a failing model that Canada is trodding happily to the well predictable conclusion.

According to the numbers in the graph above taken from a recent preprint (and those as I understand, directly from PH Canada records) there were 11 fatal outcomes attributed to Covid in the age group 0-11 in close to two years, from January, 2020 to November 2021 before q-vaccines in the age group were in use. Followed by 36 more in just over a year after vaccines in the age group were approved and recommended. 11 deaths in two years per 5 million of population is very close to nothing ,compared to other causes. There's the centuries old clear medical ethics code: a doctor should not prescribe any treatment that i1) does not have a clear benefit for the patient and 2) may not be safe to the patient, relative to the risk of the condition. Clearly, the recommendation, and even more, active promotion of these treatments went against the code of ethics and the facts. Other, more objective jurisdictions never recommended them for this age group. This is a very clear factual and chilling demonstration that we, as citizens cannot rely on anything or anyone to support and enable the medical code of ethics. And that's just too bad. Scary.

You got me thinking.. what if the folks who feel unsafe there find other places that would not cause them discomfort, like I'm sure the community will come up with options. Would it be against something in the Holy Charter too, and cause arrests and tresspassings? This may very well be the only option left to stop self-righteous bigots waving police batons to kick and batter humanity into the better future they have seen, as always. It began with love and freedom, remember?

So denying him education for expression of personal opinion was OK? Good intentions Michael, tricky, slippery slope.

https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=pl&text=at the border&op=translate

It always comes down to the essence of democracy: is it by informed, active and involved citizens for the common sense, and good? Or, is it for the population and from above by wise priests and gurus who always know best. These are two different patterns with different and diverging outcomes. We just had another opportunity to observe this difference, and divide.

"Have to support China here", as the saying went. But look, if you never had to explain plain common sense of what you're saying ("travel from Wuhan not a problem here") wouldn't you end up one fine morning speaking gibberish abracadabra, mostly or only? Why wouldn't you, if you can?

Covid is a strange infection. Its essential characteristics are very different from the earlier known cases of corona-type virus zoonotic transmissions. It merited, and merits a thorough in-depth, objective and impartial investigation, not a hoopla bandwagon. Some countries managed to stay sane. Not here no how can we.

The data is Statista reports in the age group in Canada, apparently based on the PH data, actual, not estimate between Nov. 21 (when first reported for this age group) to now. Saw it in a preprint, a disturbing trend in very young age group in Canada I think.

Why would you, if you can (not)? What would be the consequence of saying, or doing anything without validating it? In a Canadian majority government, I mean.

Yeah weren't governments supposed to evaluate those before taking major decisions like opening up immigration floodgates, like where is a mystery, the great secret here? But that was in another galaxy far, far away.

O China North, glorious and free

I'll leave this here for the record. In a normal democracy, questions would have been raised and answers obtained. Medical ethics standards would have been read and enforced. Don't count on that, here. In some decades, a useless inquiry out of your pocket, maybe. You paid for it. NACI Guidance, 3.03.2023 "Very, very safe profile" (some doctor, CBC, 15.07.2022) Finland does not recommend Covid-19 vaccines for healthy under 18 years Sweden: "Vaccination against covid-19 is recommended only for special groups of children". P.S. no, it's not going to get better. Why would it? How?