Moonlight Graham

Hardly. He primarily cares about himself, to say otherwise is a lie. I don't see a guy motivated by their dedication to this country, sorry, I see a narcissist and a power-seeker. Being PM is a vehicle to enlarge his power and ego. People who care about their democracy more than themselves don't get wrapped up in endless ethics violations. They don't let China muck around in our elections, they don't pressure the AG to do crooked things, they don't kick the AG out of their party when they say no.

Our PM only cares about things he can virtue signal about and look like a white knight saving other people so people, especially women, will fawn over what a great guy he is in order to feed his giant ego. He doesn't seem to care about the country itself very much. But legalized weed makes him look so cool! Funding defense or national security doesn't get him any virtue signal points so why bother? And military and vets obviously don't like him so why bother trying to please a demographic that won't vote for him regardless?

You're a fat lesbian.

There are always exceptions, but statistics are generalized. Back when you were a kid one parent could raise an entire family on one middle class income and afford to own a house, car etc. This is not possible today, hence why many single parents raise their kids in poverty.

I don't understand why you call yourself "an outsider" but also refer to Canada/Canadians in the first person (us, we).

This, of course, assumes that you turned out ok. ?

I am shocked that people on twitter are arguing about a political issue. SHOCKED

Ideological biases among the judges. Many lean conservative, others liberal.

I totally disagree. Look at the SCOTUS in the US the last several decades including now, and the Supreme Court in Canada.

I will also say that any judge whose personal ideological leanings determine how they interpret or implement the law is bad at their job. Their job is to objectively interpret the law as is and nothing more. Their own opinion about the law is irrelevant. Judges should not be acting political, they are not paid to be activists, whether conservative or progressive. Things like LGBT and abortion rights shouldn't be legal or illegal based on the political leanings of the judges currently in power.

I'm not defending the use of the notwithstanding clause. Its a stupid clause. The Charter is badly designed, out of political necessity, because it includes opt outs for both governments and courts to ignore our Charter rights when they really want to. The people don't have any guaranteed rights in key sections of the Charter. If a "right" isn't included in the Charter then it should be up to lawmakers to decide what is allowed via legislation, since they are elected and accountable to the people. Judges "reading in" rights based on vague notions in the Charter like "life, liberty, security of the person" etc is ridiculous. There is nothing about automatic weapons or LGBT rights as you say, therefore lawmakers (the people) should decide. Many progressives often don't agree because most judges in Canada share their progressive leanings. Chuds aren't the only ones who value power over democracy. It's depressing how many people only seem concerned with their own agenda over justice. I call these people tyrants.

A legislature can override many of our basic human rights from the Charter and there's nothing anyone can do about it except vote them out and reserve the decision. It's pretty scary. It's also scary that judges can find ways to interpret many vague parts of the charter to fit their own idea of right vs wrong and essentially start lawmaking themselves. ie: "life, liberty, security of the person..." or "free and democratic society"...these words are so vague. For instance, what's stopping judges from making a case for or against government vaccine mandates? They can interpret "life, liberty, and security of the person" in many different ways to suit whatever they personally believe in, so it comes down to the personal ideology of the judge rather than the proper interpretation of the constitution. What's stopping judges from ignoring precedent? They're the final decision on things anyways. That said, I don't see anything in the Charter about parental rights or a child's rights.

Nothing was decided on this case from what i read. It was an injunction to further explore if the law is constitutional.

A quick Google search reveals this user may be of Russian origin.

Our enemies are stronger now than at any time since the end of the Cold War. You have to at least have the capacity to defend your own borders.

It's a funny thing, the narratives we tell ourselves, the things we focus on vs the things we ignore. Some terrible things happened to indigenous peoples. Europeans also brought them medicine, technology, nutrition, literacy and education etc. It's good to know acknowledge past wrongs, but it can also be counterproductive to treat an entire people like a bunch of victims if you truly care about their well-being. Turning a once self-sufficient people (but poor, subsistent, low live expectancy) into dependents of the state who are conditioned by our culture to feel sorry for themselves and make excuses if they have shortcomings is not all it's cracked up to be I'd imagine. I get the sentiments of the OP but the language is disrespectful.

I don't understand how it could be unconstitutional to prevent the state from using the gender and name of a child's choice if they're under age 16 without parental consent. Kids don't have any freedom in school. They certainly don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, association etc. A teacher has no rights here, no right to call a student child by a name that isn't their legal name. They work for the state and the parents. Who makes the call here? It's the parents.

I think the NDP would have to be in official opposition territory in polling at bare minimum to trigger an election. They have influence in lawmaking right now, some of their programs are finally being implemented, they probably have more lawmaking power than they've ever had federally, so they have a lot to lose if the CPC beat the Liberals.

I don't think a kid the age that book is written for is able to process the concepts in this book. When I was in elementary school I barely knew what masturbation was. Even knowing what sex vs gender is would be tough for them. This books is going to leave a lot of them confused. Leave it for the teen years.

If progressives had to feed and clothe a prisoner in their own house for 18 years they'd support capital punishment.

The homicide rate in Canada jumped when the Trudeau Liberals were elected LOL. Possibly just a coincidence, but maybe not....

The left has this recently discovered tactic where they can label any opinion they don't like as alt-right, far-right, or a conspiracy theory even if it doesn't apply in order to try to delegitimate a viewpoint and scare others people from defending it for fear of being associated with those taboo labels. Progressive politics often relies on bullying, guilting, and shaming people into compliance. Oh look at all those knuckle-dragging homophobe parents protesting for their rights as parents.

That's right. Someone can form their own private schools that don't have basic parental consent rights and send their kids there. At public schools the state shouldn't be withholding parental consent from minors under 16.

No, send your children to school so the government can wipe out your home culture. The government rules over children under 16. Jordan Peterson's fears over adding gender identity to human rights legislation have been proven accurate again and again. This is the result, and they'll hide behind the law to legitimate their actions. I get that they want to be inclusive to trans kids and support them, but parents also have rights. Hopefully schools don't consider inviting men dressed in drag to dance sexy stripper moves at school assemblies and inside kindergarten classrooms for the tots: https://twitter.com/MagiruMevin/status/1701366122417991743

It will go tribal, and the most populous tribes will dominate. We all have different interests and views, but we should belong to one tribe: Canada. "The new Marxists" or whatever we want to call them have abandoned class tribes and gone full steam into identity tribes, which is much worse. This idea will encourage regional tribes as well. Anything that would encourage more of this is a bad idea IMO. I think we should vote on individual issues or groups of issues (ie: climate, taxes etc) rather than tribes. Political parties are pretty lame IMO because they are catch-all groups will little room for nuance.