Machjo

Higher wages at Tim Hortons will make Canada less attractive to skilled labour and the professional class too so they'll leave Canada too, so businesses will need to offer them higher wages too. The wage increase throughout the Canadian economy will undoubtedly affect exports.

How much are you willing to pay for your timbit?

Have you ever read about freight ships? If businesses can't higher workers here, they'll just move to where they can. Or do you propose protectionism too? Free trade and immigration are more closely linked than some care to admit.

I would abandon quotas altogether and replace them with a test instead. For example, as a long-term strategy, I could imagine Canada reuiwing anyone born more than one year after the new law is passed to obtain one of three 5-year language passports to enter Canada: An English-language passport (ELP), A French-language passport (PLF), and An Esperanto Passport (EP). To obtain any of these passports, the person would have to: 1. Be under age fifteen or over age seventy, 2. Obtain a compassionate exemption, with the reason for the exemption detailed in the passport and the passport expiring after the time that the person is expected to need it for the compassionate grounds, or 3. Pass a test proving mastery of the language of the passport. Additionally, he might have to sign a self-exclusion form to exclude himself from casinos for the duratin of the passport good measure. He'd have to pay the market price for the passport including emergency medical coverage included in the passport (so it would be somewhat expensive but then he could be exempted from other fees or taxes to compensate should he end up working in Canada. He might also need to upload a will and testament that would limit his burial in a grave to a maximum of fifteen years (enough to let the body rot to the bones) and then have the bones transfered to an ossuary. This would be to help manage land use. Oh, and the above would just be to enter the country whether to transit through Canada on a change of flights, visit, or whatever. Since Esperanto is extremely easy to learn, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem to obtain that passport but then we wouldn't need to spend so much money on police, court, medical, and other interpreters and translators since all visitors to Canada with few exceptions would know either English, French, or at least Esperanto (which authorities could master in no time). So easier to manage overall. Then with such controls in place, we could even consider allowing a holder of any of these three passports to study, work, or do business in Canada visa-free if we wanted to. Essentially, we'd make it more difficult to come to Canada but easier to remain.

A landlocked country would need to develop very friendly relations with at least one maritime country. Which one would that be?

Which French fact are you referring to? When the AFO, QCGM, and SANB signed a memorandum of understanding to promote official minority language rights, Mathieu Bock-Côté (a French Quebecer) called it treason. https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/07/06/la-trahison Of course the AFO challenged that accusation. https://l-express.ca/entente-avec-les-anglo-quebecois-pas-de-trahison-des-fhq/ They've also recently been reminding Quebec of how it opposed minority French-language rights in court as recently as in 2015: https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-raises-ire-of-francophones-in-the-rest-of-canada Yet there are some French Canadians outside of Quebec who favour official unilingualism and more linguistic deregulation too. The French fact in Canada is extremely complex.

I don't understand. A background check will prove useless against a potential predator who's not hurt anyone yet. A sex-addiction course would not require any participant to confess to anything. However, making a person aware of where to turn for help could make him less dangerous. For example, if I'm an alcoholic but have never herd of alcoholism or Alcoholics Anonymous before, then firstly, this sense of the problem being unique to me will make it even more embarrasing for me to seek help. Secondly, if I can't even name the problem and can't imagine that help exists for it, then how am I supposed to find help for it? By making all prospective teachers aware of the problem, how to identify its symptoms, and where to turn for help, then a prospective teacher in that class might have a Eureka moment when he identifies with these symptoms and might take an interest in the remedies mentioned that he might never have imagined before. He could now name the problem, identify its symptoms, and turn for help before he hurts anyone. He can't get help if he can't even fully identify the problem and is unaware that help exists for it.

How so? If it reduces the occurrence of teacher sexual abuse by even 10% let's say, given the lifelong damage it can cause the child, would it not be worth it? Can we reasonably assume that a teacher who may be at risk of abusing a child necessarily knows where to turn for help before he hurts the studend? I agree with tough laws and penalties as a second line of deterrence; but for those it fails to deter, a preferable first line might involve teacher education to ensure that a teacher who does need help knows where to turn for help. Simple penalties might be an effective second line of defence, but is a poor first line of defence as we're using it now.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

OK, maybe I exaggerated. But given its severity, even if rare, the simple fact that it happens seems to suggest that we should ensure that every prospective teacher knows how to recognize the symptoms of compulsive sexual behaviours and where to turn for help before they hurt someone. We have no way of knowing who the dangerous teacher is until it's too late; so to play it safe, why not ensure they all get the necessary training to know where to turn for help if they need it?

Given the high rates of teachers molesting students in public schools, would it make sense to require every prospective teacher to take a sex-addiction course (maybe a couple hours of their education degree program) to learn the causes, symptoms, and remedies for sex addiction so as to ensure that any teacher who does suffer a compulsive sexual behaviour will know where to turn for help before he ends up molesting a student? I agree that tough laws and penalties help to deter potential abusers too, but such laws are of limited use when in many cases, the student will fear reporting the abuser for many reasons. In those cases, ensuring that a teacher who suffers compulsive sexual tendencies knows where to turn for help might help that teacher find the help he needs before he hurts a student. This might even apply to any position of authority including therapist, prison guard, etc. before they can obtain their license.

Oh but you don't understand. Even racially endogamous couples can use sex toys too. It's not unique to inter-racial couples at all.

I'll just add here that while I've come across opposition to inquisitorial trials in the past precisely due to their more intrusive nature into an accused's private life, I'm not talking here about imposing an inquisitorial on him against his will but rather offering it as something he could request. If for whatever reason there are embarrassing things he'd like the judge not to know, he could still opt for an adversarial trial, but on the understsnding that while this reduces the judge's powers and increases those of the defence, it increases the power of the prosecutor too, which could be important when the prosecutor may have exculpatory evidence in his possession that the defence cannot access on its own. They both have their pros and cons but as a rule of thumb, as long as the accused has nothing embarrassing to hide, he may prefer an inquisitorial trial to get to the bottom of the matter more quickly as long as he's comfortable with giving the judge more intrusive powers to do so.

I have read a number of immigration hearing transcripts in the past and given how both immigration and criminal courts use the adversarial system, I'll assume that some of my observations are transferable. At immigration hearings, it sometimes happens that the counsel for the foreign national wants the Minister's counsel to present more evidence in their possession and the Minister's counsel will refuse. In one case, when the foreign national's counsel asked for the names of the anonymous officers who'd arrested her and written the police reports, the Minister's counsel refused. Essentially, the Minister's counsel served as the gatekeeper to the available evidence and so could choose to present only that evidence that could make the foreign national look guilty while withholding any expulpatory evidence. Given how criminal trials operate under the adversarial system too, I can reasonably conclude that the Crown prosecutor can likewise serve as the gatekeeper to the available evidence in some cases and so present only that evidence that makes the accused look guilty while refusing to present the rest. Remember that the prosecutor is not a neutral party! The good news is that unlike immigration trials that require proof on a balance of probabilities, criminal ones require proof beyond reasonable doubt; but stll, wrongful convictions can occur even then.I can say from my observation that if I were ever accused of a crime I had not committed, I'd appreciate the right to an inquisitorial trial on request. I grant that it might give the judge more intrusive powers into my private life; but if I have nothing to hide, I'd appreciate the power it would give him to go over the prosecutor's head to collect evidence himself if need be. I wouln't want the prosecutor serving as the gatekeeper to the available evidence. So, should an accused have the right to an inquisitorial trial on request? I can maybe see some safeguards. For example, the accused who requests an inquisitorial trial might need to sign a document confirming that he fully understands how this could give the judge more powers than he has at an adversarial trial; how while it might diminish the control the prosecutor has over his case, it could also diminish the control that the defense will have over its; and while it could give the judge more power to go over the prosecutor's head to collect evidence that the prosecutor refuses to present, it would also give him more power to go over the defence attorney's head to collect evidence the defence might refuse to present. As long as the accused signs off on that understanding and believes he has nothing to hide; and especially if he has any reason to believe that the prosecutor might refuse to present exculpatory evidence in his possession that the defence has no access to but that a judge might in an inquisitorial trial, why not grant him the right to an inquisitorial trial on request?

Chinese exclusion Act. Abrogating the right of German Canadians to set up their own schools (never reversed sinse, interestingly). There's still much more apologizing to do.