Argus

The dangers of the woke attack on western values are fairly clearly enunciated here. And two specific passages struck a chord with me. Foreign and domestic policy is profoundly shaped by national identity and culture. A nation’s identity draws from its past, and so disputes over history have significant implications. This, I think, is important. A nation's identity draws from its past. So if we are inundated with dark and dramatic horror stories, usually wildly out of context, about how horrible and cruel and racist our ancestors and the country they built was, then what do we have to draw on for a national identity? People are asked what they're proud of in Canada and they say "national health care." Good god! Whether in the case of China and Russia today, or possibly some future Islamic state, a prerequisite for their rise is a degree of confidence and civilizational purpose. What does the West have to offer to counter these highly illiberal states and social forces? What is the glue that holds free countries together with a common purpose to defend their shared institutional order, upon which their rights and freedoms — all highly fragile and historically contingent — now rest? I think the dissolving of our national narratives under the continuing sanctimonious, self-righteous assault from the Left has undermined our sense of national purpose. That is why we're seeing democracy weakening down south and in other countries. People who are losing faith in who they are and in the governments which are so bad at leading them. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-the-woke-onslaught-is-a-war-on-the-west-itself

Not alone. You need an international agreement. Otherwise you're accomplishing nothing but impoverishing yourself. I mean, even Germany is opening up new coal mines! If there's no international agreement to stop producing it and building coal-fired power plants then what's the point?

In the same way oil will be produced and sold abroad though we can't seem to build a pipeline to anywhere to do so. Same goes for other mines and no-doubt forestry too. We get poorer, the liberals borrow more money, and other producers prosper.

Canada will not permit any new mines in order to help combat climate change. I'm quite sure all the lefties and progressives will cheer this and not have a single thought about the cost in jobs and wealth production. Even though this will not to a single thing to combat climate change. There is plenty of coal production in the world. Australia does a ton of it. Russia is spending billions to expand its coal production. Hundreds of coal fired power plants are being built around the world. So Canada turning up our noses will not do a thing to help. It will just rob us of jobs and a wealth-producing export. Natural resource production and experts have always been a major part of this country's economy. But since getting elected the Liberals have imposed draconian new regulations and laws which have put a straightjacket over the development or expansion of natural resource projects. They've done nothing to expand our economy. All their attention is spent on income redistribution. Meanwhile Canada's moribund economy is being surpassed by others. We're 50% larger than Australia but our economy has been growing much more slowly than theirs and so now it's only 15% larger than theirs. India and Brazil now have larger economies than Canada, and little Australia will probably catch up in a few years. And the Liberals just go on borrowing money and increasing our debt. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-federal-policy-restricts-thermal-coal-mine-projects-citing/

Australia is coping quite well, actually. They are finding new markets and holding their own. Meanwhile China has a shortage of coking coal. Awwww. Australia has demonstrated it won't trade its sovereignty for money. Canada has thus far demonstrated the opposite.

They are, as she says, a bunch of floundering amateurs with no idea what they're doing. They've attacked and hamstrung natural resources because they disapprove of them while doing little or nothing to improve or expand our economy elsewhere. Our PM has no experience or training in economics, finance or law. Neither has our finance minister, whose degree is in Russian literature. Our health minister was a director of a homeless shelter and has no medical training. The minister of national revenue was a social worker. Our agriculture minister worked in tourism. The minister of economic development is a lawyer. Same goes for the minister of innovation, science and industry. The minister of Natural Resources has a degree in philosophy and no experience in natural resources. The Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade has a degree in political science and worked all her life in the public sector, mainly in education. The minister of labour has no experience with labour, but worked as a chaplain. The minister of fisheries and oceans has no experience with fisheries or industry. Her education is in poli scie and she worked with health care foundations. Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance also has no education or experience in finances or economics. And we expect these people to come out with good economic policy? Or even understand and be able to judge what is or isn't good economic policy?

Were it not for Quebec supporting the Liberals and Quebec PMs Canada would look very different. It was Pierre Trudeau who liberalized Immigration and did away with so many traditional symbols and institutions, Brian Mulroney who tripled immigration numbers, and now Justin Trudeau who has increased them again while saying Canada wasn't even a nation. It is Liberals who disdain nationalism. If Quebec wasn't here Canada would have had a lot more Conservative governments, ones who cared about the traditions, values and culture. Small c conservatives are big believers in such things, and according to polls the great majority want lower immigration, and support protecting our culture and values.

There is no justification for high immigration and hasn't been for many decades. People reflexively go with it since Canada had high immigration for so many years. But that was when we were a largely empty country and needed immigration. We aren't and don't any more. Canada's population is larger than most. If you look at the countries in the world where the standard of living is highest, nine out of ten have lower populations than Canada. The Canadian government has not done a macro study of immigration, of what it's done economically and socially, of what it can do economically, of what it can or cannot do with regard to an aging population, or even what particular skillsets we need in forty years. The last time they did such studies, in Mulroney's time, they did not find any great boon to the economy at all, and little benefit for an aging population. The government knows this but doesn't care. While ministers make mouth noises about how immigration is a big boon to the economy or will help with an aging population the real reason is political recruitment. And it's one of those programs no one dares oppose because the media and Left will immediately start screaming 'racism' and 'xenophobia'. In the US labour unions have not been supportive of high immigration because they see it as hurting workers. Canada's most powerful unions are all in the public sector, though, and they embrace high immigration. So there's no one to oppose it other than the conservative base - who are largely ignored by the party bosses.

Some immigrants are doing well, mainly the principle applicants. Some family class come over with savings. But the main issue is that when you bring in hundreds of thousands of people each year you need housing and we're not building it fast enough due to restrictive municipal and provincial zoning laws, regulations, bureaucracy, etc. I saw a study once that said a developer needs ten years to get through the process once they buy land before they can build a housing project on it.

What makes more sense, bringing in a couple who are both employable at a good salary or bringing in one person who is and another who will never make more than minimum wage, if anything? Of the people coming in less than a quarter will be selected for their skills. And those in all other categories, including the non-principle applicants under the Economic Class fare much worse in earnings and employability. And that information is based on previous immigrants. The government lowered the requirement for skills this year in order to bring in more. Apparently all they care about are numbers. More people on welfare, more elderly immigrants, more refugees. Who cares what billions that costs! It's votes for us! https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canada-must-put-the-emphasis-on-economic-immigration https://www.cdhowe.org/intelligence-memos/mahboubi-skuterud-–-economic-reality-check-canadian-immigration-part-ii Because its been an ongoing disaster for years now, getting worse. The provinces are going bankrupt trying to pay or the inadequate health care we already have while the federal government has gradually pulled back its financial support from 50% to 23%. People face months and years of waiting for specialist services, often in pain and unable to work. That's if they're lucky and don't die waiting. Nice theory. But that requires money the provinces don't have. They are barely younger, and many are already elderly and will be able to draw OAS and other payments as well as free health care services. Further, the amount of taxes paid is a function of employability and income. If the majority of those coming in have poor skillsets and will not have good incomes they will not be paying much in taxes or CPP.

It's actually worse than that. The "Economic class" includes the principle applicant AND their family. So somewhere around forty four percent of that figure are actual principle applicants selected for their skills. And non-principle applicants do very poorly, economically. Absolutely. But they're not alone in using the immigration system for political gain The Tories do it too. In fact, it was Mulroney who tripled immigration from 84k a year to over 220k. And he did it, according to press reports, because his immigration minister had polling showing recent immigrants vote for the party in power when they come in once they get their citizenship. The current Progressive conservatives are every bit as eager to import people as Trudeau and O'Toole has gone on record as agreeing with the numbers. That's partly because he's gutless, and utterly terrified of being accused of being 'anti-immigrant' which, of course, he would be by the united media as well as all the other parties if he dared to even suggest slightly lowering immigration. And it's partly because his ethnic outreach people work very hard at recruiting ethnic voters. One of the main ways all parties do this is by promising laxer immigration to allow more of 'their' people in. That's how we came to quadruple elderly immigrant sponsorship. Trudeau's people found it politically useful to promise this to certain groups (Sikhs and Muslims). That bringing in thousands of elderly immigrants costs Canada billions every years was, of course, not a consideration. It's only taxpayer money, after all.

China has created a "dystopian hellscape" and is commiting crimes against humanity, according to Amnesty International. This is the country which continues to undermine and spy on Canada, and controls (according to CSIS) virtually all Chinese language media here, and works hard to influence and intimidate Chinese Canadians. All with little or no opposition from the Liberal government. In a report published on Thursday, Amnesty called on the UN to investigate, saying China had subjected Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and other Muslims to mass detention, surveillance, and torture. Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, accused Chinese authorities of creating "a dystopian hellscape on a staggering scale". "It should shock the conscience of humanity that massive numbers of people have been subjected to brainwashing, torture and other degrading treatment in internment camps, while millions more live in fear amid a vast surveillance apparatus," Ms Callamard said. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57386625

Brainless woke bullshit by people with no knowledge or understanding of history, no perspective and no brains.

That wasn't what was originally imagined by those who thought up the idea. And none of them predicted the kind of brutality or sexual mistreatment which occurred. These schools should have been more tightly monitored by the government. But the truth is few schools were. Pedophiles ran free in schools and society for decades because society at large didn't really even understand that was a thing. This is about Egerton Ryerson, the man whose statue was torn down and beheaded last week. Read this to see just how out of proportion and misguided so many people are on this issue. https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/the-imbecile-attack-on-egerton-ryerson

Yeah, bullshit. Nobody but NOBODY is refusing to accept there were wrongdoings and lots of them in the past. What we're not doing is wallowing in them. What we're not doing is allowing them to overshadow everything else. What we're not doing is taking those bad things out of the context and times in which they happened. So it's wrong to ask about facts and put things in context when all you want is to wallow in how guilty and shameful a place Canada is, right? Might I suggest you just go back to wherever you came from? Maybe their ancestors were much nicer than the ones here and you won't have to cry so much.

The Conservatives party seems to be the only one which still supports freedom of speech. They didn't like Islam being the only religion singled out for special protection in the motion, and they didn't like the uncertain definition of "islamophobia". Conservative MP David Anderson told the House his party asked Islamophobia be changed to "hatred against Muslims." "We're stuck with a divisive term, Mr. Speaker, that means nothing, or anything, which is not clearly defined," he said. We've been over this. It should not be necessary among intelligent people to point out that you don't mean ALL of anything when you refer to a group. And when a group's behaviour concerns you the natural thing to do is bring up examples of that behaviour. You can call it stereotyping but when we read PEW polls about 70%, 80%, 90% of Muslims in certain countries (including Egypt) supporting the backwardness, brutality and misogyny of Sharia law some of us are concerned about importing large numbers of these people here without any real screening. I have to admit that I don't enjoy angry, insult-filled arguments online or in person. I don't like some of the ways this country is changing and its traditions and history being denigrated. We bring in too many foreigners too fast and do nothing to select those who would be most adaptable, and flexible. We don't even try to integrate them and teach them pride in Canada, its history, institutions and accomplishments because progressives don't feel any pride in those things. And I admit to getting provoked by moronic, idiotic, stupidly emotional bullshit like what MH is spewing lately. When he accuses me of supporting the murder of an innocent family out for a walk I just want to tell him to F off and put him in my ignore file for good.

We don't know he was wearing swastikas. All we have for that is the taxi driver, who was too shaken to talk directly to the media saying they might have been swastikas. I would say if he was the type to wear swastikas there's not much doubt he killed them either because they were Muslims or brown or immigrants or foreign dressed or all four.

Not when you're in a life or death struggle with a country they support and a dictator they deeply admire.

That's exaggerated. Only a few hundred Italians who were hard core fascists were interred. The great majority of Italians were not.

I would not really doubt it myself. However, just because London police had that immediate reaction - understandable given some nut in combat gear runs over a Muslim family - does not make it so without some statement the guy made, or something on his computer or in his history which showed he hated Muslims. I am curious about what evidence they have, other than, as I said, the obvious notion that a guy dressed like that running over Muslims likely hated Muslims.

So you're saying we should ban Islam since it routinely teaches violent beliefs towards minorities?

Yes. Extremists like MH would throw a blanket down over all discussion which criticizes or insults a given group, probably applying pretty harsh laws to silence all dissent. Much of the Left stopped supporting freedom of speech years ago where that speech goes against their social beliefs. And as their beliefs have become more extreme their anger at dissent has strengthened, as well.

Given every post you make on the subject seems to be coming from a guy pouring tears down his chest as he pounds his fingers on the keyboard that's a pretty rich accusation to make towards anyone else.

None of these people are conservative in any way, shape or form. They are simply part of the shift in the Tory party back to being the Progressive Conservatives - Liberals in all but name, without ideas, vision or principles. I Expect someone to replace Maxine Bernier and then perhaps the PPC can find a charismatic leader with better judgement. Or a new Reform Party will arise, and drain the so-called Conservatives of almost all their support as they did to the PCs last time. O'Toole will be the next Joe Clark.

Did you read what I posted? Immigration is not going to make any difference. Anyway that's not the purpose of immigration. If it was, the Trudeau government would not have quadrupled the number of elderly immigrants who could be sponsored.