Jump to content

Is Canada becoming a Communist state?


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The woke have declared that you have to identify people as a product of their skin colour now. 

It's awkward and stupid, but that's 2021. 

My skin is the colour of this text.  Victim?  Don't ever refer to me as a victim.  The 'woke' can go fuck themselves.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

So your basic point is that an economy must have 'winners' and 'losers', and if it does not, it means that the 'winners' are being 'stolen' from by the 'losers'?  Am I reading that right?  

Walmart owners are making money hand-over-fist, paying their workers less than a living wage and baking billions.  The government (aka taxpayers) get to step in and subsidize the workers that Walmart can't 'afford' to pay.  Who's 'stealing' here?  Is there anything wrong with taking some of the 100s of millions the Waltons earn and using that to pay their workers a wage high enough that they don't need government welfare?  Is that stealing from the "competent"?  

 

"Watered down version of Poi Pot's imprisonment" sounds like the usual right-wing hyperbole.

Yes, what does race/sexual orientation have to do with technical prowess?  Having asked that, perhaps you can explain why the right spent months attacking Dr. Tam as a transgendered person because they didn't like her politics.  Whether or not she is transgendered (and I have seen no proof) would be irrelevant to her education, training and knowledge - so why was the right so willing to bring that up every opportunity they had to mock her, to impugn her character and her skills.   

 

Yes, so why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, the gender of Dr. Tam.  Why can't they get behind addressing climate change, why can't they let adults choose who they want to love, whether or not to have children, worship how they want and dress how they want.  

 

Leftists need to stop designing economic policy as if every business is Amazon or Walmart.  The vast majority of businesses are small businesses.  They employ the vast majority of Canadians.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Take a good look at this picture! Now, tell me, WHERE is "the safest part of the realm" while the men (he-men like you I presume) hack each other to death! 

d7c77km-59197760-9b9e-4291-84d8-732315c6

And fwiw, until we started putting together the barbaric "civilizations" like we have today, no human communities were fighting each other unless there was some calamity causing general food scarcities. 

Today, war and arming for war are profitable businesses, and cause death and destruction just to advance the interests and goals of ruling imperialists and their financial backers! Without empires, we should need no psychopath murderers running around hacking each other to death for the benefit of empire-building! 

ahistorical nonsense

violence was far more prevalent before civilization than after

without civilization lives are nasty, brutish and short, it's not a garden of eden

get rid of all the empires and people will still kill each other

Hobbes was right, not Rousseau

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Give me a chart with actual numbers on it! Not this bullshit % of GDP that war grifters use to keep feeding off tax dollars!

those are the actual numbers

just because people you disagree with can use those numbers to undermine your preferred narrative doesn't make them incorrect

% of GDP is a far better measure of the scope of the military relative to the economy than nominal military spending

facts don't care about your feelings

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

By my own interpretation of political ideology, I just wish 'Green Marxists' were infiltrating our governments, and putting an end to growth-at-all-costs capitalism, which only benefits the rich, while the rest of us tread water, trying to hold on to what we already have!

 

20 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Okay, now that I've had time to think about and do some reading..................

That Nation article was archived. So I assumed it's simply burying in plain sight, because they know very few these days will go through the effort of trying to find it! But it was posted on the Nation's website years ago! 

And this isn't a matter of not being able to agree on everything! It's a question of whether those who make a claim of having ideological principles act on those principles consistently or toss them aside when convenient or profitable to do so!

I said in my post that the change in tactics was operational and not likely a change in ideology, that was almost certainly just below the surface.....like a crocodile waiting for the right time to attack! 

The obvious reasons why Cold War US regimes were tolerant of union...especially large unions and their leaders was because they knew the leaders were already coopted somewhat...certainly anti-communist, and acting ruthlessly against workers as both parties do today would have raised the risk that, with just a little funding, the Soviets or the Chinese could have helped real leftist anticapitalist organizers. So they acted with caution when it was essential to do so.

Many geopolitical analysts on left and right have stated that the differences between the way the US deals with Russia and China today, compared to the Cold War era, shows a complete lack of respect... for instance: their bullshit "Rules-Based Order" directives they are expecting all other nations to follow! The US doesn't follow international law or even the shit they declare others need to follow, and yet our useless MSM will repeat these calls from Blinky and Joe every time they open their stupid mouths! The good thing is that, as time goes on, and the US becomes more and more trapped by the debt it is creating to keep up with budgetary demands, its Empire will slowly recede from view and be disregarded by Russia and China and Iran and others....being considered little more than a barking dog! Because the US is having to withdraw from the warzones it has created whether it wants to or not, and all it has been able to accomplish in the wars it has been causing in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen,  is (like proxy Israel) to keep bombing the shit out of them and pay for any mercenaries to go in and ruin lives of people there.

So, I for one believe US hegemony is far worse than the multipolar world order both Russia and China are trying to work towards. I am not buying US exploitation, so I will have no remorse whoever or whatever takes its place! 

It's a toxic world order that endangers most of the people in this world, and only benefits the "dark triad" thinking billionaires who feed off misery and exploitation, and don't respect any limits to their greed and self-aggrandizement! 

If I have to choose between a left that's comfortable with the system we have now, or any radical antiwar activists on the left or the right, I'll take the latter!

Humans are not perfect creatures.  If you require a person to act on their ideological principles consistently in order to take them seriously, you might end up inhabiting a world full of people who you can't take seriously.  Heard this nice allegory recently:

Suppose we're both in Toronto.  I want to travel to Winnepeg, and you want to travel to Vancouver.  We can travel together for part of the way.  Maybe I buy the hotel rooms and you buy the gas and food, or something like that.  Even though we aren't going to the same destination, we can both profit from cooperating.

Maybe politics is like that.

I definitely agree that the "Rules-Based Order" effectively means that America sets a bunch of rules and bullies others into obeying them while America flouts them.

The MSM is comprised almost entirely of for-profit, privately owned propaganda machines.  Spewing BS is what they do, it's why they are, and it's not going to change anytime soon :(  The best solution I can think of would be to go back to the rules that limited media ownership to (I believe) two newspapers and one tv station.  I would also bring back the Fairness Doctorine.  Problem is that this wouldn't touch the hot mess that is social media and youtube.

I think we are already seeing the US receding and becoming less.  So far it appears that the power vacuum they leave behind will be filled by China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

I sincerely hope you are right about Russia and China being less murderous than America.  Worth pointing out that nobody has been able to say 'no' to America since WWII - I'm skeptical that China or Russia would handle being a hyperpower any better.  I think it's bad for a person, or a people, to have the kind of power over others that America had for about 70 years.  

I think one of the big lessons of Trump is that the status quo being awful does not mean that things can't get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Shady said:

Complete nonsense.  The government didn't pay people to stay home, at least not at their full wages.  They also didn't pay businesses to stay closed.  Everyone for the most part has followed all of the guidelines and made significant sacrifices.  Suggesting that this summer be limited to small outdoor gatherings is anti-science.  And you're completely misinformed.  The government did suspend many people's rights, which is in itself an oxymoron, because rights are rights no matter what.  A pandemic doesn't nullify the constitution or the charter of rights.  Regardless, there is no right to not die of a plague.  And it's not a plague in the old sense of the term.  It's significantly less deadly than any previous pandemics.  If you're afraid of catching covid, stay home.  But you have absolutely no right to force other people to stay home or destroy they're livelihoods to make you safe.  

From Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca Charter rights include life, liberty and personal security.  "Not dying of the plague" is not in there, but I would argue it is under the right to "life".  The Charter also gives people the right to travel and live in any part of the country.  So some people's Charter right to travel freely is clashing with other people's Charter right to life.

The Principle of Harm states that we ought to be free to do whatever we want, provided it does not harm others.  If I want to go to a diner, but my doing so risks harming others by potentially giving them covid, this would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the Principle of Harm (the Harm Principle is a philosophical argument, not a legal one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GrittyLeftist said:

From Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca Charter rights include life, liberty and personal security.  "Not dying of the plague" is not in there, but I would argue it is under the right to "life".  The Charter also gives people the right to travel and live in any part of the country.  So some people's Charter right to travel freely is clashing with other people's Charter right to life.

The Principle of Harm states that we ought to be free to do whatever we want, provided it does not harm others.  If I want to go to a diner, but my doing so risks harming others by potentially giving them covid, this would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the Principle of Harm (the Harm Principle is a philosophical argument, not a legal one).

Complete nonsense.  You have no right to not die of a plague.  If you wish to not risk yourself, stay home.  You have no right to have others do the same to keep you safe.  Take personal responsibility and keep yourself safe.  Regardless, covid is not the plague.  The plague killed 40% of Europe’s population.  Covid has killed 0.0001%.  Learn what rights are.  Also, the reason for covid restrictions was to not overwhelm hospitals, not keep everybody “safe”.

Edited by Shady
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Nuclear powers have continued to use mostly conventional warfare.  

in actual fact, it is a frozen conflict

the opposing forces at the strategic level remain at fifteen minutes notice to launch on warning at all times

at the theatre level, tactical nuclear weapons proliferate

where they are employed like chess pieces in conjunction with conventional forces

for example, the Russians retake Crimea

then deploy tactical nuclear weapons there to ensure that it cannot be taken back

this is an operational manoeuvre use of nuclear weapons, called Nuclear Deescalation

 

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If you really think that the net result of bringing them from the stone age to the space age just boils down to: "we gave them science", that just displays an astonishing level of ignorance on your part.

How many little girls would choose to live the actual FN lifestyle GL? If you offered families $100,000 to live one full winter in northern Canada, just like the natives did pre-1492, not even 1% of them could hack it. Life here was beyond brutal. 

The FN have it pretty good by any stretch of the imagination now GL.

Think for a second about the fact that in 2021 a single hereditary chief (FYI there are 'hereditary chiefs' in Canada that are as white as King George was, to the naked eye) from one small band has the power to kibosh a pipeline that benefits entire provinces and moves strategic resources around the country. That's almost idiotic, but it's the power that they wield.

I'm sure you're well aware that oil is an extremely critical resource, both militarily and for the economy. So, in effect, one single person has the power to put our country in jeopardy, and there's no requirement for them to show logic or reason. They just have veto power. BOOM! 

The FN also get tax breaks, free money, they can hunt and fish year round, and they get many other benefits that other Canadians don't. 

I'm not saying that life is perfect for them, but it's more than just 'fair'.

They should be thankful that it was Europeans that came here instead of middle easterners. If it was Mohammed's own armies that came here then the FN men would have had the option of beheading or conversion, and if they chose beheading then their wives and children would have been forced into rape slavery. The cultural mix here now would be like modern-day Pakistan:

We'd have to wipe out every single one of the FN people twenty times over to equal the human rights record of Pakistan (they've done 2 massive genocides since WWII, killing many millions of people), and yet the only two bad countries on earth - according to leftists - are Canada and Israel. Forgive me if I don't take leftists seriously. You're not making a great case here.

And FWIW, you still forgot to mention where the event that you spoke of occurred. I'm curious.

Fair enough.  The "event" was an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal meaning.  That said, I grew up on unceded land - my raising and education was funded by felling trees that were, according to Canadian law, not Canada's legal property.  Vast swathes of what used to be 600-1000 year old trees are now slash piles, although to be fair, some replanting has been done.  Even the many of the local loggers think that the logging practices here are outrageously wasteful.  The only old growth trees left are the ones that are protected - we're currently cutting our grandkids' trees to keep the industry going.  Several billion dollars worth of raw logs have left this area in the last century, and all that has come back are whatever part of the loggers' wages that they spend in the area.  There were almost no benefits for the FN folks who, according to Canadian law, were the legal owners of those trees.  

You have not addressed the premises or the conclusion of the argument.  To be clear, I am not making a moral argument.  This is entirely unrelated to the normal dialogue that goes on between the left and the right about indigenous issues - IMO this argument does not get made because it could be financially ruinous to Canada as a whole, and even the NDP knows that.  I am making a specific, factual claim that can be evaluated for truth or falsehood.

1)Ever since 1763, it has been the law in Canada that Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by negotiating treaties between the Crown and whichever group claims the land.

2)Canada broke this law.  

3)Therefore, Canada has a legal obligation to accept justice, under its own laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GrittyLeftist said:

3)Therefore, Canada has a legal obligation to accept justice, under its own laws.

Canada does perhaps, but the provinces within the Confederation don't actually

under Section 33 the Notwithstanding Clause, the provinces have the constitutional right to opt out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I appreciate your sincerity and research. These issues were discussed at length in past threads.  I don’t question the right of anyone to try to make a land claim through the courts.  However, there are wide swaths of BC and Canada as a whole that were neither ceded nor claimed by anyone.  Peoples roamed, warred, and set up temporary settlements over thousands of years.  It wasn’t an issue in early European settlement for more than two hundred years except in pockets of Acadia and New France where the settlements encroached on traditional hunting and fishing grounds or trails and river communications.  The issues arise during periods of mass migration later on, such as during the Potato Famine in the 19th century.  Well the people never stopped coming, and the newcomers were no longer just from the colonial mother counties of Britain or France or the US (Loyalists).  Treaties were formed to deal with the facts on the ground, often incompletely or inconclusively.  Reservations were an attempt at preserving an anachronistic way of life that Indigenous long ago mostly abandoned except in the far North and remote areas where immigrants were in the minority.  Yes there was a suppression of native culture in the name of the majority population’s notions of progress at the time, including public education which was seen by the mainstream as a leg up and way out of a hard life for the agrarian and industrial masses.  By today’s standards of course the early government had a narrow idea of public education, but compare that to the alternative at the time.

Context is everything.  Courts will consider land claims on the merits of the evidence and people who bring them.  I’d say that it’s very hard to ascribe title or ownership of lands that were unclaimed hundreds of years ago to people alive today, to remove or buy out the mostly recent immigrants who occupy them, and then to expect that health, education, and infrastructure on these lands should be paid for by the taxpayers who don’t own or live on them.  To rephrase an old chestnut, No representation without taxation (rather than no taxation without representation).  People are not truly independent if they can’t earn their own money, collect their own taxes from this income, and take care of the infrastructure and institutions on their land, such as schools and hospitals.  To pretend otherwise is a lie.

The reserve system can sometimes be a taxpayer funded theme park where status Indians and those claiming Indigenous blood get free land and funding without having to make financial sacrifices for the upkeep of their own territories.  Now, that’s not all of them.  There are independent territories with viable resources and self-government.  There are wealthy reserves.  There are also many reserves that are not self-sustaining.  On the whole the system is dysfunctional, but the decision to change it must come from the Indigenous inhabitants, and if it’s about simply sending more outside money from taxpayers, the public won’t support that.  

First off, some points I totally agree with - people are not independent if they can't own their own money, etc.  The reserve system, and being a status Indian in general, are imperfect, wasteful systems that are prone to abuse and a reasonable argument can be made that they disincentivize virtuous behaviour on the part of individuals and groups.  Some reserves are wealthier than others and many reserves are financially destitute. 

I would emphasize your point about "comparing it to the standards of the time," and take it significantly farther.  As much as I find Colonialism to be abhorrent by today's morality, when I look around the world and see what was happening in other places at that time, it is possible to see Canada as comparatively benevolent.  Also, the arguments made by early colonizers are valid (if not sound) - if you accept that this life is an illusion that exists only as an opportunity for the worthy to achieve eternal paradise, and if you accept that Christ is the only way into heaven, and if you accept that a given church has a monopoly on accurately interpreting Christ, Colonialism makes a great deal of sense and can even come across as quite far-seeing and benevolent.  There is a dialectic here between moral absolutism (some things are always wrong, everywhere, for everyone - very useful for holding those we dislike to account for their "bad" actions) and moral relativism (sometimes morality is different for different people, or under different circumstances - very useful for excusing those we like from their "bad" actions).  Unfortunately, terms like "dialectic," "moral absolutism" and "moral relativism" do not make it into the public education system, so there are plenty of intelligent, reasonable adults who haven't had the chance to put the work in to arrive at a nuanced understanding.  This, IMO, is why the left and the right spend so much time shouting at one another - the knowledge of how to have useful political conversations has been intentionally withheld from us, so that we will be reliant upon our "betters" to solve these problems for us.

Most of all, I believe that "shoveling more money at the problem" (I'm totally paraphrasing here) is very unlikely to achieve a better outcome.  For me, this problem will not be solved by making Canada "pay a fine," it will be solved by creating some new kind of Canada that obeys its own laws and doesn't need to have exploited underclasses in order to have a functioning economy.  What does that Canada look like?  Gruntandshrug.

Regarding land claims, I think there are some really difficult factors that make it hard for anyone to know the actual truth of the matter.  Here's my best current understanding of how semi-nomadic peoples used land, please correct me if my understanding is incomplete.

In the summers, we have three different places we go - we probably have a favourite that we usually use because it's the best, and we have a couple of backups because there might be freaky weather or herd migrations or other people showing up to kick our asses and take our stuff.  Then in the fall, we have a few different places we go, and again in the winter, and again in the spring.

However, we have to travel from spot to spot.  Do we "own" the land that we need to transit in order to go from place to place?  Suppose we have three spots.  Can we use those as the points of a triangle, and claim all the land within those spots?  What if some of the land in there was only rarely used?  Suppose we have three dozen spots.  Can we claim everything within those spots?  Can we only claim those spots and the travel routes we used?  What if our stories don't mention which routes we travelled by?

Also, some of those areas are shared with other groups.  We would conduct political negotiations and end up with something like "we share our backup spring spot once every three years in return for the ability to use their backup spring spot once every three years."  Those political arrangements would be in a constant state of flux.

The geography itself changes sometimes.  Maybe there is a big landslide that changes the course of a river, and now one of our spring spots is no good anymore.  Maybe there is a forest fire and we can't use one of our summer spots for the next 20-80 years.  

Finally, war is a problem all peoples encounter.  Maybe we've lost too many fights and our population is lower so our resource needs drop, or maybe we've won a bunch of fights and our population is higher so our resource needs increase.  That probably translates into losing or gaining territory.

This process goes on for thousands of years, then along comes a series of plagues that kill a little over 90% of us in the space of, say, 20 years.  We don't have libraries, instead, we have elders, and we rely on their memories, and the stories they tell, to provide our historical records.  The old are more likely to die of the plague.  We have enough time to take a few measures to mitigate the loss of our history, but not enough to prevent it.  

Now along comes the RCMP, taking our children away from us.  Those children aren't learning the stories that are our history the same way that they used to.  It will be more difficult for us to accurately pass all of the stories down because we aren't in charge of raising our own children anymore.  This goes on for more than a hundred years.

Now today, what is left of those stories?  Surely there will be some sincerely held yet wrong beliefs.  Surely there will be reasonable adults who have good reasons to believe that their ancestors used a certain territory.  But what if that territory is also claimed by someone else?  What if that territory was never used by their ancestors?  Oral history is currently allowed as legal evidence of land claims, but the ability to maintain a continuous oral history has been severely undermined.

Suppose that your people used an area for a thousand years then lost several battles and had to abandon the territory?  Suppose further that another people came in and used that area for a couple of hundred years.  Both of you may have stories of your ancestors using that area, but those stories have become too... tattered?  shredded?  incomplete? distorted?... to be able to know the truth of the matter.  Suppose your two peoples negotiated peaceful sharing of those areas, and you have stories of using the area, but no stories of the negotiations that lead to peacefully sharing those areas?

https://www.bctreaty.ca/map

This shows several areas that are claimed by multiple groups (you'll have to mouse over the various logos to see the areas they claim).  If you are the government, what are you supposed to do when two sets of oral history, which are legally considered valid evidence, contradict one another?  If you are a member of one of the groups, what is the best course of action?  If you are a random Canadian trying to make sense of all this, what are you to do?

Best extremely scientific answer I have come up with?  "Beats the hell out of me."  This whole mess is damnably complicated, and IMO the talking points of the left and the right are both incomplete and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Fair enough.  The "event" was an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal meaning.  That said, I grew up on unceded land - my raising and education was funded by felling trees that were, according to Canadian law, not Canada's legal property.  Vast swathes of what used to be 600-1000 year old trees are now slash piles, although to be fair, some replanting has been done.  Even the many of the local loggers think that the logging practices here are outrageously wasteful.  The only old growth trees left are the ones that are protected - we're currently cutting our grandkids' trees to keep the industry going.  Several billion dollars worth of raw logs have left this area in the last century, and all that has come back are whatever part of the loggers' wages that they spend in the area.  There were almost no benefits for the FN folks who, according to Canadian law, were the legal owners of those trees.  

You have not addressed the premises or the conclusion of the argument.  To be clear, I am not making a moral argument.  This is entirely unrelated to the normal dialogue that goes on between the left and the right about indigenous issues - IMO this argument does not get made because it could be financially ruinous to Canada as a whole, and even the NDP knows that.  I am making a specific, factual claim that can be evaluated for truth or falsehood.

1)Ever since 1763, it has been the law in Canada that Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by negotiating treaties between the Crown and whichever group claims the land.

2)Canada broke this law.  

3)Therefore, Canada has a legal obligation to accept justice, under its own laws.

Who is claiming the land?  Such claimants have to prove continuous habitation on the land.  What’s the statute of limitations on that?  In other words, how many generations and centuries back are fair game for someone today to reference?   For example, my town was largely settled by United Empire Loyalists.  None of their descendants are clamouring for land that belonged to great great great great grandparents.  Anyway, the courts decide land claims based on evidence.

I just think it’s extreme privilege that certain racially pure groups get to live in a parallel universe where little is expected by the people who foot the bill for health, education, and much of the reserve infrastructure, namely non-Indigenous taxpayers.  I’d love a status card.  I’d feel like a Roman citizen.  It certainly discourages intermarriage with non-Indigenous.  Anyway we’re stuck with this welfare program and it’s protected by the racist Indian Act.  Either people are Canadian and subject to the same rights and freedoms and taxation or they are not, yet Indigenous are a special category of Canadian with extra privileges.  Only they can change the Indian Act and reserve system or else they can claim colonial interference.  Let’s be honest, who wants to give up getting free stuff?  There’s always the choice to leave the reserve and join the work slaves.

I admire the reserves that have found ways to use their resources to be more self-sufficient and are well managed.  For the unsustainable reserves, I wish that Indigenous would choose give their people a way out, as the current system incentivizes unsustainable settlements.  Some real injustices took place at residential schools.  It was misguided to discourage the use of native language and cultural practices.  It’s wrong to forcibly remove children from parents. Where that happened of course there’s good reason for sympathy.  We have also read the stories about the expulsion of the Acadiens by the English and the brutality of the Six Nations against the Hurons.  How far do you want to go back?  The majority of Canadians are either first, second or third generation immigrants who weren’t here when such events took place.  How much should they pay the distant descendants of early contact Indigenous?  Land claims will continue.  Healing will continue.  Everyone will need to move on because the biggest challenges ahead impact all of humanity.  The pandemic is an example of this, and the vaccines were developed in “colonial” countries.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

I sincerely hope you are right about Russia and China being less murderous than America.  Worth pointing out that nobody has been able to say 'no' to America since WWII - I'm skeptical that China or Russia would handle being a hyperpower any better.  I think it's bad for a person, or a people, to have the kind of power over others that America had for about 70 years. 

 

And still, Canada has purposely sought to benefit from American economic and military power as a matter of policy to preserve a "rules based order".   Chrystia Freeland explained this obvious reality to Parliament in 2017:

 

Quote

...As I have said, we Canadians can rightly be proud of the role we played in building the postwar order, and the unprecedented peace and prosperity that followed.

Yet even as we celebrate our own part in that project, it’s only fair for us to acknowledge the larger contribution of the United States. For in blood, in treasure, in strategic vision, in leadership, America has paid the lion's share.

The United States has truly been the indispensable nation, Mr. Speaker. For their unique, seven-decades-long contribution to our shared peace ‎and prosperity, and on behalf of all Canadians, I would like to profoundly thank our American friends.

As I have argued, Canada believes strongly that this stable, predictable international order has been deeply in our national interest. And we believe it has helped foster peace and prosperity for our ‎southern neighbours, too.

Yet it would be naive or hypocritical to claim before this House that all Americans today agree. Indeed, many of the voters in last year's presidential election cast their ballots, animated in part by a desire to shrug off the burden of world leadership. To say this is not controversial: it is simply a fact.

Canada is grateful, and will always be grateful, to our neighbour for the outsized role it has played in the world. And we seek and will continue to seek to persuade our friends that their continued international leadership is very much in their national interest—as well as that of the rest of the free world.

Yet we also recognize that this is ultimately not our decision to make. It is a choice Americans must make for themselves.

The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership, puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course. For Canada that course must be the renewal, indeed the strengthening, of the postwar multilateral order.

https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2017/06/address_by_ministerfreelandoncanadasforeignpolicypriorities.html

 

Accordingly, Canada is far less prepared for a future world without a "rules based order" and purposeful American isolationism.   Unlike depending on the Americans after Britain's decline, there is nobody else to run to...again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

Yes, so why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, the gender of Dr. Tam.  Why can't they get behind addressing climate change, why can't they let adults choose who they want to love, whether or not to have children, worship how they want and dress how they want.  

 

This is not just a issue with the right , but both sides have continually done this for as long as i can remember. it is a human nature thing, when we don't like or understand something we make fun or bring out the negative side of things.  I can remember the character assignation of Harper, and Scheer the liberals painted them as losers, unable to lead our nation....and how brilliant that campaign was, it did win the liberals both elections, all of it was false, but the people still eat that shit up....

We could talk about climate change all year, and still not come to a solution that would serve both sides. addressing climate change is a huge unknown as far as the economical cost to the nation is going to be, to many uncertainties, to much at risk to be decided by to many guesses.

the right tends to be more religious than the left, and we as a nation have not progressed to the point where religion is no longer a factor in anything, like morals and values, one would have to ask has the pope come out and said gays can be married in church, or accepted as a pastor, or preacher, has it happened in any other religion ?, i ask because I honestly thought that western religion was more mordern or updated to todays values...when copared to the others but thats just me not knowing. i think this is a human issue, as i think for the most part we judge what we don't understand.., or find foreign to us... It has been centuries of religious programing that have been the basis of our everyday life, our morals and values, our laws, all have overtones in our religions and it is going to take many years to change all of that. ....

Our recent past seems to be opening up everything that was once proven in science and now we threw out the book,  to the point it gets a little crazy, like the over 100 different genders we have today, with more being invented everyday... none based on science, and yet it is accepted by the majority to the point we now have laws, saying we have to agree or face our justice system...things are changing way to fast, for people to adjust to, or even study and prove false....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 9:12 AM, blackbird said:

Another clear sign we are moving toward some kind of authoritarian Marxist / globalist state:  Much of the former power cabinet ministers held has been removed from them and centralized in the PMO's unelected staff and Prime Minister himself.  A clear example of this the SNC Lavalin/Jody Wilson Raybould issue and the Harjit Sajjan/ military sexual abuse problem.  The minister of defence, Sajjan, refused to listen to a complaint against Vance and declined to take action, a clear sign he has little or no power to do anything.  Gives the impression ministers are afraid to do anything for fear they will be shot down by the PMO or PM.  This is a result of removing decision making from the elected and appointed cabinet ministers and centralizing it in the PMO, some of whom are unelected bureaucrats.

If these ministers are too afraid of Castro Turdeau then they should not have become ministers or politicians at all or got involved in politics. Politicians are supposed to work for we the people and not their comrade leaders like Castro Trudeau. Canadians can now only expect from their dear comrade political leaders more control and power over them. For a little bit of power and control and money they have sold their souls to the communist globalist devil. such a pathetic bunch indeed. 

Sadly, it would appear as though Canadians have to many ass kisser minister politicians in Canada. There can be no doubt about it that Canada has well become a communist state today. When we see pastors being put in the gulag for having a church service, like they have done to Pastor Art Pawlowski of Calgary, this is a sign of communism in action because communism and Christianity do not go hand in hand. Covid equals communism.  

Canadians are being pretty much forced not to be able to go travelling in their own country. We are told to not even travel from one city to another city in their own province. This is an assault on a very freedom to travel. We are being told that we must remain prisoners in our own city and homes for Covid sake. Come on, you bunch of losers out there, wake the hell up before we are told that we cannot even go to our own bedrooms without permission. Hey, in CANADA, one never knows, eh? ;)

FREE THE FACE. ABOLISH THE MASK. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

From Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca Charter rights include life, liberty and personal security.  "Not dying of the plague" is not in there, but I would argue it is under the right to "life".  The Charter also gives people the right to travel and live in any part of the country.  So some people's Charter right to travel freely is clashing with other people's Charter right to life.

The Principle of Harm states that we ought to be free to do whatever we want, provided it does not harm others.  If I want to go to a diner, but my doing so risks harming others by potentially giving them covid, this would seem to be a pretty clear violation of the Principle of Harm (the Harm Principle is a philosophical argument, not a legal one).

The way things are going on in communist Canada today, the Charter of Rights is nothing more than a piece of ass wipe paper. Our rights and freedoms are being violated every day because of this Covid 1984 hoax. All the Covid restrictions in place today are in violation of the COR, but yet, ask our comrade politicians if they really care about our rights and freedoms. To your face your welfare bum recipients will say yes to our rights and freedoms and that they must be protected. But behind your backs you get the communist up your ass COR anti-rights and freedoms finger. Hello? 

Covid equals communism. 

FREE THE FACE. ABOLISH THE MASK. :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada does perhaps, but the provinces within the Confederation don't actually

under Section 33 the Notwithstanding Clause, the provinces have the constitutional right to opt out

That's a really, really interesting point I've never heard made.  I wonder why none of them have done it?  Hmmm, did a bit of googling, I think maybe the Notwithstanding Clause only applies to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Indian Act was already on the books then?  Google says that the NC applies to "the Charter" but doesn't explicitly say more and I'm house sitting for someone with terrible internet so I don't have the patience to go digging further right now.  Just posting is tedious AF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The woke have declared that you have to identify people as a product of their skin colour now. 

It's awkward and stupid, but that's 2021. 

Idea - what if "wokeness" is Neoliberalism trying to co-opt the far left?  Belong to groups and movements by being seen purchasing certain things and not purchasing certain other things, learn what slogans to shout but don't learn any of the philosophical arguments underpinning them or engage with other people's ideas in good faith, accept a simplistic worldview where you always get to feel morally superior to the people you disagree with, and be sure not to deviate from the standards that are required in order to belong to the group.  It's the co-option of punk all over again - a movement that started out with people making their own clothing, which genuinely did threaten established corporate interests, and ended up with people spending several hundred dollars at stores owned by those exact same corporate interests so they could make a certain fashion statement/be part of a particular "in" crowd.

That's all of the top of my head though so I'd definitely welcome any thoughts on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

And still, Canada has purposely sought to benefit from American economic and military power as a matter of policy to preserve a "rules based order".   Chrystia Freeland explained this obvious reality to Parliament in 2017:

 

 

Accordingly, Canada is far less prepared for a future world without a "rules based order" and purposeful American isolationism.   Unlike depending on the Americans after Britain's decline, there is nobody else to run to...again.

The problem for Canada has always been its Balkanized regionalism.  When you strip out the pure wool Québécois, Eastern fishermen, BC tree huggers, Alberta resource barons, Indigenous North and thousands of distinct groups, recent isolationist immigrants, and all other forms of exceptionalism, who speaks for Canada?  Chrétien asked that very pertinent question.  Do we have enough to bind us together to form a country that follows a path and should follow a path that is different from France, Britain, the US, or any Canadian sub group?  If so, we need to flesh that out with policies that strengthen those interests and make us truly independent.

Good leaders know how to stir that vision.  I think JT started out with some support and fervour, but he’s playing catch-up now.  His dad was controversial and I didn’t agree with all his policies, but he was strong and had a clear vision for the country, even if some of his policies have been its undoing.

We want to be independent yet we can’t do it all on our own, so it’s always this dance between maintaining strong bonds with allies yet defining our distinctness.  On the whole Canada is a very worthwhile project.   That’s about it.  It has problems like every country.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GrittyLeftist said:

That's a really, really interesting point I've never heard made.  I wonder why none of them have done it?  Hmmm, did a bit of googling, I think maybe the Notwithstanding Clause only applies to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Indian Act was already on the books then?  Google says that the NC applies to "the Charter" but doesn't explicitly say more and I'm house sitting for someone with terrible internet so I don't have the patience to go digging further right now.  Just posting is tedious AF.

you invoked the Treaty of Paris 1763, but the Canada Act 1982 supersedes it

according to Confederation, the Indian Act doesn't have any provincial jurisdiction at all

the Indian Act only applies to Indians living under federal jurisdiction on Reservations

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shady said:

Complete nonsense.  You have no right to not die of a plague.  If you wish to not risk yourself, stay home.  You have no right to have others do the same to keep you safe.  Take personal responsibility and keep yourself safe.  Regardless, covid is not the plague.  The plague killed 40% of Europe’s population.  Covid has killed 0.0001%.  Learn what rights are.  Also, the reason for covid restrictions was to not overwhelm hospitals, not keep everybody “safe”.

Not only was that argument not "complete nonsense," it contained a factual claim that can be verified, if you are willing to put the effort in.

Lots of people can't afford to stay home until everyone is vaccinated, and it's disingenuous to pretend to be unaware of that.  This is a very ablist solution - those who have wealth will be fine, those who lack it will serve to incubate the next disease so that we'll be able to make a new vaccine to sell to the wealthy.  Neoliberalism marches on, turning every disruption of the status quo into a way to profit the wealthy at the expense of us all.

Personal responsibility does not work for an infectious disease (plague was a shorter way to say that, but your criticism of it is valid) because the gains made by the responsible many are squandered by the actions of the irresponsible few.  With money, if you work hard and make good decisions, you can hope you'll succeed, even if your neighbour does not work hard or make good decisions. In fact, it's good for you if your neighbour doesn't work hard or make good decisions, because financial success is a zero-sum game.  With infectious diseases, the hard work and good decisions you made can be undone by your neighbour if they do not also put in hard work and make good decisions.  Health is not a zero-sum game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you an example

the Province of Quebec has the jurisdiction to seize the property of the Mohawks at Oka

the Indian Act does not have the jurisdiction to prevent Quebec from invoking eminent domain

at which point the only claim the Mohawks would have is loss of liberty under Section 2 of the Charter

but Quebec could then invoke Section 33 to overrule that

thus how the provinces can disregard the Treaty of Paris 1763

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Idea - what if "wokeness" is Neoliberalism trying to co-opt the far left?  Belong to groups and movements by being seen purchasing certain things and not purchasing certain other things, learn what slogans to shout but don't learn any of the philosophical arguments underpinning them or engage with other people's ideas in good faith, accept a simplistic worldview where you always get to feel morally superior to the people you disagree with, and be sure not to deviate from the standards that are required in order to belong to the group.  It's the co-option of punk all over again - a movement that started out with people making their own clothing, which genuinely did threaten established corporate interests, and ended up with people spending several hundred dollars at stores owned by those exact same corporate interests so they could make a certain fashion statement/be part of a particular "in" crowd.

That's all of the top of my head though so I'd definitely welcome any thoughts on it.

The wokies take their marching orders directly from Trudeau, Biden, etc - the big government crowd.

I'm not sure how you make that connection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The wokies take their marching orders directly from Trudeau, Biden, etc - the big government crowd.

no, it's the other way round, Trudeau, Biden, etc take their marching orders from the Wokies

the Wokies have taken over the all the institutions of big government, the Wokies are running the show now

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The problem for Canada has always been its Balkanized regionalism.... 

Good leaders know how to stir that vision.  I think JT started out with some support and fervour, but he’s playing catch-up now.  His dad was controversial and I didn’t agree with all his policies, but he was strong and had a clear vision for the country, even if some of his policies have been its undoing.

 

I would certainly agree with you that the Canada of PM Pierre Trudeau's day was a much more relevant and significant contributor to the "rules based order" that today's federal government insists is so necessary.   This erosion of relevance and purpose has also manifested itself domestically (e.g. pipelines, "post national state", etc.).

Canada doesn't even participate in the defining "peacekeeping" role that was so important just a generation ago, while bemoaning isolationism from the U.S.   Defence spending lags behind many other NATO member nations, by choice.   Worrying about what the Americans are doing is a great distraction from policy and dialog about things that Canada actually controls within its own border.

 

Quote

We want to be independent yet we can’t do it all on our own, so it’s always this dance between maintaining strong bonds with allies yet defining our distinctness.  On the whole Canada is a very worthwhile project.   That’s about it.  It has problems like every country.  

 

That's fine, but "allies" also have independent policies and interests that may or may not coincide with Canada's.   It is quite clear to me that Canada is uneasy and unprepared for a world without a multilateral "rules based" framework backed up by the hard power of a few other nations....hard power that Canada use to have.

Canada should make it's own choices going forward regardless of what the U.S. does or which political party controls the White House and Congress...hoping for a favourable change with the "next" administration that doesn't come.   Canadian lobbyists and politicians spending so much time and effort in Washington and state capitals just telegraphs a continuing dependence...not independence.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...