Canada needs a female leader

[I am Groot]

On 4/23/2024 at 5:18 PM, suds said:

When it comes to rights the Supreme Court has to consider the rights of everyone, not just the majority.  When rights conflict they usually tend to side with minority or marginalized groups which is not a bad thing in my opinion. Societies are judged by how their minorities and marginalized groups are treated.

I judge society by the quality of life of the majority of its citizens. 

[suds]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

I judge society by the quality of life of the majority of its citizens. 

And I judge everyone as individuals regardless of being a minority, marginalized, oppressed, or oppressor. So there we have it. Anything else you want to get off your chest?  But if the Supreme Court wishes to take into consideration past transgressions against marginalized groups who they believe were not treated fairly, I have no problem with that either. In general, justice has to be blind but it also has to be fair.

Edited April 25 by suds

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, suds said:

And I judge everyone as individuals regardless of being a minority, marginalized, oppressed, or oppressor. So there we have it. Anything else you want to get off your chest?  But if the Supreme Court wishes to take into consideration past transgressions against marginalized groups who they believe were not treated fairly, I have no problem with that either. In general, justice has to be blind but it also has to be fair.

Really? So the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the sons - and grandsons - and great grandsons? Is that what you're saying? I should be punished because some people who look somewhat like me did stuff in the distant past to people who look like some people here today?

Doesn't sound like you actually judge people as individuals, after all, but by race.

[suds]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Really? So the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the sons - and grandsons - and great grandsons? Is that what you're saying? I should be punished because some people who look somewhat like me did stuff in the distant past to people who look like some people here today?

Doesn't sound like you actually judge people as individuals, after all, but by race.

Give me a ruling by the Supreme Court you didn't agree with and felt unfairly punished by.  At least then I'll know what you're referring to.

[Perspektiv]

On 4/23/2024 at 6:48 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Maybe proportional representation of the public being half female

So shouldn't they be trans? Male body, female attachments?

If they are also bi-racial born to one immigrant parent, and identify as gay, they literally cover most of the population.

If they also struggle with obesity, its a wrap. They would be like Teflon in the polls.

Female wouldn't cut it anymore. Gay, is so 2001. Trans is the only way.

[CDN1]

Nah. Women are leading the toxic woke movement and Canada is already the wokest country on earth.

 

[Nationalist]

On 4/23/2024 at 3:15 PM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Leaders of all three major parties who stand a chance to win the next election are male. There has been 23 Prime Ministers in Canada's history all of them male with the exception of Kim Campbell who served for a short time (and really screwed up but that had nothing to do with her gender).Half of Canada's population is female and this statistics is unfortunate and unacceptable in an advanced country such as Canada. This is not a backward Islamic country where women cannot be elected or served in high positions.

It seems things are not going well in Canada in this century. We need a female Prime Minister.   

Empowered Women is empowered world.

How very stupid. Do you really think women are not "empowered" to get into politics?

As has been proven, when given completely free reign, men choose certain careers and women choose certain careers. In many, if not most cases, their choices are completely different. If that surprises you then I would suggest you know very little about either sex.

Some women would make great leaders. But overall, women tend to go into other professions. They make their choices of their own free will. This is clearly reflected by the numbers of each in politics and every other profession.

In summary, you cannot force women...or men...to choose careers they don't have any interest in. I'm sure you feel good about this stupidity you've displayed here but here's another truth.

Women gravitate to strong masulinity. Being a limp noodle may get you accolades. But it won't get you prodigy.

Be a man.

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

How very stupid. Do you really think women are not "empowered" to get into politics?

As has been proven, when given completely free reign, men choose certain careers and women choose certain careers. In many, if not most cases, their choices are completely different. If that surprises you then I would suggest you know very little about either sex.

Some women would make great leaders. But overall, women tend to go into other professions. They make their choices of their own free will. This is clearly reflected by the numbers of each in politics and every other profession.

In summary, you cannot force women...or men...to choose careers they don't have any interest in. I'm sure you feel good about this stupidity you've displayed here but here's another truth.

Women gravitate to strong masulinity. Being a limp noodle may get you accolades. But it won't get you prodigy.

Be a man.

Yeah  - leslyn Lewis Came out of nowhere and almost won the leadership for the conservatives. She still does very well. The conservatives and the NDP have all elected female leaders. Both the conservative and liberal caucuses have had some serious female powerhouses over the years.

It is insulting and degrading to women to suggest that somehow if they're not given an artificial hand up they're incapable of doing the job or being elected. At that point you would be basically claiming they are inferior. I don't believe that to be true. Apperently the OP does

Edited April 26 by CdnFox

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah  - leslyn Lewis Came out of nowhere and almost won the leadership for the conservatives. She still does very well. The conservatives and the NDP have all elected female leaders. Both the conservative and liberal caucuses have had some serious female powerhouses over the years.

It is insulting and degrading to women to suggest that somehow if they're not given an artificial hand up they're incapable of doing the job or being elected. At that point you would be basically claiming they are inferior. I don't believe that to be true. Apperently the OP does

The OP is virtue signalling...plain and simple.

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, suds said:

Give me a ruling by the Supreme Court you didn't agree with and felt unfairly punished by.  At least then I'll know what you're referring to.

Everything associated with Gladue.

[suds]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Everything associated with Gladue.

Could you be a little more specific? I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court didn't draft Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Ok, so you have a beef with the Supreme Court over the Gladue case. What is it exactly, and why do you blame the Court specifically?

[Perspektiv]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

At that point you would be basically claiming they are inferior.

Or victims. This is more marketable, in trying to ascend when bound to a patriarchy. If she's a minority, look at Kamala Harris.

How many know what she's accomplished? How many know where she is from or has an immigrant mother?

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah  - leslyn Lewis Came out of nowhere and almost won the leadership for the conservatives.

Uh, she did not come anywhere near to leading the conservatives.

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, suds said:

Could you be a little more specific? I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court didn't draft Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Ok, so you have a beef with the Supreme Court over the Gladue case. What is it exactly, and why do you blame the Court specifically?

Let's harken back to the post I replied to.

But if the Supreme Court wishes to take into consideration past transgressions against marginalized groups who they believe were not treated fairly, I have no problem with that either

Over the years, it has appeared to me the SC has bent over backward with regard to native rights, to the point of accepting 'oral history' as testimony on treaty issues. No, it didn't write 718.2 but it enthusiastically embraced and expanded it, and signaled the lower courts they could read into this the same lower sentencing guidelines for anyone who isn't white. This has led to an increase in violent crime and street crime, and to people dying because their murderers were not safely behind bars.

The SC and the courts in general have become woke, with all the racial prejudice that goes with this, and they need to be reigned in. The courts have always taken a person's personal history into account. There was never any need to make racial sentencing all-but mandatory based on race alone.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Uh, she did not come anywhere near to leading the conservatives.

She did.  You know me better than to think i make idle statements.

Have a look yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election

In the second round with three remaining it was between her, mckay and otoole. Leslyn actually got more votes and a higher percent of the vote. She beat erin by about 2 percent of the vote.  However - ridings were wieghted so not everyone's vote counted the same way. So Erin won by a fairly small amount.  And that knocked her out.

Her votes went to erin for the most part and he handily won the next round. But if the weighting or model had been even a little different, she'd have taken the leadership.  Polling and analysis showed that if erin had dropped his voters would have gone to her.

And if you look at the vote distribution it gets even closer. She lost a few of those "ridings" by a tiny amount, a few thousand votes the other way and it would have been her facing justin instead of otoole.

It was actually shockingly close.  NOBODY expected someone who'd never even been an official part of the party would do that well.  She damn near won it.

Edited April 27 by CdnFox

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 4/26/2024 at 11:19 AM, Nationalist said:

 

As has been proven, when given completely free reign, men choose certain careers and women choose certain careers. In many, if not most cases, their choices are completely different. If that surprises you then I would suggest you know very little about either sex.

Some women would make great leaders. But overall, women tend to go into other professions. They make their choices of their own free will. This is clearly reflected by the numbers of each in politics and every other profession.

In summary, you cannot force women...or men...to choose careers they don't have any interest in. I'm sure you feel good about this stupidity you've displayed here but here's another truth.

Women gravitate to strong masulinity. Being a limp noodle may get you accolades. But it won't get you prodigy.

Be a man.

Debate the topic without insults. Can you?

No we have to overcome differences. Women can do any job that a man can do as well if not better because they do the job using both their brains and their hearts. Women are making good police officers, army soldiers, doctors and engineers, judges, and Prime Ministers too.

Your suggestion that women can do certain professions and men others is dangerous. It reminds me from an Islamic fascist government who bans women from becoming judges and presidents and disqualifies them even before rigged elections. Down with Islamist fascists. 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Debate the topic without insults. Can you?

No we have to overcome differences. Women can do any job that a man can do as well if not better because they do the job using both their brains and their hearts. Women are making good police officers, army soldiers, doctors and engineers, judges, and Prime Ministers too.

Your suggestion that women can do certain professions and men others is dangerous. It reminds me from an Islamic fascist government who bans women from becoming judges and presidents and disqualifies them even before rigged elections. Down with Islamist fascists. 

So what you're saying is each job in the universe should have quotas...take nursing for example, it should be 50 /50 here is a job that is female dominate,90 % being women,  should we have a cut off for each year of admissions, until 50 % of men reaches it's target...which means the quality of the men are not going to be at the same standard as the women, becasue you're taking all the men candidates and only 50 % of the women who will compete for positions...what about the bosses, do we do the same, 50 50 split once again your going to loss because the quality of men are not the same..

what about male dominated jobs, steel workers, iron workers, oil field workers, combat arms soldiers, the list goes on and on...do we make them 50 % women, even though there is next to none interest from females to enter these fields....you wall chart does nothing for equality, except dilute the present skill level in all jobs...as it works on the male side of the scale and female side of the scale...

You've cherry picked you information here and chirp why is it not equal, but when we say lets make it all equal then there is a issue...perhaps give us examples of where women have been discriminated and refused entry in these fields.

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Debate the topic without insults. Can you?

No we have to overcome differences. Women can do any job that a man can do as well if not better because they do the job using both their brains and their hearts. Women are making good police officers, army soldiers, doctors and engineers, judges, and Prime Ministers too.

Your suggestion that women can do certain professions and men others is dangerous. It reminds me from an Islamic fascist government who bans women from becoming judges and presidents and disqualifies them even before rigged elections. Down with Islamist fascists. 

Over come differences? My poor misguided...person...we need to celebrate the differences. 

I didn't suggest women "can" or "cannot" do anything. I said they "choose" different professions. They can choose to be whatever they like.

You should stop worrying about quotas and worry more about quality. I'd bet that would produce better results...for both sexes.

Oh...and either your reading comprehension is...lacking, or you're lying about what I said.

Which is it?

Edited April 27 by Nationalist

[suds]

6 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Let's harken back to the post I replied to.

But if the Supreme Court wishes to take into consideration past transgressions against marginalized groups who they believe were not treated fairly, I have no problem with that either

Over the years, it has appeared to me the SC has bent over backward with regard to native rights, to the point of accepting 'oral history' as testimony on treaty issues. No, it didn't write 718.2 but it enthusiastically embraced and expanded it, and signaled the lower courts they could read into this the same lower sentencing guidelines for anyone who isn't white. This has led to an increase in violent crime and street crime, and to people dying because their murderers were not safely behind bars.

The SC and the courts in general have become woke, with all the racial prejudice that goes with this, and they need to be reigned in. The courts have always taken a person's personal history into account. There was never any need to make racial sentencing all-but mandatory based on race alone.

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code applies to the sentencing of ALL convicted criminals. I don't know where you get this idea that it doesn't apply to white people. If you believe it's responsible for the rise in crime, then talk to your Member of Parliament. Parliament is the one who created it. If the Supreme Court advised the lower courts to follow the guidelines set out in Section 718.2, it's because it's the LAW! What exactly do you want the Supreme Court to do? If the Supreme Court found Section 718.2 to be discriminatory and unconstitutional, it could demand Parliament to change it. But it can't because Section 15 of the Charter allows affirmative action. If you're looking for bogeymen, you're looking in all the wrong places.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Debate the topic without insults. Can you?

Says the guy who started the thread attacking someone else with insults.

[DUI_Offender]

We had Kim Campbell in 1993, and we all know how that turned out. Hilary Clinton? Bombed.

Women just do not make good leaders.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

We had Kim Campbell in 1993, and we all know how that turned out. Hilary Clinton? Bombed.

Women just do not make good leaders.

Thatcher.

[I am Groot]

23 hours ago, suds said:

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code applies to the sentencing of ALL convicted criminals. I don't know where you get this idea that it doesn't apply to white people. If you believe it's responsible for the rise in crime, then talk to your Member of Parliament.

I didn't mention 718.2. You mention it here and suggest I credited it with the responsibility. All 718.2 does is give various aggravating/mitigating factors. But don't forget that 718 itself sets reasons that should underly a sentence, including deterrence and the protection of society and to denounce unlawful conduct. I would argue many judges seem to have ignored this part. The supreme court definitely has.

Now in 718.2(e) the criminal  code says the following:

all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders

Note the word "reasonable". Perhaps it was parliament's mistake in thinking judges would be reasonable, or knew what that meant, just as it was their mistake in thinking judges would consider the danger to society and harm to individuals.

It was the Supreme Court that decided, in the Gladue and Ipeelee decisions, that not only must an aboriginal offender's background be taken into effect, but the entirety of wokeness surrounding natives. In short, not just their individual circumstances, which was what parliament said but:

The Court said judges must consider the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people in Canadian society, such as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools. They must also consider how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples.

In short, the only problem in the law was giving soft-headed, bleeding-heart woke judges the authority to interpret it too freely.

[CITIZEN_2015]

All I am saying is that we don't have a perfect world. We have had many wars and suffering all started by male leaders. All of history's mass murderers were male. The world is screwed up. Time for change. 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

All I am saying is that we don't have a perfect world. We have had many wars and suffering all started by male leaders. All of history's mass murderers were male. The world is screwed up. Time for change. 

Sigh.  You don't get out much do you.

Female leaders have started plenty of wars.  LIzzie, katherine, cleopatra, Thatcher, Boudica, in fact if you find a female leader she probably started a war.

And MANY of history's mass murderers were women. https://www.buzzfeed.com/crystalro/21-female-serial-killers 

There are literally hundreds that we know about.

So your whole premise is entirely flawed. Women  can be just as violent. DO start as many wars, and happily kill others.

Your comment reminds me of that robin williams joke -  "if only women were allowed to run countries we'd have no wars-  just REALLY INTENSE negotiations every 28 days"