Canada needs a female leader

[Guest]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:43 PM, I am Groot said:

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

Based on that, Canada has its work cut out for it.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Based on that, Canada has its work cut out for it.

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

I think we're on the same page. But we also have a bigger challenge, which is politics in the age of 100% social engagement. 

How can we actually know the answer to these questions? It's a tougher problem than it sounds.

[suds]

19 hours ago, I am Groot said:

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.

In Section 718.2(e) the term 'circumstances' is mentioned twice. It mentions nothing about 'individual circumstances' as you seem to believe.  So the Supreme Court interpreted it as meaning 'all circumstances'. It's funny how one little word changes things.

[suds]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:43 PM, I am Groot said:

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

So theoretically, a country where 51% of the population are well off and the other 49% are persecuted, is a wonderful country in your opinion?

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 4/28/2024 at 8:34 PM, CdnFox said:

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.

If you want to name male mass murderers and murderous leaders and rapists of recent history (say past 100 years alone) or in summary those who committed violent crimes you have to write a book of at least a thousand pages.

Edited May 1, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 4/29/2024 at 7:48 AM, Perspektiv said:

Based on that, Canada has its work cut out for it.

Canada is doing significantly better in quality of life for its citizens than most of the world.

I judge a society by how they treat their women and Canada stands at the top and Islamic countries at the button of a dirt bag.

Edited May 1, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

If you want to name male mass murderers and murderous leaders and rapists of recent history (say past 100 years alone( or in summary those who committed violent crimes you have to write a book of at least a thousand pages.

And?  You said there was no mass murderers who were female - there are hundreds.  You said female leaders didn't start wars - they ALL do.

So your reason and logic is completely faulty and you have no idea what you're talking about.

In fact - the statistics show that when it comes to domestic violence women are far more violent than men and start more of the violent incidents. They're just less likely to actually be able to hurt the man.

Women are just as capable of violence as men. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Canada is doing significantly better in quality of life for its citizens than most of the world..

But significantly worse than most of the first world.  If  you want to compare us to africa or something then sure but we've fallen tremendously against countries like the us, france, britian etc.  And it's still falling.

[CITIZEN_2015]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

 

In fact - the statistics show that when it comes to domestic violence women are far more violent than men and start more of the violent incidents.

 

Manufactured statistics is as good as your posts. No proof or evidence of a hugely false claim.

I wonder all those wife battering are being carried out by wives? They do claim they fall downstairs or hit a door accidently when beaten by husbands and boyfriends out of fear of being killed by husbands.

[CITIZEN_2015]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But significantly worse than most of the first world.  If  you want to compare us to africa or something then sure but we've fallen tremendously against countries like the us, france, britian etc.  And it's still falling.

I don't know about US and France and this is just another baseless claim by you (especially with regard to US which there is a very wide gap and many very poor people with no health insurance) but I do know about Britain and it is a disaster there as we speak.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Manufactured statistics is as good as your posts. No proof or evidence of a hugely false claim.

 

LOL  whereas you provided evidence of your statement that ALL mass murderers are men?  ROFLMAO!! Which i took the time to provide proof you were wrong about?

You provide nothing  and are completely wrong  then chastize others because they don't provide enough and yet can't prove they were wrong.

And you can't be bothered to look it up yourself.  What a loser.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs/NISVSReportonIPV_2022.pdf

42% of women, and 42.3% of men report experiencing any physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. This includes being slapped, pushed, shoved, being hit with a fist or something hard , kicked, hurt by having hair pulled, slammed against something, hurt by choking or suffocating, beaten, burned on purpose, or had a knife or gun. In the last 12 months 4.5% of women, and 5.5% of men report any physical violence by an intimate partner

And from canada

“Revealing that, in the last 5 years, more men than women reported being abused. Specifically, 2.9% of men and 1.7% of women reported being physically and/or sexually assaulted in their current relationship.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332917590_Prevalence_and_Consequences_of_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_Canada_as_Measured_by_the_National_Victimization_Survey

 

I could go on.  The data is uncontrovertable. Women initiate violence more often than men, and are less likely to be the victim  of violence than men. Men do more damage.

 

You're a disgusting sexist and a liar.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I don't know about US and France and this is just another baseless claim by you (especially with regard to US which there is a very wide gap and many very poor people with no health insurance) but I do know about Britain and it is a disaster there as we speak.

Oh look  you're lying again without looking it up.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/permanent-decline-of-canadian-living-standards

https://www-ledevoir-com.translate.goog/opinion/chroniques/802045/chronique-declin-precedent-niveau-evie-canadiens?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-canadians-standard-of-living-economic-outlook/

 

Here's quality of life by country

Here's 2014 - we're number 7.

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2014

And here's 2024. We're number 33.

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp

 

Once again you're a lying pr*ck who doesn't know what he's talking about. Next time look it up before calling me a liar you sexist tard.

[CITIZEN_2015]

29 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you sexist tard.

You are the sexist tard evidently from your posts. Women are indeed the victims in most cases and in almost all the cases in backward societies which is 70% of world's population. Male domination will be over soon and women who are more intelligent and superior in many aspects will dominate the world as societies advance. Down with any person or damn religion or ideology who suppresses women. 

[Legato]

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.

We already have a woman running the country and she has nice hair.

[CITIZEN_2015]

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

We already have a woman running the country and she has nice hair.

Huh!!!!

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Huh!!!!

Her name is Trudeau.

[I am Groot]

On 4/29/2024 at 12:47 PM, suds said:

In Section 718.2(e) the term 'circumstances' is mentioned twice. It mentions nothing about 'individual circumstances' as you seem to believe.  So the Supreme Court interpreted it as meaning 'all circumstances'. It's funny how one little word changes things.

When you want it to. When you are searching for a way to justify finding something 'unconstitutional'.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You are the sexist tard

Sure - your kind always calls others what they themselves are guilty of.

I've proven you lied about women being called people with vaginas.  I've proven that you lied about women not being violent in relationships,  or starting wars,  or being mass murderers.  And i've proven you  lied about canada not dropping in quality of life.   AND you haven't offered a single thing to prove your position  and despite the fact i already had you claimed i didn't either, which is another lie .

Can't even admit you were wrong.
 

Sexist lying pig. 

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Her name is Trudeau.

ROFLMAO - 10 bonus internet points for reeling him in like that  

[CITIZEN_2015]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

ROFLMAO - 10 bonus internet points for reeling him in like that  

Shows your sick mentality and its sexist nature and the poster who uses female nomination as a demeaning word.

Down with any person or religion who demeans women. 

The superior female gender will dominate next century. Most world leaders will be females.

Edited May 1, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Shows your sick mentality and its sexist nature and the poster who uses female nomination as a demeaning word.

Down with any person or religion who demeans women. 

The superior female gender will dominate next century. Most world leaders will be females.

Shows your sick mentality and it's sexist nature that you think the poster used female 'nomination' at all.

The poster said justin is essentially feminine enough to be a woman. Are you saying there's something WRONG with that, you lying sexist?

where's my appology for you calling me a lair when it turned out you were the one who was lying btw?

You're a sexist,  a liar and you don't have a single drop of honour or  decency in your body.

[CITIZEN_2015]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

You're a sexist,  a liar and you don't have a single drop of honour or  decency in your body.

It shows your demented mentality that you are showering with insults someone you have never met or have a clue of who she or he is.

This board is not moderated properly or someone with your demented mentality would have been banned a hundred times over. The moderators seem to care more about the quantity of posters and you are a high volume poster though most of your posts are nonsense and insults and hate.

 

And damn liar. He used the word woman in his post in his mind to demean the country's leader not as you lied feminine enough. Liar 

3 hours ago, Legato said:

We already have a woman running the country and she has nice hair.

Edited May 2, 2024 by CITIZEN_2015

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It shows your demented mentality that you are showering with insults someone you have never met or have a clue of who she or he is.

You literally started this off showering people with insults in like your second post here and have continued.  You called me a liar and said i made stuff up when as i've proven YOU were the liar and what i said was absolutely true.  And then you have the stupidity to get mad at other people for 'insults'.

So we'll add 'Hypocrite' to misogynist and liar i guess. Hey dipshit - if you don't want to be insulted - don't start off by insulting people. And if you do - then don't cry like a baby when people insult you back.

[suds]

On 5/1/2024 at 5:26 PM, I am Groot said:

When you want it to. When you are searching for a way to justify finding something 'unconstitutional'.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I get the gist of where you're coming from. It would be nice to have a constitution and laws that applied to everyone equally.   Equality under the law is what any society should strive for. But that should only apply if everything is fair for everyone to begin with. Personally, as long as the courts (and Parliament) don't screw around with my rights, I'm ok with with the courts  treating minority or disenfranchised groups a little differently if the goal is to add some degree of fairness into the system. Just don't go overboard, which I have no reason to believe they've done. This is my last post on the subject and it's time to move on.

[I am Groot]

On 5/2/2024 at 9:54 PM, suds said:

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but I get the gist of where you're coming from. It would be nice to have a constitution and laws that applied to everyone equally.   Equality under the law is what any society should strive for. But that should only apply if everything is fair for everyone to begin with. Personally, as long as the courts (and Parliament) don't screw around with my rights, I'm ok with with the courts  treating minority or disenfranchised groups a little differently if the goal is to add some degree of fairness into the system. Just don't go overboard, which I have no reason to believe they've done. This is my last post on the subject and it's time to move on.

Life is not fair. Any government that tries to make it so is doomed to fail. Anyone who expects fairness in life is doomed to disappointment. No one is entirely equal. The good-looking, the taller, the richer, the healthier, the smarter, are always going to have an edge. The only way to have a just legal system is if all get the same treatment. Saying you'll let black boys or native boys off with a slap on the wrist because they're black while white boys get the book thrown at them is fundamentally unjust and leads to disrespect for the entire system.