Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by turningrite

  1. 18 hours ago, Argus said:

    Oh yay. I'm so happy.

    Canada has taken the lead in refugee settlement for the first time in 72 years, according to new data compiled by a researcher at the University of Calgary, raising questions about the country’s role in navigating a growing, international refugee crisis.

    Data compiled from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as well as other governments worldwide, shows that Canada resettled just under 30,000 refugees in 2018 — slightly exceeding the number of those resettled by countries in the European Union, and a few thousand more than those resettled by the United States, putting Canada in a historic lead.


    And in other news, Trudeau was apparently in N.B. yesterday touting the success of Canada's Syrian resettlement program. Really. (See link below.) These presumably are the same Syrian refugees whose progress and circumstances in Canada were/are not being tracked according to an assessment issued by the federal Auditor General not much more than a year ago. Is our refugee program and more broadly our immigration system not simply a propaganda tool for the federal Libs at this point? There's little evidence to suggest that there's any inclination at the federal level to rationally evaluate these programs. Trudeau's approach seems to be one of telling us 'don't worry, be happy' and certainly don't raise your concerns in public. How many people can Trudeau fool and for how long where immigration is concerned? 



  2. 8 hours ago, Rue said:

     Telling me you have friends who are Muslims is bullshit.

    How would you know who I know or don't know? Are you psychic? You've now fallen into the trap of pursuing an 'ad hominem' critique so I'm not sure  there's any point in further responding to you. And, again, you have not in any concrete fashion responded to the issues I've posed although you do appear to be dissembling at this point, suggesting that you will spend time "defending Muslim progressive reformists." Who and where are these people? Where are their scholarly works and the movements that support and defend them? I've named a couple of fairly prominent Muslim progressive critics, who've raised their voices at considerable risk to themselves. So far, though, I haven't seen any evidence of an emerging Muslim version of the Enlightenment in the West, or elsewhere.

  3. 6 hours ago, Rue said:

    Oh but I have read your first response I challenged and now this one and did provide a reference for you.

    In your first post I challenged you stated and I quote:

    "There has been no similar evolution in Islam, particularly if one is to cite the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) as broadly indicative of the gulf between Islamic and Western social and political thought. Radical fundamentalism, of course, is clearly a challenge to the Western ideals of individualism and the separation of church and state, but fundamentalist ideas also permeate mainstream Islamic thought and belief.  I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay. I think that unless and until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs, intractable cultural differences will render it difficult to easily integrate Islam into the Western mainstream..."

    Like Quebec in his responses to me you use your own perception and personal anecdotes " I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims..." as the basis to make a sweeping claim there is no reformist movement in Islam.  You claim and I quote "no similar evolution in Islam.."  and you stated "until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs..." which suggest NOT such alternative in Islam exists.

    Now you respond and try back pedal and use the reference, " Please provide references to documents or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam..." which I most certainly did in response to your first post. Then you switch the reference by changing it with this addition "that at are generally influential among Muslims".

    So when I showed you reform Muslims exist, you now insist I  ALSO show you they are "generally influential among Muslims". What bullshit.

    How would I measure how influential anyone is to anyone else. Am I psychic. This is precisely the bullshit I am challenging. You don't know what anyone thinks until you ask them.

    The only way to measure how influential Muslim reformists are would be to take polls or ask them. How would I do that? Oh do explain your bull shit addition.

    My point was Muslim reformists exist yours was they did not. When I showed you they exist, you now argue yah but are they influential..see I do read what you write. I do read how when you are shown reformists exist, and are given a site for that, you don't admit they exist, you switch it to demanding I show you how influential they are.

    Tell me how do you go about measuring which political beliefs are influential other than basing it on who you know that are Muslim? Get phacking real. Making assumption based on Muslims you know is nonsense. That is a subjective limited basis and its that kind of limited basis that enables people like you and Quebec to  make sweeping stereotypes of what people think.

    What I clearly stated and what I state again is, I speak directly to people one on one to determine on an individual basis where they stand. I do not assume because one is extreme or the other reformist, all of the people in their religious or ethnic group thinks the exact same way. That was the point I was challenging.

    You really want to play semantics with me and switch what I said to avoid what you failed to show, and act as if your original point was not that reform movements exist in Islam but they are not influential? Really. If that is YOUR contention now that these reformist groups are not influential, PROVE IT. Don't  play with me and postulate something new and then demand I prove it. More to the point when you are shown to be wrong, just move on. Don't slip and slide out from your original statement with a back door additional qualification...oh you bet I read.

    Next, you can't have it both ways. Don't complain my posts are too long for you to read and then deny what I write at the same time.



    And despite your deluge of words, including puerile rhetoric (i.e. "Get phacking real."), you continue to fail to respond in any concrete or factual context to my principal contention. You have not referenced any broadly-based or influential Muslim document or movement that attempts to publicly reconcile the differences between Islamic ideology and Westernism. There are quite likely moderate Muslims who privately accept Western perspectives. Too often, however, those who try to raise criticisms of Islamic ideology must seek protection for so doing, as reportedly has the young Saudi women who was recently accepted for resettlement by Canada. More famously, Muslim critics of mainstream Islamic thought and practice, like Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have publicly expressed their views at the risk of facing serious backlash and even danger for so doing.  

  4. 5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:


    But there are some Canadians who no longer recognize Crown sovereignty, purposely refusing to use those words or legal concepts, especially in areas like British Columbia, where terms like "unceded territory" have taken a strong foothold.   This has been bolstered by Supreme Court decisions establishing First Nation's title to land, not the Crown.

    Land claim disputes aside, this social aspect to reconciliation appears to assuage feelings of guilt while also patronizing "aboriginals" and undermining the Canadian identity.


    That's not entirely accurate. The Proclamation of 1763 effectively grants aboriginals the right to negotiate land claims on Crown territories. The SCC has in fact followed the constitutional model fairly rigorously in this regard. It's stopped short, however, of recognizing any right to an indigenous veto, particularly regarding resource projects that cross lands claimed or legally recognized as indigenous territories, thus affirming the overriding principle of Crown sovereignty. The recent indigenous blockade in B.C. was broadly backed by a cross-section of indigenous activists across Canada who seek to utilize the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Trudeau government too hastily signed, to override the SCC's somewhat restrictive delineation of the meaning of indigenous title and replace it with the broader "consent" model included in UN Declaration.

    The federal government needs to simply state that the Canadian constitution is the relevant document governing the evolving relationship between Canada and its indigenous populations. The lack of clarity will not serve any useful purpose. Meanwhile, symbolic gestures like acknowledging historical title, while perhaps quaint, seem to serve little useful purpose other than to advance an ideological perspective that isn't entirely accurate and could dangerously raise expectations among indigenous populations. We got a taste of this in the response to the Colton Boushie / Gerald Stanley case in Saskatchewan, where some indigenous representatives outright stated that they don't recognize the validity of Canadian law. If that's the starting point, actual reconciliation is an impossible goal.

  5. 3 hours ago, eyeball said:

    Bully for Ms. Meng. in the meantime I have no problem whatsoever with Canadian diplomats and politicians using diplomatically incorrect language to communicate our distaste for the shitty places our stupid alliances land us. 


    Well, you've lost this battle as McCallum reportedly backed down today, essentially admitting that it was not appropriate to his role to contradict government policy. This should have been clear to any objective observer from the outset.

  6. 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    1.) You can't stop the immigration....

    2.) All you can do is be Milton Friedman's Hong Kong, take the white knuckled grip off the wheel and let the market find a price for things, then the profit interest will do the rest and fill the void with products and services priced to the market by the market for the market.

    1.) Of course you can. It might not be preferable to stop it completely but it utterly and legitimately falls within the jurisdiction of sovereign states to regulate immigration levels.

    2.) Well, Milton Friedman held that open borders, which he favored, cannot be maintained along with a social welfare state. I believe it's a sage observation. As for your reference to Hong Kong, you need to acknowledge a bit of reality. Almost half of Hong Kong's population lives in housing that's either fully or partially government-subsidized. I believe the extent of public housing subsidy is even greater in famously free market Singapore. Governments in those two places have figured out that the private sector cannot in an economically prosperous area that attracts large numbers of outsiders efficiently meet housing needs. The growing angst in Canada about immigration might subside substantially were the government to acknowledge the impact of immigration on housing affordability in cities like Toronto and Vancouver and were it to remove welfare incentives that attract often economically marginal migrants.

    • Like 2
  7. 6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Canadians are afforded the due process of Chinese law while in China.

    China has charged two of the Canadians with being foreign agents engaged in espionage for all intents and purposes, the other is convicted of attempting to smuggle a quarter ton of methamphetamine into Australia.

    Those are very grave charges in China.

    The guy convicted on drug charges is likely legitimately a criminal both in Canada, where I believe he has a prior record, and China. I believe he was convicted and imprisoned in China prior to the Meng skirmish. But appealing his sentence and summarily condemning him to death on the basis of no apparent new evidence clearly appears to be a retaliatory action. And it's widely believed both in Canada and internationally that the two Canadians being detained for being "foreign agents" are in all likelihood being held as political pawns as a result of Ms. Meng's arrest in Canada.

  8. 15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    The issue is simply that the government  intervenes by socialist rubric to suppress profit taking in real estate, then there is less incentive to build, so now there is a housing shortage.

    Not that I'm complaining mind you, I've profited mightily from it, by OODA loop, tactical alignment with the interests of the Liberal plantation aristocracy which is also profiting mightily from it.

    The money is simply not in building houses, the money is in the speculation generated by the Liberals to their own interests.

    Other than for your first sentence, I agree with much of this. The housing shortage in Toronto, where I live, is one generated mainly by artificially-generated and sustained demand and not one of supply per se. Also, private sector investment has been displaced from the traditional rental housing sector to the condo development sector, where quick profits are more easily and quickly made. Governments could have used taxation tools to address some of this problem, however there's been little willingness on the part of the traditional mainstream parties to do so. And, most importantly, immigration policy could and should have been adjusted in such a fashion as to ameliorate negative market implications, which have on the other side of the coin been a boon for speculators and profiteers. Part of the problem, of course, is that Canada doesn't recognize housing as a social or human right despite the fact that international obligations appear to suggest we are bound to do so. The private market, as it turns out, can't be expected to effectively solve social problems, and especially ones created by government policy, but if the political will exists to do so it can be incentivized to avoid making such problems worse.

  9. 1 hour ago, eyeball said:

    The ones you were taught in kindergarten.

    And we have social contracts that compel us to comply with basic principles that have been well understood for thousands of years. 

    It certainly could given the way trade wars and enmity between politicians and governments up in the clouds can become real wars with hatred between people down here on the ground.  This is often the result when people start pretending the simple principles that kids pick up almost intuitively are meaningless.

    You notice how often people refer to the "adults in the room" when talking about politicians these days? That's what II'm getting at.

    Like I said, that's a good thing from where I'm sitting. Perhaps he mixed views coming out of Canada reflect the conflict between the fundamental principles that guide peoples behaviour towards one another on the ground and the absence or suspension of those principles at the level our governments operate at.  The absence of these principles is what undermines the legitimacy of our interests.   

    I'm pretty sure most politicians would love to have the unrestrained power of a dictator and your posts suggest to me you'd be willing to give it to them.  What that conflicts with should be obvious,

    I'm afraid the bigger lesson about how the nature of power erodes our fundamental principles is being lost. Too people are willing to abandon them.

    Recognizing and upholding the rule of law is a principle that's ingrained in most intelligent students throughout our education system. Clearly, you don't believe in our legal system and don't respect our complex relationships with other states, and particularly the U.S., which is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, after all. If you think I like dictatorships, you clearly don't read my posts. Trudeau, on the other hand, and presumably the apologists for China's position on the Meng matter, quite admire that country's "basic dictatorship." I respect China's right to its sovereignty and to assert its legitimate interests. I'm not a fan of its mercantilism nor of its disrespect for international norms relating to intellectual property. Nor am I a fan of its dictatorship.

    The American agenda in all of this might well be problematic but Ms. Meng is being detained under circumstances highly preferable to those faced by the apparently innocent Canadian hostages being detained in retaliation by China. And she will be afforded the benefit of due process of law, something not guaranteed to anyone by China's regime. So maybe you need to get some perspective on principles here. We'll see if the Americans can demonstrate that they have a legitimate case against Ms. Meng but it's China's reputation that has suffered globally as a result of its heavy-handed response in this matter, whatever the admittedly arguable legitimacy of the American extradition request.

  10. 55 minutes ago, Argus said:

    Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson is making another play for federal funding to fix the city’s emergency housing system.

    In a letter dated December 20, 2018, Watson tells Jean Yves Duclos, the federal minister of families, children and social development, that the majority of the city’s current emergency housing struggle is caused by the influx of asylum seekers from the United States.

    “The City of Ottawa is unable to meet the demands of vulnerable families in our community for safe, adequate emergency shelter services,” the letter obtained by 580 CFRA reads.

    Watson said shelter staff have been “turning families away” because of the increased demand - forcing families to live in cars and churches across the city.

    The city has received 584 emergency housing placement requests from asylum seekers coming from the United States as of November 30 of last year. The majority of these requests are coming from families.

    The link between the homelessness problem and "irregular" migration in some of Canada's large cities is so obvious that it's difficult to fathom any effort to suppress the connection. But higher immigration levels, combined with influxes of temporary foreign workers and foreign students, have in general had broadly negative impacts on housing affordability in Canada's larger cities. The price of rental housing in Toronto, for instance, has been constantly bid up by increased demand, mainly due to immigration and foreign workers and students, over the past decade or more. In the very ordinary housing complex in which I live, rents for new tenants have risen by at least 50 percent over the past decade. And Ontario's bizarre "above guideline" rent increase system has been used by landlords to force rents up for sitting tenants at rates higher than the inflation level. So, landlords are scooping up the cash on both ends without much if any effort on the part of government to sustain any semblance of affordable private market rents. In my complex, many long-term neighbours, including seniors, have simply moved, some to areas outside of Toronto. I'll tell any candidate who tries to tell me at election time that they actually care about housing affordability without being willing to address the immigration issue that they're lying.

  11. 42 minutes ago, Argus said:

    Let's not forget McCallum has no actual background to be a diplomat. He's an economist, and was hurriedly bounced from cabinet for no stated reason, then given an ambassador's job as both a consolation prize and an effort at getting him as far away as possible.


    I recall that he was flailing as Trudeau's immigration minister. The "consultation" on immigration went badly and McCallum kept on touting broad-based support for the Lib plan to dramatically increase immigration levels when no such support actually existed. I'm not aware of his personal problems or whether these might have played a role in his banishment to Beijing. Trudeau probably saw it as an easy gig for McCallum because the government's general approach to relations with China was characterized by obsequiousness. But there's an expression about the best laid plans going awry, isn't there? Sometimes basic dictatorships tend to inconveniently act like, well, plain old dictatorships. Trudeau and McCallum should have understood this. It's no credit to either that they apparently did not.

  12. 3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

    So what's the deal ?   Is the "acknowledgement" virus spreading like wildfire on a Canadian prairie, or is this just more guilt ridden trigger events for a few progressives who struggle with the realities of history and occupied territories ?

    Are the "settlers" on traditional lands even allowed to sing O' Canada anymore without the acknowledgement?


    I think the "acknowledgement" movement is an example of governments and civil society employing a 'low hanging fruit' approach to reconciliation. It costs nothing and supposedly sets a good example for the youngsters. My bigger concerns rest in the realities that the approach is anti-historical and 'contra proferentem' in many respects. History can't simply be reversed. Further, the legal basis of the relationship between Canada and its indigenous populations was set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which explicitly remains in the Canadian constitution. The Proclamation effectively asserts Crown sovereignty over indigenous lands and in return grants aboriginals limited rights and privileges. There's little doubt that Canada's end of the bargain hasn't always been well met but this doesn't negate the essential impacts of a deal that although unilaterally imposed more than two centuries ago by the British Crown explicitly remains the law of the land. The problem with the recent approach to reconciliation is that it muddies these waters and in so doing generates unrealistic expectations. The gulf between those expectations and harsh realities is a recipe for further conflict.

    • Like 2
  13. 7 hours ago, eyeball said:

    1.) If you don't care about the principles that we're sacrificing you lack the moral and ethical background to question my comments in here so please go piss up a rope.

    2.) There has never been a point in our history when the folly of sacrificing our principles so we can curry a little favour and make a few bucks has never been more obvious.  Our relationship with Americans and Chinese people are just fine, my brother in Seattle and I get along great and my Chinese grand-kids are the greatest joy in my life. Our relationship with the governments of the US and China are an entirely different matter.  

    3.) McCallum's interpretation also sums up exactly what happened too and I think it underscores other opinions that Canada is effectively abetting America's declaration of a new cold war with China by arresting Meng.  Did Trump seek any advice from his allies before dragging them into a war they started?  No, so why should we be held to agreements we made if they suddenly make us enemies?  A few bucks?  Excuse me while I puke. In this circumstance Trudeau should shut-up and listen to an elder statesman who's earned the right to speak his mind freely.  In an era when Trump blows every brain-fart he has thru the Internet McCallum is a breath of fresh air.

    4.) I think its hilarious you're suddenly overly concerned about hurting Trudeau's credibility, I'm quite certain China's premier has heard of Trudeau's admiration for him too.


    1.) I'm not sure what principles you're talking about here? We have an extradition treaty with the U.S. which compels us to comply with a process negotiated far in advance of the Meng affair. If the U.S. is abusing that process, in particular by attempting to exert extraterritorial authority over matters that don't properly fall within the ambit of the treaty, as appears to be suggested in McCallum's comments, then we'll have to iron the situation out with the Americans in due course. What good will throwing a hissy fit and ignoring a valid treaty do right now?

    2.) Sorry to tell you this, but this conflict has nothing to do with your own personal and family relationships. But it's not at all clear what you mean by "our relationship with the governments of the US and China are an entirely different matter." Are you using the term "our" in the personal or collective sense of the term? Countries, of course, can have disputes while their respective citizens can get along quite well. My family is half-American and we survived the free trade spat between the Trump and Trudeau governments without fighting about it. But then, neither country arbitrarily detained and held in cruel captivity any of the other side's citizens to use as leverage to get their way.

    3.) My comments relate to McCallum's role as ambassador. In this position, he's not an "elder statesman" as you believe and his role doesn't confer any authority to speak his own mind on matters of government policy without the government's consent. Trudeau is a weak leader and perhaps he's afforded his ambassador to China license to muddy the waters on Canada's view of the the growing China-U.S. conflict, which is at the heart of the Meng affair. But he should have resigned if he wanted to speak from a pulpit on principle because it now it appears that Canada, as represented by the conflicting positions of its PM and ambassador, is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this matter, which could well serve to undermine our legitimate interests where both the U.S. and China are concerned. 

    4.) My views on this do not in any way suggest that I'm a fan of Trudeau, which you'd know if you were aware of my other posts on this site. Trudeau's a naif where China is concerned. I don't have the foggiest notion what he thinks of President Xi, but Trudeau has made it clear that he admires China's "basic dictatorship," a fact that likely conflicts with majority opinion in Canada. This dispute has certainly taught us an awful lot about the true nature of that basic dictatorship and undermined China's reputation both in Canada and elsewhere in the West. If that's an outcome the Americans sought, they've played their hand very well here.


  14. 14 hours ago, Argus said:

    I know everyone is shocked, SHOCKED that the Liberals' claim that border crossings is slowing turns out to be untrue.

    The illegal crossings come and go from the news, perhaps leading people to believe that the issue itself comes and goes. That when it’s out of the headlines that means the crossings themselves are gone. Not so. For the past two years, they’ve remained constant.


    The Trudeau government knows this issue could be problematic for it in an election year so is apparently trying to generate the impression that things are under control. I've been startled at the degree to which MSM outlets are giving the government a free pass on this. Toronto, for instance, which is experiencing a period of brutal weather after a mild start to winter, is now facing a growing and tragic homelessness crisis. According to one report I heard on a TV news broadcast this week, the size of the chronic homeless population has increased by about 40 percent over the past three or four years. Yet, in the coverage of the homelessness crisis, news outlets no longer seem to link the lack of affordable and/or emergency housing to the influx of newcomers even though this link was made during the initial phase of the Tweet-generated "irregular" migrant fiasco.

    P.S. In its lead editorial this morning, the Toronto Star did note near the end of a long analysis that refugee claimants now occupy 40 percent of Toronto's emergency shelter beds.

  15. 6 hours ago, eyeball said:

    What's wrong with McCallum stating the obvious?


    Um, if you don't understand the seriousness of the problem, should you really be commenting about it on here? According to legal commentators on news programs this evening, McCallum's intervention is unprecedented and clearly problematic, particularly in that it appears to contradict the Trudeau government's position that the Meng case is simply a "rule of law" matter. I too think that Trudeau is weak but McCallum's news conference today could undermine our multifaceted and complex relationship with the U.S., an alliance that remains much more important to Canada at this point in history than is our relationship with China. We civilians can make whatever comments and express whatever opinions we wish on these matters. Ambassador McCallum's interpretation of Ms. Meng's situation, however, as illustrated by his public comments on the matter, seems to pretty clearly side with the Chinese government's position over the highly publicized stance of the Canadian government. He's publicly undermining the credibility of his own boss. What usually happens in such circumstances?

  16. 4 hours ago, Rue said:

    I am going to stop there. Clearly you make  a sweeping generalized assumption about all Muslims and their beliefs without doing proper research. I hope that is also short enough for you not to  have to read. I appreciate when I respond taking the time to debate someone and show him I am listening to what he says, some people on this forum would prefer I not, and simply make sweeping generalizations in short sentences. I won't.


    Apparently, you didn't read my post or if you did you're trying to sensationalize your objections to anybody who doesn't support your views. I made my points of reference quite clear in noting the very real and substantial differences between Western ideals that flow from the Reformation and Enlightenment, particularly relating to the separation of church and state and the right to criticize religious institutions and orthodoxy, and modern Islamic social and political ideology as delineated in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990), a document supported by almost four dozen Muslim-majority countries representing the vast majority of the world's Muslims. (The Cairo Declaration is easy to find online.) Do you have a substantive argument to counter this dichotomy? All you've offered is a weak and generalized rebuttal based on your own anecdotally-justified perceptions. You need to do better. Please provide references to documents and/or organizations that promote a more moderate and Westernized form of Islam that are seen as generally influential among Muslims.

  17. 40 minutes ago, Rue said:

    Not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Christians want to use their state to impose their religious views on non Christians. Hell in Israel most Israels are not religious at all and do not

    Relax man. You sound a tad paranoid. There are plenty of nut cases out there without you pissing your pants over fundamentalists.

    Shit I get your comment. They have said that about Jews, Christians, Seikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, name the religion, name the race, ethnicity, nose shape. We have to do better then that kind of hysterical fear mongering.


    I edited your long post in order to distill the message you appear to be trying to make. The difference between Islam in general and the West, of course, is that we in the West experienced the Reformation and the Enlightenment. These two movements dramatically reshaped the relationship between Western populations and religion. Although the process was often slow and uneven, it became possible in the West to criticize religious power and orthodoxy and the principle of the separation of church and state became established. There has been no similar evolution in Islam, particularly if one is to cite the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) as broadly indicative of the gulf between Islamic and Western social and political thought. Radical fundamentalism, of course, is clearly a challenge to the Western ideals of individualism and the separation of church and state, but fundamentalist ideas also permeate mainstream Islamic thought and belief.  I've met only a couple truly secularist Muslims, for instance, one who renounced her religion after moving to the West and the other was gay. I think that unless and until an alternative form of Islam emerges that accommodates Western values and beliefs, intractable cultural differences will render it difficult to easily integrate Islam into the Western mainstream.

  18. On 1/18/2019 at 7:25 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:


    Even at that Trudeau is faring far worse...in Canada.   He is perceived as a weak leader...domestically...and internationally.    He cannot run with the big dogs.

    There has been much media commentary on the very issue of China's belief that Trudeau and Canada are weak. The vacuous Trudeau, of course, has been so obsequious in courting China that he probably expected to be rewarded and being slapped around by the Chinese must sting at this point. And we have the former (mediocre, in my opinion) immigration minister repackaged as our ambassador to China, who's mainly mimicked Trudeau's approach. Now, reportedly, McCallum is giving Ms. Meng advice on how to navigate the extradition process, which is astonishing. I'm sure the Chinese can afford Canadian lawyers to handle Ms. Meng's legal issues. So, unless McCallum is telegraphing the Trudeau government's preferred outcome here, why is McCallum doing this? And doesn't such interference suggest that the actual "rule of law" isn't a principle the Libs necessarily want to see upheld.




  19. On 1/22/2019 at 3:08 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

    No good to run to the UN....Trudeau claims that Canada is the world's first "post national state".

    Meanwhile, the reality of Chinese nationalism has bitten him right in his post national ass.

    Trudeau's post-national state ideas are just pure hypocrisy. In reality, he's an ethno-racial-cultural tribalist, an ideology that underpins Canada's bizarre and extreme version of multiculturalism.

  20. 1 hour ago, Machjo said:

    The Chinese are among the most employed in Canada.

    Personally, I don't care where immigrants are from provided they are employable from the time they arrive. The best approach would be to link entry with employment offers as the current points system simply doesn't work. And the sponsorship program for family members should be stripped back to include only the spouses and children of independent, employable immigrants. No grandparents, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers or cousins should be admitted unless they can demonstrate their economic value to the Canadian economy. Finally, the refugee category should include only genuine political refugees, perhaps granting temporary asylum for a period of up to, say, three years to determine whether circumstances have changed in refugees' homelands and allowing those temporarily admitted to apply for permanent status after the initial asylum period is served if they can demonstrate that they've adapted and integrated economically. First and foremost, immigration should operate to benefit Canadians and the Canadian economy.

  21. 15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

    People who believe in hard work and a helping hand are conservatives. It has nothing to do with race.

    People who believe in excessive government handouts and extreme taxation are liberals. 

    Liberals try to claim moral superiority for some extra votes, it's just a crock.

    There's a lot of truth in that. I'm not at all surprised that many Chinese-Canadians oppose illegal migration as presumably most in that community arrive/d in Canada through legal channels. Also, my impression of the Chinese is that they are quite economically conservative (i.e. sensible). I used to work with a woman who had immigrated from China who expressed surprise at the extent of reliance on public programs by some  immigrants. She once asked me: "Why does the government let them come here if they're not here to work?" She noted that a public housing project near her home was occupied almost exclusively by fairly recently arrived immigrants, a circumstance she found  bizarre, opining that no sensible country would allow this. I told her she should talk to the MP about her concerns but noted that she wouldn't likely get a supportive response if her MP was Lib or NDP.

    • Like 1
  22. Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:


    Clearly he has not done OK, as "superpowers" were very active for previous Canadian PMs as well.    And to make matters worse, Trudeau has caused even more of the usual internecine fighting between provinces and special interest groups...except for potheads.

    And many of the potheads aren't impressed either as pot legalization hasn't been very, well, efficient. Okay, part of the problem rests with the provinces. Many believe Ontario's rollout has been a boon for the traditional illegal distribution industry. And Trudeau has done nothing so far to resolve the issues faced by those with minor pot possession records. Further, legalization has been accompanied by the implementation of a new and rather draconian impairment testing regime that many believe won't stand up to a Charter challenge. 

    • Like 1
  23. 2 hours ago, Argus said:

    The problem is that the economy is, by all accounts, heading downward. We could have tens of thousands more jobs if we'd probably develop and export our resources, but we can't do that because Mr. Sensitive and his idiotic environmental laws and policies are keeping the resource industry swaddled in red tape. Not to mention his bragging "Canada's back!" foreign affairs efforts have resulted in a big fat ZILCH for Canada, as his uber progressive lecturing have done nothing but piss off everyone from the Russians and Chinese to the Saudis and Japanese. Not to mention the Americans.

    It's clear that many countries and/or global leaders don't respect him. Look at the India debacle. Look at the way he's been treated by China despite his obsequious overtures to that country and the "basic dictatorship" he so admires. And Trump obviously holds him in contempt. It's difficult to think of a major regime that really respects him.

  24. 2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    I agree but I have to respect his attempt to balance such seemingly contradictory interests.  You should see his town halls.  It’s hours of unscripted potshots and Trudeau remains respectful and clear headed.  Some of the attendees are so rude and ignorant, yelling through his responses to their questions or leaving before he has a chance to answer them.  He can’t win, trying to manage environmental, business, Indigenous, provincial and international concerns. The superpowers are all causing shit in their own ways and Canada is always managing its distinct interests from those to the south. Not easy.  In that context he’s done okay.  Again, he wasn’t my choice. 

    Respectful and clear headed? He recites progressive bromides to such an extent that MSM commentators, like Chantal Hebert, have noted that he and his party should ditch their annoying habit of pontificating. He's a terrible speaker when asked to respond to difficult questions. And when members of the public raise difficult topics he can be quite reactive. Look at the way he made a fool of himself with his "Peoplekind" comment, which made him a global laughingstock, and the incident in Quebec last summer where he angrily attacked a woman for raising the thorny border security issue.

    I see Trudeau as a lightweight. Hopefully voters are more clearheaded this year than was in the case in 2015, when he was given the benefit of the doubt and centrist voters had tired of Harper. Sunny ways has lost his shine so maybe somebody else can more credibly use the halo he seems to love to don when campaigning.

  25. On 1/18/2019 at 10:59 PM, QuebecOverCanada said:

    The French do not surrender as a population to their government. They are tougher than us Canadians, thus their standards of living being much better than ours (better and cheaper food, good apartments, very historic and beautiful cities, good salaries).

    And yet they're so unhappy. Quite odd, right?

  • Create New...