Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by turningrite

  1. 5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

    The 'beginning' was when the government tried to says something against Islamophobia (because of the six gunned down in a Quebec mosque, (which was practically ignored by the media in comparison with the Boston Marathon bombing) and were shouted down because of 'freedom of speech' or something.

    Are you saying the "accommodation" push only emerged after the Quebec mosque shooting and the politically opportunistic M-103 (which was clearly a progressive dog-whistle)? If so, surely you jest. But your post is so poorly written that I can't figure out the actual point you're trying to make.

    • Like 2
  2. 21 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

    Nor Justin Trudeau and the Sunny Ways fascism of the Liberal Party of Canada and associated CBC propaganda arm.

    Trudeau and his "progressive" acolytes promote another form of top-down, anti-democratic totalitarianism. They're not democrats at heart but instead believe the world can and should be shaped by institutions, including government, to fit their own ideological agenda. Trudeau thinks that those who don't believe in this agenda are "fringe" and must not be afforded a voice. The problem for him, of course, will be that eventually a critical mass of voters could just say NO! to all the "progressive" nonsense. Perhaps Trudeau thinks there's no possibility that a protest movement like the "yellow vests" could emerge in Canada? If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't be so confident about this.

  3. On 1/16/2019 at 6:12 PM, AngusThermopyle said:

    She's been fired. Of course the Liberals are saying that she resigned but we all know that's just double speak for fired.

    It will be fascinating to see if she runs as an independent candidate. While it's certainly inconvenient that she made a racialist appeal before being dumped or resigning as a Lib candidate, she surely understood that this kind of strategy actually works in attracting some voters. We see this here in Ontario, especially in and around some of the GTA's burgeoning ethnoburbs, where mainstream party candidates sometimes barely conceal their identity affiliations. All of this, I guess, is quite predictable given our open-ended multicultural policy, but what would the reaction be if a candidate of, say, Irish-Scottish heritage put out an appeal to constituents to vote for the 'white guy like you'. I suspect progressives, whose apparent reaction to the Karen Wang fiasco has been remarkably muted, would be apoplectic, and rightly so. This is a country, after all, in which double standards have become firmly entrenched.

    As an aside, I wonder if all of this doesn't play into Trudeau's agenda as there's a school of thought that Trudeau wants Singh to win in order to ensure he remains the NDP leader for the upcoming election? As Singh's leadership, both within and outside of his own party, has to date been seen as uninspiring, and as a weak NDP will likely allow the Libs to peel off NDP-leaning voters next October, it's surprising the Libs put up a candidate to challenge him.

  4. On 1/17/2019 at 1:06 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

    The world has no need of Canada. The world likes cheap consumer and electronic goods, the Chinese economy is far more important to the world than Canada's economy. China has plenty of friends and allies, everyone likes China, because no one who isn't living in China gives a shit about their repressive government, because that government isn't repressing them, it's repressing foreigners, but the money China makes them, that they do give a shit about, and China makes the world more money than Canada does.

    I'm not talking about the moral high ground here, that means nothing, the only thing the world cares about is the financial high ground, morality comes after. For you to pretend like a $1.6 trillion GDP economy is more important to the world than a $12.2 trillion GDP economy is laughable, they are six times the size, they dwarf Canada. Get in a trade war with an economy that dwarfs your own, and you are going to get your ass handed to you, not the other way around. 

    China has played its hand very badly in its dispute with Canada. The rest of the Western world, and its allies, are now on notice that China is not a reliable or palatable partner. The West could pretty much wall itself off from China economically if it wished to do so. There are many other countries in the developing world, like India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Ethiopia, with cheap and abundant labor, which has been China's main trade advantage over the past few decades. The West could even entice some of the world's developing countries to avoid developing deeper relationships with China by means of pacts like the TPP that were/are intended to thwart China's mercantile ambitions. China may not and probably doesn't need Canada, but it needs the West, and it seems to have horribly misjudged its strengths and weaknesses with its bizarre strategy of applying unwarranted pressure against a Western country it perhaps accurately views as being run by a weak and servile government. The problem for China is that it's teaching not just Canada but the world why it can't and shouldn't be trusted.

  5. 7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Covert paramilitary war against Canadian targets worldwide, to include cyber, so that you would know it was them but they would simply deny it?


    5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Seize a Canadian warship in the China seas and take the crew hostage?

    Why do any of these things? Just isolate the Chinese. Close our diplomatic offices and missions in that country and refuse to issue new visas to its citizens. Align our approach to trade with China with Trump's. Military action won't prove anything. Downgrading our economic and diplomatic relationship with China will be much more effective and useful.

  6. 2 hours ago, Goddess said:

    Here, it's a "racist" question.

    Only to some. As I previously asked, what purpose does it serve to not want to know the truth? Let's see how long it takes before authorities disclose the results of the police investigation into the shooter now that the SIU's limited role, which had effectively smothered public access to information for so long, has been removed from the equation. It will reveal the extent to which our authorities are willing to be transparent about such issues.

    • Like 1
  7. 16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    But this is realpolitik, that means  backed up by force, so what is your plan for when the Chinese are not impressed with your attempts to make them lose face, and then they retaliate, with naked force?

    The real question is, what could they do? Cut off imports of some commodities, of course. Equally, we could apply huge tariffs, as Trump has done. Maybe they'd pull their visa students and make it more difficult for their citizens to invest in Canada? This would be a double-edged sword, with both drawbacks and benefits for Canadians. But we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. As I said, there would likely be economic consequences but we might as well absorb these right now, while we can. China is counting on us to cave in and do nothing. That's been the Trudeau government's approach but it gets us nowhere with the Chinese. Maybe it's time to mix things up, as Crowley suggests.

  8. On 1/9/2019 at 9:48 PM, Truth Detector said:

    When Booker was mayor, he was actually pretty good and a reasonable and sensible politician.  Once he became senator he lost all of it.  And now is completely obedient to the far left wing fringe, it’s really a shame.

    I think the Dems have far more to fear about their left-wing fringe than many are willing to admit. The past couple days have witnessed the melodramatic and deserved political takedown of Steve King of Iowa for expressing apparent support for the white supremacists, or at least for their right to be heard. But listening to commentators on CNN last night, and particularly the pro-Dem Symone Sanders, who sputtered her utter distaste for the use of the term "Western civilization," the left-progressive agenda is much broader. When the notion of Western civilization itself is now on the apparent chopping block for many Dems, how seriously will or can "middle America" take the party? Persisting on this course could well hand Trump the 2020 victory on a silver platter. Elections are won and lost mainly among moderate voters in most Western (if I may use that term) democracies. To the extent that the Dems abandon both moderation and common sense, they're doomed to electoral failure.  

  9. 13 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    China’s party has to end until real change takes place.  This will require a coordinated approach.  

    I too believe that the West needs to entirely reevaluate its views about China. Canada's obsequious approach has accomplished little or nothing for us. A column by Brian Lee Crowley this week in the G&M notes that Canada is now a victim of China's perception that we are weak, in no small measure due to the Trudeau government's "fawning" efforts to establish closer ties with China. The Chinese regime, Crowley notes, "respects strength, not weakness." The author goes further, stating that Canada does have some options here: "There are measures we can take immediately: the expulsion of the ambassador; the use of Magnitsky sanctions against specific members of the regime involved in this travesty; and a warming of our relations with Taiwan. Tightening visa restrictions could be considered, though punishing ordinary Chinese for the actions of the regime might be unpalatable." Why unpalatable, though, when China has no apparent reservations about playing this game itself?

    We need to take a firm stand here. There may well be negative consequences, including economic ones. But that will be a small price to pay in order to regain respect. If respect is not possible, what is the point of the relationship in any case?


  10. 2 hours ago, Boges said:

    I'd like to get a cite of a CPC candidate publicly telling voters to vote for X candidate because of their race and the race of candidate Y. 

    If a white person did it, there'd be hate crime charges. 

    Tribalism is the holy grail of modern retail politics. It allows the population to be sliced and diced into easily identifiable cultural constituencies that can then be profiled and bought off one at a time. We kid ourselves if we believe anything other than this is going on in all three mainstream political parties. The only constituency to which collective appeals are considered inappropriate is the majority population. As Maxime Bernier has stated, we're in an era characterized by an agenda of extreme diversity. The problem, of course, will arise if the excluded group asserts its collective beliefs and interests.

    • Like 1
  11. Now that Ontario's SIU has cleared the police of any wrongdoing in the shooter's death, will we be enlightened by authorities as to full extent of the investigation into and evidence available relating to the shooter's motivation(s)? It's an entirely fair question.


  12. 10 hours ago, eyeball said:

    The only people who don't want answers are in your fervid imagination.  How about an inquiry into suggestions of a politically motivated conspiracy between police and media in this case that has been used to influence public opinion towards Islam?  If I actually fell for something like this I'd like to know.  Fool me once shame on them but fool me twice?  I have good reason to want to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy too.

    In the meantime, there is still nothing to suggest the role of mental illness should be completely ruled out, unless of course the inquiry into the police/media conspiracy reveal that the story of Faisal Hussein's investigation under the Mental Health Act was deliberately fabricated.  

    Less importantly is the outstanding insistence by some of the more fervid members around here that citing this story is the same as claiming there was an actual diagnosis that ruled out terrorism.  Why would they do that anyway, to influence public opinion perhaps?

    Obviously, you don't have an inquiring mind as you attack those who want to get real answers about the situation as having a "fervid imagination." Your putdown actually demonstrates your own bias. Is it the best you can do? The author I quote simply says that emerging information or evidence suggests that mental illness wasn't (isn't?) the only line of inquiry being pursued by the police in their quest to determine the shooter's motivation. Now that the SIU has issued its rather limited report, which clears the police in the shooter's death, maybe we can get to the bottom of this.

  13. 20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

    I think there needs to be all out political and economic opposition to China, but Canada can’t do it alone.  I’m not sure Trump can do it either. He’s too buried in domestic opposition and wrangling over the border wall.  It may sound radical, but I think it may be our last opportunity.  China has big plans. 

    There's a good column by Brian Lee Crowley on the G&M website that serves as an indictment of sorts of Trudeau's obsequious China policy, noting that China's current strategy directly relates to its perception of Trudeau's and Canada's weakness. This should be required reading for all voters in this election year. Now we know not only that Trudeau wasn't ready for the PM role but, even worse, that his weakness has seriously undermined Canada's reputation and interests.


    • Like 1
  14. 3 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

    There's a good column by Michele Mandel on the Toronto Sun site about today's revelations, which notes among other things that it's clear the police were (are?) aware of the possibility that a terrorist motive might apply. She points out that commentators who've raised the possibility of a terrorist motive have been demonized for so doing but concludes her piece by asking "isn’t there enough [evidence] here to also wonder whether there was more than mental illness at play on July 22?"

    Given emerging evidence, you've got to wonder why some apparently still don't want answers about the possible role of a terrorist motive. Rational, objective and inquiring minds would surely want to know, right?


    • Like 1
  15. 43 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

    Toronto is already more populous than Chicago and growing fast.  It's thriving and has taken on a life of its own.  Vancouver is where the rich go to feel the value of their wealth through the natural beauty and amenities (skiing, golf, sailing, old growth tree hugging, etc.).  These places are booming and require legislation to moderate the growth, such as the foreign buyers' tax.

    I don't think you get my point, which is that Canada is comprised of a string of in many cases highly artificial or contingent economies that are only (in some cases arguably) sustainable under the current regime. Once that regime is dismantled, which would occur in the event of the breakup of the federation whether prompted by Quebec or Western Canadian secession, all bets would be off. Toronto's status as the economic centre of the country would be gone for sure, which would send the GTA economy into a tailspin. And what would happen to all the Chinese real estate investment in B.C.? As the Canadian dollar drops like a stone and would likely disappear in any disentanglement scenario, those investors would likely pull their investments and flee, rendering Vancouver and the Lower Mainland a ghost zone. Maybe it's this kind of shakeup complacent and badly governed Canadians actually need in order to comprehend the country's weakness? In actuality, this country's economy isn't much more secure or soild than is a house of cards. 

  16. 12 minutes ago, Argus said:

    I dunno. There are large parts of the US that are fine to live, with low crime rates, low taxes, and great weather.

    I have many relatives, including two siblings, who live in the U.S. and by all reports they are for the most part happy, prosperous and safe. I sometimes wonder why so many Canadians develop such a reflexively negative view of our American neighbors? Is it merely insecurity or is it envy? Of course, Canadians have a legitimate gripe where the U.S. government's often overbearing behavior is concerned, but, by-and-large, the U.S. is a country and society similar to ours in many respects, at least for English-speaking Canadians. We could once boast of our health care model as a Canadian advantage but this is an increasingly laughable distinction, at least in Ontario. I suspect that if Canada were to go down the tubes, which is a real possibility given our feckless leadership, the U.S. would remain the most practical and preferred option for most Canadians just as it's been throughout the past century and a half.

  17. On 1/13/2019 at 1:55 AM, Dougie93 said:

    1.) I'll do it in one sentence; the Liberals will incite a debt crisis, once they are forced to rein in spending as a result, 

    2.) that will incite the PQ back to power and referendum, the Liberals will cock that up, this time the PQ will win, Confederation will come apart at the seams,

    3.) and then we will be free for all time of this Liberal Party of Canada dictatorship.

    1.) That sounds like Doug Ford's strategy in Ontario these days.

    2.) Sheer speculation. The bigger risk is that Western Canadians will give up on a federal system to which the contribute enormously while gettingrelatively little in return.

    3.) A lot of Canadians outside of Quebec are naive, silly or self-interested enough (in identity-focused communities in the latter case) to keep on supporting the Lib brand. If Quebec goes, by the way, the U.S. will pick up the pieces of Canada that are valuable enough to it to matter. Ontario, though, is a basket case and will slide further into abject insignificance upon the dissolution of the Canadian federation. Geopolitically, it will, metaphorically speaking, become a new Belarus, and Toronto, sans a pan-Canadian economic hinterland to justify its "financial centre" status, will become a decaying jumble characterized by disintegrating infrastructure (more so than now) and ethno-racial strife. Hordes of the unemployed and homeless will squat in abandoned condo towers and productive people will flee to more promising and prosperous jurisdictions. Pearson Airport (possibly renamed the Morneau-Freeland Progressive Gender-Neutral Diversity Reconciliation Apology Carbon-Reduction Transport Area?) will see mainly empty planes land and full planes take off. It won't be a pretty picture.

  18. On 1/11/2019 at 4:09 PM, Dougie93 said:

    The American Commander-in-Chief wouldn't side with you, if Canada ever incites an internal insurrection, the Americans will be all over that and will use it to their advantage by imposing themselves as arbitrators.  That is to say, under the rubric of continental security Washington will step in put the screws to Canada using the indians are their leverage, by cutting Canada out of the process and treating with the Indians directly. 

    Where did you ever come up with this? Why would the federal government incite an internal insurrection in the first place? We have a constitution that asserts the legitimacy of indigenous rights and successive governments have in recent decades demonstrated considerable restraint in dealing with indigenous affairs. These days, it's not generally the federal government that doesn't recognize the rule of law in dealing with indigenous activists. Instead, as we've seen in recent conflicts, many activists express their disdain for Canadian laws and some even dismiss their applicability altogether. Why would the Americans ever want to step into this quagmire? Personally, I can't see any upside in the Americans siding with Canada's indigenous activists as they'd risk raising expectations among their own substantially larger indigenous population. As an American relative has told me, the American view is largely that European Americans defeated their Indians (they still call them that or, alternatively, Native Americans) and now call the shots. I doubt that Americans will ever call their indigenous peoples "First Nations."

  19. 9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    Trudeau has much better relations with China than Trump has.  I'll grant the Liberals that. 

    I don't think China respects Canada or Trudeau but it does continue to court American favor. It tells you which of the two North American countries China actually cares about. Trudeau's obsequious approach in dealing with China has accomplished little or nothing. Ms. Meng is being held by Canada on an American extradition request and Trump is negotiating with the Chinese as he continues to squeeze them with steep tariffs. But which country's citizens are being arbitrarily detained in China right now? The answer to this tells you everything you need to know about Trudeau's and Canada's influence and prestige in China. I think it's time to put an end to this farce and just say bye-bye to Beijing.

  20. 1 hour ago, Machjo said:

    The point still stands that the Charter violates the Covenant.

    Perhaps it does in one tiny aspect relating to the carve-out for Ontario's separate school system. But this isn't necessarily a permanent feature. Quebec and Newfoundland have both removed religion as an organizing principle for their school systems and Ontario can do the same if it so chooses. In that sense, the Charter isn't a straitjacket and neither is the separate schools exemption ideological. It's sometimes difficult to wind down generations of history. As we move toward greater secularism, hopefully support for maintaining a separate school system will wane.

  21. 4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

    Seriously though, any party that seeks to limit freedom of expression, abortion rights, gay rights, etc, is fringe and lunatic, and should be exposed as such.


    Not all Muslims, of course, are Islamists. And there are certainly social conservatives among other religious communities, including many Christians. But any effort to limit freedom of expression, which is the oxygen of democracy, is clearly problematic. That's why I personally found the M-103 approach so disturbing. The Western ethos, which emerges out of a long and illustrious history dating back to the Reformation, and later the Enlightenment, accommodates and validates the criticism of religion. It's not a bug in the Western system, it's a feature. If we capitulate on this, we give up on the Western project.

  22. 8 hours ago, Machjo said:

    Actually, the religious-school provisions of the Charter violate the International Covenant in Civil and Political Rights. Just read Waldman vs. Canada.

    The Charter exemption relating to Ontario's separate school system originates in a long-standing constitutional arrangement dating back to 1867. The situation significantly predates modern international human rights covenants and the 1999 UN Human Rights Commission's ruling has no legal applicability in Canada, unlike decisions made under the Charter. I believe the UN Human Rights Committee has also come out against the death penalty as well as blasphemy laws, none of which are applicable to Canada. If Canada's only sin is Ontario's separate school system, that's pretty small potatoes. Nobody loses their life over it nor is any child of any religion actually denied a publicly funded basic education. Personally, I'd get rid of all religious education and I believe the Waldman decision notes that the Covenant doesn't require any state to fund religious schools. My guess is that any Islamic Party that might emerge in Ontario or Canada would instead seek to obtain public funding for religious schools for members of the community they represent, just as Waldman presumably sought public funding for Jewish schooling.

  23. 4 hours ago, August1991 said:

    The Canadian government can close our embassy in Beijing and close our consulates elsewhere in China.

    It can order all Chinese government officials to leave Canada.


    In 2019, we are well beyond this. Millions of Chinese people live in Canada. Thousands of Canadians live in China. Hundreds of millions of people, Canadians and Chinese, deal daily with one another.


    And, your point is? Canada and other Western countries routinely pull their diplomatic contingents, including ambassadors, from other countries when diplomatic disputes emerge. Canada did so with Russia following Russia's takeover of Crimea although there are 500 thousand Canadian citizens and/or residents of full or partial Russian ancestry, thousands of whom are Russian-born immigrants to Canada. In 2012 Canada completely broke off diplomatic relations with Iran despite the fact that over 200 thousand Canadians are of Iranian ancestry, many of whom were born in Iran.

    I'm not sure what makes China different? I think that right now one would have to tell Canadians who live there, many of whom are potentially former Chinese citizens as China doesn't recognize dual citizenship and in many cases forces such people to forfeit their Chinese citizenship when they are naturalized abroad, that they do so at their own risk despite the fact that we maintain formal diplomatic relations with China. The U.S. is warning its citizens of the dangers of traveling to and presumably remaining in China in view the risk of arbitrary detention. Despite Trudeau's starry-eyed view of China and the "basic dictatorship" he admires (an odd penchant for a Western leader), China is not a country governed by what anybody in the West would normally consider the rule of law.

  24. 2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

    Ok I just read the Islamic Party program and it's pretty hilarious/as backward as the muslims who wrote this garbage, and using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to their advantage.


    Of course they are. The Canadian Charter is consistent with the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights although most Muslim-majority countries have opted to back an alternative to the U.N. Declaration called the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which is an interesting read. It begins with the following premise: "All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam." Well, you get the picture. It's a counterpoint to the Western understanding of human rights as enunciated in the U.N. Declaration. Unfortunately, mainly due to the emergence of open-ended Western multiculturalism, most in the West probably don't realize the extent of philosophical divergence between the Western and Islamic belief structures.

    We're told by self-styled "progressives" including politicians that these are minor differences that will work themselves out over time. Really? A 2017 article by a Muslim writer in the NY Times (link below) explains the problem with assuming that Muslims will simply adapt to Western values. The author notes that "[o]ften Muslims support liberalism when it serves them and reject it when it does not." So, it's not at all surprising that the Charter is being used to argue the cause of an Islamic party program in this country.



    • Like 2
  • Create New...