Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by turningrite

  1. You can't have a rational discussion or debate with him. (I'm assuming gender here because the poster doesn't identify one.) He refuses to even acknowledge your argument about reciprocity, nor China's approach to intellectual property. He just argues emotion and insinuates racist motives and counters that the Chinese are wonderful immigrants and property owners, as if this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is the current diplomatic dispute between Canada and China.
  2. The only legal basis for the suit was the tort that was ostensibly established by the SCC rulings. That's what the whole thing was about. Unfortunately for Canadians, the process did not wend its way through the courts. If it had, we would have had a much better idea of the Charter implications relating to such matters. My guess is that Trudeau's Libs settled for political reasons, including the fact that they didn't want to face the risk of a further public backlash relating to the federal government's role in bringing the Khadr family to Canada in the first place as well, I suspect, as wanti
  3. 1. & 2.) I don't believe the SCC rulings on Khadr's rights directly addressed this matter at all. It's not as if Canadian law has any jurisdictional impact on how the Americans conduct their affairs. I don't believe the SCC rendered any judgement or opinion relating to what you call "war crimes" or other violations of international law by the Americans, nor should it have. The SCC ruled that the Canadian government wrongly participated in the Gitmo interrogation process, thus rendering it liable for Charter violations, and erred in making inadequate efforts to bring Khadr back to Canada an
  4. Hmmm... let's see, according to the 2017 poll I cited earlier, 64 percent of Canadians opposed selling arms to the Saudis. My guess that number has since risen, possibly by about a dozen points or more, due to the Khashoggi murder. Trudeau's crew can do electoral if not budgetary math. They're experts at slicing and dicing the electorate into voting blocs. If they do get out of the Saudi deal, as it appears they're trying to do, they'll no doubt try to minimize any associated penalties. The Ontario Libs found out the hard way that the penalties incurred in the gas plant cancellation fiasco, fo
  5. It's irresponsible, one way or the other. They should have had the good sense to stay home. The fact that Trudeau didn't order Lib MPs to cancel their participation in the trip in fact generates an impression of government consent.
  6. Most likely because reportedly the federal government could incur huge penalties for so doing. Butts, Trudeau's principal adviser, must surely be aware of the political risks entailed in having to pay such penalties. He was, after all, deeply entrenched in provincial Lib politics in Ontario before moving to Ottawa. Most Canadians other than those directly impacted by a cancellation probably wouldn't be too upset if the deal were cancelled. A 2017 poll (See link below.) indicated that almost two-thirds of Canadians oppose arms sales to Saudia Arabia, a percentage that's probably increased in vi
  7. I'm surprised so few have weighed in on this topic. It was the basis of the lead editorial in Sunday's Toronto Star, 'Don't undercut strong message', which noted that we cannot at present deal with China on a business-as-usual basis. The Star editorial questions the purpose of the parliamentary delegation being in China: "So what on earth is a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians doing jetting off to China prepared to deliver a softly-softly message about how relations between the two countries are really just fine?" These are not normal times and the current dispute with China should prom
  8. I've long believed that Canada has no fundamental strategic interest other than in maintaining a reasonably harmonious relationship with the U.S., a nation we could never realistically engage in a military conflict. Other than having a requirement to pay a share for continental defense (i.e. NORAD), I think both peacekeeping and our role in NATO should be seriously re-examined.
  9. The issue will have little resonance outside of the London area and could actually help Trudeau elsewhere. His "progressive" base would be thrilled at such an outcome. Ontario will likely vote along predictable lines. Urban "progressives" and immigrant voters in and around Toronto will likely back Trudeau's party and rural and small-town voters will support the CPC. Traditional NDP ridings could well be in play, though, as that party continues to implode. Trudeau's disappointing USMCA deal, which didn't accomplish much and didn't get rid of steel and aluminum tariffs, could come back to haunt
  10. Well, you certainly don't accord views that conflict with your own even a modicum of respect, even when such conflicting views are entirely reasonable. That's reflective of an antidemocratic mindset. It's an observation that's based on reading your posts on here and therefore amounts to fair comment. Look the concept up.
  11. My guess at this point is that the best the CPC can hope for under Scheer is to hold the Libs to a minority. I believe CPC members will come to realize they made a strategic error in selecting him as their leader. And the situation will be worse for the CPC if the NDP collapses because the Libs will vacuum up NDP voters, a lot of whom would never vote for any party even slightly right of centre. (Why, after all, is Trudeau trying to keep Singh out of Parliament?) Don't get me wrong here: I believe the NDP is a hopeless and internally conflicted mess. But its collapse will become a much bigger
  12. Scheer is a compromise candidate who was effectively installed as party leader by special interests. If anything, he's too milquetoast to be taken too seriously, which is why the CPC membership could well be vulnerable to its support being encroached on by Bernier's party.
  13. "Great comeback! The only thing missing in the Conservative agenda that wasn't mentioned is the prerequisite of being pure white too, even though it's hinted throughout that rant.. That requirement is always left hiding in the Conservative's closet. They need to be dragged out of their closets to expresss their exclusionist agenda as belonging to the Cons." Presumably this is your comment (in quotations), although you can correct me if I'm wrong. If it is, good attempt at trying to change the channel to reflect the elitist/"progressive" contempt for ordinary Canadians who express their l
  14. i don't have the time right now to fully engage in this debate, but I think your sociological perspective is quite skewed here. English dominance was rendered inevitable by British colonial rule in places like North America, Australia and New Zealand, just as Spanish linguistic dominance was rendered inevitable in places where Spain's empire once ruled. The pressure to build functional and cohesive societies was no doubt perceived as requiring an interlocutory language in both cases. Who are we to castigate such realities as dominant languages have throughout the history displaced other langua
  15. Re: "...insidious public opinion shaping." I think the more accurate description of the MSM approach is media manipulation. Noam Chomsky has long noted that the political and economic elites employ the media, which they largely control, to direct and shape public opinion and debate. In the much more diverse multi-media environment created by the internet this is becoming more difficult. Thus, I believe, we're witnessing the growing calls for various forms of censorship, including the suppression of free speech. We wouldn't want voters thinking for themselves, would we? As a student of history,
  16. Thanks for the detailed polling questions link. In looking at the responses, I tend to eliminate the neutral ("neither agree nor disagree"") responses in order the ascertain the true state of public opinion. When one does this, the situation becomes even more stark, indicating that of those who have opinions on these matters (i.e. those for whom immigration issues could impact their voting intentions), 82% believe the government is hiding the true costs of immigration, 79% believe immigration has placed too much strain on public services, 73% believe Canada is too welcoming to immigrants, 66%
  17. I'm sure the mainstream parties and the MSM will try to keep a lid on any kind of election related immigration debate. The question will be whether they can succeed in this. Bernier's party will be the wild card here as Bernier has made it clear he wants to raise immigration issues, which could force the other parties to respond. As a commentator noted on yesterday's Global News coverage of the Ipsos poll, contrary to the elitist argument that's generally put forward on the matter by the mainstream parties there is actually no broad public consensus in Canada on immigration. In fact polling su
  18. Well, perhaps. Immigration-based societies, like the U.S., Canada and Australia, comprised of peoples of diverse ethnicities, were a rather novel concept in the the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Americans experienced spasms of insecurity about the impacts of immigration, particularly from non-Anglo and, particularly, non-Western societies, as exemplified by the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1882. Canada followed suit much later, in 1923, by implementing similar legislation. Australia's Parliament passed an Immigration Restriction Act, which formed the genesi
  19. A new Ipsos poll done for Global News (link below) indicates increasing public concern about Canada's immigration program. Although it appears the polling didn't specifically gauge whether Canadians feel immigration levels are too high, it did ask respondents whether they feel Canada is too welcoming to immigrants, and 54% percent indicate to one extent or another that they believe we are, in contrast to 20% who believe we are not. The coverage noted that attitudes about immigration appear to be increasingly negative. While the TV news item addressing the polling results suggested that Be
  20. My point is that these groups would have been assimilated in any case, as was the case for most minority communities in Canada until the modern era. Usually, the children of immigrants quickly learned English and after a couple generations immigrant languages often faded into insignificance. In addition to Irish and French ancestry in my family's background, there is also Portuguese ancestry. French has survived in some branches of the family, mainly in Quebec and due to immersion programs has recently re-emerged in Ontario, where when my paternal grandfather was raising his children it was ba
  21. You raise valid concerns. The carbon issue is much more complex than many "progressives" seem willing to acknowledge. The Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, among others, has noted the carbon implications of encouraging population growth in northern climates featuring Western living standards. Why progressives don't understand the issue remains a mystery as it seems pretty obvious. Apparently, for many, "diversity" trumps the environment, a bias they should simply admit. But if climate alarmists are correct, progressives will see the planet burn up for the sake of diversity, which seems a
  22. Much of what you say may be correct from a rational perspective, however it's somewhat beside the point as indigenous Canadians do have legitimate rights that are clearly and explicitly incorporated into the constitution. Would you simply cede your right to, say, your home, without demanding fair market value in return? Indigenous rights, as currently stipulated in law, are essentially immutable and permanent, which gives indigenous Canadians a lot of bargaining power. Some say they want to have their cake and eat it too, and to some extent this may be true, but wouldn't you as well if you we
  23. I understand your point about the reserve or reservation system not being economically viable - well, at least in most cases because some reserves are actually economically sustainable. However, indigenous Canadians didn't invent this system. It was essentially imposed on them in the 18th century in return for Britain's assertion of crown sovereignty over indigenous lands. Essentially, it was a sale price in which one party, the British, unilaterally set the terms of sale. The general interpretation is that Royal Proclamation of 1763 stipulates that in return for the assertion of crown soverei
  24. Perhaps. But as a Chinese friend has told me, its society is very nationalistic and views homogeneity and conformity as virtues rather than vices. The preferences for conformity and order are apparently ages old and grounded in Chinese history and tradition, including Confucianism. My friend can't get his head around the Western preference for open political opposition and disruption. He was raised to believe that in times of turmoil one puts one's head down, keeps on working and waits to be told by those in charge what to do.
  25. U.S. military aggression has been problematic in the post-WWII era. As Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom's notes this week in his piece 'Trump is right to pull out of Syria', Trump's policy of foreign military disengagement actually represents a retreat from the recent record of interventionism. But most "progressives" in the West have such a blinkered view of Trump that they can't or won't acknowledge this as progress. The U.S. was for a time, and particularly following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world's single most important military power and was often expected, particularly b
  • Create New...