He was almost 30 and a teacher, who I assume are supposed to set a good example, although in my experience in the BC school system I shouldn’t expect so much.
People have rights in the constitution. If I have a concern with Native rights in the constitution it is that they are given ‘royalty’ status within it with no end date as to when we are all equal again. They most definitely have a right to be consulted on issues that affect those rights. They do not have a Veto.
A government can use force, but the only thing that constrains that force is the restraints we place on them. Such as the constitution. If a trucker was doing something criminal then he should be charged. The appeals court clearly said they were denied their freedom of expression.
Again, lets be clear, consultation doesn’t mean a veto or even an outcome that those raising it agree with. The government is required to seriously consider their concerns and answer them. While ‘Hell No!’ is unlikely to be a result the court will take as being ‘serious’, a response of in the vein of we have considered this request or issue, it is addressed by this action, or we are not going to address it because of these reasons e.g. their reservation is 500km away and their hunting rights aren’t affected by the badminton net we are placing in the park.
Yes, I agree that some things you do when young should stay in the past. Frankly, if JT had done this and not been running for parliament, I’d have chalked it up to another trust fund idiot. But he was PM and he said the words, “Peoplekind”. The ultimate hypocrite. If he was upfront about it, or if he was clear in his recollection on how many times he did it, then it might be on the level of Clinton’s, “But I didn’t inhale” defense. A stupid thing to say/do, but we all have things better left in the past. He wasn’t upfront because he knew he wouldn’t have been elected the first time, so he hid it, knowing it was unacceptable, to gain power. Yet once he gained it, he was given a pass.
This leads to the Carney thread where people are saying PP is a bad choice when we had this idiot running our country? Liberals shouldn’t get to have an opinion on the matter as their ‘choosing’ ability is suspect.
No, I’d rather concentrate on the RBC report on a trillion dollars of investment lost, that isn’t coming back soon. That was recent. It isn’t getting better under Carney. I should be careful on that as Alberta, even under the regime of the Liberals, is leading the country in jobs and investments. Imagine what we could do without the boat anchor of the Liberals holding us down?
The First Nations were granted rights by treaty in exchange for ceded claim to the land. Not even getting into all the ways that the government hasn’t respected treaty rights though the years, if you think those rights should expire at some point, wouldn’t that mean returning their title to the land? Or is this a “we can stop holding up our end of the bargain, but they can’t stop holding up their end” thing?
Also, consultation but you’re not allowed to say no isn’t really a meaningful consultation.
Well, that is the deal and the law. I’m not intentionally putting political spin on it.
The First Nations were granted rights by treaty in exchange for ceded claim to the land.
The rights were laid out in the treaties. The constitution confirmed those rights. The courts interpret them to mean the government has a duty to consult to prevent the infringement of those rights. There is nothing in the treaties or the constitution about consultation. So, the court has taken a proactive stance rather than waiting to see if rights have been violated. i.e. you have to prove you won’t prevent natives from exercising their rights rather than defend yourself after the fact.
Btw, the supreme court said similar things about separation referendums. The federal government has a duty to negotiate in good faith (and that includes affected native groups). And if those negotiations don’t end up in an agreement, the Court also discussed what is sometimes called the principle of effectiveness in international law. If a region were somehow to declare independence and successfully establish itself as a state in practice, other countries might eventually recognize that reality.
Alberta Constitution writer dropping racial slurs just like James Madison as the other US founding fathers did at their own drafting.
‘Ridiculous, racist’ remark leads to member’s exit from Alberta Prosperity Project events
One of its members, Ian Parkinson, was introduced as a co-writer of the draft constitution called the “Foundation of Freedom,” which was presented in Airdrie and livestreamed online.
“Every citizen has the right to life, liberty and security to the person — your own security, not some flip flop, towel-headed police officer who doesn’t even speak Canadian,” Parkinson said to applause by members of the audience.
Also Mitch Sylvestre was THERE; he was probably clapping along with the rest of the audience. Why are we allowing him to put out such a disowning statement without question?
Meanwhile the Federalist side is making their usual cognizant arguments as to what they think of us with their usual tolerance.
At least this one wasn’t trying to push someone into traffic.
Mitch Sylvestre condemns Parkinson and removes them from their group.
“I want to be plain about it. The Alberta Prosperity Project does not condone or tolerate what was said. We strongly oppose those comments, and we are disappointed they were made from a platform we provided,” the statement read."
Stronger condemnation from Corey Morgan
And yet, PM Blackface was elected multiple times after actually wearing a towel on his head. The far left is nothing other then hypocritical in their condemnations.
Bolding mine. I forgot. What are even the definitions to those English words?
- a) to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
b) to put up with
- to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
Yeah. Inviting, listening, applauding, then finally posting the video of the racial slur speech on youtube as a promotional drive is a pitch perfect example of condoning and tolerating. The LITERAL DEFINITION.
It’s clear that the Alberta Prosperity Project are led by an “illiterate racist Mitch Sylvestre who doesn’t even speak Canadian.” (to borrow the racial slur laden Ian Parkinson quote and clean it up with a modicum of accuracy)
The far left tolerates racism within their own parties and forgives and even promotes those that are racists, examples PM Blackface and inviting Nazi’s to parliament, yet when we condemn and disown racists in our midst, the tolerance is gone and the brush is broad.
Still waiting on a single logical reason to stay within Canada. When calling people racists is all one side has I guess that pretty much sums up the totality of the argument for staying. Everyone who wants a better outcome for themselves and their kids must be evil, there are no grey areas anymore.
What this tells me is that hating Justin Trudeau is a mandatory article of faith in RWNJ circles, but they can’t find an actual reason to do so, so they have to harp on irrelevancies and fabrications.
Translation: “In a world of increasing authoritarianism, hatred, racism, and xenophobia, I can’t think of a single logical reason to be grateful for living in one of the best, freest, and most peaceful countries in the world. I would much prefer to be a treasonous agitator and anarchistic traitor.”
You could solve Alberta’s money woes single-handedly if you would just start charging rent to Trudeau for living in your head like this.
Actress Kim Cattrall was famously mistakenly identified as Pierre Trudeau’s wife. As a result of this, I have always loved the idea that Justin Trudeau is actually the love child of Kim Cattrall and Fidel Castro.
Our friend Uzi seems to have a severe case of Trudeau Derangement Syndrome.
When the left stops calling other people racists in order to marginalize them, I’ll drop it.
He was fucking well 29 years old. If he was 17, then yes. But 29 and a teacher. He then went on to pontificate on ‘peoplekind’ and how the rest of us weren’t good enough. The left lapped it up and has the nerve to call others racists even when they specifically denounce them.
Stop having separatist leaders go off on racist tirades yelling slurs and screaming “speak Canadian”. Stop having separatist events where the audience and other participants applaud these tirades.
But the ‘New..World..Order..’ will fix that right? The only authoritarianism I worry about is the one being implemented by Ottawa. Attempting to take guns, immobilize the country with unnecesary regulations, introduce hate speech laws, paid media spread their propoganda, beggar the population, all out the the autocrats handbook. Luckily their desire to be autocratic is severely limited by their incompetence.
Newspeak.
And yet significant numbers in multiple provinces seem to want to their province to leave, why? There is a consistent drain of qualified people leaving Canada, why? There is a consistent drain of capital fleeing Canada, why? people need to use food banks at unprecedented levels, why? People can’t afford housing, why?
How many times has Trudeau been applauded after it was known what he did? The difference is that we actually denounce those who do racist things and remove them. The left kept their racist, the left celebrated Nazi’s in parliament. So, no we’ll continue to hold events, continue to call out racists, and actually remove them when they are found out.
Found out? Mitch Sylvestre and the audience were there. They were also quite pleased with the outburst, and even so proud enough that they promoted it online. That is why we know about the slurs and racial hatred.
And if they didn’t upload it? Someone would have and they’d have been accused of trying to hide it.
And then what happened? The guy was removed from the organization. JT remained the leader of the Liberal party and given a pass because his supporters were so proud of him. Would it have been better if we had given this person the same benefit of the doubt?
What is you’re point, that all independents are racists? Ask why this is important to you and why you can’t address why Alberta should stay when all economic indicators is that it would prosper? Canada is the one circling the drain now, maybe be concerned about that instead.
Even an unabashed apologist should be embarrassed by this line of reasoning.
I’m sorry. Got no dog in this hunt, but which indicators are these? Because the history of countries that have only resources to export and no other advantages is mixed at best.
You (the PROUD NATION OF ALBERTA) would be incredibly sensitive to price shocks and entirely dependent on the goodwill of other countries to actual get your product to market.
And if you think a MAGA-led USA is going to do that without Danegeld, you’re fooling yourself.
Which is why over the years Alberta has diversified its economy. We are already relying on the goodwill of Canada and the US to get our products to market. Within Canada we have no leverage and are politically land-locked. Outside of Canada we have leverage. Example: BC can now collect a toll on oil going through their land. Can Alberta do the same on goods being transported from BC through its territory? If we were independent, then we could block trade from BC to the ROC. We can’t now. This also violates section 121 of the constitution.