Justin Trudeau Sworn In As Canada's 23rd Prime Minister

[CanadianLoonie]

What incentive do you suggest? It can't be monetary, which is the only thing that would likely work.

Clearly having the government be able to do it's job better is not enough incentive.

Census information has been used as a weapon of discrimination during times of war in this country, so NOT giving the government the ability to "do it's job better" is an incentive for me.

[Dazzle]

Yes, because he want to devolve power back to the level of the individual because libertarians think you alone are the one most qualified to govern yourself.

Because this is politics.

He ticks many political boxes...

1.) He's a foreign-born immigrant,  which is an important demographic perspective to have represented in Cabinet
2.) He's a visible ethnic minority...

3.) ...from a unique religious minority.

I like that because it's a bold response to all of the ugly xenophobic identity politics the Conservatives played this election. Although he isn't Muslim, it's  big move.

4.) He's not only is a Cabinet Minister from Western Canada, but also from the third city, Vancouver...which is a Liberal island in a provincial sea of Conservatives...aka regionalism

5.) As for the fact that he volunteered to be deployed on 4 separate combat operations, I don't know his views to judge what his geopolitical opinions are...being a Liberal I'll place a bet on being dovish, even though he was a commissioned officer and rising to become the CO of his regiment, being a combat veteran is no guarantee of being more or less gung-ho about using military action...  

I disagree, respectfully. The only time people should be allowed to have guns is when they have passed proper handgun/rifle training, which many Americans have not.

Also, protection of property with handguns is a disproportionate violence. If such a concept should be allowed, it should be dependent on what choice of weapon that the attacker uses. Again, given the lack of training that most people possess, many will be too quick to fire a weapon - or risk hurting those around them. See example of American citizen (customer) firing a handgun at suspected shoplifters escaping by car.

Regarding our new Ministry of Defence, yes, it definitely checks a lot of boxes - but this is no different than when you're applying to go to work. There are "politics" involved, much like how people can get fired due to "politics". It isn't about what party you support; it's human nature to have it.

I get what point you've been trying to make, but again, does him selecting a Sikh make him racist for not selecting a fellow Caucasian (with similar or better qualifications)? None of us know who the potential candidates were and how they were decided. It's clear, from your own confirmations also, that he was an appropriate pick, given his credentials and work-related background.

 

 

[DeNiro]

Census information has been used as a weapon of discrimination during times of war in this country, so NOT giving the government the ability to "do it's job better" is an incentive for me.

Not really rational reasoning. That's like being paranoid the government wants to take your guns away.

The government already knows quite a bit about you and could easily access your information, regardless if you give it voluntarily.

This is simply a way to gather it all in one database so that they can use that data in decision making. If you look at the questions, they're not exactly invasive questions. 

 

[CanadianLoonie]

I get it, I'm just ok with being required to do some things in order to live in a relatively safe, civil society. Your dreamland is fantastic in theory, but it's just that.

Your "relatively safe, civil society" dreamland is going to stagnate over the next 20-30 years as demographics and the related economics factors involves runs it course.

Some things have to be enforced by law in order to create a society.

People should have the right to not vote, which they do. Filing out a census is more in line with doing your taxes. You can choose not to do it, but you're gonna face penalties.

You are saying that society needs to be held together by the use of force...how exactly is that the definition of 'civil'?

[DeNiro]

You are saying that society needs to be held together by the use of force...how exactly is that the definition of 'civil'?

A person is civil. A group of people is not.

Look what happens when the controls of society fall apart. Societies are thrown into chaos. There are examples throughout history.

It's nice to picture a eutopia where everyone peacefully governs themselves, but it's not realistic. Things like greed and hate need to be controlled.

[inane]

Yeah maybe, it will evolve as it does, as society has over centuries. 

In the mean time, not filling out your census because you don't like the man knowing you're a quarter Russian or whatever seems silly.

Sorry for formatting, this board sucks wank on mobile.

[CanadianLoonie]

Not really rational reasoning. That's like being paranoid the government wants to take your guns away.

The government already knows quite a bit about you and could easily access your information, regardless if you give it voluntarily.

This is simply a way to gather it all in one database so that they can use that data in decision making. If you look at the questions, they're not exactly invasive questions. 

Hmm...how do you think the government managed to locate, detain, and deport to internment camps every citizen/resident of Japanese ethnicity some 70 years ago?

A person is civil. A group of people is not.

Look what happens when the controls of society fall apart. Societies are thrown into chaos. There are examples throughout history.

It's nice to picture a eutopia where everyone peacefully governs themselves, but it's not realistic. Things like greed and hate need to be controlled.

Government is a group of people as well...so you need a small group to people to rule over a large one?

Yes, societies that relied upon centralized controls have fallen apart because those same centralized controls that they were dependent upon failed. Those controls worked...until they didn't.

But with the advancement in technology we have now and moving forward into the future, could you not think that alternative methods of governance are possible?

[Alflives]

Your "relatively safe, civil society" dreamland is going to stagnate over the next 20-30 years as demographics and the related economics factors involves runs it course.

You are saying that society needs to be held together by the use of force...how exactly is that the definition of 'civil'?

Machiavelli or Rousseau?  

[DeNiro]

Hmm...how do you think the government managed to locate, detain, and deport to internment camps every citizen/resident of Japanese ethnicity some 70 years ago?

Government is a group of people as well...so you need a small group to people to rule over a large one?

Yes, societies that relied upon centralized controls have fallen apart because those same centralized controls that they were dependent upon failed. Those controls worked...until they didn't.

But with the advancement in technology we have now and moving forward into the future, could you not think that alternative methods of governance are possible?

Do you really think not filling out a census would hurt their ability to locate certain groups of people? The Nazis didn't need a census to find every Jewish citizen. Again, not really a rational reason for not filling out a census.

Obviously different forms of government will evolve like they have throughout history. But the idea that we won't need a centralized system of control to keep order is unrealistic.

[Ryan Strome]

Some things have to be enforced by law in order to create a society.

People should have the right to not vote, which they do. Filing out a census is more in line with doing your taxes. You can choose not to do it, but you're gonna face penalties.

Well its kinda odd to compare it to taxes. Your taxes go towards roads, schools, hospitals etc.

I agree it serves a purpose but forcing people to do it while living in a free Country is the wrong approach in my opinion.

[DeNiro]

Well its kinda odd to compare it to taxes. Your taxes go towards roads, schools, hospitals etc.

I agree it serves a purpose but forcing people to do it while living in a free Country is the wrong approach in my opinion.

And the data gathered from the census helps the government better spend those taxes. Collecting taxes without a proper plan that uses accurate information isn't very efficient. So in a way they do go hand in hand.

People in a country are only free to a certain extent. Sometimes people have to be forced to do things for the betterment of the whole. With no controls in place I doubt anyone would do anything their government tells them to do.

[Lancaster]

 

who knew that things like disabilities, cultural/race affiliations, gender, etc. are "trivial"? 

 

equality does not exist - and the pursuit of it undoubtedly requires "systemic manipulation." there is a such thing as positive discrimination -- have you ever heard of employment equity? or affirmative action? these are fundamental elements of almost every developed society--even capitalist ones which celebrate the individual before the community--and they are COMPLETELY antithetical to equality in the literal sense. it's inequality to PROMOTE balance and equality

don't be afraid of the 'political correctness' boogeyman

 

are you implying that people in charge DO NOT want the best people beside them? and that they are willing to overlook shortcomings in exchange for, what, tokenism? if that isn't the implication, then i'm really confused about what your point is

has it occurred to you that maybe being a woman or being a person of (whatever) ethnicity is part of what makes the individual 'best' for the jobs in question? i mean, it's not like these appointments are just like ghetto youth and nursing students being placed in the senate... they all seem highly qualified and experienced in their fields, as far as i have seen. and besides, your estimation of what makes someone qualified to be considered 'the best' is never quantified. and that makes sense, because that would be very difficult to do considering this is a discussion based on POLITICS and GOVERNING, not a 100m dash. 

Perhaps I'm just too naive and rather just see everyone based on their character, ability and achievements, rather than physical attributes or who they know.  

Just choosing a random cabinet minister.... Chrystia Freeland.  She's now in charge of the International Trade department.  Sure, she's a journalist writing articles and editor for the Globe, Financial Times and Thomas Reuters... and even penned a couple of books.  Freeland is obviously smart by doing her undergrad at Harvard and then her Masters at Oxford.... except her specialties are in literature, history and Slavonic studies.  Really?  That's in charge of the department of International Trade?  No one with a MBA or something to head up that department?

Catherine McKenna..... the new Environment and Climate Change Minister... she's a human rights and social justice lawyer.... err... hey, at least she believes in climate change and is much better looking than her predecessor, right?

Bardish Chagger as the head of the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism.  Good to have experience as a special director at some multicultural centre... but wouldn't someone who started their own business or something fit the role better?  An individual who has gone through the pain and stress with their grassroots experiences? 

Not just only the woman appointees, many in the cabinet shouldn't have their positions too.... like Jim Carr, our new Natural Resources Minister.... where those resources companies had to use google to even know who this guy is.  A journalist, musician and administrator.... and pretty much a career politician.  I guess Trudeau probably couldn't find anyone with any experience in the industry, as they're most likely non-Liberal voters. 

I'm pretty sure those above listed appointees weren't chosen for their experience and expertise.

 

Not to say there aren't any good appointments.  Qualtrough, Sajjan, Garneau, Joly and Philpott are great choices for their respective positions. 

 

[Ryan Strome]

And the data gathered from the census helps the government better spend those taxes. Collecting taxes without a proper plan that uses accurate information isn't very efficient. So in a way they do go hand in hand.

People in a country are only free to a certain extent. Sometimes people have to forced to do things for the betterment of the whole. With no controls in place I doubt anyone would do anything their government tells them to do.

But see it is my opinion that if you're a law abiding citizen you shouldn't have to do what your "government tells" you to do.

And no the Country shouldn't be free to a certain extent, if you are a law abiding citizen and pay your taxes you should be completely free not free to extent.

I 100% agree with Moen when he says "my rights stop where yours begin"

I'm not trying to generalize but it seems alot of far left voters seems to always want to give Government more control and trust them to run their lives. This idea has and always will baffle me.

[CanadianLoonie]

I disagree, respectfully. The only time people should be allowed to have guns is when they have passed proper handgun/rifle training, which many Americans have not.

And who is the judge of whether one is trained or not...the government? Hmm...hold this point for a minute...

Also, protection of property with handguns is a disproportionate violence. If such a concept should be allowed, it should be dependent on what choice of weapon that the attacker uses. 

If an intruder on your property was just trespassing across the yard and one opens fire on them, then that is disproportionate use of force.

If an intruder on your property became a home invader, any use of force to subdue the invader is justified.

Again, given the lack of training that most people possess, many will be too quick to fire a weapon - or risk hurting those around them. See example of American citizen (customer) firing a handgun at suspected shoplifters escaping by car.

And in that thread I posted a video of a policeman discharging his service weapon in a negligent manner.

An agent of the government, trained by the government, authorized by the government to use deadly force, firing at the general direction of his target in a reckless manner.

So back to the point at the top, should it be up to the government to judge who is qualified to possess and use firearms?

Is the government itself qualified to be that judge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48s4b6Y9oeA

[DeNiro]

But see it is my opinion that if you're a law abiding citizen you shouldn't have to do what your "government tells" you to do.

And no the Country shouldn't be free to a certain extent, if you are a law abiding citizen and pay your taxes you should be completely free not free to extent.

I 100% agree with Moen when he says "my rights stop where yours begin"

I'm not trying to generalize but it seems alot of far left voters seems to always want to give Government more control and trust them to run their lives. This idea has and always will baffle me.

Well then you've gotta ask what should they be able to tell us to do and what shouldn't they? Obviously you agree there should be laws with punishment for certain things right? So which laws are just and which aren't? Who decides that if not elected officials? 

It depends on your definition of free really. I think of freedom as freedom of speech, religion, sexual orientation, along with the guaranteed rights that every citizen has in the charter of rights. There's nothing in there that says that the government can't tax you or apply penalties to you.

You may be a law biding citizen that lives a responsible honest life, but there are people out there who aren't. Those people are why laws are put in place. Nobody wants the government to run their lives, and they don't. We do need them to have a certain amount of control to operate effectively though. I'll fill out a census if it means my hard earned tax dollars are spent more efficiently in places they're needed.

 

[inane]

And who is the judge of whether one is trained or not...the government? Hmm...hold this point for a minute...

If an intruder on your property was just trespassing across the yard and one opens fire on them, then that is disproportionate use of force.

If an intruder on your property became a home invader, any use of force to subdue the invader is justified.

And in that thread I posted a video of a policeman discharging his service weapon in a negligent manner.

An agent of the government, trained by the government, authorized by the government to use deadly force, firing at the general direction of his target in a reckless manner.

So back to the point at the top, should it be up to the government to judge who is qualified to possess and use firearms?

Is the government itself qualified to be that judge?

<iframe width="646" height="388" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/48s4b6Y9oeA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are so many grey areas, that's the problem your theory doesn't address. 

[Ryan Strome]

I disagree, respectfully. The only time people should be allowed to have guns is when they have passed proper handgun/rifle training, which many Americans have not.

Also, protection of property with handguns is a disproportionate violence. If such a concept should be allowed, it should be dependent on what choice of weapon that the attacker uses. Again, given the lack of training that most people possess, many will be too quick to fire a weapon - or risk hurting those around them. See example of American citizen (customer) firing a handgun at suspected shoplifters escaping by car.

Regarding our new Ministry of Defence, yes, it definitely checks a lot of boxes - but this is no different than when you're applying to go to work. There are "politics" involved, much like how people can get fired due to "politics". It isn't about what party you support; it's human nature to have it.

I get what point you've been trying to make, but again, does him selecting a Sikh make him racist for not selecting a fellow Caucasian (with similar or better qualifications)? None of us know who the potential candidates were and how they were decided. It's clear, from your own confirmations also, that he was an appropriate pick, given his credentials and work-related background.

 

 

This is crazy dazzle. If someone is attacking you on your property you think the weapon you use in return should be based on what the attacker is using?

Ridiculous.

I wonder what rape victims and people that have been beaten and killed during home invasions would think of your idea.

If someone comes into your home you should have every right to use a gun to protect your family and yourself as the intruder should not have been in your home in the first place.

[DeNiro]

The fact that the rest of the world seems to think we're the freest country in the world and we still speak out for more freedom, just shows how free we are.

Ask the refugees that come to this country how free they were in their country, then maybe you'll appreciate our government and system a little more.

[Ryan Strome]

The fact that the rest of the world seems to think we're the freest country in the world and we still speak out for more freedom, just shows how free we are.

Ask the refugees that come to this country how free they were in their country, then maybe you'll appreciate our government and system a little more.

its not about comparisons its about Canada and our rights not Syria, Usa, Britain its about Canada and like the phrase Trudeau coined " in Canada better is always possible"

[Lancaster]

Did you even know the purpose of the census?

Unlike Harper, this government wants to plan action based on facts, not on ideologies or beliefs. If a government does't even know the basic demographics of its citizens, how can they pretend to be serving them properly?

I worked at the 2011 census... man, it's a pain in the donkey just to even get people to fill out the simple forms.  I would say at least 50% of the people on my list, I had to put as Unable to Complete.  All the info I needed was just to figure out how many people resided there and their age/gender..... and people act like I'm asking for their kidneys or something. 

Long-form census.... I probably was able to get 2-3 done over the course of 2 months.  One of them because I just ambushed them when they got home plus they were new immigrants and thought it was mandatory (long-form is the optional one) and the other was some older empty-nest women whose husband just recently passed away....she just wanted someone to talk to as she was lonely. 

Once I had some guy go off on me with his Anti-Harper tirade and his supposed controversial move of getting rid of the long-form.  I told him that I'm just the census guy and if he really wanted to do the long-form.... I have one available.  He just told me to "Get lost" and slammed the door. 

 

I'm all for getting as accurate information as possible for better policy making... but I would say the vast majority of people probably had doing the census, even though it's only like 3 minutes to complete.  You can put anything on those forms.... heck, you can put down as a trans-racial, trans-gendered man, with 12 kids, who believes in "the Force" and speak Klingon.  Short forms are hard enough to convince people to do as is... the long forms..... forget about it!