So, Canada is not a country... not really

[VanGnome]

I was involved in this discussion on a political forum and wanted to bring it here to see what some less politically motivated individuals might think about this. I think it would be a great conversation to have and to see if the reality matches up with what your interpretation or understanding of Canada truly is.

Back in 1670, what became Canada if I remember correctly, was originally a French Parisian colony but was later granted to the British Crown after 1763 Paris Treaty as a result of the 1759 battle between Britain and France. Once the Paris Treaty was ratified, the first Letters Patent were issued which recognized the Governor General's authorities in the Sole of Canada, and for every successive Governor General thereafter until 1931.
 

Essentially the contention comes from the reading and interpreting of past government acts, namely the Statue Law Revisions act, 1893 which came into force upon the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, and the Westminster Act, 1931 which ended the issuance of Letters Patent and the 1867 BNA Act thereby allowing Canada to confederate, except Canada never officially confederated.

The Provincial Legislatures which at the time were not voted by the public as they are today but rather as a byproduct of the system of British Colonialism, as was the Federal Government of Canada. What this implies is that the Government of Canada is in fact a de Facto Government, or otherwise unlawful.

Effectively, the people who had power then chose to quietly continue on under the old model of colonialism instead of taking their newly granted freedom to confederate as the US did, but without all the fuss of a revolution. Things existed in this fashion from 1931 until 1982 when Pierre Trudeau drafted the 1982 "Constitution Act" which still conveniently failed to take yet another opportunity to confederate as a nation. This is evidenced by the fact that from 1931 until 1982 every revision to the BNA that was supposedly defunct required the British Crown's royal assent to pass into law as the UK Parliament also had jurisdiction with the goings on of Canada and any legislative changes the Government wanted to act.

What the 1982 act did was to sever the legislative ties between the UK and Canada, allowing Canada to adopt it's own legislative changes. Pierre Trudeau incorporated Canada as a corporate entity such that under corporate law "Canada" is considered a "person" and thus is afford all of the legal rights and authorities of a legal entity.

So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the actions of the Federal Government, if it is indeed de facto (unlawful) are amoral and against the wishes of the majority of people of Canada then the Provinces are being effectively held at a socialist gun point and forced to hand over financial resources to help balance out the rest of the country (the equalization payments). The provinces are also held to and forced to accept questionable immigration and fiscal expenditure policies (<3 Welcome to Canada, UN Global Compact on Migration petition here which currently has in excess of 65,000 signatures, massive budgetary deficits and no proposed balanced budget until 2041).

You might say, but that's why we hold Federal elections right? Well, because Canada is still considered a Constitutional Monarchy, once voted into office and the prime minister is sworn in, their allegiance is to the Crown of England, not the people of Canada. So regardless of what any campaign promises a politician will make they are under no obligation to follow suit other than testing the fate of their re-election chances, which Trudeau has done presently in an effort to loosen certain aspects around the voting process.

What can we do about it? Well if each province were to hold a constitutional convention, they can draft and create their own constitution thereby invalidating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If all of the provinces do this, they can then ratify a proper confederacy and completely change the political landscape, for example opening up to the adoption of an electorally chosen head of state such as a President. The other benefit is that through either a Provincial Constitution or a Federally Unified one, the citizens of Canada will have actual legal rights afforded to them, and not simply the illusion of full rights and freedoms as what exists today.

For example, you might think that you have the right to free speech, but if anything you say publicly is deemed to incite xenophobia, racism or hate, you can be charged with a federal crime and placed in prison. The definitions of what constitutes the above is also fairly murky and at the mercy of the courts to make that determination.

The obvious issues with all of this is the impact on trade, it would certainly aid in intra provincial trading, but how will it affect international trading? How will this affect the relationship with indigenous peoples? There's a lot to consider, but just remember that if we don't like the way things are or the way the country is trending there is actually something that can be done about it.

[thejazz97]

I'll begin my long post by saying that Canada gets its power and legitimacy from the Crown of England. If you don't believe that the Crown has power to do that, then 20-25% of the world have illegitimate governments.

 

22 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

less politically motivated individuals

In off-topic? Doubt it 

 

24 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the actions of the Federal Government, if it is indeed de facto (unlawful) are amoral and against the wishes of the majority of people of Canada then the Provinces are being effectively held at a socialist gun point and forced to hand over financial resources to help balance out the rest of the country (the equalization payments). The provinces are also held to and forced to accept questionable immigration and fiscal expenditure policies (<3 Welcome to Canada, UN Global Compact on Migration petition here which currently has in excess of 65,000 signatures, massive budgetary deficits and no proposed balanced budget until 2041).

Point 1: You had me until here. It's obviously not against the wishes of the people of Canada, as people voluntarily vote in elections for representatives to our democratic legislature. 

 

Point 2: tAxAtIoN iS tHeFt

 

Point 3: There's nothing wrong with not having a balanced budget. The US never has one. Canada rarely has one - even under Harper, only election years were "balanced" after 2007. Economists say that it's not worth having a balanced budget. Debt-to-GDP is a much better measure, and Canada has a lower ratio now than they did four years ago.\

 

35 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Well, because Canada is still considered a Constitutional Monarchy, once voted into office and the prime minister is sworn in, their allegiance is to the Crown of England, not the people of Canada. So regardless of what any campaign promises a politician will make they are under no obligation to follow suit other than testing the fate of their re-election chances, which Trudeau has done presently in an effort to loosen certain aspects around the voting process.

Point 4: You contradict yourself here. You say the PM doesn't pledge allegiance to the people of Canada, which is right, but at the end of the day, the people decide who is the head of government. So the PM doesn't owe anything to the people of Canada except the majority's wishes? That's a nothing statement.

 

Point 5: It's not only Trudeau. The courts have recently found that some election laws are too strict for the law's interpretation.

 

40 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

What can we do about it? Well if each province were to hold a constitutional convention, they can draft and create their own constitution thereby invalidating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If all of the provinces do this, they can then ratify a proper confederacy and completely change the political landscape, for example opening up to the adoption of an electorally chosen head of state such as a President. The other benefit is that through either a Provincial Constitution or a Federally Unified one, the citizens of Canada will have actual legal rights afforded to them, and not simply the illusion of full rights and freedoms as what exists today.

Point 6: Quebec has one. They have one because they're a distinct society within the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada was mostly WASPy, as opposed to the French Catholic Quebec. It's also why the provinces have educational jurisdiction. 

 

Point 7: If Canada doesn't legitimately exist, neither do the provinces. Who are they to hold constitutional conventions? The most legitimate governments in the place we call Canada are now indigenous ones.

 

Point 8: Canada already has an electorally-chosen head of government. Our head of state does not hold power over the day-to-day lives of the nation's citizens.

 

Point 9: "the citizens of Canada will have actual legal rights afforded to them, and not simply the illusion of full rights and freedoms as what exists today." This is dumb. People have rights. It wouldn't work any better in your fantasy here.

 

44 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

For example, you might think that you have the right to free speech, but if anything you say publicly is deemed to incite xenophobia, racism or hate, you can be charged with a federal crime and placed in prison. The definitions of what constitutes the above is also fairly murky and at the mercy of the courts to make that determination.

Point 10: This is right, but for the wrong reasons. We have definitions about this. See Sask HRC v. Whatcott, 2013 for precedent. (Year might be wrong). 

 

TL;DR: It was an interesting point that you've made, but you've soured it with bias.

 

[JM_]

Sounds like a weak attempt to bolster provincial use of the notwithstanding clause, under the threat of provinces playing with the idea of forming their own constitutions. 

 

If the federal government is not legitimate, neither are provincial boundaries, those must be in play if the system that established them is not legitimate. We'd actually legally just be part of the UK. 

 

I'm guessing this is coming out of Alberta, where the Charter has never been particularly popular and blaming the fed's seems to be a birthright. 

 

This is a non-starter. 

[The Lock]

Being completely honest, I don't really see how this puts us in a better position. Does our situation actually get "bettered" by each province creating a constitution? Does it really affect our daily lives that much? Is this something to lose sleep over? I just don't see it.

 

I mean, sure, the provinces could possibly then have more power maybe? However, not every provincial government is good and no matter what there are going to be good times and bad times federally and provincially. Just because we don't like a government right now, it doesn't mean we should change things permanently if we've had better times in the past.

 

Reactions to current governments are often where risky decisions are made. Does it mean a good decision is made? Not really.

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, thejazz97 said:

I'll begin my long post by saying that Canada gets its power and legitimacy from the Crown of England. If you don't believe that the Crown has power to do that, then 20-25% of the world have illegitimate governments.

 

In off-topic? Doubt it 

 

Point 1: You had me until here. It's obviously not against the wishes of the people of Canada, as people voluntarily vote in elections for representatives to our democratic legislature. 

 

Point 2: tAxAtIoN iS tHeFt

 

Point 3: There's nothing wrong with not having a balanced budget. The US never has one. Canada rarely has one - even under Harper, only election years were "balanced" after 2007. Economists say that it's not worth having a balanced budget. Debt-to-GDP is a much better measure, and Canada has a lower ratio now than they did four years ago.\

 

 

 

Jazzy you'regood stuff and a smart guy but balanced budgets very much are a good thing. I know you are fairly young but Under Clinton and Chretien both Countries ran balanced budgets. Going in to defecit is never a good thing it tends to snow ball out of control, see the Canadian debt crisis.

 

It's easy to go into defecit but it's harder than hell to get out and it usually requires deep cuts in the future.

[thejazz97]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Jazzy you'regood stuff and a smart guy but balanced budgets very much are a good thing. I know you are fairly young but Under Clinton and Chretien both Countries ran balanced budgets. Going in to defecit is never a good thing it tends to snow ball out of control, see the Canadian debt crisis.

 

It's easy to go into defecit but it's harder than hell to get out and it usually requires deep cuts in the future.

Very true. 

 

But it's unrealistic to keep a balanced budget for an extended period of time. As much as I like Chrétien, he and Martin at the top of their game were a fiscal unicorn.

[Ryan Strome]

8 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

Very true. 

 

But it's unrealistic to keep a balanced budget for an extended period of time. As much as I like Chrétien, he and Martin at the top of their game were a fiscal unicorn.

It is difficult I agree but just look at Mulroney when the recession hit in the 80s after years and years of massive spending by Trudeau and Mulroney and defecits Canada was in a terrible position. Chretien made deep cuts to get Canada functioning good again and truthfully it's a good thing he did because wouldn't you know another recession came shortly after he left.

 

I don't mind small defecits like Walls last budget before leaving but these Trudeau defecits and borrowing is getting out of hand. JT is the most indebted PM ever.

[thejazz97]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It is difficult I agree but just look at Mulroney when the recession hit in the 80s after years and years of massive spending and defecit Canada was in a terrible position. Chretien made deep cuts to get Canada functioning good again and truthfully it's a good thing he did because wouldn't you know another recession cane shortly after he left.

 

I don't mind small defecits like Walls last budget before leaving but these Trudeau defecits and borrowing is getting out of hand. JT is the most indebted PM ever.

He hardly is. Our debt is $1.2t. He's contributed to $60b of that.

 

The Sask Party, thanks to Brad Wall and now Scott Moe, is actually on pace to have $22b debt by 2022. Wall's last budget cut so many essential services (STC, for instance) to very little gain.

 

The key isn't balancing budgets or going into deficit. It's whether it's sustainable or not - on either side.

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

He hardly is. Our debt is $1.2t. He's contributed to $60b of that.

 

The Sask Party, thanks to Brad Wall and now Scott Moe, is actually on pace to have $22b debt by 2022. Wall's last budget cut so many essential services (STC, for instance) to very little gain.

 

The key isn't balancing budgets or going into deficit. It's whether it's sustainable or not - on either side.

1) Debt per capita Jazzy.

 

2) I mentioned the defecit under Wall not debt.

 

3) Wall built more hospitals, schools and highways then any other government in Saskatchewan.

[thejazz97]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

1) Debt per capita Jazzy.

 

2) I mentioned the defecit under Wall not debt.

 

3) Wall built more hospitals, schools and highways then any other government in Saskatchewan.

1) Still has a sustainable Debt-to-GDP ratio - lower than Harper's, actually - and that ratio is what matters more when it comes to deficits.

 

2) One begets the other, no?

 

3) The Sask NDP has paid off the most debt out of the ruling parties in the province within the past 40 years, and that was without a boom. Given your position here, I'm surprised you're not more inclined to support them  

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, thejazz97 said:

1) Still has a sustainable Debt-to-GDP ratio - lower than Harper's, actually - and that ratio is what matters more when it comes to deficits.

 

2) One begets the other, no?

 

3) The Sask NDP has paid off the most debt out of the ruling parties in the province within the past 40 years, and that was without a boom. Given your position here, I'm surprised you're not more inclined to support them  

Haha I use to like you Jazzy. Lol

 

The ndp has ruled Saskatchewan 90% of the time they created the majority of the debt with help from Devine.

 

I simply pointed out JT has the most debt per capita then any other PM.

 

Edit- btw the first part was you ever, ever thinking I would support the ndp.

[VanGnome]

1 hour ago, thejazz97 said:

I'll begin my long post by saying that Canada gets its power and legitimacy from the Crown of England. If you don't believe that the Crown has power to do that, then 20-25% of the world have illegitimate governments.

 

In off-topic? Doubt it 

 

Point 1: You had me until here. It's obviously not against the wishes of the people of Canada, as people voluntarily vote in elections for representatives to our democratic legislature. 

 

Point 2: tAxAtIoN iS tHeFt

 

Point 3: There's nothing wrong with not having a balanced budget. The US never has one. Canada rarely has one - even under Harper, only election years were "balanced" after 2007. Economists say that it's not worth having a balanced budget. Debt-to-GDP is a much better measure, and Canada has a lower ratio now than they did four years ago.\

 

Point 4: You contradict yourself here. You say the PM doesn't pledge allegiance to the people of Canada, which is right, but at the end of the day, the people decide who is the head of government. So the PM doesn't owe anything to the people of Canada except the majority's wishes? That's a nothing statement.

 

Point 5: It's not only Trudeau. The courts have recently found that some election laws are too strict for the law's interpretation.

 

Point 6: Quebec has one. They have one because they're a distinct society within the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada was mostly WASPy, as opposed to the French Catholic Quebec. It's also why the provinces have educational jurisdiction. 

 

Point 7: If Canada doesn't legitimately exist, neither do the provinces. Who are they to hold constitutional conventions? The most legitimate governments in the place we call Canada are now indigenous ones.

 

Point 8: Canada already has an electorally-chosen head of government. Our head of state does not hold power over the day-to-day lives of the nation's citizens.

 

Point 9: "the citizens of Canada will have actual legal rights afforded to them, and not simply the illusion of full rights and freedoms as what exists today." This is dumb. People have rights. It wouldn't work any better in your fantasy here.

 

Point 10: This is right, but for the wrong reasons. We have definitions about this. See Sask HRC v. Whatcott, 2013 for precedent. (Year might be wrong). 

 

TL;DR: It was an interesting point that you've made, but you've soured it with bias.

 

1. Well sort of, yes and no. The people democratically vote for their chosen representative (member of Parliament), but who the leader of the party is who ultimately becomes the PM and thus guides the decision of the country is out of their control. In addition to that, I would wager that the majority of voters think they are voting for something in principle that they are not getting.

2. I don't for one second believe taxation is theft, I think that taxation is necessary in this day and age in order to fund socially beneficial policy like universal health care, public education (free from as much Governmental influence as possible) and social benefits to help the vulnerable survive until they can support themselves once again.

3. See Stromes response.

4. See point 1. I would argue that Trudeau has done a lot that people don't like. Buffooning the pipeline, actually BUYING the pipeline, fighting veterans in court over benefits while putting up illegal migrants in hotels and issuing generous sums of money that people here could use to help get their lives back on track (homeless, impoverished, recovering addicts etc).

5. So opening up voter verification to potential attacks from foreign influence is a good thing? We're uncertain as to the level of nefarious interference in US or Canada but there are actors out there who would have legitimate reason to intercept/tamper with/manipulate official voter registration/tendered results, as for their reason to do so? No clue, but leaving a potential attack vector susceptible to abuse is irresponsible.

6. Yes this is true.

7. The provincial boundaries were defined in the BNA act, which itself is a legitimate document. The repeal of 1893 repealed specific clauses to the Crowns vested interest and power over Canada while keeping the defined territories and provinces intact, reverting the provinces to sovereign entities unto themselves. I agree that indigenous tribes need more legitimate voice and power in Canada, personally being a descendant.

8. While he does not control the day to day lives, he is in control of the circumstances that are created through policy making and generally buffoonish behavior that does ultimately impact the day to day lives of individuals.

9. Where was my right as a citizen to speak to the concerns over mass migration? Where was the national referendum where the forward progress of the "nation" was to be decided vis a vis population replacement (Muslim migrants have a 2.9 average birth rate relative to the 1.6 of the average Canadian family)? Why could we not have had a discussion around other ways of sustaining the workforce in Canada. 1.3 million proposed new migrants over the next 5 years. Let's assume 5 to a family, 2 adults and 3 kids (supporting the 2.9 figure) that represents 260,000 families.

Not all muslim, granted but that seems to be the overwhelming majority so let's say 60% (not such an overwhelming figure), that is 156,000 families. Now let's assume 50% of those have only had their 1st child. That's 2 children per 1st generation migrant family which represents 312,000 newborn Canadian citizens. Let's assume that 75% of these second generation migrants each has a family of their own, that's 936,000 3rd generation Canadian citizens in the span of lets say 2-3 decades, I'm sure you can guess the exponential growth from there.

Studies routinely cite that once the average birth rate of a society declines below 1.8 it becomes irrecoverable. We're at 1.6, so instead of replacing the population through a decidedly biased fashion toward a specific ideologically based identity group, why not look for ways to help improve the steady decline in Canadian birth rates that we have seen take place since the 60's to help maintain a healthy balance to our society instead of letting it become overrun so to speak.

This topic really went off the rails, as it's fairly specific to the current sitting government and not what I wanted to get into.
 

The ultimate goal here is to question the legitimacy of what we have come to understand Canada for what it is relative to what people believed it was;. Either way, the overarching theme here is there is a lot of questionable policy by both liberal and conservative governments over the years, and much of it in support to build up a large bureaucracy around what amounts to an illegitimate de facto government.

[thejazz97]

55 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Haha I use to like you Jazzy. Lol

 

The ndp has ruled Saskatchewan 90% of the time they created the majority of the debt with help from Devine.

 

I simply pointed out JT has the most debt per capita then any other PM.

 

Edit- btw the first part was you ever, ever thinking I would support the ndp.

Hahaha it's all good, just poking fun  

 

The NDP actually set up a rainy day fund while they were in office. It's something that the Sask Party blew through in 2016/2017 in an attempt to balance the budget and was a large criticism towards that budget. Sure, growth stalled while the NDP were in office. But they paid down a good portion of the debt in the 90s. 

 

And thats fair re: JT. I figured you were saying a specific number when you said most indebted.

[Warhippy]

I.....

 

It's......

 

No.  Nope.  I'm out.

[thejazz97]

@VanGnome I'm just going to do a relatively quick response here lol

 

Muslims may seem to be the overwhelming majority, but that's not necessarily the case. You'll have large groups of Indians (Hindu/Sikh), Middle Easterners (Muslims), Filipinos (Catholic), and Nigerians (Christian), with smaller groups of the rest.

 

In regards to Muslims, most are not bad people. Most are like you and me, where they are simply people trying to make their way. There's idiot Muslims of course, in the same way as there are idiot Christians, idiot atheists, idiot Hindus, etc. But we don't see calls to keep those other ones out.

 

Second, stats show that Muslims assimilate much better in NA than in Europe due to the fact that there isn't free walking between the Middle East and North America. Give it a couple generations at most, and their birth rate will fall closer in line with ours.

 

Mass migration will likely occur worldwide, but we will not see an incredible uptick as you seem to be implying. And you seem to act as if it's an invasion of sorts, when in reality, given the technology we have today, Syria to Canada is just as feasible as Canada to Australia or India to America.

 

As for voting, it's not something I'm sure I agree with, but my point is that it's not only the boogeyman JT that's working here.

 

Point 4: pipeline is not his fault completely. The plan for Kinder Morgan was to walk away completely and for there to be no pipeline extension whatsoever. Either the pipeline gets bought and happens a little later, or it doesn't happen at all. The veterans thing wasn't great, but they aren't illegal migrants unless they overstay their visa. Otherwise, they're just irregular migrants (we have laws regarding this sort of thing). And if you don't like them being in hotels, I'm sure CBSA would appreciate you sending some cardboard boxes their way  

 

Point 2: You just disproved your point re: equalization payments. Granted, the formula could be amended to be more understandable.

 

Point 1: This doesn't make it illegitimate tho

 

And that's it! I'm off Politics for the night 

[Drive-By Body Pierce]

I feel like that was a lot of text for nothing...

 

[timberz21]

Tomato - Tomahto.

 

I won't pretend I know much about the legitimacy or not of Canada, but to me sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else.  If there was a real opportunity to challenge the Federal's legitimacy, i'm pretty sure sure Quebec would have done something about it already.  Again, I'm no politic expert but wasn't there something about their referendum that even if they had voted YES, it wouldn't have happen anyway?

 

Anyways, I know our current system if far from perfect, but what guarantees are there that if we reform the whole country it will actually be better.  We'll fix some things but we'll open a whole new can of worms.  The question is, what will it cost to open this new can of worm and are we going to be in better shape socially and financially? 

 

No we are not the richest, most powerful country on the planet.  But I think it is a general consensus that Canada's living conditions are pretty great.  Why would we voluntarily alter that, after we spent the last 2 century building it up that way.  Could we make it better, maybe, could we make it much worse, absolutely.  

[Tortorella's Rant]

We're under the assumption here that the provincial governments gives a $&!# about you any more than the federal government does. That is clearly not the case and I don't even have to work at proving that point.

[JM_]

10 hours ago, VanGnome said:

7. The provincial boundaries were defined in the BNA act, which itself is a legitimate document. The repeal of 1893 repealed specific clauses to the Crowns vested interest and power over Canada while keeping the defined territories and provinces intact, reverting the provinces to sovereign entities unto themselves. I agree that indigenous tribes need more legitimate voice and power in Canada, personally being a descendant.

 

The ultimate goal here is to question the legitimacy of what we have come to understand Canada for what it is relative to what people believed it was;. Either way, the overarching theme here is there is a lot of questionable policy by both liberal and conservative governments over the years, and much of it in support to build up a large bureaucracy around what amounts to an illegitimate de facto government.

Only 4 provinces were defined by the BNA Act. If you are correct then the boundaries since then can be questioned, which is ridiculous. 

 

You haven't come close to proving your statement:

 

The Provincial Legislatures which at the time were not voted by the public as they are today but rather as a byproduct of the system of British Colonialism, as was the Federal Government of Canada. What this implies is that the Government of Canada is in fact a de Facto Government, or otherwise unlawful.

 

That "large bureaucracy" provides much of what we consider to be integral to being Canadian.

 

I  get it, you don't like the Charter or immigration policy. But this take on Canada being illegitimate is goofy. 

 

[canuckistani]

9 hours ago, thejazz97 said:

@VanGnome I'm just going to do a relatively quick response here lol

 

Muslims may seem to be the overwhelming majority, but that's not necessarily the case. You'll have large groups of Indians (Hindu/Sikh), Middle Easterners (Muslims), Filipinos (Catholic), and Nigerians (Christian), with smaller groups of the rest.

 

In regards to Muslims, most are not bad people. Most are like you and me, where they are simply people trying to make their way. There's idiot Muslims of course, in the same way as there are idiot Christians, idiot atheists, idiot Hindus, etc. But we don't see calls to keep those other ones out.

 

Second, stats show that Muslims assimilate much better in NA than in Europe due to the fact that there isn't free walking between the Middle East and North America. Give it a couple generations at most, and their birth rate will fall closer in line with ours.

 

Mass migration will likely occur worldwide, but we will not see an incredible uptick as you seem to be implying. And you seem to act as if it's an invasion of sorts, when in reality, given the technology we have today, Syria to Canada is just as feasible as Canada to Australia or India to America.

 

As for voting, it's not something I'm sure I agree with, but my point is that it's not only the boogeyman JT that's working here.

 

Point 4: pipeline is not his fault completely. The plan for Kinder Morgan was to walk away completely and for there to be no pipeline extension whatsoever. Either the pipeline gets bought and happens a little later, or it doesn't happen at all. The veterans thing wasn't great, but they aren't illegal migrants unless they overstay their visa. Otherwise, they're just irregular migrants (we have laws regarding this sort of thing). And if you don't like them being in hotels, I'm sure CBSA would appreciate you sending some cardboard boxes their way  

 

Point 2: You just disproved your point re: equalization payments. Granted, the formula could be amended to be more understandable.

 

Point 1: This doesn't make it illegitimate tho

 

And that's it! I'm off Politics for the night 

You are 100% correct about Muslims - they, in general are no different than any other religious demographic - they have their crazy ones, their die-hard silent types, their lassez-fairez types etc.

However, you are 100% wrong when it comes to Islam. Islamic practices, when followed in large numbers ( aka lots of muslims) do present a long-term clash of civilization with non-muslims. This has been seen countless times across the world spanning 1500 years. The reason for this, is pretty simple - no two religions are alike and each presents its unique, challenges and problems. The western world is mostly Christian, so it sees religion through Christian prism. This is a mistake. 

Take Hinduism and Islam for example. Hinduism is incredibly resilient and inclined towards 'omens, luck, karma, astrology' etc. - there are too many, countless really, references in their religious texts, in their religious practices, etc. that makes it virtually impossible for die-hard hindus to 'ignore' coincidence and instead lean towards ' must be lucky/unlucky, planetary alignments etc'. 

Islam on the other hand, is a religion that categorically mixes legalism and religion. Its practically the ONLY 'religious, divine word of God' text, which categorically specifies inheritence law - ie, what the inheritance of the remaining family is, when the 'man' dies - what % his wife is entitled to, what % his children are - which are further sub-divided into a 66%-34% favoritism of son over daughter. 

These kind of legal jurisprudence mentions in the Koran are numerous - it categorically specifies what the rights (and subsequently, rights limitations) are for non-believers, how much tax they must pay for being non-believers(jaziya), etc etc. 

This is why Islam creates friction with non-islamic societies, because islam is a religion that cannot be followed by the die-hards in a secular society (as they will point out, their legal practices are being violated/is un-islamic etc) and therefore, there will forever be an undercurrent of 'we want Sharia'. This aspect - where day to day laws affecting mankind, specified by religion- is absent in all other religions and therefore, its orders of magnitude easier for Christians, Jews, Hindus,Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Shintos etc to assimilate into a secular (from legal perspective) societies. After the muslims, its the orthodox jews who have the hardest time but they are still much easier to assimilate under secular legalism, because their religious restrictions are on personal basis, which they can practice (under much difficulty, but still practice) - stuff like do not work on Sabbath, grow your mountain-man beard, wear black if you are rabbinical, dietary restrictions, etc. are all up to the person to follow and therefore, can be followed.