France halts use of stun grenades after boy's hand blown off in student protests bbc.in/4y7Wner

"When told again that it was the Singh decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985, she said she would have to check with her team. "There are many Singhs and many decisions," said Diab." This is amusing, but disqualifying. It is easily the most famous and important decision in Canadian immigration law. From experience, I know it would come up in ministerial briefings regularly. That said, the department in the 2010s encouraged us to revisit policies that would challenge the decision, because they felt circumstances had changed suffiently since 1985 that the decision was weak precedent. So the government absolutely should do what it thinks is necessary.

It has come to my attention that I have been denounced by @Advocates_Soc for criticizing judicial decisions — and yes, individual judges. Here's the thing. When someone, for example, spends her lawyerly career writing op-eds in favour of migration and calling herself an activist, and then becomes a federal judge, and from that seat allows all sorts of undesirables to remain in Canada on weak grounds, people are free to draw a connection from A to B. When a judge, for example, spends his lawyer years advocating fiercely for more race-based law, and then later throws out gun charges of black men on his (unsupported) assertion that police were racist during their arrests, people are free to question whether he's really a fair adjudicator. When a judge, for example, says that a ban on drug trafficking is unconstitutional, and then *applauds* vigilante drug dealers for their self-proclaimed safe supply program — applauds them for supporting the business of organized crime and feeding the addictions of street people — that's beyond the pale. You're worried about democracy being poisoned? Worry about the judge who threw out Parliament's law against selling heroin because she felt it was "common sense" that it was supported by science. I agree that it's not right to criticize a judge personally for impartially applying the law and coming to an unpopular decision (which they may even privately disagree with). But when their professional history, or their conduct in court, suggests allegiance to a cause that they happen to be ruling softly on, it will get noticed. Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute is a two-way street, you know.

It has come to my attention that I have been denounced by @Advocates_Soc for criticizing judicial decisions — and yes, individual judges. Here's the thing. When someone, for example, spends her lawyerly career writing op-eds in favour of migration and calling herself an activist, and then becomes a federal judge, and from that seat allows all sorts of undesirables to remain in Canada on weak grounds, people are free to draw a connection from A to B. When a judge, for example, spends his lawyer years advocating fiercely for more race-based law, and then later throws out gun charges of black men on his (unsupported) assertion that police were racist during their arrests, people are free to question whether he's really a fair adjudicator. When a judge, for example, says that a ban on drug trafficking is unconstitutional, and then *applauds* vigilante drug dealers for their self-proclaimed safe supply program — applauds them for supporting the business of organized crime and feeding the addictions of street people — that's beyond the pale. You're worried about democracy being poisoned? Worry about the judge who threw out Parliament's law against selling heroin because she felt it was "common sense" that it was supported by science. I agree that it's not right to criticize a judge personally for impartially applying the law and coming to an unpopular decision (which they may even privately disagree with). But when their professional history, or their conduct in court, suggests allegiance to a cause that they happen to be ruling softly on, it will get noticed. Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute is a two-way street, you know.

Forgive my French, but F off. We are, and always have been, a new world country that welcomes people of good will to make a better life than they had in their country of birth. Do you really think it’s Canadian to create a caste based society?

Cultural stability in Canada includes saying no to caste systems and providing grounds for a better life through merit though, no? And what does it say about the vitality of demographics when so called “pur laine” Canadians aren’t having enough children to replace themselves? It’s not immigrants writ large that are the problem. It’s Canada’s failure to know its own history and culture and to propagate it to the next gen and to newcomers. Many new Canadians, including my own family, are more patriotic than the “grade A-C” people on that list. This is not the way.

The people being filmed are the same ones who helped stage the destruction of James Cook's statue in Victoria, as well as that of Jack Deighton in Gastown the following year. Not in a general sense, they are literally the same individuals. They don't actually care about 'truth and reconciliation'. Racial score settling is their only motivation. If the authorities had the will, they could be easily prosecuted.

This is neither "truth" nor "reconciliation." This is vandalism, barbarism, and destruction.

Security screening mostly 'unimpeachable' but 'there are gaps': Anandasangaree ctvnews.ca/politics/article/…

Nobody’s rights are violated when you allow people to come into your country to voluntarily sell their labour, rent housing, or any other lawful activity. If an immigrant commits a crime, arrest and try them.

It's curious that English and Welsh prophecy says King Arthur will return when the situation is most dire to drive out foreigners and restore the land, but it's almost never discussed.

TERRIFYING: A pack of North African Muslims on motorcycles, carrying Palestinian flags, are on their way to join the riots and burn down schools in Marseille, France’s second largest city. If this isn’t a declaration of war, what is it?!

“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” 🇫🇷

This might be good politics, but it is bad economics. If we do not increase immigration our standard of living will suffer in measurable ways. I am afraid people don't understand that. Too much was bad. Too little is bad.