[kEiThZ]

I have a kettle I'd like you to meet.

Out of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has ever voted across the spectrum. Heck, I had an LPC membership in 2015. But to a dyed in the wool partisan any criticism of their favourite party's policy is heresy. I've gotten the same from CPC supporters before.

I'll be here and just as critical when the government changes. That's the difference between a centrist criticising the government of the day and a braying partisan who would lick the party leader's boots if given the chance.

 

[kEiThZ]

Free speech has limits.

There's a big difference between social and legal limits.

Supporting a terrorist organization is over those limits.

Which limits?

Very much legal to support a terrorist group. Only material support to one is illegal.

 

[Northern Light]

As distasteful as I find her statement, I'm not sure it crosses the line regarding our terrorism and hate speech laws. Whether those laws should be changed (in a manner consistent with our Charter, of course) is another discussion. Saying she "would love if they did it again" doesn't strike me as anything more than a cheerleading opinion. It doesn't offer support as defined in the Criminal Code and it would be difficult/impossible to prove that the comments are 'inciting'.

Hmmm

Lets look at the statues to inform further: (From the Criminal Code)

Does endorsing violence against a group not connect with 'likely to lead to a breach of the peace; in S.1

Does it not meet the standard of 'promoting' hatred against an identifiable group in S.2?

I have no background in law enforcement or prosecution of crimes.......... so perhaps, I am in error here. But I think the allegation (quote) would fit a plain reading of law.

We are all allowed to stand and fall on our opinions, stupid or otherwise.

True.

I'm unclear on both her status in the country and with Durham College. If she is on a student visa, her continued presence is obviously more vulnerable. than a citizen or PR.

I've reviewed a few media stories quickly, I cannot ascertain her status vis a vis citizenship/PR/Foreign Student etc. Obviously, if she is a citizen, deportation is not on the table.

If she has publicly linked her post or online presence to the college or merely to the fact that she is a student there, there is much legal precedence that allows it to take action against acts and statements that reflect on its reputation.

Our speech on this site, for example, is not only governed by legislation but the policies of the site owners. We can be disciplined for all sorts of activity and comments that don't offend the law but run counter to the rules of the site

Durham College does appear to be doing something; though 'what' is as yet, unclear:

Durham police are at least taking a look:

Above quotes are from the originally posted article at durhamregion.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

If her speech has crossed the threshold into incitement or hate speech than maybe she should face consequences.

This. I’m okay if those that decide such things think as much.

 

[lenaitch]

Does endorsing violence against a group not connect with 'likely to lead to a breach of the peace; in S.1

I'm clearly not an expert in this area, but in my non-learned opinion, no. She is not calling upon her fellow travellers to rise up, march in the streets, etc. If a criminal charge were laid today, her defence would likely be that no breach of the peace has occurred.

Does it not meet the standard of 'promoting' hatred against an identifiable group in S.2?

In my view this is the closer of the two, but it would take a trip up the rope to the SCOC to get a definitive ruling of the Section in the face of the Charter. It would take a court to determine whether cheering for one side is, by implication, promoting hatred for the other.

Durham College does appear to be doing something; though 'what' is as yet, unclear:

Durham police are at least taking a look:

Yes, I suppose I should have interpreted the college's statement as confirmation that she is a student there. Deferring any action pending a police investigation is pretty standard and probably prudent. The police certainly wouldn't come out and dismiss the allegation out-of-hand.

 

[picard102]

Out of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has ever voted across the spectrum.

You keep making these declarations with so much certainty. I'd refrain from playing the lottery if I were you.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Please consider moving these posts to the Trudeau Liberals thread. Not immediately relevant to foreign policy.

It’s got nothing to do with Trudeau. Like it or not, this incident has been published about in MSM across the globe. Canada and the world is the place for this discussion.

 

[kEiThZ]

 

[lenaitch]

I simply can't see how we can operate an effective, war-capable frigate fleet for another 20 years.

 

[Northern Light]

Contract set to be let to Boeing for 16 new P-8s to replace the old Aurora fleet of Maritime Patrol Aircraft:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/surveillance-aircraft-boeing-bombardier-1.6792730

 

[Northern Light]

U.S. has a criminal indictment filled with explosive allegations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-unseals-indictment-sikh-killings-1.7043428

From the above:

So...... the U.S. is now alleging, publicly than the Indian government was moving to assassinate not one, but four Canadians, 3 on Canadian soil and one dual-citizen in NYC.



An arrest has already been made.

 

[Richard White]

U.S. has a criminal indictment filed with explosive allegations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-unseals-indictment-sikh-killings-1.7043428

From the above:

View attachment 523615

So...... the U.S. is now alleging, publicly than the Indian government was moving to assassinate not one, but four Canadians, 3 on Canadian soil and one dual-citizen in NYC.



An arrest has already been made.

Yeaaaaa this is not looking good for India.

 

[kEiThZ]

I simply can't see how we can operate an effective, war-capable frigate fleet for another 20 years.

We're operating the frigates we have now. The problems are:

1) Availability impacting Force Generation. The ships either have insufficient crews or ending up spending so much time in repairs and refit that we can't put enough ships to sea to consistently meet our commitments.

2) Combat Relevance. A ship that doesn't have capable systems isn't an asset. It's a liability. It needs to be defended from threats, as opposed to contributing to the defence or mission fulfillment of the task group. We're getting to this point with our current frigates.

So the question then becomes what value does Canada bring, when it can't really commit to showing up and doesn't bring anything of value when it does? Our allies are increasingly asking the same questions and prioritizing other aspects of their relationship with Canada accordingly.

 

[Richard White]

We're operating the frigates we have now. The problems are:

1) Availability impacting Force Generation. The ships either have insufficient crews or ending up spending so much time in repairs and refit that we can't put enough ships to sea to consistently meet our commitments.

2) Combat Relevance. A ship that doesn't have capable systems isn't an asset. It's a liability. It needs to be defended from threats, as opposed to contributing to the defence or mission fulfillment of the task group. We're getting to this point with our current frigates.

So the question then becomes what value does Canada bring, when it can't really commit to showing up and doesn't bring anything of value when it does? Our allies are increasingly asking the same questions and prioritizing other aspects of their relationship with Canada accordingly.

I am surprised Canada doesn't pay it's soldiers more to encourage enlistment

 

[lenaitch]

I am surprised Canada doesn't pay it's soldiers more to encourage enlistment

Or sailors or aviators, but I get your meaning. Compared to other militaries, CAF members are well paid' some sources say #2 behind only Australia. There are other factors; some societal, some internal.