Hell, Canada did even ignored the selling of lands in the occupied west bank in Synagogues. Canada claim to oppose settlements while allowing that.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, I’m guessing you’re fairly drunk.
Goodnight.
Wanting the government to do more does not make its actions illegal.
Read the article for an explanation on the arms sales.
We’ve already been over this:
Lying about stopping selling arms to Israel, not imposing a single sanction on Israel for genocide and settler colonialism, not condemning Israeli abuses of the Canadian activists of the flotilla show the selective care of human rights abuses.
We seem to be talking about different things. I am pointing out that Canada is meeting its legal obligations. You are angry Canada isn’t doing more.
These are fundamentally different conversations.
Canada like many other countries lied about it.
It’s much more complicated than you make it out to be, in part because unlike sanctioned countries like North Korea etc Israel is in other senses a regular trade partner.
Canadian serving under the IDF
Under a hundred, presumably mostly all dual citizens in another sovereign nation hardly constitutes Canadian government policy.
Yes, I’d like the government to do more.
But, that is different from the government not following international law.
Canada, like many others has stopped selling arms.
The Geneva conventions do not obligate countries to march in to prevent abuses, nor have serious legal experts said that normal trade with Israel is illegal.
Are you sure you mean the Geneva convention?
That’s about how countries conduct war and outlines the rights of civilians, soldiers etc.
I’m not sure how you get to Canada violating that?
Geneva applies to Israel’s conduct.
The genocide convention underlies the icj and UN approaches etc, all of which Canada is following. (Yes, the UN is flawed but that’s the unfortunate reality of international law.)
What international laws are you thinking of?
the lowest bar of effort.
This feels a bit disingenuous.
We’re in the middle of trade negotiations that affect a huge swathe of jobs etc with an aggressively pro Israel leader. Considering donald’s capriciousness and willingness to punish allies for ideological disagreement, this actually feels like a bit of a ballsy statement.
If I were on the US relations file, I’d be praying no one related this to trump etc.
After reading the article “OH! I guess at her mom’s funeral wasn’t the right spot.”
Rural communities already overwhelmingly use community post boxes. If the proposed changes really disadvantage rural folks, then that’ll be something to change.
Postal service is very different from everything else you listed. The reason we’re pumping so much money into those is that money should act as a significant multiplier for creating jobs and moving money through tbe economy.
Subsidizing the Post, while creating a better service doesn’t have the same sort of multiplier benefit, other than the Keynesian hole digging style of employment.
I may not love the climate effects of some of these projects but from a “will these employ people and get a decent amount of money closing through the economy”, the answer is pretty definitively yes.
I’m not sure how the Postal service could be used to help our friends in Ukraine or deter Russian aggression in Europe, but open to suggestions!
Wait, they’re still in a budget hole after this plan? That’s some union!
(Canada Post is on track to cost 1.5 billion over costs in 2025, so almost $40 for each of the 40ish million Canadians including children etc.)
Most of those are handled provincially and I can’t speak for other provinces but BC at least is using federal transfer ms (which budget cuts elsewhere help fund) to help hire more nurses and firefighters.
I’m torn. I don’t want anyone to lose their jobs but I don’t love subsidizing reasonably expensive jobs that don’t provide much in surplus value compared to say, teachers, nurses, firefighters etc, all of whom we desperately need.
This is a really easy opinion when it costs you nothing.