ironic, perhaps.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-pentagon-exaggerated-russias-cold-war-super-weapons-16468

this idea that the russians are highly advanced in cyberwarfare is essentially the same lie that they used to siphon trillions and trillions of dollars of public money, that should be used for the public good, out into the military-industrial complex during the height of the cold war.

in actual fact, the russians are decades and decades behind both the united states and israel when it comes to electronic warfare, so a report like this is impossible to believe on it's face. if the russians are making any attempt to jam communications from some bunker in syria, it is probably very primitive and experimental. i mean, they're operating from syria. is that where the russians keep their best minds, on the front line of a multi-sided conflict that could collapse into a world war any day?

so, this is nonsense, and i don't need an investigative report to figure that out.

but, the intent behind this - and the continuing intent behind all of it - is probably just more to get conservatives to support increases in military spending.

i mean, i don't know why google keeps throwing this at me, it's not a serious paper.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-jamming-air-forces-f-35s-and-f-22s-near-iran-68512

if there is to be a single axiom of liberalism, everybody is to be treated equally at the hands of the law is just about the closest thing you could get to one.

it is the single most fundamental and most basic point about liberalism that there can be.

and, a system that insists on treating us differently before the law must, by definition, then be considered illiberal.

where did all of these people go to school? it's like they got their degree from a sunday school or something. we don't follow the law of aquinas in canada. this is not an aristotlian state, it's not an augustinian republic, it's a constitutional democracy where the secular bill of rights is supreme above all.

they have no chance of winning these cases, and it's not because they invoked s. 33 - it's because the law is perfectly consistent with the legal norms in the country. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-religious-symbols-law-upheld-superior-court-1.5216576

again.

canada is a secular state within a constitutional democracy with one set of laws and one set of rights for everybody. in canada, the charter is superior to all religious doctrine.

those are the rules, here.

i would oppose any sort of parallel legal structure, and i would insist that the charter be used to override any religious documents, should one arise. and, that is what it means to be a liberal.

so, it's not just a legitimate political concern, even if it's a little on the backburner right just now. i mean, if a politician showed up tomorrow and started backing these religious tribunals again, i would certainly openly oppose them and openly back candidates that want to reverse any movement in that direction. i would oppose the enforcement of sharia under any context, in any scenario and insist that our own laws be followed, instead. it's also an issue within the canadian liberal party, and the broader left that is going to require some more open discussion and more honest dialogue around.

resist the propaganda telling you this isn't an issue.

it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2008/feb/08/sharialawincanadaalmost

right, so i don't think that justin trudeau wants to bring sharia law to canada after the next election, although i would question as to whether he may allow for religious courts some time in the future.

i want to take a mild detour, here, though, because what a change has happened with the liberals in the last ten years. in 2007, dalton mcguinty - with many of the same advisors that trudeau has today - successfully won an election in ontario by ruthlessly attacking the conservative party for wanting to bring in muslim schools. this is the kind of liberal party i grew up supporting, and the kind of liberal party i want to come back again. he also, to much fanfare and praise, banned the possibilities of religious arbitration in the court system (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcguinty-government-rules-out-use-of-sharia-law/article18247682/), which is the root cause of a lot of the backlash you see happening today. this was clearly the right choice.

so, is talking about sharia law in canada scare-mongering? well, if you do the research, you'll know it's not - and that people suggesting it isn't a real concern are either ignorant of the facts or operating as spin doctors. this is an issue with a legitimate history in canada, and something that is going to continue to come up as the muslim population increases. with the existing realities around immigration in canada, it's not a question of if this becomes a serious political debate but when it does. so, what is the tipping point? we're at around 5% and growing. is it 10%? 25%?

and, no - we should not have any tolerance for the concept of religious arbitration, at all. we have a secular legal system built on judicial precedent and the common law in canada, and i have no interest in reforming or changing that.

what happened to dalton mcguinty? well, he resigned in an apparent attempt to run for prime minister, a job he's far more qualified for than the current occupant of the office is. if it were mcguinty running for reelection, he'd probably have a better record in office and i'd probably be supporting him. he was supposed to be the guy, and everybody could see it. but, he dropped out in a mysterious way, without really giving a clear answer about it. at the time, it really seemed like he was getting a little bit of pressure to step aside to clear the way for trudeau, and that does seem to be what he actually did. but, in hindsight, i wonder if he didn't just wake up one day and realize that trudeau had poached all his staff.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/youtube-video-election-shariah-1.5215429

.....but, in a desperate fit to cling to power, he's invited the russians in. the idiot.....

great comrade maduro is much thanked for his act of generosity to the fatherland.

i've been clear for a while: i think maduro should take personal responsibility for the situation, and resign to make way for his legal and constitutional successor: the vice-president, delcy rodriguez.

what the americans seem to be actually suggesting is that this venezuelan jet was under russian command.

the recent flare-up in the persian gulf was easy enough to understand as a fabrication from the get-go. the narrative made absolutely no sense, whereas the counter-narrative didn't require much imagination; this was obvious.

why would venezuela buzz an american jet? was the pilot drunk? are they just stupid?

the root cause would appear to, in fact, be the utter stupidity of nicolas maduro. but, i ask this question: might the russians want america to invade venezuela?