• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

To be absolutely and 100% transparent on this.

My expectation is that my tax dollars will provide my kids with insurance against the unexpected.

I get no comfort from being told:

A, it will never happen
B, its someone else's job
Thats reality. Policing is best left to the police. When a military is turned against their own population, bad things happen.
 
What we have is fine. There’s always incremental improvements to be made, and tools and tactics evolve, but Canadian police are up to the task in terms of public order operations. In hypothetical cases where a massive public order event exceeds the capacity of police, the appropriate legal mechanisms exist for CAF assistance to be requested. But that would have to be something truly exceptional. We aren’t sitting here in need of new organizations or drastic reforms to existing ones, in the context of being able to keep the peace in the face of disruptive protests.
 
What we have is fine. There’s always incremental improvements to be made, and tools and tactics evolve, but Canadian police are up to the task in terms of public order operations. In hypothetical cases where a massive public order event exceeds the capacity of police, the appropriate legal mechanisms exist for CAF assistance to be requested. But that would have to be something truly exceptional. We aren’t sitting here in need of new organizations or drastic reforms to existing ones, in the context of being able to keep the peace in the face of disruptive protests.

Meme Reaction GIF by Robert E Blackmon
 
Big difference in Force Protection and AtCP Riot Control.

Rioters/Protestors/Saboteurs whatever wouldn't appreciate the international requirements for security applications...


Nice, but I'm sure the RCAF will find a way to parlay that into AC-130's ;)
Maybe Warthogs!
 
You are pushing European solutions for a North American society.

You can’t get there from here.
i am not pushing European solutions when I cite French institutions. Personally I consider them the anithesis of my desired endstate. I consider them to be authoritarian tools of an authoritarian style of government rooted in an oligarchy that cloaks its authority in expert tribunals while paying lip service to popular authority in the form of a parliament of unrepresentative representatives whose power is not supreme but curtailed.

When I promote European models such as the Danes, Swedes and Finns it is because I consider their societal choices more closely approximate the direction of travel indicated by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents presupposed a powerful proletariat with agency. People in control of their own lives. People, armed, that took the time and effort to govern themselves and defend themselves. Not people who delegate their lives to experts and professionals.

They may die trying but at least they try.
 
You are pushing European solutions for a North American society.

You can’t get there from here.
Not even considering the fact that the CAF is having trouble recruiting along with law enforcement (some more than others) and now we would want to establish yet another entity, a national entity apparently, to do what . . . deploy every time some anti-abortionists, university students or Raging Grannies gather, or just hold them in abeyance - on salary - for 'the really big ones'?
 
People in control of their own lives. People, armed, that took the time and effort to govern themselves and defend themselves. Not people who delegate their lives to experts and professionals.
So what does a civil society do when one armed group of people exercising their agency butts up against another armed group of people exercising their agency? Let them duke it out? To take sides would seem to interfere with at least part of the proletariat exercising their agency.
 
What we have is fine. There’s always incremental improvements to be made, and tools and tactics evolve, but Canadian police are up to the task in terms of public order operations. In hypothetical cases where a massive public order event exceeds the capacity of police, the appropriate legal mechanisms exist for CAF assistance to be requested. But that would have to be something truly exceptional. We aren’t sitting here in need of new organizations or drastic reforms to existing ones, in the context of being able to keep the peace in the face of disruptive protests.

Without doxxing who you work with, do you find police recruiting is getting quality people joining? Like in terms of fitness, mental health, and the right mindset?
 
So what does a civil society do when one armed group of people exercising their agency butts up against another armed group of people exercising their agency? Let them duke it out? To take sides would seem to interfere with at least part of the proletariat exercising their agency.

Violence is natural part of the human experience/condition. While it needs to be controlled, it shouldn't always be denied. Like my Grade 7 teacher used to say 'sometimes you have to let them fight'.
 
So what does a civil society do when one armed group of people exercising their agency butts up against another armed group of people exercising their agency? Let them duke it out? To take sides would seem to interfere with at least part of the proletariat exercising their agency.
It invests 300 years of effort building a sense of a common society that values toleration. even if that occasionally meant cracking skulls.
 
i am not pushing European solutions when I cite French institutions. Personally I consider them the anithesis of my desired endstate. I consider them to be authoritarian tools of an authoritarian style of government rooted in an oligarchy that cloaks its authority in expert tribunals while paying lip service to popular authority in the form of a parliament of unrepresentative representatives whose power is not supreme but curtailed.

When I promote European models such as the Danes, Swedes and Finns it is because I consider their societal choices more closely approximate the direction of travel indicated by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those documents presupposed a powerful proletariat with agency. People in control of their own lives. People, armed, that took the time and effort to govern themselves and defend themselves. Not people who delegate their lives to experts and professionals.

They may die trying but at least they try.
The biggest issue is you miss the 150+ years of different history.
There hasn't been a significant war fought in North American since the Civil War down here (1812 wasn't a significant war in the sense of conflicts of the era).

Europeans have been fighting on that continent pretty much non stop, if not in their homes, then a neighbors... Even when WW2 ended, there where various terrorist and larger armed conflicts into the 70's, the breakup of the USSR may have curbed great power conflict - but the late 80's and early 90's also brought the breakup of Yugoslavia.

As a result Europeans are conditioned to accept a certain degree of infringement in their freedoms, and while Canadian's aren't as belligerent about freedoms are we are down here, there is no groundswell of support to adopt European like security apparatuses.
Some European countries have had some more pragmatic views of firearm ownership and training - but not out of a sense of freedom, solely as a defense against the USSR/Russian Federation (and the wannabe USSR2.0).

While I would argue that PET and his spawn have tried to crush gun rights (now mostly below European levels - only Britain (and Australia) has managed to crush that outright, and limit other Canadian Freedoms, they only partially have succeeded in removing the general desire of Canadians not be slaves to their governments.

Heck the CAF couldn't even save the DCRA and Civilian Marksmanship, and the Cadet Corps was watered down with no military weapon training. So before you are able to focus on a new security apparatus, you should probably focus on resuscitation of those that previously flourished.
 
Give it time he will bring it all back to Scotland.

Nope. Not Scotland. England.

While the Swiss gave us democracy by way of the Frenchman Calvin, which found its way to Scotland by way of John Knox, it was the English that gave us a workable government model. One based on tolerance and the Golden Mean.

The Poles had a working democracy of sorts that they lost when it came off the rails because it demanded universal consensus. Success is found somewhere between that and autocracy. The English system has been, at least up until the present day, more generally successful than most.

.....

Education, and a common history, is a key part of developing that tolerance.

Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood are everything against which Locke argues.
And as we lose track of our origins we open ourselves to division that is exploited by our enemies.
 
It invests 300 years of effort building a sense of a common society that values toleration. even if that occasionally meant cracking skulls.
So, in an age of mass travel, and migration, how do you propose a nation actually do that?

It was a lot easier when crossing the oceans took a month, and the people coming were all from the same cultural backgrounds.
 
Back
Top