I’m not a bigot at all. I’m only questioning how practical mass immigration is in the modern age.

What will they do when violence begins in the west? Run away again?

I saw that but the article also listed many recent attacks that were the case.

Unfortunately and as with everything, the actions of a few cause a reaction that affects so many. The rise of the right has been driven primarily by immigration of people looking for the promise of democratic freedom and opportunity. These incidents are used to prevent this migration entirely.

Is this right? Should people have a right to migrate in hopes of a better life? Some you might identify as far left don’t feel boarders should exist at all. Others believe that borders should be sealed and only people who would benefit the society within should enter (sadly based on the colour of their skin as well). The obvious answer is that the best practice probably falls somewhere in the middle.

I have two takes on this. The first is that immigration should be ended as we are entering the end of our societies ability to support existing populations with food and shelter, due to climate change. The second is that regardless of circumstances, never flee your country if you don’t like what’s going on. Fight to change it, even if you have to die trying. That is what I plan to do.

I’m a lazy, not so bright contrarian who doesn’t know the details enough to have formed a sensible defense. What I do know is that I have a right to express my beliefs through my patronage and I’m currently being inhibited in that effort by the intentional obfuscation of the information I need.

I understand the many inputs that are involved but if you take the accounting side of things it would take nothing to identify a % for each country involved. The difficulty you suggest sounds more like a marketing complaint. Company’s have all been only to quick lately to demonstrate how convenient it is to change their packaging.

For years I’ve been thinking about forcing a change to the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act mentioned here by issuing a charter challenge. My stance would be that not forcing company’s to list all countries of origin and the percentage of material and labour that they make up denies me the information I need to make an informed decision. I have a right to this information so that I can express my support for or against areas of influence that affect my life. Anybody think this would work?

By that logic what you post on the internet is you ISPs speech and should also be subject to their control. No that I support a “FUCKYOU” plate but the law has to be honest with it’s prejudice.

There is a lot to be said for the positives of an end to democracy. The electorate of Ontario shouldn’t be trusted with these important decisions. This has been true since I started paying attention in the 90’s (so not party relevent). I regret not taking a different path in life to kick ass and chew bubble gum.