Damn, you gonna call @Alpacalypse@crazypeople.online out like that???

TURN THAT SHIT UP

It was successfully appealed in 2008, if we're being picky.

The appeal was based in the fact that the judge found that the basis upon which a regulation was made (i.e. the position that the states is a safe country) does not have to be absolutely correct, so long as the gov considered if it might be true.

(See: https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/36041/index.do)

[57] Understanding precisely what is in issue in a judicial review application is important when it comes time to determine the standard of review as well as the scope of the review that can be conducted by the Court. An attack aimed at the vires of a regulation involves the narrow question of whether the conditions precedent set out by Parliament for the exercise of the delegated authority are present at the time of the promulgation, an issue that invariably calls for a standard of correctness.

...

[60] Despite this language, the matter raised by the application is a pure vires issue (see the relevant part of the application for judicial review quoted at paragraph 15 above).

...

[78] Subsection 101(2) does not refer to “actual” compliance or compliance “in absolute terms” nor does it otherwise specify the type and extent of compliance contemplated. However, Parliament has specified the four factors to be considered in determining whether a country can be designated. These factors are general in nature and are indicative of Parliament’s intent that the matter of compliance be assessed on the basis of an appreciation by the GIC of the country’s policies, practices and human rights record. Once it is accepted, as it must be in this case, that the GIC has given due consideration to these four factors, and formed the opinion that the candidate country is compliant with the relevant Articles of the Conventions, there is nothing left to be reviewed judicially. I stress that there is no suggestion in this case that the GIC acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

I mentioned it was challenged back then to demonstrate that it's been known to be problematic since the beginning.

If we want to follow along with the details there have been further challenges, started in 2017, which were on the basis that it violated the charter. The courts agreed in 2020, but again it was appealed and the court gave it's ruling in 2023: https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19957/index.do

I remember watching Trudeau respond to this in 2020, when he was doing his daily appearances from the governor generals cottage.

I'm not trying to shame anyone for not knowing, I get that there is a lot going on in the world and people are struggling in an individual basis too. But it really shocks me when are surprised that it's not all sunshine and rainbows and open arms. I actually learned about it in 2017, when the PM was on TV saying canada would welcome people. Not if they are being deported from the US, I guess 🤷🏻‍♀️

https://youtu.be/hHiVG2-EzAg

Hell yeah I love smoking weed in Niagara

Folks have been suing the gov about the Safe Third a country agreement since 2005 - opposition isn't new. And yes, the courts did strike it down but the gov appealed, and it's still under review.

The govs website about the agreement even includes a section on why the US is considered a safe country.

I think assuming they are 'behind the curve' is ... generous.

Oh shit I should

I think there is a gross overestimation of the support that is available. I've seen a lot of bad articles copying and pasting different parts of immigration policy and programs but without understanding how it works as a whole.

Like, Canada has a website about helping LGBTQI+ refugees ( https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/about-refugee-system/2slgbtqi-plus.html ) and it includes partnerships with groups like Rainbow Railroad who can refer people in need of resettlement to the refugee process.

But if you only look at that and fail to consider the safe third country agreement, you're giving false hope.

Thank you!

My partner is the mastermind behind most of the perennial selection!

I goofed, it's actually a Proudberry cultivar of a coral berry. It's not edible and the website of the producer says it "may" be eaten by birds. I think ours are?

It's a great example of our naivety at the nursery. I don't think we really understood what cultivators were when we first started stocking up. We try and avoid them generally, but once and a while get swayed by pretty things...

Fuckin' right!

Thanks for sharing! I think your approach applies even when it's not out of necessity: the most sustainable gardening is done with minimal external inputs, and the best way to get plants is sharing with community 💗

Not all people should use all medicine 🤷🏻‍♀️