Its too easy.
Canadian Politics
- Thread starter Eriol
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
I half expected that story to end "That man's name? Albert Einstein. And then the whole bus clapped."
And another Muslim women comments on Bill 62:
Farzana Hassan: Quebec’s niqab ban is a chance for women to embrace Western freedom
Farzana Hassan: Quebec’s niqab ban is a chance for women to embrace Western freedom
FYI: Asqa Parvez was murdered by her Father and brother because she didn't want to wear a hijab (which isn't even "covered" by this law btw).
It is not a free choice. It is coercion and something that signals an older and horrifically sexist dominance over women. That some have internalized it as "freedom" is all the more tragic.
Do you think this law is gonna empower any woman to break free of that dominance?
This law is, at best, a sideways attack at that coercion, hoping that the woman's fear of legal punishment will get her to resist the that coercion.
So lets make laws to target the coercion, rather than directing legal punishment against the victims.
It worked for Turkey... for a while at least (current events are something else entirely). And the article I linked shows how it DOES work for the victims. Not all, but it helps a lot.
Perhaps. But it still feels to me a damn unCanadian thing to be making laws that punish women for being forced to wear something in order to break them free from being dominated.
I'd far rather help these women by helping them, instead of making laws against them.
Again reinforcing that it's not a "choice" for the women involved: Quebec man accused of 'honour-based' assault on daughter because she removed hijab in public
Claiming this is "honour" related should be treated with disdain IMO. It is, so far, which is good.
Claiming this is "honour" related should be treated with disdain IMO. It is, so far, which is good.
Fascinating: Jewish groups question census results showing dramatic population decline
Other than ethnic cleansing (which last I heard wasn't a thing in Canada... I hope), this kind of decline just doesn't happen. I wonder what's gone wrong with the data and how it's collected, compared, etc.
Its probably that interfaith marriage is becoming more common. Someone can only be Jewish if their mother is Jewish or if they convert (which is a much bigger pain in the ass in Judaism than other religions). If I ended up marrying my ex, our hypothetical kids would've been Christian.
Not to mention Jews tend to be better educated which has a strong correlation with not being religious. I consider myself a Jewish atheist, but there are plenty who just abandon their Jewish identity entirely.
Not to mention Jews tend to be better educated which has a strong correlation with not being religious. I consider myself a Jewish atheist, but there are plenty who just abandon their Jewish identity entirely.
The census wasn't mandatory, for one.[DOUBLEPOST=1509557418,1509557370][/DOUBLEPOST]
Weird. I'd pick something quite different.I would normally put this in the funny political pictures thread, but it seems apropos to recent topics...
I'm sure they have nothing at all to hide, right? Alberta privacy commissioner investigates 800,000 deleted government emails
Edit: for reference, I've been in my job just about exactly 11 months, and I have 3400 CONVERSATIONS in gmail. Now a good proportion of those are automated emails from the bug tracking system, but even a conservative estimate would be at LEAST 5 emails per working day. So let's spitball and say 200 days (it's more, but still) and so that's at LEAST a 1000 emails to or from me in a year. And these clowns only have 78 in a staff-oriented job? The number deleted is staggering IMO.
From the rest of the article, it seems like they are already violating laws here, this isn't just "looks bad" but already illegal.
Edit: for reference, I've been in my job just about exactly 11 months, and I have 3400 CONVERSATIONS in gmail. Now a good proportion of those are automated emails from the bug tracking system, but even a conservative estimate would be at LEAST 5 emails per working day. So let's spitball and say 200 days (it's more, but still) and so that's at LEAST a 1000 emails to or from me in a year. And these clowns only have 78 in a staff-oriented job? The number deleted is staggering IMO.
Last edited:
Supreme Court approves B.C. ski resort development on Indigenous lands
X
Probably a good ruling. Ruling the other way would mean that any group (Natives have an advantage, but technically could probably be applied more widely) could say their "God/Goddess/whatever" lived in a particular spot, and you were destroying their religion by doing (or not doing) anything there, and thus impinging on their religious freedom, even if they had no ownership of the area.
X
"Paradise Papers" and Canada: Paradise Papers: Jean Chrétien fires back, denies holding offshore accounts
The headline is about Chretien, but it has a small summary about everybody "big" implicated/connected.
I'm no Liberal fan, but the connection to Martin is particularly tenuous, given he DID give up his company holdings (to his children, but still outside of his direct control) when he was Finance Minister, which is over 20 years ago now, and the dates are AFTER that. I have no large reason to disbelieve Chretien's account in the story above except for he's had his hand caught in the cookie jar before (so-called Shawinigate) though that wasn't offshore, and if working for a law firm, it's all billed via the firm, so it doesn't pass the "OMG bad stuff!!" first-order test. So he may have known about "technically legal" shenanigans, but I have low expectations with him. The stuff with Mulroney is more of a case of "a scumbag associates with other scumbags" thing rather than any malicious connection thing IMO. Are you dealing with the Saudis, Russians, (anywhere outside of the G20, and sometimes inside), etc? Somebody there is dirty. So, "meh" on the Prime Minister connections.
Except... the current PM. The Bronfman connection could blow up in his face. I hope it does for (mostly) partisan reasons, but considering how long they've known one another, and reports about raising $250k in 2 hours (that was on the radio, sorry, no source on that), it just screams dirty in one way or another. Though I will call it now that anything "shady" Trudeau the Younger is linked to will be NOT illegal. Shady maybe, tax evasion through offshore possible, but not illegal explicitly.
I'll admit I'm doing a bit of a
hoping for bad for our current PM (not a secret here I'm not fan), but I don't think it's likely. It will be more impactful if the opposition "spins" it right come next election cycle, but they need somebody who just exudes "credibility and competence" in the finance folder for that kind of thing to work. I'm betting that some combination of this combined with Morneau's "stuff" may have an impact with the "the cheats shouldn't be running the show" demographic, but unfortunately I don't have faith that's a very big demographic!
The headline is about Chretien, but it has a small summary about everybody "big" implicated/connected.
I'm no Liberal fan, but the connection to Martin is particularly tenuous, given he DID give up his company holdings (to his children, but still outside of his direct control) when he was Finance Minister, which is over 20 years ago now, and the dates are AFTER that. I have no large reason to disbelieve Chretien's account in the story above except for he's had his hand caught in the cookie jar before (so-called Shawinigate) though that wasn't offshore, and if working for a law firm, it's all billed via the firm, so it doesn't pass the "OMG bad stuff!!" first-order test. So he may have known about "technically legal" shenanigans, but I have low expectations with him. The stuff with Mulroney is more of a case of "a scumbag associates with other scumbags" thing rather than any malicious connection thing IMO. Are you dealing with the Saudis, Russians, (anywhere outside of the G20, and sometimes inside), etc? Somebody there is dirty. So, "meh" on the Prime Minister connections.
Except... the current PM. The Bronfman connection could blow up in his face. I hope it does for (mostly) partisan reasons, but considering how long they've known one another, and reports about raising $250k in 2 hours (that was on the radio, sorry, no source on that), it just screams dirty in one way or another. Though I will call it now that anything "shady" Trudeau the Younger is linked to will be NOT illegal. Shady maybe, tax evasion through offshore possible, but not illegal explicitly.
I'll admit I'm doing a bit of a
hoping for bad for our current PM (not a secret here I'm not fan), but I don't think it's likely. It will be more impactful if the opposition "spins" it right come next election cycle, but they need somebody who just exudes "credibility and competence" in the finance folder for that kind of thing to work. I'm betting that some combination of this combined with Morneau's "stuff" may have an impact with the "the cheats shouldn't be running the show" demographic, but unfortunately I don't have faith that's a very big demographic!The real problem is that everyone looking to run the show is a cheat.
Ya, while that does once in a while bring up the whole idea of "Random" representation being an interesting concept (basically like Jury Duty, except you're an MP), it would probably make people MORE bribe-able/corruptible, as then they don't even need the appearance of lack of conflict in order to be elected. While you're in, it's Gravy Train time!
To paraphrase Churchill (or whomever), Democracy Sucks, but amazingly it's better than the other systems.
...you think a good politician won't spend time telling everyone he's the greatest, best and mostest at everything? Hah!
Decent summary article about how Pot will be sold in Canada next year, per-province: How the provinces are planning for pot legalization
Look up your home province to tell how you (could) buy it next year. Only PEI and NS haven't released ANYTHING about how it'll be sold there. Everybody else has either legislation on the table, or enough "leaks" to have a decent idea.
Look up your home province to tell how you (could) buy it next year. Only PEI and NS haven't released ANYTHING about how it'll be sold there. Everybody else has either legislation on the table, or enough "leaks" to have a decent idea.
BTW, NL announced how they're doing pot: Available in stores to 19 and up: N.L. government unveils rules for legal pot
Short answer: Mostly private sales, online sales done by gov't, some gov't sales at liquor stores in communities that's too small for private. Online will serve that need some too. 19 will be the minimum age, just like alcohol.
Editorial about the National Housing Strategy that Trudeau announced: The national housing strategy ignores market-based issues
That article is OK, but I still haven't seen a good article that lays out in bullet points about what the hell was announced, other than they're spending a fuckton of our money again when we're already (heavily) in deficit. Oh and many of the commitments are either "only if the provinces chip in half the money" and/or some AFTER the next election. Beyond that, reporting is few and far between on details. If someone else can help with that, that'd be great.
Short answer: Mostly private sales, online sales done by gov't, some gov't sales at liquor stores in communities that's too small for private. Online will serve that need some too. 19 will be the minimum age, just like alcohol.
Editorial about the National Housing Strategy that Trudeau announced: The national housing strategy ignores market-based issues
That article is OK, but I still haven't seen a good article that lays out in bullet points about what the hell was announced, other than they're spending a fuckton of our money again when we're already (heavily) in deficit. Oh and many of the commitments are either "only if the provinces chip in half the money" and/or some AFTER the next election. Beyond that, reporting is few and far between on details. If someone else can help with that, that'd be great.
The star's got some bullet points that may help. Down the page a bit.
It really just looks like:
1) Repair existing subsidized housing.
2) Build some more,
3) Extra details that all boil down to telling the bureaucracy how to manages it and decide who gets to move in or qualify.
Really, to me, it looks like more like a continuation of what has long existed and is just the government announcing "hey look we're doing this thing" (that was already being done)
It really just looks like:
1) Repair existing subsidized housing.
2) Build some more,
3) Extra details that all boil down to telling the bureaucracy how to manages it and decide who gets to move in or qualify.
Really, to me, it looks like more like a continuation of what has long existed and is just the government announcing "hey look we're doing this thing" (that was already being done)
Last edited:
Thanks for the bullet points. They helped.
Beyond your summary, about $6B is "expected" to be matched by the provinces (we'll see what various provinces say), but the real "watch what happens" thing is that they want to make housing a human right in law in Canada, whatever the hell that means. Health care is "kind of" a right in Canada, which only means you have the right to be on a waiting list, not actually get treated. So we'll see where this new "right" goes.
I sort of meant that funding to be lumped that right in with the whole of my summary.
I'm sure many provinces will be matching that money as a matter of course, since they're already funding their own housing programs.
Jeez, you know shit's fucked when even the Sun is calling out groups associated with the UCP's lies.
http://edmontonsun.com/news/politic...hike/wcm/73a29a7c-afe1-45cd-82e1-ab2d5525e253
http://edmontonsun.com/news/politic...hike/wcm/73a29a7c-afe1-45cd-82e1-ab2d5525e253
Some PAC come up with it and you say "the UCP's lies."? From inference, they're repeating it in the legislature, so there's something to it, but it's also TRUE.
And according to the text of the article, the price will be 75% higher because of the tax. If there was no Carbon Tax, the bill would be just north of half of what it will be in January.
The math goes like this: If the typical bill would be $2 without the tax (from the article), and you add $1.52 (from the article), then the result is $3.52/GJ of gas. That's BARELY more than a 75% increase in the price.
So from my reading of this (I have no idea what this meme is, I haven't looked) the article backs up that it is factually true. So no, they're not lying at all. The article is minimizing in many ways, but the original statement seems true to me. Explain to me how that math is wrong, and please link the original meme if you can.
And as for the "Sun" thing, when you see "Sun" think "Post Media" ie: The National Post. It's not independent anymore. Hasn't been for years. They got bought.
I literally said associated with.
Your bill will increase (unless you can manage to use less natural gas — good luck managing that in an Alberta winter), but it will not go up by 75 per cent. Let’s examine typical monthly natural gas usage, which the Alberta government estimates at around 10.25 gigajoules. The price of natural gas is currently about $2 per gigajoule. Add to that the $1.01 carbon tax, and you’ll pay $3.01/GJ for natural gas, or $30.85 in a typical month. Come January, the price of gas goes up to $3.52/GJ, and you’ll pay an extra $5.23 for the natural gas part of your bill.
Can you read?
The current price is 3.01/GJ and is raising to 3.52.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR MY BILL?
Your bill will increase (unless you can manage to use less natural gas — good luck managing that in an Alberta winter), but it will not go up by 75 per cent. Let’s examine typical monthly natural gas usage, which the Alberta government estimates at around 10.25 gigajoules. The price of natural gas is currently about $2 per gigajoule. Add to that the $1.01 carbon tax, and you’ll pay $3.01/GJ for natural gas, or $30.85 in a typical month. Come January, the price of gas goes up to $3.52/GJ, and you’ll pay an extra $5.23 for the natural gas part of your bill.
Can you read?
The current price is 3.01/GJ and is raising to 3.52.
The bill would be $2.01 if the NDP had not gotten in (possibly cheaper, if there were more production), and because of them and their carbon tax, it is going to be $3.52/GJ.
It's 75% higher (at least) than if the NDP wasn't the government. Pure tax that they've put in.
Seems pretty simple to me.
GasBandit
Staff member
Meanwhile I look forward to winter so that my utility bills go under $100. The costs you describe are like my summer electricity bills
My summer electricity bills usually run $180-250/mo. We live upstairs in a house with lots of windows. Too bad they don't catch the same amount of sunlight in the wintertime, right?Meanwhile I look forward to winter so that my utility bills go under $100. The costs you describe are like my summer electricity bills
--Patrick