Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Canadian Politics

Limit: 500

Feb 1, 2017#1

Eriol

I don't want political stuff to go into the main "Canadian" thread on the General forum, so here's one just for political stuff. Provincial, Federal, local, whatever.

First off: Trudeau government abandons promise of electoral reform

From the article:

A new mandate letter issued to Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould, released publicly on Wednesday, says "changing the electoral system will not be in your mandate."
...
Trudeau first committed to replacing the current first-past-the-post electoral system in June 2015, shortly before the federal election campaign. His government's first throne speech then promised that the Liberals would "take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system."

I'm mixed on this one. As any of you who follow me on here know, I'm "not a fan" of our current PM, but I also think that most of the leading contenders to change the system sucked. They're pretty much as-bad or even worse than what we have now, so I wasn't confident they'd make a GOOD move on it. Thus, I'm OK with not changing it, but at the same time acknowledge that change IS needed.

So a pretty clear promise broken, but I'm OK with him breaking this one, since it was looking like it was going to be implemented badly. Hence my mixed feelings on it.

Feb 3, 2017#2

Eriol

This is a story out today that I originally when reading it felt one way, but changed my mind by the end of the article: Border-town Manitoban baffled province won't pay huge U.S. medical bill

For those americans reading, if a Canadian goes to the USA and has a medical issue, you need to have insurance (you can pick up travel insurance if you know you're going for fairly cheap, and my job has always provided such, even if not traveling for work) or else you get a bill then, or when you get home.

So when starting to read this, I was thinking "typical idiot who didn't buy medical insurance, wanting the province to pay for it after the fact." You hear about that a decent amount for varying levels of sympathy from other Canadians. IMO there is zero excuse. If you can't afford to make the trip without insurance, then you can't afford to make the trip. Same idea with fire insurance and a house. I don't care if you had no medical conditions prior to going. I don't care either if you were only 6 months pregnant and popped them out down there, you should have had it regardless. I DO have some sympathy of a case where the couple DID have insurance, but didn't realize that when they had a kid down there unexpectedly that the KID was not covered, even though they had family coverage (I'd link that, but couldn't find it through a quick search). That's insurance companies being assholes, not the couple's fault.

But it turns out that my former paragraph doesn't apply here. From the article:

Under a special long-standing deal, people who live in some southeastern Manitoba communities near the border are covered for emergency medical care at two Minnesota hospitals.
Special Manitoba-Minnesota health deal

The Altru Agreement, as it's known, doesn't cover emergency treatments in Grand Forks, N.D., which is where Milne ultimately ended up last October after suffering a heart attack in his yard.

Milne was rushed to hospital in Roseau, Minn., about 25 kilometres south of Sprague.

Sprague, Man., is about 145 kilometres southeast of Winnipeg. Roseau, Minn., is about 25 kilometres southeast of Sprague. Grand Forks, N.D. is about 200 kilometres from Sprague. (Google Maps)

The Altru deal only includes coverage for Manitobans in Roseau and Warroad, Minn.

Unable to perform the potentially life-saving heart stent procedure Milne needed, the Roseau doctor requested St. Boniface Hospital send an emergency Lifeflight air ambulance down to pick Milne up and bring him back to Winnipeg.

When an hour and a half passed and with no further contact or an estimated time of arrival from the hospital, the Roseau doctor told Milne and his wife time was running out and they had to be flown to Grand Forks or risk the wait.

A U.S.-based emergency airplane company flew Milne to Grand Forks where he spent two nights and received the stent he needed. A few weeks later, bills for the flight and hospital costs arrived in the mail amounting to about $118,000 Cdn.

Basically, they did everything right IMO. The government is claiming that "Milne was later told by the Manitoba government that because he elected to go to Grand Forks via Roseau, he was on the hook for the expenses." This is total bullshit. Wait around for a plane that may never come (an hour and a half with no confirmation that anything is happening) or go to the larger centre in the USA. Umm, not die please?

Fully on the guy's side here. He followed the rules. Government are being scumbags here.

Feb 3, 2017#3

jwhouk

Can he sue the province?

Feb 3, 2017#4

Eriol

jwhouk said:
Can he sue the province?

One can only hope, though that's no assurance of payout. The lawyer's fees alone would be horrible. Hopefully public pressure helps, but there's no way to know.

Somebody on the board lived in Manitoba I thought, but I don't remember who.

Feb 3, 2017#5

Gruebeard

That's @Adam, I believe. At one point, anyway.

Feb 3, 2017#6

Telephius

I live in Manitoba. It is stupid that the deal won't cover the guys bills.

Feb 3, 2017#7

Adam

I'm familiar with the area and the story. I suspect that there's a bit more to it and I'm trying to use some local contacts to figure it out. These kinds of situations are pretty common for small ass border towns so it's a weird thing.

Feb 6, 2017#8

Eriol

This is a neat article about electoral reform: On electoral reform, Trudeau didn’t just break a promise – he lied

Note: despite this being in the Sun, the guy writing it is from the NDP.

Feb 7, 2017#9

Eriol

Call Vince Li ('Will Baker') what he is: A cannibal killer who beheaded Tim McLean

That this guy is ever out is just... he went off his meds, and did that horrific crime. Now he's on them again and is supposedly "OK" now, so we release him? I'm sorry, but you're a PROVEN ticking time bomb. If Vince was actually moral at all, he'd ask to be kept in custody indefinitely because he would realize that he's too much of a potential danger to others. That he doesn't ask for such, means that by definition he's too dangerous to let out.

Yes it's a catch-22. No, I don't care. This isn't even "potential" harm, he's already DONE something horrific!

/boggle

Feb 7, 2017#10

jwhouk

It only takes one.

Feb 7, 2017#11

Eriol

jwhouk said:
It only takes one.

I don't quite get your comment. I can think of a few explanations, but I'd like you to expand on it please.

Basically my position comes down to the idea that everybody diagnosed with schizophrenia should not be locked up (I'm heavily against any forms of pre-crime), but anybody who goes off meds and commits a crime has proven their irresponsibility. The original ruling that he wasn't criminally responsible itself was bullshit (he knowingly went off his meds, so it wasn't a health care system failure, as he was managed correctly), but beyond that, he's a proven danger to the public. He is known to go off meds, so it's no longer theoretical. If somebody had kleptomania due to a medical condition, that's one thing that they shouldn't be locked up forever. This guy KILLED a person, and then cut out and ate part of their heart. They're too big a danger.

Feb 7, 2017#12

jwhouk

As one who has dealt with youth who go off their meds after release, and proceed to do heinous crimes, it only takes one day where they don't take their meds to make for a Really Bad Day for someone in their path.

Feb 8, 2017#13

Eriol

Once again, Quebec goes "Whaaa!!!!" and hundreds of millions of dollars go in ($283M), never to come out again: Bombardier secures controversial state loan

On the idea of minimizing bias, I chose an out-of-country provider (Germany) for the story.

Feb 15, 2017#14

Eriol

Censorship is bad. Full stop. Overly-broad laws are also really REALLY bad, especially as pertaining to free speech.

Feb 15, 2017#15

GasBandit

Eriol said:
Censorship is bad. Full stop. Overly-broad laws are also really REALLY bad, especially as pertaining to free speech.

I agree, and I get where that guy is going, but ye gods does he come off as a wackjob.

Feb 15, 2017#16

Eriol

GasBandit said:
I agree, and I get where that guy is going, but ye gods does he come off as a wackjob.

I'm pretty sure he is, but the point is true. There's a number of articles out of Canada about how overly-broad this legislation is, and considering we don't have as robust constitutional protections on free speech up here (much much weaker) this legislation is very worrisome.

Feb 15, 2017#17

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Censorship is bad. Full stop. Overly-broad laws are also really REALLY bad, especially as pertaining to free speech.

Have you read the motion?

Feb 15, 2017#18

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Have you read the motion?

Yes I have. It's damned scary IMO. Anything as poorly-defined as "Islamophobia" shouldn't be restricted or regulated by government, let alone the fact that the infringements on free speech are themselves bad no matter to whom it pertains.

Literally anything that says "I don't think Islam is good because of its stances on: " and name any number of factual and/or historical reasons, and THAT could be considered "Islamophobia". It's NOT defined. That's the scarIEST part, though not the only scary part about it.

Feb 15, 2017#19

Denbrought

For those curious, here is the motion. Below a quote of the main text, bolded what I found relevant.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Meh.

Feb 15, 2017#20

Gruebeard

I don't see a restriction infringement on anything. I see a request for a silly statement to condemn Islamophobia (Trudeau and probably every provincial leader has already done this after the recent Quebec mass murder) and to form a committee to study acts of Islamophobia, with no mention of anything regarding restricting speech or actions.

I just don't understand how y'all are leaping to these conclusions. I guess you're reading "condemn Islamophobia" as "not permit any acts of Islamophobia." I don't see that.

And I really don't see anything like that ever getting anywhere in Parliament, either.

Feb 15, 2017#21

Eriol

condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism

Methinks they're not getting rid of all race-based programs, in particular those related to the Indian Act (yes it's still called that). For that to be true, there would no longer be "status" based on your blood. That itself is institutionalized racism.

Also, anything related to Islam is not racism, as Islam isn't a race. It DOES fall under religious discrimination, which is iffier to begin with in many cases, as then you need to "respect" things like Scientology, Jedi, and Pastafarianism as equal to any of the other major world religions, and make accommodations in those directions, which gets weird IMO, especially when other values enshrined in this country conflict with the beliefs of said religions. e.g. Our "Feminist" PM speaking in a sex-segregated mosque.

So I consider it talking out of both sides of their mouth, and ultimately will not end up well.

Feb 16, 2017#22

Gruebeard

So was m103 moved yesterday? Is that now indeed a picture of Mohammed?

(It looks more like Roy to me)

Mar 9, 2017#23

Eriol

Just...

Immigration minister defends legislation that prevents convicted dual nationals from losing citizenship

The minister said an individual whose citizenship was already revoked will have it reinstated. He did not name the individual, but the National Post had previously reported that Zakaria Amara, a ringleader of the “Toronto 18” that plotted terror in Toronto in 2006, would be regaining his citizenship under the legislation.

Yes the ringleader of those wanting to bomb Toronto and Ottawa and behead the PM of the time (who was Martin IIRC) will be getting his citizenship back.

Just... yikes.

Mar 9, 2017#24

Denbrought

Eriol said:
Just...
Immigration minister defends legislation that prevents convicted dual nationals from losing citizenship

Yes the ringleader of those wanting to bomb Toronto and Ottawa and behead the PM of the time (who was Martin IIRC) will be getting his citizenship back.

Just... yikes.

Why do you support a government's ability to strip citizenship from its citizens?

Mar 9, 2017#25

PatrThom

Denbrought said:
Why do you support a government's ability to strip citizenship from its citizens?

They're only stripping citizenship from evil citizens.

--Patrick

Mar 9, 2017#26

Eriol

Denbrought said:
Why do you support a government's ability to strip citizenship from its citizens?

Because he already has citizenship in another country. This is not creating a person without a country, and it's in the cases of horrific crimes.

Come here, get citizenship, do horrific crimes, be stripped of it, and deported. I'm OK with that.

Mar 9, 2017#27

Denbrought

The "creating a person without a country" is not the part I'm concerned about, it's the part where a citizenship gets stripped from a citizen.

Eriol said:
Come here, get citizenship, do be convicted of ~~horrific~~ crimes deemed unacceptable by the government, be stripped of it, and deported. I'm OK with that.

FTFY.

Mar 9, 2017#28

Gruebeard

I'm 100% with @Denbrought, here.

Stripping citizenship seems flat out wrong to me. Not something I want my country to do.

. . . although I was all for Conrad Black never getting his back once he renounced it for a British Lordship.

Mar 9, 2017#29

Eriol

Denbrought said:
The "creating a person without a country" is not the part I'm concerned about, it's the part where a citizenship gets stripped from a citizen.

If you can give it up willingly, I'm actually OK with the government stripping it from you when you do things like plotting to kill the Prime Minister, among other treasonous acts if you have another country to be sent back to.

And it's also enumerated in Law, rather than being something that's discretionary from the PMOs office or something, which I'd be against btw.

We disagree on this one. Fine, but it's still insane IMO to give back citizenship to a convicted (not suspected, as I'm against pre-crime and I'm very much in favor of innocent until proven guilty) terrorist.

Mar 9, 2017#30

Denbrought

Eriol said:
If you can give it up willingly, I'm actually OK with the government stripping it from you when you do things like plotting to kill the Prime Minister, among other treasonous acts if you have another country to be sent back to.

And it's also enumerated in Law, rather than being something that's discretionary from the PMOs office or something, which I'd be against btw.

We disagree on this one. Fine, but it's still insane IMO to give back citizenship to a convicted (not suspected, as I'm against pre-crime and I'm very much in favor of innocent until proven guilty) terrorist.

I understand that you find it OK, I just don't trust any existing government with the ability to purge citizenship, similar to how I don't trust them with the ability to kill non-combatants.

Enumerated powers are still ripe for abuse, especially against the minority du jour. You can fill in examples from world or North-American history.

We'll have to disagree. It's not insane to reverse a harm stemming from a (formerly lawful but unfair and rescinded) legal procedure.

Mar 9, 2017#31

Telephius

Update on guy from Manitoba who did not get covered under insurance.
Linky
He is not only on the hook for 35,936.70 (U.S.) which was the medical flight. Sounds like the Health minister may still be looking into a way to cover that but unclear at this time.

Mar 9, 2017#32

Eriol

Telephius said:
Update on guy from Manitoba who did not get covered under insurance.
Linky
He is not only on the hook for 35,936.70 (U.S.) which was the medical flight. Sounds like the Health minister may still be looking into a way to cover that but unclear at this time.

Good they did partial, now for the rest.

Honestly, this was stupid of the government (at the ministerial level at least) not to TRY and make hay from this politically. They could easily have spun this as an outdated regulation that the lower-levels were just following what the law/regulations said (thus not alienating the civil service by dumping on them), but not the spirit of it, and then announcing that the government will "take care of all people in the province, and this was an edge case of the agreement we didn't predict" or some such. For a government, that's worth more than $100k of PR that the party doesn't even need to pay.

So mis-step from the government on multiple levels.

Mar 9, 2017#33

Frank

Just in case anyone thought Ben Carson could be the most tone deaf about past racial relations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/res...ll-intentioned-conservative-senator-1.4015115

Senator defends the residential school program that saw thousands of native children taken from their homes, killed, raped, abused etc. Government even allowed for experiments to be performed on some children of the kind that were banned after WW2...after WW2. The entire thing is one of the darkest events in Canadian history.

There are estimates that 4-6000 children died in residential schools. That's out of 150,000 students over the course of 150 years.

Mar 10, 2017#34

GasBandit

Frank said:
Just in case anyone thought Ben Carson could be the most tone deaf about past racial relations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/res...ll-intentioned-conservative-senator-1.4015115

Senator defends the residential school program that saw thousands of native children taken from their homes, killed, raped, abused etc. Government even allowed for experiments to be performed on some children of the kind that were banned after WW2...after WW2. The entire thing is one of the darkest events in Canadian history.

There are estimates that 4-6000 children died in residential schools. That's out of 150,000 students over the course of 150 years.

Mar 10, 2017#35

Frank

GasBandit said:

That's a correct response.

Mar 23, 2017#36

Eriol

Odd ruling. Not wrong necessarily, but somewhat odd IMO: Dennis Oland was wrongly denied bail in murder case: Supreme Court

The part that makes this odd IMO is this:

Justice Michael Moldaver said in the court's reasons for the judgment that Parliament did not restrict the availability of bail pending appeal for people convicted of murder, or any other serious crime, "and courts should respect this."

How I interpret that is "even if you're convicted, if you have an appeal pending, there's no law on the books saying that you can't be out on bail, so denying it by default isn't good enough." If so, then fine, but still seems a bit weird. You had a conviction, so isn't that enough to keep you in pending appeal if you're not a danger, or a flight risk, etc? But if it's not on the books that it is, then I guess this ruling is correct? It was 9-0.

So I guess we need a law to keep convicted people behind bars between trials? Or not? @Frank, what do you think?

Mar 23, 2017#37

Frank

I'm not a judge, but yeah, I wouldn't agree. You've literally been convicted of a SERIOUS crime, you should not be out on bail. Minor crimes, like minor drug crimes and the like, I don't see an issue.

But a convicted rapist getting bail is nonsense and seems like an oversight.

Mar 23, 2017#38

sixpackshaker

Even the States will let a convicted killer out on bond when he is up for appeal. But that would only happen if there exculpatory evidence.

Mar 23, 2017#39

Eriol

Frank said:
I'm not a judge, but yeah, I wouldn't agree. You've literally been convicted of a SERIOUS crime, you should not be out on bail. Minor crimes, like minor drug crimes and the like, I don't see an issue.

But a convicted rapist getting bail is nonsense and seems like an oversight.

I agree with you and there should be a law, but I do side with the judges in that if there isn't a law, then it isn't there. Parliament should respond.

Mar 24, 2017#40

Frank

Eriol said:
I agree with you and there should be a law, but I do side with the judges in that if there isn't a law, then it isn't there. Parliament should respond.

Agreed, like I said, not a judge or a lawyer. I don't make those calls. It would definitely twist my ass in a knot if a guy I'd done my damnedest to collect evidence against and was personally 100% sure of guilt who was convicted was let free on bail because of an appeal.

I literally only deal with major crime stuff now.

Well, will again once I'm not a fucking walking plague carrier of infectious wounds.

Mar 26, 2017#41

Gruebeard

This is an affront to my freedom of speech!

But fuel for a meme!

rude-licence-plate-20170324.jpg.size.custom.crop.884x650.jpg

Mar 26, 2017#42

HCGLNS

Given how ridiculous we spell things out east, I doubt anyone would notice or care so this is doubly silly.

Pop quiz people!

Say mayor.

Now spell it with no O, Y and through in some E, G and H's

Mar 26, 2017#43

Gared

I seem to fondly recall an article in a Madison, WI area newspaper back in 2004 - 2005 sometime, about a driver with the license plate "SPICE 2" who wanted to ask that people stop flipping them off every time they see the plate as "we own Penzey's, not the porn channel."

Mar 26, 2017#44

Frank

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/liberal-legal-marijuana-pot-1.4041902

And there it is.

A major step forward.

Mar 26, 2017#45

Anonymous

*desperately tries to think of best ways to smuggle weed across the border*

Mar 27, 2017#46

Eriol

From the article:

the legislation will be announced during the week of April 10

They waited this long, and they're not waiting until 4/20? Really? No sense of the dramatic/ironic!

As for Canadians who want to grow their own marijuana, they will be limited to four plants per household.

This is interesting. We'll see how that plays out.

But at the NDP's leadership debate in Montreal Sunday, which was focused on youth issues, several of the candidates pointed to marijuana legislation as an example of a broken Liberal promise.

"I do not believe Justin Trudeau is going to bring in the legalization of marijuana and as proof that ... we are still seeing, particularly young, Canadians being criminalized by simple possession of marijuana," said B.C. MP Peter Julian.

And this is why this was "leaked" (released) today. They don't want to give a millimeter to the NDP. Honestly, I think that's just good politics (the one thing the Libs have always been good at, as governing isn't that thing), so this had to happen today. I'm surprised as MANY details got leaked though.

Mar 27, 2017#47

Chad Sexington

Eriol said:
Odd ruling. Not wrong necessarily, but somewhat odd IMO: Dennis Oland was wrongly denied bail in murder case: Supreme Court

The part that makes this odd IMO is this:

How I interpret that is "even if you're convicted, if you have an appeal pending, there's no law on the books saying that you can't be out on bail, so denying it by default isn't good enough." If so, then fine, but still seems a bit weird. You had a conviction, so isn't that enough to keep you in pending appeal if you're not a danger, or a flight risk, etc? But if it's not on the books that it is, then I guess this ruling is correct? It was 9-0.

So I guess we need a law to keep convicted people behind bars between trials? Or not? @Frank, what do you think?

The number of recent Supreme Court rulings that are 9-0 kind of bother me. Isn't some dissent good? I'll have to think about this more.

Mar 27, 2017#48

Bubble181

Chad Sexington said:
The number of recent Supreme Court rulings that are 9-0 kind of bother me. Isn't some dissent good? I'll have to think about this more.

Yes and no. Are the ruling 9-0 because everybody is of the same mindset, or because they were all separately and possibly for different reasons, convinced it was the right ruling? If you have 9 judges who all think alike, that's useless. If you have 9 judges who always vote according to the exact same "party" split that's just as useless.

Mar 27, 2017#49

Chad Sexington

Bubble181 said:
Yes and no. Are the ruling 9-0 because everybody is of the same mindset, or because they were all separately and possibly for different reasons, convinced it was the right ruling? If you have 9 judges who all think alike, that's useless. If you have 9 judges who always vote according to the exact same "party" split that's just as useless.

I specified "some" for the purpose of avoiding all types of groupthink. The large number or 9-0 decisions in recent years make me question the makeup of the bench.

Mar 28, 2017#50

Gruebeard

Chad Sexington said:
I specified "some" for the purpose of avoiding all types of groupthink. The large number or 9-0 decisions in recent years make me question the makeup of the bench.

It may also just be that those cases were the sort of cases that lend themselves to unanimous decisions when judged objectively

Mar 28, 2017#51

@Li3n

Chad Sexington said:
I specified "some" for the purpose of avoiding all types of groupthink. The large number or 9-0 decisions in recent years make me question the makeup of the bench.

Yeah, i don't actually understand that? The law is supposed to be judged objectively, so when a decision is 5-4, it's pretty clear that the law in question must not be written well, or the judges are being biased. Double that for something being declared unconstitutional.

Mar 28, 2017#52

Jay

@Li3n said:
Yeah, i don't actually understand that? The law is supposed to be judged objectively, so when a decision is 5-4, it's pretty clear that the law in question must not be written well, or the judges are being biased. Double that for something being declared unconstitutional.

I assume you've been paying attention in America right now as the reps are selling your online privacy to the highest bidder... well... that is... if your reps are 100% republican.

I seriously hope no one in Canada gets any stupid ideas like that.

Mar 28, 2017#53

Chad Sexington

Gruebeard said:
It may also just be that those cases were the sort of cases that lend themselves to unanimous decisions when judged objectively

@Li3n said:
Yeah, i don't actually understand that? The law is supposed to be judged objectively, so when a decision is 5-4, it's pretty clear that the law in question must not be written well, or the judges are being biased. Double that for something being declared unconstitutional.

These are fascinating perspectives.

Lots of rulings are based on interpretations of the law - inherently subjective. If it was objective, you wouldn't need a judge. It's there in the name, they're a judge. They judge. Impartiality and objectivity aren't synonyms.

What if you rule on the constitutionality of a given subject? Constitutional expertise isn't easy. It's nuanced. You can definitely have the same information and arrive at different conclusions. That's one of the reasons you have a few of them. Might as well just have one if it's objective.

Mar 29, 2017#54

@Li3n

Chad Sexington said:
Lots of rulings are based on interpretations of the law - inherently subjective. If it was objective, you wouldn't need a judge. It's there in the name, they're a judge. They judge. Impartiality and objectivity aren't synonyms.

Yeah, it the law was written objectively, it would read itself.

Chad Sexington said:
You can definitely have the same information and arrive at different conclusions.

Yes, bias does that.

Or ambiguously written laws.

Or novel situations that no one could even think of at the time the text was written.

Chad Sexington said:
That's one of the reasons you have a few of them. Might as well just have one if it's objective.

You're looking at it from the wrong side... the problem isn't the law being subjective (it's not supposed to, you're supposed to write it as unambiguous as possible), but people being biased, so you have more people in the hopes of countering each other's biases by having different ones.

Mar 29, 2017#55

Eriol

Speaking of badly-written law: If I'm Islamophobic, what's my punishment?

I didn't know M103 passed on the 77th anniversary of the vote to split off Pakistan from India. Interesting, along with the passages he wants to "disassociate" himself from.

Mar 29, 2017#56

Chad Sexington

Eriol said:
Speaking of badly-written law: If I'm Islamophobic, what's my punishment?

I didn't know M103 passed on the 77th anniversary of the vote to split off Pakistan from India. Interesting, along with the passages he wants to "disassociate" himself from.

A Motion is not a law, and there remains no punishment for blasphemy in Canada. Tarek Fatah is an ass.

Further, he is just... wrong... or maybe "not even wrong" about the motivations behind the partition of India and Pakistan, which was deeply complicated, as such a massive political, ethnic, and geographic change must be.[DOUBLEPOST=1490808975,1490808797][/DOUBLEPOST]

@Li3n said:
Yeah, it the law was written objectively, it would read itself.

Yes, bias does that.

Or ambiguously written laws.

Or novel situations that no one could even think of at the time the text was written.

You're looking at it from the wrong side... the problem isn't the law being subjective (it's not supposed to, you're supposed to write it as unambiguous as possible), but people being biased, so you have more people in the hopes of countering each other's biases by having different ones.

At least two of your situations: ambiguous laws and novel situations seem to imply that arriving at different conclusions with the same information would not necessarily be because of bias. Otherwise, again, you would arrive at the same conclusion because there is only one objective conclusion of note. Obviously this is not the case.

Any way you seem to place a lot of faith in politicians writing objectively but judges being biased, which seems overly optimistic.

Mar 29, 2017#57

@Li3n

Chad Sexington said:
At least two of your situations: ambiguous laws and novel situations seem to imply that arriving at different conclusions with the same information would not necessarily be because of bias.

Never said it was only bias in my 1st post either. But lets be honest, most of the time that is the case.

Chad Sexington said:
Any way you seem to place a lot of faith in politicians writing objectively but judges being biased, which seems overly optimistic.

I'm really not, i was simply stating what they're supposed to do. The FF did try pretty hard though...

Mar 29, 2017#58

Gruebeard

Chad Sexington said:
These are fascinating perspectives.

Lots of rulings are based on interpretations of the law - inherently subjective. If it was objective, you wouldn't need a judge. It's there in the name, they're a judge. They judge. Impartiality and objectivity aren't synonyms.

What if you rule on the constitutionality of a given subject? Constitutional expertise isn't easy. It's nuanced. You can definitely have the same information and arrive at different conclusions. That's one of the reasons you have a few of them. Might as well just have one if it's objective.

So read my post as saying "impartial" instead of "objective" and my point stands: "Was a unanimous decision reasonable in those cases?" is really the first question you should be answering before you asking "Are the judges in cahoots?"

Mar 31, 2017#59

Chad Sexington

Gruebeard said:
So read my post as saying "impartial" instead of "objective" and my point stands: "Was a unanimous decision reasonable in those cases?" is really the first question you should be answering before you asking "Are the judges in cahoots?"

I never asked if the judges were in cahoots. All I said was I'm not sure it's a good thing to have so many unanimous rulings, and that dissent is valuable.

Mar 31, 2017#60

Gruebeard

Chad Sexington said:
I never asked if the judges were in cahoots. All I said was I'm not sure it's a good thing to have so many unanimous rulings, and that dissent is valuable.

The "cahoots" bit was just exaggeration.

I'm just trying to say those unanimous rulings may be fine, and that I think you're skipping a step by not wondering about that first.

Mar 31, 2017#61

Denbrought

One thing to also keep in mind is that assents (and dissents) can be reached for different reasons. A 9-0 might be a per curiam, but can also be a narrow majority opinion and a handful of concurring opinions. Similarly, dissents can also be a bloc, or a bunch of differently-focused essays.

Apr 4, 2017#62

Eriol

Bombardier executives' hands have been caught in the cookie jar... but we're still giving them the money: Justin Trudeau hammered over Bombardier bailout in House of Commons

Bombardier is eliminating 14,500 jobs around the world by the end of next year, part of a restructuring plan aimed at helping the company turn itself around. The plan includes federal and provincial money: a $372.5-million federal loan for Bombardier’s CSeries and Global 7000 aircraft programs, and $1 billion from Quebec.

Last week, the company issued a proxy circular showing that six executives were in line for a nearly 50 per cent increase in compensation, most of which was to be granted in 2019.

They're "delaying" the pay increase to themselves now. And why do they deserve a pay increase at all with that much money going out the door? To be fair, they've paid back some of it... but it's a secret how much exactly they owe: How much money does Bombardier owe Canadians? It’s a secret. And then from 2015, apparently over time they've gotten about $2.1 BILLION dollars over the years in corporate welfare. That's BEFORE the recent $1.4B that's this last year or so. Fucking Quebec-pandering is what it is. And they're LAYING OFF jobs and taking money like crazy, so it's not even saving (many) jobs.

Beyond that, I will reiterate what I've said previously about businesses: if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist. Let them fail, and let a NUMBER of companies spring back up to fill the gaps. Or bankruptcy to reorganize, but keep a lid on executive compensation. This is just idiocy.

The funny thing is, this is also exposing another broken promise by Trudeau:

Total compensation for Bombardier’s top five executives and board chairman Pierre Beaudoin was to be US$32.6 million in 2016, up from US$21.9 million the year before, and some of that is in stock options.

People pay less tax on for income earned on stock options than they do if they are paid in cash.

The Liberals had pledged to close that tax loophole but have backed off in the last two budgets, arguing in the past that for many companies it is a valuable way to compensate all employees, not just CEOs.

It’s a loophole primarily for the wealthy, Mulcair said.

“So it’s another case of Justin Trudeau saying one thing and doing another, and frankly, I know that a lot of Canadians are growing very tired of Justin Trudeau not doing what he says he’s going to do.”

Disgusting, but not surprising. In Quebec they know how to reward those "loyal" to them.

Apr 4, 2017#63

Bubble181

Well, to be fair, the Belgian branch and plant of Bombardier were successful and profitable, but got closed down with production moved to Canada, so I guess the state support at least helped some jobs stay a short while longer.

Though I've noticed here as well that governments like to pump (hundreds of) millions in companies for thousands of jobs for a few years - if you make the cost-per-job-per-year comparison, many of them result in subsidies in excess of €40,000 per job per year. Which pretty much means it'd have been cheaper to just leave all those people on welfare.

Apr 4, 2017#64

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
if you make the cost-per-job-per-year comparison, many of them result in subsidies in excess of €40,000 per job per year. Which pretty much means it'd have been cheaper to just leave all those people on welfare.

I'm wondering how much the administration costs of Welfare are, and thus how much more expensive it would be to "leave" people on such.

Also, a more well-thought-out criticism of Bombardier, with good links and a long-term view of them: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-executive-pay-1.4052729

In particular, I like the section about how the last time around that Air Canada got a bailout, they had conditions put on executive compensation. Why wasn't this done for Bombardier?

Oh right, Quebec-ruled government again. Nevermind. Makes sense now. :mad:

Apr 6, 2017#65

Eriol

RCMP arrest Toronto man for allegedly leaving Canada to join ISIS

So that's apparently a thing.

Apr 10, 2017#66

Eriol

A preposterous injustice: Grieving nurse slapped with a $26,000 fine

Nurse's grandfather dies in palliative care (not at the facility she works at). Nurse posts "rant" (it's mild, I'll quote it below) about the sub-par care on facebook. Nurse gets taken in for professional misconduct, and is then fined. This is bullshit. The purpose of a Professional Organization is to protect the public, not punish members for pointing out issues. IMO the professional organization should now be investigated for gross misuse of resources. It's THEIR JOB to take the members or government to task about any health issues, not punish their members for speaking out about personal experiences, even if it's about other members.

Full text of the post in question:

“My grandfather spent a week in palliative care before he died and after hearing about his and my family’s experience there, it is evident that not everyone is ‘up to speed’ on how to approach end of life care or how to help maintain an aging senior’s dignity.

“I challenge the people involved in decision making with that facility to please get all your staff a refresher on this topic and more. Don’t get me wrong, ‘some’ people have provided excellent care so I thank you so very much for your efforts, but to those who made Grandpa’s last years less than desirable, please do better next time.”

For that she was "convicted" (not criminal) of the following: failure to follow proper channels in making a complaint; making comments that have a negative impact on the reputation of staff and a facility; failure to first obtain all the facts; and using her status of registered nurse for personal purposes.

I think those are flawed, and here's why:
#1 failure to follow proper channels in making a complaint - Maybe, but if she'd done so, the odds of change are... zero? Below zero?
#2 making comments that have a negative impact on the reputation of staff and a facility - comments themselves should not be an offense, only if they are untrue
#3 failure to first obtain all the facts - Like... they're understaffed? Then it makes the professional organization liable IMO for not highlighting such to those in charge.
#4 using her status of registered nurse for personal purposes - That should be "personal gain" IMO and since it clearly wasn't for gain, using your professional status to say "I'm an expert, this is bullshit" should be CELEBRATED not punished. I'm pretty sure (though I'm going to look it up) that I'm allowed in public to say "I'm an Engineer who is experienced in this field, and <statement of fact as I see it>" and that's OK professionally. I guess I should look that up though. I am NOT allowed to orate as a Professional Engineer on topics I am not trained and experienced in (Structural Engineering for instance, I can only give an opinion as a "regular person" not a Professional Engineer, and thus don't take it TOO seriously). Any violations here should ONLY be a matter of "did she have good reason to believe such professionally?" That should be the end of the professional inquiry. Anything beyond that should be a matter for a Libel suit, not the Professional Organization.

Also, that post is damned mild. This is beyond a tempest in a Teacup, because it turned into "real money" eventually. Nothing in that post is unreasonable in the least.

Apr 13, 2017#67

Eriol

I'm sure this title will change, but hopefully the meaning will come across: Liberals unveil pot legislation
Pot in Canada, recreational. The highlights:

Legal to purchase for 18 and over - supposedly provinces will be able to increase it more, like with alcohol.
Up to 4 plants per residence can be cultivated yourself - Hey @Dirona, we have a greenhouse with our new house...
Can have up to 30 grams (dried equivalent) on you at any time - I have no idea how much/little this is. Can somebody please clarify?
Edibles will be legal, with additional regulations to be announced.
A felony to sell it to minors, up to 14 years in jail. More below on the whole minors thing
Cannot import it at all. Export only with special permits.
Take effect by July 1, 2018 - Could be a very mellow Canada Day next year!

Also this block of text:

It would also be against the law to sell cannabis in a package or with a label that could be construed as appealing to young people, to include testimonials or endorsements, or to depict a person, character or animal.

The government also aims to establish "significant penalties" for those who engage young Canadians in "cannabis-related offences" and a "zero-tolerance approach" to drug-impaired driving, along with a "robust" public awareness campaign.

They seem to want to ban anything that could be appealing to kids/teenagers. That seems really broad and open to interpretation. Isn't "this means we're adults now!" appealing to kids, and therefore everything could fall under it if some jurisdiction wanted it to?

So we'll see where this goes!

Apr 13, 2017#68

GasBandit

A joint is typically a third to a half of a gram of weed.

Apr 13, 2017#69

Denbrought

Eriol said:
Can have up to 30 grams (dried equivalent) on you at any time - I have no idea how much/little this is. Can somebody please clarify?

According to Wikipedia, the average joint has 0.25-1g in it, so 30-120 joints. Most adult users I have knowledge of smoke 0-2 joints daily, or a similar amount via pipe, e-cigarrette, etc.

Apr 13, 2017#70

drifter

An ounce of weed (about 28 grams).

Apr 13, 2017#71

Eriol

drifter said:
An ounce of weed (about 28 grams).

You just had that one lying around to photograph for us? Thanks!

Apr 13, 2017#72

drifter

I think you have me confused with Gared

Apr 13, 2017#73

Eriol

Also, those 4 plants that you can cultivate per residence are restricted to a maximum of 1m in height. Which is still a pretty damned big plant IMO!

Apr 17, 2017#74

Eriol

Very disturbing: Supreme Court to hear case involving Calgary man expelled from Jehovah's Witnesses
CBC's article: Case of Calgary Jehovah's Witness expelled from congregation will go before Supreme Court

This is basically, "organization (religion in this case) has own rules, don't like the process, appeal to a court!" How does this NOT horrifically violate freedom of both association and religion? I think the specific case is them being too harsh, but it's up to an organization to determine who their own members are. If they want to exclude anybody based on anything that's up to them. In this case, the guy got drunk twice, but it could be anything.

Apr 17, 2017#75

Gruebeard

FTA

He explained his drinking was related to pressures on the family relating to the earlier expulsion of their 15-year-old daughter and the subsequent shunning they were required to give her.

The (father) said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home," the Court of Appeal said in its decision last September upholding Wilson's ruling.

He should be happy he got kicked out.

Apr 17, 2017#76

mikerc

Eriol said:
Very disturbing: Supreme Court to hear case involving Calgary man expelled from Jehovah's Witnesses
CBC's article: Case of Calgary Jehovah's Witness expelled from congregation will go before Supreme Court

This is basically, "organization (religion in this case) has own rules, don't like the process, appeal to a court!" How does this NOT horrifically violate freedom of both association and religion? I think the specific case is them being too harsh, but it's up to an organization to determine who their own members are. If they want to exclude anybody based on anything that's up to them. In this case, the guy got drunk twice, but it could be anything.

It sounds more like this is a case of him being shunned by the other members of his (former) religion & that putting his business at risk. So while I agree that this case is a violation of freedom of association & religion, it might be nice to have the courts also look at the concept of shunning (which the JW's are not the only religion to do) & say "Hey, telling your members who they can & cannot associate with is also a violation of freedom of association. Don't do it!"

After all, look at that bit @Gruebeard quoted - whether officially or unofficially this family felt they had to choose between disobeying their church or making their *15 year old daughter* homeless. That's horrific.

Apr 17, 2017#77

Gruebeard

mroosc1979 said:
After all, look at that bit @Gruebeard quoted - whether officially or unofficially this family felt they had to choose between disobeying their church or making their *15 year old daughter* homeless. That's horrific.

I'm hoping they put her up with an aunt or some other family friend not a member of the religion.

Apr 17, 2017#78

mikerc

Gruebeard said:
I'm hoping they put her up with an aunt or some other family friend not a member of the religion.

Yeah, that'd be the hope but what do you do if there isn't someone like that available?

I'd actually be inhterested to hear what @stienman thinks about shunning since he a) is a devout member of a religion that practices it & b) is fiercly devoted to his family. Even if all he has to say is "I don't know what I'd do in that situation & I hope I never have to find out."

Apr 17, 2017#79

GasBandit

mroosc1979 said:
Yeah, that'd be the hope but what do you do if there isn't someone like that available?

I'd actually be inhterested to hear what @stienman thinks about shunning since he a) is a devout member of a religion that practices it & b) is fiercly devoted to his family. Even if all he has to say is "I don't know what I'd do in that situation & I hope I never have to find out."

This story's about Jehova's Witnesses, which are different from the Church of LDS (Mormons), to which Stienman belongs.

Apr 17, 2017#80

mikerc

GasBandit said:
This story's about Jehova's Witnesses, which are different from the Church of LDS (Mormons), to which Stienman belongs.

Yes, but my understanding is Mormons also practice shunning, which is why I was curious about his thoughts on the subject.

Apr 17, 2017#81

GasBandit

mroosc1979 said:
Yes, but my understanding is Mormons also practice shunning, which is why I was curious about his thoughts on the subject.

I hear a lot of people say that, but in my teenage years I was friends with several different mormon families, none of which tried to convert or shun me, and I was openly agnostic. In fact, one of the families had a daughter who had been removed from the church because she had had two children out of wedlock (by two different fathers), but her family did not shun or cut ties with her, either.

And yeah, she was pretty hot. We used to give my friend from that family a hard time about how hot his sister was, constantly.

Apr 17, 2017#82

mikerc

GasBandit said:
I hear a lot of people say that, but in my teenage years I was friends with several different mormon families, none of which tried to convert or shun me, and I was openly agnostic. In fact, one of the families had a daughter who had been removed from the church because she had had two children out of wedlock (by two different fathers), but her family did not shun or cut ties with her, either.

And yeah, she was pretty hot. We used to give my friend from that family a hard time about how hot his sister was, constantly.

Ah? Well, I'm certainly no expert on mormons so if I was wrong, I was wrong.

No, wait, this is the Internet. I was right, you were wrong & I will ignore all evidence no matter how convincing to the contrary!

Apr 17, 2017#83

strawman

Lots of intertwined stuff to pick apart here. Let's see...

Eriol said:
This is basically, "organization (religion in this case) has own rules, don't like the process, appeal to a court!" How does this NOT horrifically violate freedom of both association and religion?

I agree. I don't think this would fly in the US (Canada has more restrictions on religion and freedom of association than the US) at all. The fact that it got to the Supreme Court with two lower courts saying that the government does have a say in whether a religious organization can expel a member is surprising.

mroosc1979 said:
"Hey, telling your members who they can & cannot associate with is also a violation of freedom of association. Don't do it!"

If you voluntarily choose to live according to to the organization's rules, then they aren't violating your rights. You still have the right to associate, but you may then not have the right to be a part of that organization. In neither situation are your fundamental rights being infringed - but you have to choose between two incompatible choices, and can't have it both ways. Either be a part of the organization and follow their rules, or don't and associate with some the organization tells you not to.

Keep in mind I'm not agreeing with the organization's rules, I'm simply suggesting that there is no human rights infringement going on. If there were, then anything the organization says you can't do without expulsion would be a violation of human rights.

Gruebeard said:
FTA

He explained his drinking was related to pressures on the family relating to the earlier expulsion of their 15-year-old daughter and the subsequent shunning they were required to give her.

The (father) said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home," the Court of Appeal said in its decision last September upholding Wilson's ruling.

Click to expand...

I believe the courts should act in this case of egregious child abuse. Unfortunately there's not much power the government has when parents reject their own children. They could remove any other children from the home, declaring the parents to be abusive, until they complied with certain parenting standards. But the reality is that if parents reject a child, for whatever reason, it's almost always best to remove the child from that home - forcing them to live under such circumstances is worse than placing them in even a flawed foster system.

mroosc1979 said:
I'd actually be inhterested to hear what @stienman thinks about shunning since he a) is a devout member of a religion that practices it & b) is fiercly devoted to his family. Even if all he has to say is "I don't know what I'd do in that situation & I hope I never have to find out."

The LDS church does not practice shunning. It is not part of the doctrine. Parents are encouraged to keep their family together, even when family members may not be following the religion.

That said, many members of the church, unfortunately and sadly, perform shunning or some forms of it when their children and family members make choices that they don't like. You'll occasionally find misguided local leaders who may offer suggestions of that nature as well. This doesn't jive with the gospel of Christ, who made an effort to reach out to those who weren't following His doctrine and go to their places and associate with them even knowing they may not change.

Speaking specifically about children, I have heard cases where families have kicked out their children when they've found they were gay, transgender, or in similar situations. The church has been actively trying to communicate to families that they are to love their children regardless of their choices, and they shouldn't be evicting them for such issues.

I've also experienced instances where people felt shunned, but asking those they blamed for the shunning it wasn't an active thing, but since they never saw them weekly at church they never made an effort to include them in outside church activities. This is especially prevalent in LDS dense populations like much of Utah. Your "friend's list" is full of people you see weekly at church, and you only peripherally know your neighbors. Someone drops out of the church and they lose regular contact with their previous group of friends. I've known people who pushed past that and actively made an effort to keep up their relationships, but since it's so easy to be friends with people you interact with weekly, and it's hard to keep friendships alive with people you have to work to contact, it is a real problem. I'd call this a form of passive shunning, if it could be considered shunning at all.

Then, of course, you run across those who leave the church and spend a great deal of effort and time trying to convince others to leave. If every time I see someone they spend much time telling me to leave the church or insist on discussing the latest thing the church has done that's gotten under their skin, well, I'm going to go out of my way to avoid that person. But this isn't what is taught at church, and if anything I shouldn't be avoiding them, but that's my personal failing and something I need to improve.

The only other case in which I would consider actively limiting contact with anyone is if they posed an active threat of physical harm to other members of my family. I would still keep in contact and try to maintain (and actively improve) whatever form of relationship I could with them without putting others at risk, but I would be very careful. I don't think that's something the church has anything to do with, though - some juvenile offenders for violence are in jail for assault against family members, this can happen in any family, and I'd encourage anyone, family or not, to protect their vulnerable members from those who do or would do them harm.

So, no, the LDS church doesn't support shunning, and certainly wouldn't support the idea of parents evicting their child because they didn't follow the church's guidelines, nevermind force the parents to do so via threat of expulsion.

Apr 17, 2017#84

GasBandit

mroosc1979 said:
Ah? Well, I'm certainly no expert on mormons so if I was wrong, I was wrong.

No, wait, this is the Internet. I was right, you were wrong & I will ignore all evidence no matter how convincing to the contrary!

Apr 17, 2017#85

strawman

Oh, and I should also point out that children of same sex parents cannot be baptized until they are 18. They can attend church, participate in all the activities that LDS children would participate in (except going to the temple), etc. The church teaches that same sex marriage isn't part of God's plan, though, and has made an active decision not to force children to choose between that belief and their relationship with their parents. The church would be a wedge between the child and the parents, and the focus is on strengthening the family - regardless of the makeup of that family. Allowing children of same sex parents to join the church would harm that relationship, so they can't do it until they've reached the age of majority.

This isn't unusual, though, because children of Islamic families and Jehovah's Witness families have the same waiting period. Those faiths practice shunning (and worse, in some muslim culture/faith systems) and allowing a child of those families to join the church would again damage that all-important parent-child relationship that the LDS church teaches is sacred.

All are welcome to worship in our services regardless of their adherence or not to the doctrine. We believe that everyone is trying to come closer to Christ, and accept that we are all at different places in our lives with respect to Him. We don't believe we are at different places with respect to each other - we are all alike, falling short of perfection.

So I don't believe the restriction from baptism and recorded membership is a form of shunning, but I can understand that some might define it differently.

Apr 19, 2017#86

Eriol

I thought this was a good editorial: Canada will legalize pot, after arresting a bunch of people for pot offences first

I particularly liked this section:

Enforcement of cannabis law, it continues, "traps too many Canadians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses."

Well said. Courageous, even. Huzzah.

So. What's the government's solution?

Well, it intends to continue arresting, prosecuting and criminalizing Canadians who commit this minor and non-violent offence, at least for another year or so. Young Canadians are particularly vulnerable to arrest.

Edit: And another interesting question raised:

But back to Off's interview with the justice minister. She raised another excellent question: Once cannabis is legal in Canada, what should Canadians answer when asked by U.S. border agents whether they've ever used it?

Because admitting it at the border can result in being barred from entering the U.S. for life, even though many states have now decriminalized cannabis, and eight states have outright legalized it.

This is interesting in that I'm OK with the concept of a country setting whatever standards it wants with regards to whom is let in, even if whatever the person did is legal in the country they're coming from. On the horrific side, people who practice (encourage, perform, etc) Female Genital Mutilation for example should not be let in, even if it's "legal" where they come from. So the "general concept" of saying "I don't care if it's legal where you come from, we're saying we don't want somebody who did so in our country" is OK. It's this specific example, where it's legal in a number of US states that it's beyond stupid, regardless of the product itself.

Another wrinkle that will come up in the medium-term (and SHOULD be addressed already, but isn't) is medical pot. You can take morphine, and other prescription narcotics across the border right now if you have your prescription with you (the regular bottle is enough in my experience), but the same for Pot is not true. That is also BS.

Apr 19, 2017#87

TommiR

Eriol said:
I thought this was a good editorial: Canada will legalize pot, after arresting a bunch of people for pot offences first

Some of my thoughts on the topic.

1. Does applicable canadian law prohibit and penalize these acts, specifically the possession and recreational use of cannabis? Seems like it does.
2. Has the applicable law been properly enacted, that is to say been decreed according to due process by the legitimate authority with the power to do so? I guess.
3. Is the content of the law non-discriminatory in nature, applying equally to all groups and individuals? I suppose.
4. Can the law be changed by legitimate processes to which all members of the public have fair access? Yep.
5. Is the enforcement of the law, in general, fair and impartial? I would think so.

Based on the above, I'd say we are dealing with a just law which must be followed by all who are subject to its jurisdiction, as long as it is in force. Those who break such a law should be held to account, and be subject to such legal penalties as may apply. Those who believe pot should be made legal, or the penalties in the law for pot use/possession be reduced, are perfectly free to campaign to that effect and, if successful (as seems to b the case), the law changed accordingly. But before that happens and the new provisions come into effect, the law as is needs to be obeyed.

Spoilered for length:

”One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. […] Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. […] Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.”

- Martin Luther King, Jr. ”Letter from Birmingham Jail”

This is interesting in that I'm OK with the concept of a country setting whatever standards it wants with regards to whom is let in, even if whatever the person did is legal in the country they're coming from. On the horrific side, people who practice (encourage, perform, etc) Female Genital Mutilation for example should not be let in, even if it's "legal" where they come from. So the "general concept" of saying "I don't care if it's legal where you come from, we're saying we don't want somebody who did so in our country" is OK.

I agree on countries being allowed to set such standards for entry as they may deem fit. Personally, I might not agree, in general, on my country not permitting in people on the basis of them having performed acts which are perfectly legal in their own country, but not legal here, such as the aforementioned Female Genital Mutilation. I agree it is a horrific practice, would like to see it gone and, if I cared enough about it, might even support all legal efforts to eradicate it. And I certainly would not like to see anything like it in my country. But if someone who practiced it would like to enter into my country, then I don't think they should be denied entry on that basis alone, provided they respected the laws of the land while in my country.

Let us approach this from somewhat of a different angle. The minimum age of marriage in Canada is 16 years, with parental consent. International organisations define child marriage as a union where one or both parties are under the age of 18. So, let's say you got hitched to a girl aged 16, with full parental consent and what not. Then, when you were going on a honeymoon, was denied a visa because you are a dirty old man who practices child marriage. Should the country in question be able to deny you a visa on that basis? I think so. Should they deny you a visa on that basis? I think not.

You may well say ”Hang on, didn't that MLK quote you just made say something about moral laws? The minimum age of marriage in Iran is 9 years. There is, like, a world of difference between marrying somebody who is sixteen, and sombody who is nine!”. I would agree with you on that. However, there might be some cultural biases at work there. I think what I think about minimum ages mainly because those are the values of the culture I grew up in. Other parts of the world may view these things very differently. As with Female Genital Mutilation above, I might support all legal methods to eradicate child marriage, but as long as something falling under the term, according to my view, was legal ”over there”, I'm willing to respect that, even if I personally do not in any way agree with it. We have such laws as we do in my country because they, broadly speaking, reflect the will and the values of the majority of our citizenry, and apply to all the public and any foreigners who might be here. But that is where the jurisdiction ends, and the laws of my country do not and should not, in my opinion and again broadly speaking, have an impact outside our borders.

Another wrinkle that will come up in the medium-term (and SHOULD be addressed already, but isn't) is medical pot. You can take morphine, and other prescription narcotics across the border right now if you have your prescription with you (the regular bottle is enough in my experience), but the same for Pot is not true. That is also BS.

Not familiar with the topic, but I guess in general prescription medicines are permitted, but if the specific medicine, in this case marijuana, is illegal in the country, then the possession of it is prohibited, prescription or no. You want to go to some country? Then you willingly place yourself under their laws, and if the law on the border says one thing, then you need to obey it, even if the country in question had some internal legal jurisdictions with the authority to have their laws/ordinances say something else on the particular topic - a common situation in quite a few countries, actually.

Apr 20, 2017#88

Necronic

So not really sure what's involved in Canadian politics, but I do have to ask how the fuck is it that you guys get Kevin Trudeau and we get Dennis the Menace?

Apr 20, 2017#89

blotsfan

Necronic said:
So not really sure what's involved in Canadian politics, but I do have to ask how the fuck is it that you guys get Kevin Trudeau and we get Dennis the Menace?

Because Canada is a better country.

Apr 20, 2017#90

Gruebeard

Necronic said:
So not really sure what's involved in Canadian politics, but I do have to ask how the fuck is it that you guys get Kevin Trudeau and we get Dennis the Menace?

Because as y'all swing right, we veer left to stay out of your way.

You go crazy, we double down on sanity.

Or the reverse. Theoretically.

Apr 20, 2017#91

DarkAudit

Gruebeard said:
Because as y'all swing right, we veer left to stay out of your way.

Making the dangerous assumption we're already moving in the same direction. Luckily we both drive on the right or we'd be hitting head on.

Apr 20, 2017#92

Dei

I'm still trying to figure out who Kevin Trudeau is.

Pretty sure you mean Justin.

Apr 20, 2017#93

Gruebeard

Dei said:
I'm still trying to figure out who Kevin Trudeau is.

Pretty sure you mean Justin.

I think it would have been funnier if he'd said Gary Trudeau.

And if we were 20 years in the past

Apr 20, 2017#94

Frank

I hate the stance of the government on minor pot crime. Just thought I'd share that.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Apr 20, 2017#95

Necronic

Look you should be proud that an American even knows the last name of your PM. That's got to be a new feeling for you.

Apr 20, 2017#96

GasBandit

Apr 20, 2017#97

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:

A møøse once grabbed my sister's pussy.

Apr 24, 2017#98

Eriol

Trudeau admits to his family using political power to get out of criminal charges: Trudeau says his dad went to bat for son Michel when he was charged with pot possession

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that when his late brother Michel was charged with pot possession, his father's resources, legal network and connections helped make the charge "go away,"

...snip...

The prime minister answered the question by relating the story of how his late brother had been in a terrible car accident while driving back to Ontario from the West Coast. When the police arrived at the scene, they found a couple of joints in the wreckage and charged Michel with possession of marijuana.

"When he got back home to Montreal, my dad said, 'OK, don't worry about it.' He reached out to his friends in the legal community, got the best possible lawyer and was very confident that he was going to be able to make those charges go away," Trudeau said. "We were able to do that because we had resources, my dad had a couple of connections, and we were confident that my little brother wasn't going to be saddled with a criminal record for life."

Or how about "we were able to do that because my Dad was politically powerful, and their children don't get convicted of crimes." Yay influence peddling!!! One law for Caesar, another for everybody else!!!

Yes it was only pot. Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time for the politically (or otherwise) powerful? This perverts the entire idea of Rule of Law wherein everybody is subject to it.

I only wish it surprised me, but it's that family. What did people really expect?

Apr 24, 2017#99

Frank

Eriol said:
Trudeau admits to his family using political power to get out of criminal charges: Trudeau says his dad went to bat for son Michel when he was charged with pot possession

Or how about "we were able to do that because my Dad was politically powerful, and their children don't get convicted of crimes." Yay influence peddling!!! One law for Caesar, another for everybody else!!!

Yes it was only pot. Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time for the politically (or otherwise) powerful? This perverts the entire idea of Rule of Law wherein everybody is subject to it.

I only wish it surprised me, but it's that family. What did people really expect?

Which pisses me off further when they won't pardon minor pot crimes after the law goes through.

Apr 25, 2017#100

PatrThom

Eriol said:
Do you really think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time for the politically (or otherwise) powerful? This perverts the entire idea of Rule of Law wherein everybody is subject to it.

Ha ha! Oh dear, I consider myself one of the most optimistic folks around, yet even *I* have learned to expect this sort of behavior on all levels, whether it be the Sheriff's son caught behind the athletic building, all the way up to the economic machinations of a Governor's wife. Nepotistic behavior of one sort or another is a behavior almost expected of those in power. After all, the sentiment is that people only chase/accumulate power in order to distribute it as best benefits themselves, right?

--Patrick

Apr 25, 2017#101

Eriol

PatrThom said:
Ha ha! Oh dear, I consider myself one of the most optimistic folks around, yet even *I* have learned to expect this sort of behavior on all levels, whether it be the Sheriff's son caught behind the athletic building, all the way up to the economic machinations of a Governor's wife. Nepotistic behavior of one sort or another is a behavior almost expected of those in power. After all, the sentiment is that people only chase/accumulate power in order to distribute it as best benefits themselves, right?

Oh I've always expected it, it's just differently brazen to see somebody so openly admitting to their family doing it as a "routine" thing.

Apr 25, 2017#102

Eriol

A reaction to the above with a similar situation, but not "powerful people" to get you out of it: Me and Michel Trudeau: The story of two drug busts

Apr 25, 2017#103

Dei

Eriol said:
A reaction to the above with a similar situation, but not "powerful people" to get you out of it: Me and Michel Trudeau: The story of two drug busts

In the end, however, my charges were dropped because I was the only one of the four indicted who was wise enough not to cop to any guilt during the interrogation process.

In other words, I got lucky.

In other words, he understood his legal rights and didn't confess guilt under pressure. That's not luck.

Sorry, calling that luck just annoyed me.

Apr 26, 2017#104

Eriol

Dei said:
In other words, he understood his legal rights and didn't confess guilt under pressure. That's not luck.

Sorry, calling that luck just annoyed me.

Fine, though I'd also say he's lucky that his "friends" didn't all then try and pin stuff on him for reduced sentences or whatever.

The core point stands though: if you have power, you don't face legal consequences. As a great author once said, "Control the coinage and the courts — let the rabble have the rest." I'm just surprised that more people aren't outraged about our PM so brazenly admitting to it.

Edit: for once (not the first time though I'll admit) I agree with Mulcair: Federal NDP pushes Trudeau to decriminalize weed following pot remarks

"He doesn't find it at all abnormal that he can admit to smoking marijuana while he was a member of Parliament and at the same time say, 'The law is the law and you will be prosecuted if you smoke marijuana.'

"That is abject hypocrisy by Justin Trudeau."

Apr 28, 2017#105

Gruebeard

Gruebeard said:
View attachment 23532

And now Manitoba!

And apparently some org is suing Nova Scotia over the grabher plate because it's attacking freedom of speech. All that's gonna accomplish is convincing government officials to quit issuing personalized plates.

May 1, 2017#106

Eriol

A good summary of the Dairy Industry in Canada in what Supply Management has done to it, and the rest of us:

It's also useful for our USA friends in that it summarizes the current dispute between the countries and Dairy.

Warning: this is an incredibly right-wing website, but the summary is quite good, sticking to the facts (for the most part) IMO. The largest fallacy here IMO is that the # of farms in the country by absolute number has gone down over the same time period, but I don't know a good way to look up those numbers as a whole and so to see how the numbers line up for that section of agriculture versus the other parts of it. IMO the rest of it is pretty on-the-line and good.

May 11, 2017#107

Eriol

Neat graphic for government spending since WWII in Canada, adjusted to real dollars, per person, rather than raw:

Yes Fraser Institute for those inclined to dismiss right-wing sources, but it's still public data from Statistics Canada.

I'd love to see an overlay of this with revenue and/or deficit along with cumulative debt too.

And starting with Mackenzie King (not on a label there, but is the WWII one), the parties are:
Liberal, Liberal, PC, Liberal, Liberal, PC (briefly), Liberal, PC, Liberal, Liberal (brief, but not AS brief as Clark), Conservative, Liberal.

Turner and Campbell aren't on there, but they ruled for mere months.

May 29, 2017#108

Eriol

Andrew Scheer wins Conservative leadership vote: New Conservative leader Andrew Scheer convenes his caucus

So that's a thing. I don't really know much about him, as I didn't follow this very closely.

May 29, 2017#109

ThatNickGuy

A friend of mine was really pulling for Maxine Bernier. I don't really follow politics, so I don't know why.

May 29, 2017#110

Gruebeard

ThatNickGuy said:
A friend of mine was really pulling for Maxine Bernier. I don't really follow politics, so I don't know why.

Maxime is the guy who left classified documents at his girlfriend's house.

Maybe your friend is a spy. A lazy spy.

May 29, 2017#111

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Maxime is the guy who left classified documents at his girlfriend's house.

Maybe your friend is a spy. A lazy spy.

Ya, that'd be way too much like American Politics, with their candidates and leaders leaking classified information all over the place. We don't want that up here.

May 29, 2017#112

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
Maybe your friend is a spy. A lazy spy.

Eriol said:
Ya, that'd be way too much like American Politics, with their candidates and leaders leaking classified information all over the place.

--Patrick

May 30, 2017#113

Eriol

Nice editorial IMO about the new conservative leader and our current government: Trudeau is the scary one, not Scheer

Having for months warned Canadians about the dangers of electing the “libertarian” Maxime Bernier, they immediately shifted gears to attacking the “social conservative” Scheer whom, they warned, would deny women abortions and gay couples the right to marry.

It was the same hysterical rhetoric Liberals hauled out when Stephen Harper won the Conservative leadership in 2004, none of which came to pass.

...

For example, Trudeau’s broken election promise that “modest” Liberal deficits over his first term in office would total $24.1 billion, with a $1 billion surplus in 2019-20.

Current Liberal projections put that figure at $93.3 billion, an increase of 287%, with a $20.4 billion deficit in 2019-20, $18.7 billion in 2020-21, $15.8 billion in 2021-22 and no plan to return to a balanced budget, ever.

I wonder how much that figure will increase beyond that estimate by the time all is said and done in 2020.

And those are excerpts, not the whole editorial.

May 30, 2017#114

ThatNickGuy

My province (Nova Scotia) had their big election tonight. I didn't bother voting. Didn't see the point.

May 30, 2017#115

Gruebeard

ThatNickGuy said:
My province (Nova Scotia) had their big election tonight. I didn't bother voting. Didn't see the point.

Aye. Nova Scotia is rather irrelevant :troll:

May 31, 2017#116

HCGLNS

Gruebeard said:
Aye. Nova Scotia is rather irrelevant

You suck.
And you don't even suck very well.
You sucky sucker you.

May 31, 2017#117

Eriol

ThatNickGuy said:
My province (Nova Scotia) had their big election tonight. I didn't bother voting. Didn't see the point.

I couldn't vote. Haven't been in the province for 6 months yet.

And I am A-OK with that! Not having to care during an election? Booyaa!

Jun 2, 2017#118

Eriol

Mulcair commits political suicide: Karla Homolka not worthy of forgiveness

“Everybody is going to have to take their own stock of that and ensure that first and foremost that the security (of the kids at the Montreal school where Homolka has volunteered) is taken care of,” Mulcair told reporters outside the House of Commons on Wednesday. “Beyond that, it becomes a question of forgiveness.”

Being on Homolka's side on this is just waiting to be dropped on his head next election.

Jun 3, 2017#119

Chad Sexington

Eriol said:
Mulcair commits political suicide: Karla Homolka not worthy of forgiveness

Being on Homolka's side on this is just waiting to be dropped on his head next election.

Seriously. JFC

Jun 6, 2017#120

Eriol

I'm putting this here, but hoping a number of our USA friends watch this and imagine if their system was like ours, and the powers therein for the PM/President were the same:

Jun 6, 2017#121

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
I'm putting this here, but hoping a number of our USA friends watch this and imagine if their system was like ours, and the powers therein for the PM/President were the same:

It's the Westminster system and this is just one guy bitching about it for three minutes.

Jun 6, 2017#122

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
It's the Westminster system and this is just one guy bitching about it for three minutes.

Absolutely it is, but it's still kinda funny to me seeing the "discussion" over confirmations, and everything else about your President, and then compare and contrast to the powers of the Prime Minister in Canada, and as you rightly say, other Westminster systems.

Jun 6, 2017#123

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
Absolutely it is, but it's still kinda funny to me seeing the "discussion" over confirmations, and everything else about your President, and then compare and contrast to the powers of the Prime Minister in Canada, and as you rightly say, other Westminster systems.

He doesn't mention that no Canadian Parliament has yet made it through an entire five year term. Which would suggest the Prime Minister's hold on power is a little more tenuous than it is here. The only way a Democrat gets to the White House before 2021 is if the Dems take control of Congress in 2018 and remove both Trump and Pence. Then the Speaker is next in line.

Jun 6, 2017#124

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
He doesn't mention that no Canadian Parliament has yet made it through an entire five year term.

This is a bit you don't quite understand, I think. The maximum length of the term is 5 years, but making it to that 5 year mark is not a sign of success. It's a completely unimportant statistic, in fact.

The government in power decides when an election takes place, and it must occur by that 5 year mark - and they have far stronger reasons for calling the election early rather than squeezing out a couple extra months (or even a couple years) . See, they will call an election when they are riding high in the polls, or when they're sinking in the polls and predict no improvement. Or anything like that.

That is, an election is called when the governing party thinks it has the best chance of winning it.

It's not about hitting the 5 year mark, it's about getting re-elected.

Jun 6, 2017#125

DarkAudit

Gruebeard said:
This is a bit you don't quite understand, I think. The maximum length of the term is 5 years, but making it to that 5 year mark is not a sign of success. It's a completely unimportant statistic, in fact.

The government in power decides when an election takes place, and it must occur by that 5 year mark - and they have far stronger reasons for calling the election early rather than squeezing out a couple extra months (or even a couple years) . See, they will call an election when they are riding high in the polls, or when they're sinking in the polls and predict no improvement. Or anything like that.

That is, an election is called when the governing party thinks it has the best chance of winning it.

It's not about hitting the 5 year mark, it's about getting re-elected.

And sometimes it bites them in the ass.

(Not often, but you end up with a leader out of office after just a couple of months. Doesn't happen here without a funeral or a conviction.)

Jun 6, 2017#126

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
And sometimes it bites them in the ass.

(Not often, but you end up with a leader out of office after just a couple of months. Doesn't happen here without a funeral or a conviction.)

That couple of months thing only happens during Minority Governments, though, which are rare in Canada.

Jun 6, 2017#127

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
That couple of months thing only happens during Minority Governments, though, which are rare in Canada.

The other example would be Kim Campbell, which she was very near the end of the 5 year maximum of the Government she took over, so she HAD to call an election despite only governing herself for less than a year.

Jun 6, 2017#128

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
The other example would be Kim Campbell, which she was very near the end of the 5 year maximum of the Government she took over, so she HAD to call an election despite only governing herself for less than a year.

Oh, yeah.

Although that's more because our system is about electing the government, not just the leader.

That's also an excellent example of how making it to the end of that 5 years isn't a mark of success, since the Progressive Conservatives not only lost the next election by a resounding defeat (winning two! out of ~300 available seats) but they also stopped existing as a party at all, and are now just History.

Jun 6, 2017#129

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Oh, yeah.

Although that's more because our system is about electing the government, not just the leader.

That's also an excellent example of how making it to the end of that 5 years isn't a mark of success, since the Progressive Conservatives not only lost the next election by a resounding defeat (winning two! out of ~300 available seats) but they also stopped existing as a party at all, and are now just History.

The fascinating part about that particular election is that on the day they called the election, they were supposed to win. Their popularity went down so much that they lost. Not from majority (160+ seats) to 2, but just because they had so many votes taken from them in battleground ridings. Popular vote wasn't as bad.

According to wiki, this was the popular vote for that election, along with seat totals:

Liberal - 41.24% - 177 seats
Bloc 13.52% - 54 seats
Reform 18.69% - 52 seats
NDP 6.88% - 9 seats
PC 16.04% - 2 seats

One of the best examples of "distorted" numbers from First-Past-the-Post systems that there is. No doubt that the Liberals won, but not a majority, and a party that went to 2 seats when they had the 3rd-highest number of votes.

Jun 6, 2017#130

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
The fascinating part about that particular election is that on the day they called the election, they were supposed to win. Their popularity went down so much that they lost. Not from majority (160+ seats) to 2, but just because they had so many votes taken from them in battleground ridings. Popular vote wasn't as bad.

According to wiki, this was the popular vote for that election, along with seat totals:

Liberal - 41.24% - 177 seats
Bloc 13.52% - 54 seats
Reform 18.69% - 52 seats
NDP 6.88% - 9 seats
PC 16.04% - 2 seats

One of the best examples of "distorted" numbers from First-Past-the-Post systems that there is. No doubt that the Liberals won, but not a majority, and a party that went to 2 seats when they had the 3rd-highest number of votes.

That's a great big case of apples and oranges you've got there. National vote totals don't mean squat when the seats are all individual races. Win by 1 vote or 100,000, you still win ONE seat. Lose by 1 or 100,000, you still lost ONE seat.

Jun 6, 2017#131

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
That's a great big case of apples and oranges you've got there. National vote totals don't mean squat when the seats are all individual races. Win by 1 vote or 100,000, you still win ONE seat. Lose by 1 or 100,000, you still lost ONE seat.

Dark, that's exactly what I was talking about in the final sentence of the post you quoted, about how national numbers don't reflect seats, often radically.

Jun 21, 2017#132

Eriol

Interesting on security vs rights legislation: National security vs individual freedoms: How the Liberals aim to strike a balance

My favorite quote from the article is this:

"Canadians have made it very clear that they don't trust the NDP with their safety and they don't trust the Conservatives with their rights," Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said in the Commons.

It's a good burn, because while I might not agree with the analysis, I agree that it's what most people believe.

Honestly, I'd need to go through the thing line-by-line. IMO a lot of these things look fine-ish, but the devil is in the details. Unfortunately a lot of "the debate" often comes down to "well I don't trust (insert party here) with the ability to do (X), but when MY party gets in, I trust them!" So I always try and look at "what could be done with this power" rather than "this is how we intend/say we'll use this power" that is in legislation.

Add to that my opinion that the federal Liberals are basically the "we'll say anything to get elected, then do what our benefactors pay us to do" party (even more so than the others), and my natural distrust is there. That being said, no "big" red flags IMO, and the conservative opposition unfortunately is just saying "look at how bad stuff is, we can't be 'weakening' things now!" Give a real criticism on how things may be mis-used, not just FUD people.

Jun 22, 2017#133

Eriol

This is utterly disgusting:

Because remember, beat your wife with a hockey stick for HALF AN HOUR and that's only worth 8 days because nobody explained to them when they entered the country that beating your wife is against the law.

Then it gets worse. After a tweet highlighting this story, the federal minister for immigration's statements:

Social media erupted after Ms. Leitch tweeted Sunday: “A battered wife and a bloodied hockey stick. That’s the legacy of Trudeau’s Syrian refugee program,” quoting and including a link to a Toronto Sun column about a Syrian refugee in Fredericton who beat his wife with a hockey stick. Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said Ms. Leitch’s tweet is as disgraceful as domestic violence itself.

“It’s [domestic violence] clearly something that we abhor and we condemn. What Ms. Leitch is doing is equally reprehensible because she’s tying in a problem that exists everywhere – both in refugee communities and in … our society. This is a problem that many societies grapple with. She’s tying that in with our refugee policy,” Mr. Hussen said in an interview with The Globe and Mail on Monday.

Remember, Tweeting about not screening refugees who might have somewhat... different? Ya let's go with different "views" on women's rights and/or domestic violence. Tweeting about that, and blaming the deficiencies in the refugee program is the same as actually committing those violent acts yourself.

Speech is not the same as actual heinous violence. No matter how heinous the speech (which this isn't) it's still far different than actual violence, which was committed.

Jun 23, 2017#134

Covar

So ignorance is an excuse for the law in Canada? Sounds like some fun times could be had.

Jun 23, 2017#135

DarkAudit

Can the prosecution appeal sentences in Canada?

Jun 23, 2017#136

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
Can the prosecution appeal sentences in Canada?

My thought on that is "no" but IANAL. I think @Frank would be the person to ask, since he's at least a part of the Criminal Law system, IIRC.

Jun 23, 2017#137

Denbrought

DarkAudit said:
Can the prosecution appeal sentences in Canada?

Wikipedia thinks so, at least.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. However, this prohibition applies only after an accused person has been "finally" convicted or acquitted. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal an acquittal: if the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy, as the verdict of the first trial would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy, either – in this case, the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show that an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict. It has been suggested that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, lawyer Martin Friedland, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just a factor.

A notable example of this is Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted in his second trial after the acquittal in his first trial was vacated by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the Guy Turcotte case, for instance, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned Turcotte's not criminally responsible verdict and ordered a second trial after it found that the judge committed an error in the first trial while giving instructions to the jury. Turcotte was later convicted of second-degree murder in the second trial.

Jun 23, 2017#138

Gruebeard

Covar said:
So ignorance is an excuse for the law in Canada? Sounds like some fun times could be had.

Where do you get that at all?

DarkAudit said:
Can the prosecution appeal sentences in Canada?

There's probably not much need, too.

The sentence doesn't seem wildly out of line with other cases. I'm not gonna go full @stienman here, but here's a pertinent set of statistics from a very reputable source

According to the linked police-court file, offenders convicted of spousal violence [38] were less likely than other convicted violent offenders to receive prison (19% versus 29%) (see figure 1). When examining specific offences, the difference in the probability of prison between spousal violence offenders and other violent offenders still exists but is smaller. For common assault, the most frequently occurring offence, 17% of convicted spouses received prison, compared to 21% of other violent offenders. The difference was similar for aggravated assault: 32% for family violence offenders and 36% for other violent offenders.

This guy, according to the Sun column, got 8 days in prison along with probation. That makes him one of those 17% mentioned at the end of my quote. And that was with pleading guilty (which often helps reduce a sentence). This guy's sentence makes it look to me like he was dealt with as though his crime was worse than average domestic assault, so I can't see how appealing the sentence is gonna be meaningful.

---------

Also, That Sun column that Kellie Leitch referred to was just using this case to attack our refugee policy.

And Kellie Leitch was using it to incite hate and fear in an assolish grab for popularity and votes. She can just fuck off.

Jun 23, 2017#139

strawman

Gruebeard said:
I'm not gonna go full @stienman here

I LIIIIIVE!

/blurry eyes

What's all this then?

/googles

Eh. I can't find any non biased news sources that provide the details of the case. All I've heard was "hockey stick", "blood", and "30 minutes", and most of the sources appear to be anti-refugee sites crowing over the idea that they were right all along and the country should WARBLGLARBLEADJFLSJA.

How long was she in surgery after the beating? How many broken bones? Any long term effects (brain damage, internal organ damage, etc)? Were there significant facial injuries that will result in permanent disfigurement? All of these will result in a heavier sentence. I mean, I know cases of bar room altercations lasting longer that resulted in both significant life-long injury and resulted in no jail time, and unfortunately (for those calling for more jail time) and fortunately (for those seeking some semblance of "justice") the details of the case do matter.

Can it be considered torture? That's a heavier sentence.

Is it his first offence? That's a lighter sentence.

Did she ask for leniency during trial (usually the biggest reasons family/spousal abusers get off more easily)?

Is there a situation where she cannot support herself and their family, and as the primary breadwinner it might be in the best interest of the family to force anger management, probation, and a host of other oversight (possible separation) until either he reforms or she finds a better living situation?

Is he considered a danger to society in general? Heavier sentence.

Does the event and his testimony suggest this is a one time and/or rare event? Lighter sentence.

I expect those are answered by the court transcript itself. Would be an interesting read... but I'm not going to spend time reading it. Maybe someone else can and then get back to us.

Or, you know, just WARBLGLARBLEADJFLSJA away, it's the in thing to do. (not directed to anyone in particular, more a response to the news stories)

Jun 27, 2017#140

@Li3n

I don't know what y'all are complaining about, he was clearly trying to assimilate to the local culture by using a hockey stick.

...

But seriously now, how is that an issue with immigration, as opposed to being one with your justice system?

Jun 27, 2017#141

Eriol

@Li3n said:
But seriously now, how is that an issue with immigration, as opposed to being one with your justice system?

Because why do we want people in this country MORE likely to act this way? A simple questionnaire with some simple questions about their values would be enough to filter this crap out.

1. Do you believe that men and women should be equal under the law?
2. Is physically disciplining your wife when they misbehave acceptable?
3. How old does a male relative have to be in order to escort a woman outside the home?
4. How should a woman be punished when she's brought dishonor on her family?
5. What should the penalty be for converting to another religion away from Islam?
6. How many years in prison should a person get for drawing or depicting the Prophet Muhammad?

You know, SIMPLE shit.

For reference, the correct answers:

1. Yes
2. No
3. Bullshit, isn't necessary
4. She shouldn't, that's bullshit.
5. None.
6. Zero.

Every one of those things are illegal/biased in virtually the entire muslim world, except 3, as that's more of a Saudi-specific thing. I'd be willing to bet this guy would answer "not correctly" on every one of those, with again, 3 maybe not, as that's Saudi. And then our (broken) justice system wouldn't have had to deal with anything!

Jun 27, 2017#142

DarkAudit

And for extra reinforcement, the family doesn't get to define "misbehave" or "dishonor". either.

@Eriol, it's what it says on the tin. The husband or brother or whoever can't decide what "misbehave" or "dishonor" means. You can't shove your wife down the stairs for having dinner on the table five minutes late, and then trot out the "misbehave" defense.

Jun 27, 2017#143

Eriol

DarkAudit said:
And for extra reinforcement, the family doesn't get to define "misbehave" or "dishonor". either.

@Eriol, it's what it says on the tin. The husband or brother or whoever can't decide what "misbehave" or "dishonor" means. You can't shove your wife down the stairs for having dinner on the table five minutes late, and then trot out the "misbehave" defense.

I more meant that the "direction" of your amendment wasn't clear. Are you intending that the family gets to define it, or that the state defines it? From your edit you seem to be saying that the state defines it, which I'm 100% good with, though even so, any cases of that still do not justify taking your "honor" (or whatever) into your own hands.

To put it to an extreme, if you find out your family member killed somebody else, you report them to the police, not "discipline" or kill them yourself because you feel it's justified because of "honor" reasons. That's even more my point, rather than defining either of those terms.

Jun 27, 2017#144

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Because why do we want people in this country MORE likely to act this way?

Yeah, why allow these people to go somewhere where they're actually punished for hurting others... they should just stay where they are, so we can safely ignore all the suffering.

Hell, why don't we just deport anyone that beats their spouse all together, that would solve the whole thing in your country. Oh wait, you can't do that because being born somewhere means you have more of a right to break the law there then somewhere else.

And the worst thing is that 50-60 years ago beating your wife was acceptable in the west (pretty sure some US states still have laws about how to do it "right"), and that wasn't changed by singling out the group with the highest rate of it happening and deporting them.

....

And are you seriously saying it's better not to deal with flaws in your justice system by just not having it used? (of course, without knowing what probation does, and what the recidivism rates are, can't even really tell if it's flawed)

Jun 27, 2017#145

DarkAudit

Eriol said:
I more meant that the "direction" of your amendment wasn't clear. Are you intending that the family gets to define it, or that the state defines it? From your edit you seem to be saying that the state defines it, which I'm 100% good with, though even so, any cases of that still do not justify taking your "honor" (or whatever) into your own hands.

To put it to an extreme, if you find out your family member killed somebody else, you report them to the police, not "discipline" or kill them yourself because you feel it's justified because of "honor" reasons. That's even more my point, rather than defining either of those terms.

Oh, yeah. 100% the state defines it. Or even defines it as not existing, so it's back to going up on assault or murder charges.

Jun 27, 2017#146

Eriol

@Li3n said:
Yeah, why allow these people to go somewhere where they're actually punished for hurting others... they should just stay where they are, so we can safely ignore all the suffering.

Hell, why don't we just deport anyone that beats their spouse all together, that would solve the whole thing in your country. Oh wait, you can't do that because being born somewhere means you have more of a right to break the law there then somewhere else.

Actually, we don't have to "allow" them to come into our country to break our laws. We'd actually like the people that come here to NOT break our laws. And ya, deporting foreign nationals who break our laws is a GOOD thing IMO. They shouldn't be a burden on our social systems. No country has an inherent responsibility to any outside their borders. The PEOPLE can decide to do so via international charities or whatnot, but the systems within? No, sorry, we actually don't have to take everybody from everywhere, and then sort them into our jails, or other places as appropriate. That's just more load on us.

@Li3n said:
And the worst thing is that 50-60 years ago beating your wife was acceptable in the west (pretty sure some US states still have laws about how to do it "right"), and that wasn't changed by singling out the group with the highest rate of it happening and deporting them.

Deal with what's in your own country appropriately, but nobody has a "right" to come into another country if they're not a citizen.

@Li3n said:
And are you seriously saying it's better not to deal with flaws in your justice system by just not having it used? (of course, without knowing what probation does, and what the recidivism rates are, can't even really tell if it's flawed)

Our justice system should only have to deal with those who are here already LEGALLY, and those whom we invite in legally. We shouldn't be inviting them in if we already know they're going to cause issues, and we shouldn't be inviting all-and-sundry in either. Not asking is just inviting the abuses (and abusers since that's the original topic).

Jun 27, 2017#147

TommiR

Eriol said:
Because why do we want people in this country MORE likely to act this way? A simple questionnaire with some simple questions about their values would be enough to filter this crap out.

1. Do you believe that men and women should be equal under the law?
2. Is physically disciplining your wife when they misbehave acceptable?
3. How old does a male relative have to be in order to escort a woman outside the home?
4. How should a woman be punished when she's brought dishonor on her family?
5. What should the penalty be for converting to another religion away from Islam?
6. How many years in prison should a person get for drawing or depicting the Prophet Muhammad?

You know, SIMPLE shit.

I think this presumes they would answer such questions honestly, instead of saying what friends/relatives/human traffickers have coached them to say.

I'm a bit sceptical of the success of such a questionnaire. In recent times, Europe has experienced a substantial influx of asylum seekers, as I'm sure you are all aware of. I am uncertain if a policy of taking what the asylum seekers have to say at face value would produce anything approaching desirable results.

Jun 27, 2017#148

Eriol

TommiR said:
I think this presumes they would answer such questions honestly, instead of saying what friends/relatives/human traffickers have coached them to say.

I'm a bit sceptical of the success of such a questionnaire. In recent times, Europe has experienced a substantial influx of asylum seekers, as I'm sure you are all aware of. I am uncertain if a policy of taking what the asylum seekers have to say at face value would produce anything approaching desirable results.

1. Doing nothing = assured failure
2. Doing ANYTHING = possibility of success.

We're currently doing #1 right now. Doing #2 might work, at least somewhat. And yes, I know what pun I'm making.

Jun 27, 2017#149

GasBandit

Eriol said:
1. Doing nothing = assured failure
2. Doing ANYTHING = possibility of success.

While I'm sympathetic to your position, I want to point out that this logic is what got the US billions in toxic "quantitative easing" and a Patriot Act.

Jun 27, 2017#150

Eriol

GasBandit said:
While I'm sympathetic to your position, I want to point out that this logic is what got the US billions in toxic "quantitative easing" and a Patriot Act.

Fair enough. Slam the door if you're doing nothing. If opening the door somewhat (which I support), also do something.

Jun 27, 2017#151

Bubble181

If you really think any Western country is currently "doing nothing", you're willfully ignorant.
There are plenty of hurdles on the way either for immigrants or refugees, asylum seekers and war victims. Are we doing enough? Are we doing the right things? Are things turning out OK? That's all another matter; but saying we - in any version of "us" - is just letting anyone in, is just plain false.

Jun 27, 2017#152

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
If you really think any Western country is currently "doing nothing", you're willfully ignorant.
There are plenty of hurdles on the way either for immigrants or refugees, asylum seekers and war victims. Are we doing enough? Are we doing the right things? Are things turning out OK? That's all another matter; but saying we - in any version of "us" - is just letting anyone in, is just plain false.

Given the extremely low standard I set above that's obviously not being met, it's the next best thing to "nothing" being done.

Jun 29, 2017#153

Eriol

Fraser institute releases study on Canadians going abroad (read: USA) for health care: Big jump in number of people seeking medical care outside Canada: Study

From the article (not the original study, which I also linked above)

According to Fraser Institute's yearly measurement of wait times, people waited an average of 10.6 weeks to see a specialist for treatment, which is four weeks longer than what physicians deemed reasonable.

*snip*

Otolaryngologists – ear, nose and throat specialists – have the reportedly highest number of patients that traveled abroad for treatments at 2.1% while neurosurgeons followed at 1.9%.

Medically necessary stuff, 1 in 50 (at most, less for other things) going across the border rather than wait, often in BAD pain (I've had neurological stuff... nerve pain SUCKS ASS).

This does NOT surprise me, but any move to change ANYTHING major about the system is accused of being the USA (we don't want that either). Thus, we'll keep pouring money into the pit while little changes.

Jun 29, 2017#154

Eriol

I think this video sums up the ideas of the Liberal Party of Canada very well:

Jul 5, 2017#155

Eriol

So this is a thing: 'It's totally disgraceful': Military families condemn Ottawa's plan to pay Omar Khadr millions

“When a Canadian soldier is injured in battle, the government provides a disability award up to a maximum of $360,000,” Calgary MP Michelle Rempel said in a tweet. “Despite this, the current government is willing to provide $10 million to a convicted terrorist.”

That article gives a fairly good summary of the entire thing up to those point as well.

Also, the family of the US soldier that he killed and the survivor of the same attack (who lost an eye, at least) are suing to get any damages paid out to them, not Khadr. Story related to that: U.S. application filed to secure any cash for Khadr

The lawyer for the widow of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan said Tuesday they have filed an application so that any money paid by the Canadian government to a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner convicted of killing him will go toward the widow and another U.S. soldier injured.

So ya, that's happening. Thoughts?

Jul 5, 2017#156

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Actually, we don't have to "allow" them to come into our country to break our laws. We'd actually like the people that come here to NOT break our laws. And ya, deporting foreign nationals who break our laws is a GOOD thing IMO. They shouldn't be a burden on our social systems. No country has an inherent responsibility to any outside their borders. The PEOPLE can decide to do so via international charities or whatnot, but the systems within? No, sorry, we actually don't have to take everybody from everywhere, and then sort them into our jails, or other places as appropriate. That's just more load on us.

Deal with what's in your own country appropriately, but nobody has a "right" to come into another country if they're not a citizen.

Well, unless it's the 18th century, and those people are too savage to count.

But lets play: jews fleeing from Germany in 1938... throw them back because they're not citizens, and those are the rules we decided on, right.

Eriol said:
Our justice system should only have to deal with those who are here already LEGALLY, and those whom we invite in legally. We shouldn't be inviting them in if we already know they're going to cause issues, and we shouldn't be inviting all-and-sundry in either. Not asking is just inviting the abuses (and abusers since that's the original topic).

"Some might be bad, don't let any of them in."

Also, wasn't he there legally anyway?

Eriol said:
So ya, that's happening. Thoughts?

The families should sue him personally, in civil court, and not try to get the money right from the state.

Human rights violations shouldn't be excused just because someone is guilty. They knew that in 1776, that's why "cruel and unusual punishment" was a thing.

Jul 5, 2017#157

Eriol

@Li3n said:
Well, unless it's the 18th century, and those people are too savage to count.

But lets play: jews fleeing from Germany in 1938... throw them back because they're not citizens, and those are the rules we decided on, right.

That the standard was bad previously does not mean "then we should have no rules because rules sometimes result in bad." Under that idea, all laws against everything are bad, as they can be abused. I'm advocating reforming the existing laws.

@Li3n said:
"Some might be bad, don't let any of them in."

Also, wasn't he there legally anyway?

I think I was pretty clear on advocating that the rules change. He was here legally, but there should have been more checks before he was let in. Let's change the laws so individuals such as him aren't let in again.

@Li3n said:
The families should sue him personally, in civil court, and not try to get the money right from the state.

Human rights violations shouldn't be excused just because someone is guilty. They knew that in 1776, that's why "cruel and unusual punishment" was a thing.

They DID sue him personally in the USA, and were awarded $130M or so. That's in the article I linked above about how that all happened. Did you read it or just my excerpt? Here's another excerpt that answers your question:

The widow of Speer and Morris filed a wrongful death and injury lawsuit against Khadr in 2014 fearing Khadr might get his hands on money from his $20 million wrongful imprisonment lawsuit. A U.S. judge granted $134.2 million in damages in 2015.

Please read the entire article for context. Here's the link again: U.S. application filed to secure any cash for Khadr

Jul 6, 2017#158

@Li3n

Eriol said:
That the standard was bad previously does not mean "then we should have no rules because rules sometimes result in bad." Under that idea, all laws against everything are bad, as they can be abused. I'm advocating reforming the existing laws.

Eriol said:
I think I was pretty clear on advocating that the rules change. He was here legally, but there should have been more checks before he was let in. Let's change the laws so individuals such as him aren't let in again.

Based on the reasoning for why he got such a light sentence, what should be changed is how you inform them of the difference in local laws.

Eriol said:
They DID sue him personally in the USA, and were awarded $130M or so. That's in the article I linked above about how that all happened. Did you read it or just my excerpt? Here's another excerpt that answers your question:

Please read the entire article for context. Here's the link again: U.S. application filed to secure any cash for Khadr

I skimmed it.

But i was talking about suing him in Canada, instead of suing the state, and i saw nothing about it when i skimmed. Guess i passed over the US stuff completely.

Trying to stop someone from getting compensation for a crime committed against them because they in turn committed another crime (even if it's kind of funny seeing 2nd amendment loving people argue that killing military personnel in a war zone while being engaged in armed rebellion - no matter how wrong the reasons - counts as wrongful death) just sets a bad precedent. I mean what if the government was suing him so they can just get the money back?

If they feel the US trial isn't enough, just do the same in Canada.

Jul 6, 2017#159

Eriol

@Li3n said:
Trying to stop someone from getting compensation for a crime committed against them because they in turn committed another crime (even if it's kind of funny seeing 2nd amendment loving people argue that killing military personnel in a war zone while being engaged in armed rebellion - no matter how wrong the reasons - counts as wrongful death) just sets a bad precedent. I mean what if the government was suing him so they can just get the money back?

Part of the difference here is he wasn't a soldier in an army in a rebellion. Terrorists usually fall into a "they're more like spies" category as they're not in uniform, and thus they don't have the same rights as soldiers in a war, even a civil war. You'd be surprised how important that is for protecting the rights of the soldier, but most terrorism groups don't put their people in a uniform. Add to that the fact that Afghanistan wasn't where he was from at all (he was born in Toronto, Canada) and it gets a whole lot muddier as to the idea of being in a "rebellion" if you travel to be there.

Regardless, this video sums up a LOT of the issues very clearly:

Yes it's from a really right-wing site. It's still extremely clear on the facts about the issue, and how under the UN, he didn't even qualify as a child soldier. Apparently 15 is "discouraged" but not classified the same by the UN as if he were under that, which I didn't know prior to watching that.

Jul 20, 2017#160

Eriol

So lots about Julie Payette being the next Governor General for Canada. Former Astronaut, Engineer, etc. All good stuff.

And now some not so great stuff: in 2011 she was charged with 2nd degree assault for beating up her husband.

The alleged offence for which she was charged took place on November 24, 2011 in Piney Point, Maryland, where Payette was living with her then-husband, retired RCAF pilot William “Billie” Flynn. According to a source, Flynn was the victim of the alleged assault, but that has not been confirmed.

Payette and Flynn split shortly after the November 2011 incident

Somebody over at CBC thought this also shows a double-standard on the part of the Prime Minister: Trudeau's silence on Payette's expunged assault charge shows double standard: Robyn Urback

If we take Payette at her word that the 2011 charge was "unfounded," then it should constitute a mere line or two in her biography, and certainly not disqualify her from her soon-to-be-assumed role. The charge was laid, quickly dropped and subsequently expunged, according to reports.

What makes the story exceptional, however, is the prime minister's reluctance to address the report with anything beyond a cursory "no comment." Indeed, when pressed by iPolitics, Kate Purchase, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's director of communications, said simply: "We've got no comment on this."

...

"Let's all cast our minds back to Trudeau's delivery of swift justice against two former Liberal MPs accused of pressing unwelcome advances against two female New Democrat MPs."

...

In the case of those two former Liberal MPs — Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti — there were no actual charges leveled against them when the news broke back in November 2014. In fact, the internal investigation of the matter came only after Trudeau announced that the pair would be suspended from caucus because of "allegations of serious misconduct."

At the time, the MPs hadn't even been informed of the specific allegations against them. Nevertheless, Trudeau stood before cameras to declare that he would "give the benefit of the doubt to those who come forward."

...

It's not a perfect comparison, but the difference in approach is striking: a couple of men were treated as guilty before we knew the facts, and Trudeau jumped in front of the microphone at seemingly the first available opportunity. But now, with a woman at the centre of the controversy, he's totally mum. It's all the more bizarre considering that, in the eyes of the law, Payette's case is settled.

It's not far-fetched to think that if it was discovered that a male governor general had an assault charge in his past, Trudeau would seize the opportunity to evangelize about male aggression and domestic violence. Then again, I don't think Trudeau would appoint a male governor general with a past assault charge — even one that had been dropped and expunged — in the first place.

Payette's past shouldn't disqualify her from the role of governor general, but it shouldn't be ignored by the prime minister, either. Trudeau was eager to get his comments in before; he hardly has a good reason for staying quiet now.

Does anybody really believe that a male GG candidate would be in with such a charge hanging over them? For all the talk about believing the victims first, his actions don't seem to jive with that when a man's the victim.

Jul 26, 2017#161

Eriol

This is interestingly inflammatory: The MMIW is stuck in a politically correct limbo

The main points in this article that are likely to "trigger" some people are the following (directly from the article, bold is mine though) :

The explanation for all this dysfunctionality may be that the MMIW seems to have a preconceived notion of what it wants to find – that white racism is the cause of most cases of murdered and disappeared indigenous women and girls. Yet it cannot reconcile that pre-made conclusion with the truth.

The truth is most First Nations women who suffer violence and sexual violence are victims of spouses, partners, ex-husbands, boyfriends, neighbours, relatives, or criminal accomplices.

And the majority of those abusers are indigenous men.

It was puzzling last summer when the Liberal government released a list of goals for the MMIW. Not on the list was an examination of just who was murdering all of these indigenous women and why.

...

Indigenous men are even more likely to be victims of violence than indigenous women. So indigenous women aren’t more victimized and more ignored.

Furthermore, the rate at which crimes are solved and prosecuted is the same for crimes against missing and murdered indigenous women as it is for similar crimes against non-indigenous women. The “clearance rate” is about 90 per cent for both.

In other words, there is no systemic bias or blindness that ignores the plight of female indigenous victims.

True? Definitely not stated in a "PC" fashion, but where's the truth here?

The part that "got" me here is the clear rate. From what the media has said about the issue, you'd think that when they disappeared they were ignored, but if the clear rate is functionally identical, then it gets into causes, and if the commission isn't supposed to find causes... then what's the f'n point?

Jul 26, 2017#162

Eriol

Alberta-specific:

She basically destroys the idea that the Alberta Conservative unity news is anything but overwhelming support.

I also thought it was interesting that only one other reporter was there the whole day (whom she gave credit to), but most outlets only showed up an hour or two before the announcement.

Aug 2, 2017#163

Eriol

Let the Warkentin family stay

I agree with the columnist. Let them stay.

Aug 10, 2017#164

Eriol

Brad Wall announces he'll retire as soon as the party elects a new leader: 'Thank you Saskatchewan': Premier Brad Wall announces retirement
He's the longest-serving Premier right now, by a decent margin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Canadian_first_ministers

Lived in Saskatchewan for 2 years, so I keep an eye on things like this.

Aug 10, 2017#165

@Li3n

Eriol said:
Part of the difference here is he wasn't a soldier in an army in a rebellion.

Heh, soldier in an army... coz rebellions are famous for being so well organized. Maybe if your only example os the recent "rebellion" in Ukraine.

Aug 24, 2017#166

Eriol

This out today - Canadians spending more on taxes than household necessities: Taxes versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition

The average Canadian family now spends more of its income on taxes (42.5%) than it does on basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing combined (37.4%). By comparison, 33.5% of the average family’s income went to pay taxes in 1961 while 56.5% went to basic necessities.

Not exactly a surprise here.

Aug 24, 2017#167

Bubble181

Eh, come back when you're over 50% and we'll start comparing properly. Pussies

(Belgium's tax base has been steadily lowering with our current right-wing government, and is now down from an average 54% to a measly 51.9%. Since I'm single without kids, I'm still in the highest bracket with income taxes of about 56%, so a total tax rate of about 75% if you include VAT, local taxes and social security).

Aug 24, 2017#168

Frank

Eriol said:
This out today - Canadians spending more on taxes than household necessities: Taxes versus the Necessities of Life: The Canadian Consumer Tax Index, 2017 Edition

Not exactly a surprise here.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3691159/c...utm_source=GlobalEdmonton&utm_medium=Facebook

Still, Canadians are paying a relatively lower tax bill today than they were between the late 1990s and the financial crisis, the data suggests.

Canadians spend more on taxes than they did in the early 1960s. But they spend a lot less on basic necessities than they did then.

Seems like we're winning.

Aug 24, 2017#169

Eriol

Frank, those data points aren't equally spaced for equal time.

And more importantly, the "size of the gap on the graph" will always increase even if the rate is constant, and the rate would have to INCREASE for the "dollar amount gap" to stay consistent. What I mean is, if you're at $10,000 per year with a 50% tax rate, there will be a $5000 gap on the graph. But then if income is $100,000 per year with a 50% tax rate, the gap will be $50,000, and thus LOOK a lot bigger. You're not any different, but the graph looks like it's diverging like you have more money, when actually the tax man is keeping up just fine.

Hence why comparing percentages is much more useful. The percentage of income taxed has gone up since then. The graph you are citing is a smokescreen.

Aug 24, 2017#170

Gruebeard

Given our increased socialism over that time, it's certain that the cost of some necessities has been folded into our tax bill, so a direct comparison like that bit @Eriol quoted can't be very helpful.

Although I notice something that seems to truly point to us winning, as @Frank say. If you add those numbers together, our combined tax/necessity bill comes to ~80% of our current income, while back in 1961 it came to ~90%.

It looks like we've got double the disposable income available.

Aug 24, 2017#171

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Given our increased socialism over that time, it's certain that the cost of some necessities has been folded into our tax bill, so a direct comparison like that bit @Eriol quoted can't be very helpful.

Another way to say it though is that taxes went up by 26.9% (33.5% -> 42.5%, not the same as a 9% increase!) over that period. Did we get 25% more services? Is the government doing a 25% better job? Are the lives of Canadians as a whole (economics, happiness, etc) 25% better through that investment? That's a HUGE judgement call.

Gruebeard said:
Although I notice something that seems to truly point to us winning, as @Frank say. If you add those numbers together, our combined tax/necessity bill comes to ~80% of our current income, while back in 1961 it came to ~90%.

It looks like we've got double the disposable income available.

And the REAL cynical way of looking at those numbers is to say if we had NOT had the tax increases, we'd have TRIPLE the disposable income, since the combined bill would be ~70%, and thus it could be better for disposable income if not for government in that time.

But as I said above, HUGE judgement calls are involved here too.

Aug 25, 2017#172

Eriol

Remember kids, EVERYTHING is offensive: Everything is offensive: Here are Canada’s other politically incorrect place names

I'm amazed that the name of our country itself isn't on that list, but hey.

Aug 25, 2017#173

Adam

Eriol said:
Another way to say it though is that taxes went up by 26.9% (33.5% -> 42.5%, not the same as a 9% increase!) over that period. Did we get 25% more services? Is the government doing a 25% better job? Are the lives of Canadians as a whole (economics, happiness, etc) 25% better through that investment? That's a HUGE judgement call.

No, you can't say that taxes went up 26.9% as your tax liability is already based on percentage of your income. You're double dipping on percentages which is fundamental deceitful math. So the question is "Have you received 9% more services between 1961 and 2017?" recognizing that since 1961:

- Universal healthcare was rolled out to all provinces as a 50/50 split federal/provincial in 1961.
- Canada Pension Plan introduced in 1965.
- Maternity and Sickness benefits in the EI program in 1971

Frankly, any one of those is worth 9%.

Aug 30, 2017#174

Eriol

Adam said:
No, you can't say that taxes went up 26.9% as your tax liability is already based on percentage of your income. You're double dipping on percentages which is fundamental deceitful math.

No, your way is the deceitful math. If your taxes go from $10 to $20 on $100 of income (10% to 20%), they doubled, they did NOT go up 10%.

Anyways, our esteemed Prime Minister's favorite terrorist wants to meet with his "harmless" sister unsupervised: Khadr’s sister’s less than liberal online post a telling sign

Zaynab Khadr sure has a sense of timing.

It was on Monday that Canadians were reading about her brother Omar’s request to have his bail conditions changed so he could have unrestricted access to hang with his big sis.

And it was on Monday that Zaynab took to Facebook to share this stern edict towards members of the ummah:

“All sects of Islam have agreed unanimously that homosexual acts are a sin, hijab is mandatory, imams must be men,” says a post she shared on her page Monday that was sourced by Postmedia.

“If you reject this, you are lying to yourself and you are weak in faith. Accept Islam for what it is or leave our mosques.”

Or... not? Maybe his whole family is pretty fucked up? For once the bail people got it right putting that condition on him.

Aug 30, 2017#175

Denbrought

Eriol said:
Or... not? Maybe his whole family is pretty fucked up? For once the bail people got it right putting that condition on him.

Probably because I've been surrounded by Americans for far too long, but that does not seem fucked up at all. Fairly in line with what a lot of the Christian denominations around me preach, minus the hijab. Also worth noting that "leave our [place of worship]" is a valid way to frame religious disagreements (as opposed to what my "fucked up Islamist" mental model would've said about disagreeing with them, and the punishment for apostasy).

Aug 30, 2017#176

Eriol

Denbrought said:
Probably because I've been surrounded by Americans for far too long, but that does not seem fucked up at all. Fairly in line with what a lot of the Christian denominations around me preach, minus the hijab. Also worth noting that "leave our [place of worship]" is a valid way to frame religious disagreements (as opposed to what my "fucked up Islamist" mental model would've said about disagreeing with them, and the punishment for apostasy).

You could be right, but the sister's statement could easily be a euphemism that is "the only way to leave Islam is by dying" and thus they ARE calling for it. But that's VERY open to interpretation, so I'm hardly going to "die on that hill" to say she was stating that for sure. It could be the much more tame "if you're not in the mosque, you're going to hell, so all who don't believe this go to hell" which isn't that extreme a statement at all. Her original statements are VERY conservative Islam, but that's not as problematic as calling for the deaths of apostates. She's probably done that too (given her past associations, it's fairly likely), but that isn't in this quote.

Aug 30, 2017#177

PatrThom

Eriol said:
If your taxes go from $10 to $20 on $100 of income (10% to 20%), they doubled, they did NOT go up 10%.

For the record, I despise this stuff no matter where it happens. Whether it be taxes, calories, "savings," whatever.

--Patrick

Aug 30, 2017#178

drifter

Eriol said:
No, your way is the deceitful math. If your taxes go from $10 to $20 on $100 of income (10% to 20%), they doubled, they did NOT go up 10%.

Depends on how it's phrased, really. "Went up" isn't quite the same as "Went up by" IMO. Like, if there was a sales tax increase from 5% to 7.5%, I'd either say taxes went up 50% or the tax went up by 2.5%. Although in the latter case I'd probably say 2.5 percentage points to clarify.

Aug 30, 2017#179

PatrThom

drifter said:
Depends on how it's phrased, really. "Went up" isn't quite the same as "Went up by" IMO.

Oh, but it is (or at least is usually interpreted as such), unless you clarify like you do at the end. And people sneak this crap in all the time, knowing it'll sail by mostly unnoticed.
And then there are those people who just do it completely wrong: "Payments increased 25% from $75 to $100" no, they increased 33%, not 25%.

--Patrick

Aug 30, 2017#180

drifter

Depends on context, to me. I think people just think about and express percentages differently, whcih is where confusion can arise. Although I don't doubt some people do it intentionally, I wouldn't assume deceit right off the bat (again, depending on context).

Aug 30, 2017#181

Eriol

drifter said:
Depends on context, to me. I think people just think about and express percentages differently, whcih is where confusion can arise. Although I don't doubt some people do it intentionally, I wouldn't assume deceit right off the bat (again, depending on context).

If a politician is announcing a tax increase it will always be in the smallest number possible.

If a politician is announcing a tax decrease it will always be in the largest number possible.

Aug 30, 2017#182

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
You could be right, but the sister's statement could easily be a euphemism that is "the only way to leave Islam is by dying" and thus they ARE calling for it. But that's VERY open to interpretation, so I'm hardly going to "die on that hill" to say she was stating that for sure. It could be the much more tame "if you're not in the mosque, you're going to hell, so all who don't believe this go to hell" which isn't that extreme a statement at all. Her original statements are VERY conservative Islam, but that's not as problematic as calling for the deaths of apostates. She's probably done that too (given her past associations, it's fairly likely), but that isn't in this quote.

As I read this I had the silly thought that @Dave ought to get himself sent to Guantanamo. He would, eventually, make millions. Win.

But more importantly, he would be barred from seeing his brother. Big Win!

Sep 5, 2017#183

Eriol

I'm horrified that the article this one is writing about is written for a website that has my hometown in its name: Female genital mutilation defended in article on ‘Muslims in Calgary’ website

That link is NOT to the offending article, but an article reporting about it. According to the reporting, the author is in Sri Lanka, so it's not even local (thankfully).

Horrific. We don't want that kind of thing in Canada, or anywhere else. Hell, even WHO has condemned it, and enough of you know my opinion on the UN! (WHO is almost always pretty good, one of the redeeming features of that organization IMO, though I'd rather support MSF directly most of the time)

Sep 13, 2017#184

Eriol

This article on pot legalization is only so-so, but is hilarious if you only read the first 3 and the last 4 paragraphs IMO: The feds have left the tough calls on weed to the provinces

Sep 13, 2017#185

Bubble181

Eriol said:
This article on pot legalization is only so-so, but is hilarious if you only read the first 3 and the last 4 paragraphs IMO: The feds have left the tough calls on weed to the provinces

Since I'm not a Sun subscriber, I only see 7 paragraphs. Huh?

Sep 13, 2017#186

Eriol

Bubble181 said:
Since I'm not a Sun subscriber, I only see 7 paragraphs. Huh?

Maybe it's doing geo-restriction, given where you are. It usually gives you 10 "free" before it restricts you. Try private browsing? I'll quote what I mean though in case it doesn't work:

When I was in university, two of the dumbest guys I knew had a thriving pot business.

They grew their plants behind a pair of bushes under their rez room window and conducted sales from a corner at the pizza place down the street.

Selling weed is neither complicated nor particularly difficult. But just watch how cumbersome and bureaucratic it becomes after governments try to take over “bud” retailing next July.

... (other stuff about how stupid Ontario's plan is according to the author) ...

Alberta’s private liquor store lobby has a better plan. Let the province’s 1,400 private liquor stores sell weed, too. Their staff already have training at keeping controlled substances out of the hands of minors and their retail network is already spread out in every community.

They go one step too far. The liquor store owners offer to set up separate-entranced marijuana outlets so weed isn’t sold next to liquor.

I fail to see the need to keep the two vices separate – as though that would somehow cut down on the abuse of one or the other.

But the Alberta proposal at least meets the customer halfway along the spectrum of legality versus convenience, so has some chance of beating two dumb guys with a plant.

Sep 13, 2017#187

Frank

One of the MLAs here wants to have liquor stores be the sole purveyor of cigarettes too, and to get them out of convenience stores.

Sep 13, 2017#188

Eriol

Frank said:
One of the MLAs here wants to have liquor stores be the sole purveyor of cigarettes too, and to get them out of convenience stores.

Interesting idea. One stop, all "sins"? Makes for an interesting thought experiment for if/when prostitution is legalized...

Btw, have a link on that Frank? I'm curious to read more.

Sep 13, 2017#189

Dei

In the US, since weed is still technical illegal on a federal level, it is a cash only sale, no banks will touch that money, and even recreational and medicinal sales are kept in separate areas from each other to keep money going where it belongs. But since communities within states can decide for themselves whether or not weed sales are allowed, and I live in a fairly conservative part of the state despite being 30 minutes from both Denver and Boulder, I have seen a lot of pissing contests about how it should be handled. We have the tiniest of our three town area having 3 medicinal shops, but no rec shops, while the other two towns won't allow it at all. We have the city between us and Boulder not allowing weed sales, but mostly because they are trying too hard to not be Boulder.

But really, I guess what I'm saying is, it's not any more of a clusterfuck in Canada than it is anywhere else, but at least you guys have the feds on your side.

Sep 13, 2017#190

Frank

Eriol said:
Interesting idea. One stop, all "sins"? Makes for an interesting thought experiment for if/when prostitution is legalized...

Btw, have a link on that Frank? I'm curious to read more.

My bad, I was reading up on the marijuana thing from different sources and read an article from 10 years ago. I don't think his idea went anywhere obviously.

Sep 14, 2017#191

Eriol

Sad News: Liberal MP Arnold Chan dies after battle with cancer

I don't know anything about this particular MP beyond what I read in the article, but it would suck to lose your sitting MP. My thoughts in particular though go out to his wife and kids. Dying at 50 is far too early.

If we have any members from Scarborough-Agincourt (his riding) please voice your thoughts.

Sep 20, 2017#192

Frank

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ng-clocks-rachel-notley-thomas-dang-1.4296920

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH, just do it already.

Sep 20, 2017#193

Eriol

Frank said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ng-clocks-rachel-notley-thomas-dang-1.4296920

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH, just do it already.

I'm in a minority on this one. IMO change Alberta (and most other places) to be on the timezone closest to Solar Time (ie: Noon is when the sun is DIRECTLY south), and then ditch all the savings, etc, crap. There is variance from Solar Time, but with some MINOR political exceptions (Canada is good for this, provinces are MOSTLY pretty contained east/west) most places are at most 30 minutes off of what noon ACTUALLY means.

FYI for Alberta: You'd be in Pacific Time, or possibly even -8, as Alberta is just about down the center of a division there. Mountain is right out.

People don't like how the sun is bright at 4am or setting at 4pm? Then change your workday. 9-5 is just... who the hell came up with that anyways? When most didn't live in the cities, you worked when the sun came up. Honestly, just changing around when we do stuff so that it's STILL in accord with the sun is the whole reason for this kerfuffle. The numbers mis-match, so we're changing timezones, rather than actually just change the numbers we function on. Get to work at 7, leave at 3, rather than 9-5. Same amount of the day at work, same amount of sun, Noon is no longer lunchtime. Big whoop.

As I said, I'm in minority on this belief, but hey. Everybody has to have some kind of "It'll likely never happen, but I'd like it to be that way" issue. This is my harmless one.

Bonus: Here's a nice interactive timezone map where you can see how fucked up your timezone is in relation to where you actually live. Realize that in many/most cases for people on the board, it's in Daylight time right now, so it's an hour worse than it actually is compared to solar time.

Sep 20, 2017#194

Frank

I honestly don't care what fucking timezone we're put into or how they decide our time works, just do away with spring forward and fall back. Just set one time and be done with it.

Sep 20, 2017#195

Gruebeard

Frank said:
I honestly don't care what fucking timezone we're put into or how they decide our time works, just do away with spring forward and fall back. Just set one time and be done with it.

I want to stay on Daylight Saving time. It gets dark too early at night on Standard time.

Sep 20, 2017#196

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
I want to stay on Daylight Saving time. It gets dark too early at night on Standard time.

Try "Midnight" being "The Middle of the Night" Hence my mini-rant above.

How we got on the 9-5 bullshit I'd really like to know. It feels like a bet from the 1800s that got out of hand or something.

Sep 20, 2017#197

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Try "Midnight" being "The Middle of the Night" Hence my mini-rant above.

How we got on the 9-5 bullshit I'd really like to know. It feels like a bet from the 1800s that got out of hand or something.

Blame Canada.

Mr Fleming, specifically.

Sep 20, 2017#198

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
Blame Canada.

Mr Fleming, specifically.

Maybe. Still think it's whomever brought in 9-5. Fleming just didn't FIX it.

Sep 20, 2017#199

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Maybe. Still think it's whomever brought in 9-5. Fleming just didn't FIX it.

Well then blame Sam Slater.

Sep 25, 2017#200

Eriol

Your Name is No Longer Valid

B.C.-specific. Apparently hyphenated names are being rejected. An interesting section from the middle of the article:

Therriault-Finke, 45, of Rossland, B.C., went to renew her driver's licence and was told her name was no longer considered valid. Her hyphenated name has been her surname since she got married almost two decades ago in Ontario.

The majority of provincial and federal government agencies in Canada will accept a marriage certificate as proof of your name.

The Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) stopped doing that in April 2016.

Therriault-Finke was given three choices. "I could go back to my maiden name. I could take my husband's name or I could go through the process of getting a legal name change."

Oct 5, 2017#201

Eriol

Our PM apparently doesn't think that Jews are worth mentioning when commemorating the Holocaust: Trudeau erases Jews from the Holocaust, again
This is twice now, as he points out in the article.

Oct 5, 2017#202

blotsfan

They're really blaming his support for Muslims for this? I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on Canadian politics, or that things are the same up there, but over here, if and when people start killing Jews, I can promise it won't be the Muslims doing it.

Oct 5, 2017#203

Eriol

blotsfan said:
They're really blaming his support for Muslims for this? I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on Canadian politics, or that things are the same up there, but over here, if and when people start killing Jews, I can promise it won't be the Muslims doing it.

Just like it was SURELY going to be right-wing people (extremists, whatever) and not Muslims who are going to start killing gays, and other groups right-wingers are claimed to want to destroy? Oh wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

Given that a number of countries in the middle east that are Muslim-ruled actively deny that the Holocaust even HAPPENED (some even claim the nazis were associated/funded by Zionists and/or proto-Israel). You're saying it's not reasonable to think that the lobby of similarly-minded folks (who in some cases fund them, like anything funding the Palestinian Authority) isn't also going to follow the same trend?

Oct 5, 2017#204

blotsfan

Do...do you not think right wingers kill gay people in America? The only reason the Orlando killer is more prominent than most is body count, not intent.

Also, while antisemitism in the middle east is clearly a big problem, so much of that (obviously not all) is because of the conflation of Jews and Israel, the latter of which certainly doesn't have its hands clean either.

Oct 5, 2017#205

Eriol

blotsfan said:
Also, while antisemitism in the middle east is clearly a big problem, so much of that (obviously not all) is because of the conflation of Jews and Israel, the latter of which certainly doesn't have its hands clean either.

If you think that's the problem, you need to read more:
http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48883732.html

The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Moslems make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'Oh Moslem, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'

(That's from 2001, and a Hadith too)

For a less biased perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism

Israel being a country there is the excuse but not the actual cause. For most (some? majority? minority? who knows?) there it's a war against all jews and Israel is just the most convenient first source of such.

As long as you cling to the fallacy of "If Israel wasn't there, there would be hardly any antisemitism in the middle east and/or Islam" you aren't reflecting the reality there.

Oct 5, 2017#206

Gruebeard

blotsfan said:
Do...do you not think right wingers kill gay people in America?

Dude. Did you just let him redefine what you said?

blotsfan said:
They're really blaming his support for Muslims for this? I'm not gonna say I'm an expert on Canadian politics, or that things are the same up there, but over here, if and when people start killing Jews, I can promise it won't be the Muslims doing it.

That looks like you were saying racist whites. There's no mention of left/right.

Oct 5, 2017#207

blotsfan

Gruebeard said:
That looks like you were saying racist whites. There's no mention of left/right.

I mean, its not at all unreasonable to draw the conclusion of right wing from racist whites. The latter is almost completely a subset of the former.

But the point of this isn't Israel or middle eastern countries. He's trying to say that as countries get more muslims, they'll be more anti-semetic. I'm saying (in America at least) the muslims are not the people that are gonna start going after Jews. Don't use bullshit concerns about antisemetism as a means to bash Islam.

Unless things are so totally different in Canada that this is completely irrelevant. Somehow, I don't think it is.

Oct 5, 2017#208

Gruebeard

blotsfan said:
Unless things are so totally different in Canada that this is completely irrelevant. Somehow, I don't think it is.

No, it's not. Our Muslim terrorists seems to be attacking the country in general, whether it's running over a cop and a crowd of football fans, or storming the Parliament.

Meanwhile, as Eriol pointed out, our Prime Minister is a frothing anti semite

Oct 5, 2017#209

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
No, it's not. Our Muslim terrorists seems to be attacking the country in general, whether it's running over a cop and a crowd of football fans, or storming the Parliament.

Links on those btw @blotsfan, as @Gruebeard isn't exaggerating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Edmonton_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa

Figured Wikipedia would be best to at least minimize bias.

Oct 6, 2017#210

Gruebeard

But we've also had a white guy shooting up a mosque, and another murdered a classroom full of women while another kipnapped and killed a score of women over several years.

Muslims are not our enemy. Hateful assholes are.

Oct 11, 2017#211

Eriol

For some reason, our national government thinks it's a GOOD idea to tax employee discounts as taxable benefits: Revenue Canada to tax employee discounts but Ottawa says it's not 'targeting' retail workers

WTF? Taxing somebody at McDonalds for getting an employee discount on their lunch? Or 1000s of other things. This isn't even a tax on the "questionably" (IMO) wealthy small business owners, this is going to impact the working poor the MOST.

Just yikes.

Oct 11, 2017#212

blotsfan

That is one of the dumber things I've ever heard.

Oct 11, 2017#213

strawman

Eriol said:
For some reason, our national government thinks it's a GOOD idea to tax employee discounts as taxable benefits: Revenue Canada to tax employee discounts but Ottawa says it's not 'targeting' retail workers

WTF? Taxing somebody at McDonalds for getting an employee discount on their lunch? Or 1000s of other things. This isn't even a tax on the "questionably" (IMO) wealthy small business owners, this is going to impact the working poor the MOST.

Just yikes.

So here's how this works, presented as a hypothetical:

I take a $1/year salary at my job. My business happens to provide office and residential space in a downtown building. As part of my benefits I receive a 100% discount on a penthouse suite as my employee discount. So I'm not only not paying thousands of dollars a month in rental fees, but I'm also not paying taxes on that money. Now it may happen that the business only rents one unit, that it essentially subleases from another company, and the business isn't generally in the rental market but has the majority of its revenue from completely unrelated lines of business, but legally that's just one line of business it can do, and providing free housing to the CEO just happens to be a benefit that neither the company nor the CEO have to pay taxes on.

Even small discounts add up, though. If an employee works 3 days a week, gets a free $10 meal each day, then that's $1,500 of income a year, untaxed. Multiply that times the 422,000 workers in the fast food industry in canada and the government is potentially not taxing 600 million dollars of income a year.

So the question is, are employee benefits income, or not? Are they bartered goods/services for work? The guidelines are using the litmus test of whether they are offered to non employees as well - for instance veterans, homeless, etc. I suspect this is the real issue behind your unhappiness - the idea that discounts are income traded for work. Either that or income tax itself is bothersome?

That said, I guess the canadian government needs more money? Oddly enough, they've already beaten their budget forecast by over 5 billion dollars:

http://business.financialpost.com/n...ederal-deficit-for-2016-17-was-17-8-billion-2

So now they're faced with having to decide whether to fund programs or save money.

The taxes collect from the rich using discount loopholes probably pales in comparison to the taxes collected from the millions of people working day jobs who only get small discounts individually, but as a group they add up.

Oct 11, 2017#214

Adam

Canada already requires businesses to treat housing allowances, car allowances and other benefits as taxable. As an example, I receive my house loan at 2% (often referred to as a prescribed rate), anything lower than that, the interest I saved would be considered taxable income.

Oct 11, 2017#215

Gruebeard

stienman said:
The guidelines are using the litmus test of whether they are offered to non employees as well - for instance veterans, homeless, etc.

I get a discount at some restaurants in town because I work for one of the larger employees.

Now, my discount isn't as large as the employee discount - but they've got gat covered by offering the big discount to police officers and firefighters.

I really should've been a cop.

Oct 11, 2017#216

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
I get a discount at some restaurants in town because I work for one of the larger employees.

Now, my discount isn't as large as the employee discount - but they've got gat covered by offering the big discount to police officers and firefighters.

I really should've been a cop.

A guy I went to high school with ended up a policeman in Dallas. Of course, lots of businesses like to give discounts to cops, but the department frowns on cops using their jobs to ask for discounts (or at least they did 15 years ago or so). Some of them would not-so-subtly leave their wallet open on the table, showing their badge, when they were ready to pay, but this guy had a slightly more clever way to get it.

He wore a Dallas Fire Department t-shirt.

Almost always, the waiter would ask, "oh, are you a firefighter?" and he could say "No, I'm Dallas PD." "Really?" and then he'd show his badge to prove it. Then they'd gush and give him a discount. That way, he could get the discount without asking for it or even volunteering the info that he was a police officer unsolicited.

Oct 11, 2017#217

Eriol

Eriol said:
For some reason, our national government thinks it's a GOOD idea to tax employee discounts as taxable benefits: Revenue Canada to tax employee discounts but Ottawa says it's not 'targeting' retail workers

WTF? Taxing somebody at McDonalds for getting an employee discount on their lunch? Or 1000s of other things. This isn't even a tax on the "questionably" (IMO) wealthy small business owners, this is going to impact the working poor the MOST.

Just yikes.

Keeps getting about as clear as mud: Fact check: Are employee discounts taxed, or not?

And realizing this is political suicide, from the Minister's office: Employee Discounts Won't Be Taxed, Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier's Office Says

Amid a growing controversy, a spokesman for the National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier says the government will pull the new wording at the heart of the debate from the Canada Revenue Agency website.

John Power says the government is planning to hold an internal review on the wording change, which will be followed by a consultation on the issue with industry groups.

The law hasn't changed at any point, here, just how CRA is interpreting it, presumably with some type of guidance from higher-ups?

Your guess is as good as mine on this one as to how it'll ultimately play out, and what legislation is/may be necessary or not.

Oct 18, 2017#218

Eriol

Our Federal Finance Minister is in hot water recently: The sad part is Morneau was supposed to be the adult at the table

The Conservatives are hammering Morneau over not putting his considerable wealth into a blind trust 120 days after being appointed to cabinet, as per section 27 of the Conflict of Interest Act.

...

But he’s yet to be completely forthcoming with the public and opposition. On Monday, Prime Minister Trudeau ran interference for his key minister at a Stouffville, Ontario, press conference, insisting on answering questions put directly to Morneau, who stood beside the PM, about his undisclosed villa in France.

...
Now the NDP is jumping into the fray, asking Dawson to investigative Morneau over his sponsorship last October of Bill C-27, which allows for the creation of new types of benefit plans from which Morneau Shepell, of which he owns millions of shares, would most surely benefit.

So that's a thing recently. There's probably interesting Trump parallels with what's necessary for arms-length for businesses and such, though the laws are assuredly different.

Oct 20, 2017#219

Eriol

Quebec face-covering ban:
CBC: 'I should see your face, and you should see mine,' Quebec premier says of new religious neutrality law

A new law that would effectively force Muslim women who wear a niqab or burka to uncover their faces to use public services is based on a principle "the vast majority of Canadians, and not just Quebecers" can agree on, Premier Philippe Couillard said.

The Liberal government's Bill 62 on religious neutrality was passed Wednesday in Quebec's National Assembly.

"We are just saying that for reasons linked to communication, identification and safety, public services should be given and received with an open face," Couillard told reporters.

"We are in a free and democratic society. You speak to me, I should see your face, and you should see mine. It's as simple as that."

Toronto Star: Quebec and its niqab legislation should have stayed out of women’s closets

A bill that legislates clothing ends up linking emancipation of women to how little or how much they wear. In doing so, it works against choice.
...
If you, like me, don’t wear any kind of face covering, this battle isn’t about us. It is, however, about defending the rights of the tiny number of women in Quebec who cover their faces even if you can’t defend their practice.

To be clear, I have no patience for the imposition of modesty on women, especially if those standards of modesty differ significantly from those imposed on men. This applies to expectations that women cover their faces but men needn’t.
...
Just as there are many reasons women might choose to wear a little black dress, there are many reasons women might choose a voluminous one that includes a face covering. For some it’s a political stance — a statement of defiance against Islamophobia; for some it’s about personal comfort and modesty; for some it is a mark of devoutness; for some it’s unthinking conformity.

Certainly, there are those who wear it because they don’t have a choice.

Toronto Sun: Men making women hide

Bill 62 — adopted by the Quebec National Assembly — is a call to arms.

This is an invitation to progressive liberal women in Canada to champion the bill and ensure that it is adopted by all the provinces of Canada. It is also time to discredit the Globe and Mail front page column which states that this bill is “raising worries among Muslims."

Who is Ihsaan Gardee, the only person quoted in the article, a self-appointed director of an obscure Muslim council. Why does he think he can speak for Canadian women and insist that they continue to hide their faces.

As a Canadian author of South Asian origin and exposed to liberal Sunni Muslim ideals, it is my responsibility to actively denounce the invasion of orthodox misogyny into my country, Canada. This two-decade-old creeping rot which is threatening to alter the social fabric of a nation is now being encouraged by Canadian media to duck for cover under the diversity debates umbrella.
...
The majority of women who are affiliated with the Muslim faith continue to enjoy lives of contentment in Canada. They are seen minus the hijab and niqab in all Canadian cities. They are a vital part of the Canadian workforce. Their children attend schools and universities without being bundled into black robes and face masks.

Yet they are now beginning to articulate their concerns about the voices of immigrants from primitive societies where men rule and systematically suppress their women, garnering the sole attention of media outlets. Hence the attention paid to Mr.Garde who at best remains a propogandist with a sinister agenda — the enslavement of women to be exercised in Canada.

Her final line is worth quoting on its own:

There is no mention of any dress code for women anywhere in the revered text of the Qur’an. So it is time to denounce the fakers and say: “welcome to a Canada where women can never be hidden.”

I included the first two articles to be fair that I've read more than just one source (read, not just linked to). Some of the other commentary about how the niqab is linked to political Islam (read: advancement of Sharia law) is also worth looking around for IMO.

Oct 20, 2017#220

MindDetective

We are in a free and democratic society, so we need to restrict this freedom.

Oct 21, 2017#221

PatrThom

MindDetective said:
We are in a free and democratic society, so we need to restrict this freedom.

In a truly free society, we should be able to restrict whatever we want.

--Patrick

Oct 22, 2017#222

ThatNickGuy

Them: "We won't be like those countries that dictate what women can wear!"

Also them: "Also, women can't wear this."

Oct 23, 2017#223

Eriol

Eriol said:
Our Federal Finance Minister is in hot water recently: The sad part is Morneau was supposed to be the adult at the table

So that's a thing recently. There's probably interesting Trump parallels with what's necessary for arms-length for businesses and such, though the laws are assuredly different.

More from the "OMG he's even worse than I thought" file: Morneau Shepell, Sears and more — they’ve all forgotten about the little guy

Eddie Lampert used the Wall Street hedge fund he ran to buy up Sears stock. For many years Sears Canada had usually paid a share dividend of 60 cents. But just six months later, even as Sears Canada was bleeding quarterly losses of $49 million, dividends were boosted to $5 a share.

This experience “sucked all the value out of the company,” says Duvall. In fact, $453 million of company money — badly needed for a turn-around — was paid to shareholders including Lampert and companies controlled by him.

Surprising that isn't a crime to do that... but then we get into our Finance Minister:

Today, Lampert is freely enjoying his lavish 288-foot, $130-million yacht , according to news reports. But 18,000 Sears Canada workers, like Duvall’s old friends and workmates, are up the creek with no paddle. The Sears Canada pension plan is $270 million underfunded.

In upcoming weeks, those workers will receive letters from Morneau-Shepell, the actuarial and pension management company that provides services to the Sears Canada plan. Those letters will update retirees on what is left after Lampert and others got their money.

...

Under Canadian law, workers and retirees are last in line for their own money. It clearly irritates Duvall.
But it benefits Finance Minister Bill Morneau who controls about one million shares of Morneau-Shepell, although announced on Thursday his intention to sell them. That holding paid a $64,000 dividend cheque — monthly.

So the Finance Minister allows one of the larger retailers in Canada to crater, its employees without a funded pension plan... and then benefits from it DIRECTLY?

This is some serious WTF-level stuff.

Oct 23, 2017#224

Eriol

MindDetective said:
We are in a free and democratic society, so we need to restrict this freedom.

ThatNickGuy said:
Them: "We won't be like those countries that dictate what women can wear!"

Also them: "Also, women can't wear this."

Uh huh. Read this: Two Quebec Muslim women accuse Kathleen Wynne of burka betrayal

Haider told me that on Wednesday when she heard the news of the passing of Quebec Bill 62, she was thrilled with joy. “I felt all of Canada had finally recognized the tyranny that is the niqab and burka and would follow Quebec’s courage in standing up to oppression of women.”

“But listening to Anglophone men and women attack Quebec’s new law shocked me,” she added. “Are Kathleen Wynne and NDP women like Nikki Ashton and Andrea Howarth plain anti-Francophone or guilt-ridden white feminists?” she asked.

@ThatNickGuy in particular, he asked her this question

Seeking other voices, I got in touch with Montreal resident Professor Roksana Nazneen, a Muslim Quebecker of Bangladeshi origin

“No, not at all. As a Muslim woman, I applaud Quebec’s Bill 62.”

“Niqab or Burka should have no place in a civil society. It is neither religious nor cultural. It is an anti-west political statement introduced by radical Islamists all over the globe,” she added.

But what about the right to choose, I argued.

“Nonsense. burka is not a choice. If a person chooses to be a cocaine addict, will our society sit still and do nothing to stop him or her from the addiction?” she asked. “What next? Will we allow suicide jumpers to jump to their death just because they made the ‘choice’ to take their lives?”

Emphasis mine.

Oct 23, 2017#225

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
But what about the right to choose, I argued.

“Nonsense. burka is not a choice. If a person chooses to be a cocaine addict, will our society sit still and do nothing to stop him or her from the addiction?” she asked. “What next? Will we allow suicide jumpers to jump to their death just because they made the ‘choice’ to take their lives?”

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

I'm pretty sure we have support systems in place to help women escape from abusive relationships. I'm pretty sure if a burka wearing woman reaches out for help to escape her "addiction" she will find there are just as many agencies, social workers, and various other supports for her as the cocaine addict will find.

And that suicide jumper comment is weird. It can't be what's coming next since we've already decriminalized suicide.

Oct 23, 2017#226

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
I'm pretty sure we have support systems in place to help women escape from abusive relationships. I'm pretty sure if a burka wearing woman reaches out for help to escape her "addiction" she will find there are just as many agencies, social workers, and various other supports for her as the cocaine addict will find.

And I'm pretty sure most of them won't seek help in the first place: 8 days in prison for beating wife with hockey stick

Following the attack, Rafia’s wife was taken to a local hospital and initially lied to protect her husband. She later revealed that he beat her with a hockey stick – for half an hour – pulled her hair, hit her in the face and threatened to kill her.

My post above quoting Muslim women pointing out the niqab and burka for what they are - tools of oppression - (and the article itself was written by a Muslim man) means that for once I agree with what Quebec is doing (which is itself very unusual for me). Anybody saying those head garments are fine are aiding in oppression since women who are "oh totally not forced" to wear them are sooo free to lead their lives without them. I completely believe they aren't coerced to do so by their culture and men around them. *sarcasm off*

It's hard enough for battered women raised in our "western" culture to go seek help. You think very many who are raised in a culture where they defend those who beat them for half an hour are going to be able to cast it off themselves?

Oct 23, 2017#227

Bubble181

Also, people really seem to lose sight that there's a huge difference between a standard head scarf, hijab, niqab and burqa. I certainly believe in a woman's right to wear a piece of tissue on her head and cover her hair - my grandmother did, too, you know. I have a hard time believing in the voluntary wearing of a burqa, unless backed by plenty of brainwashing/propaganda. It often depends on the exact wording of this sort of ban, but the burqa really has no decent defense.

Oct 23, 2017#228

Gruebeard

Bubble181 said:
It often depends on the exact wording of this sort of ban, but the burqa really has no decent defense.

No. I actually agree. My problem here is that this ban's justification seems to be something along the lines of "we're protecting these women from barbaric religious practices" But the ban's not doing that. It's restricting their freedom.

If Quebec actually wanted to protect these women, it should target the people making the women wear the burka, not punish the woman

Oct 23, 2017#229

blotsfan

If a woman is in an abusive relationship where the husband won't let her leave the house without a Burqua, all banning one does is mean that she isn't allowed to leave the house.

Oct 24, 2017#230

Eriol

blotsfan said:
If a woman is in an abusive relationship where the husband won't let her leave the house without a Burqua, all banning one does is mean that she isn't allowed to leave the house.

I'm open to being convinced on this type of grounds that the current legislation is a bad idea. I won't be convinced that it's actually her choice to go about and wear such a garment, and it's reflecting the growth of a misogynistic ideology that we seem to choose to be importing... for some reason. I put this kind of allowance as somewhat like freedom of speech. Yes it enables fuckwads, but the consequences of restricting it are much worse.

But you're not going to convince me that women wearing those things "voluntarily" (bullshit) is a good thing, nor the spread of the ideologies behind it that say women should always wear such things when in public.

Oct 24, 2017#231

blotsfan

Eriol said:
But you're not going to convince me that women wearing those things "voluntarily" (bullshit) is a good thing, nor the spread of the ideologies behind it that say women should always wear such things when in public.

As long as you're willing to go after Orthodox Jews and Religious Christians who feel the same.

Oct 24, 2017#232

Bubble181

blotsfan said:
As long as you're willing to go after Orthodox Jews and Religious Christians who feel the same.

I'm firmly against any religion enforcing dress codes, but there's a big difference between something covering your head and a full burqa.

Oct 24, 2017#233

Eriol

blotsfan said:
As long as you're willing to go after Orthodox Jews and Religious Christians who feel the same.

Yes that is also problematic. The difference there though is that both Orthodox Jews and most of the Christians doing those things are NOT proselytizing religions. Thus they don't really "spread" much. Inside their insular communities, it's still bad, but they aren't trying to convince people down the street that they should do it too, or that it's actually a matter of women's choice. So at least they're honest about it.

But I would apply the same standard and I don't think it's right either, or a non-coerced choice.

Oct 24, 2017#234

PatrThom

What would probably hasten the demise of the practice would be for it to become an "in" fashion among teens, where teens compete to see who can wear the most outrageously flagrant anonymizing garment.

--Patrick

Oct 25, 2017#235

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
What would probably hasten the demise of the practice would be for it to become an "in" fashion among teens, where teens compete to see who can wear the most outrageously flagrant anonymizing garment.

--Patrick

High school girls wearing burkas? We can't allow that!

. . . said the dirty old man.

Oct 25, 2017#236

GasBandit

I personally don't think there's any defense for face-concealing headgear, but I also want to point out all too often that what is really going on is this:

Oct 25, 2017#237

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
I personally don't think there's any defense for face-concealing headgear.

I thought you were a Libertarian, that the only defense necessary for you would be "Fuck off, government, with mandating what I can wear."

Oct 25, 2017#238

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
I thought you were a Libertarian, that the only defense necessary for you would be "Fuck off, government, with mandating what I can wear."

Libertarians are not anarchists. We don't want everybody running around in basically what amounts to bank robber masks either. But that's the only part of the get-up that anybody of sound mind should be able to object to.. the face covering Veil.

Oct 25, 2017#239

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Libertarians are not anarchists. We don't want everybody running around in basically what amounts to bank robber masks either.

But you're okay with everyone running around with bank robber weapons?

It's a weird line you seem to be drawing is all I'm saying.

Oct 25, 2017#240

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
But you're okay with everyone running around with bank robber weapons?

It's a weird line you seem to be drawing is all I'm saying.

Congratulations, that has to be the most egregious case of apples and oranges I have ever seen. You should display it at the county fair. I'm sure you will win a prize.

Oct 25, 2017#241

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Congratulations, that has to be the most egregious case of apples and oranges I have ever seen. You should display it at the county fair. I'm sure you will win a prize.

Look, I really truly don't understand why you'd be apparently okay with the government mandating what you wear, and why you'd justify that by saying "because criminals wear masks."

You're using essentially the same justification that riles you up when gun control advocates use it.

and it's weird.

Oct 25, 2017#242

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Look, I really truly don't understand why you'd be apparently okay with the government mandating what you wear, and why you'd justify that by saying "because criminals wear masks."

You're using essentially the same justification that riles you up when gun control advocates use it.

and it's weird.

Alright, I'm going to play along in case you really don't see the difference, but if you're just trolling me, I will punish you for making me waste my time.

First of all, it is not the government mandating what you wear, it would be mandating what you can't hide - IE, your face, that which is most needed for identification. You can wear a long-sleeved, high-necked muumuu and say it is for religious reasons all you want, IDGAF.

Second of all (and yes I know this is the Canadian politics thread), there is no constitutional protection for what you wear. Government institutions already tell people what they can and can't wear all the time. Government schools even have dress codes. I'll get arrested if I go out jogging with no pants and underwear. Masks are not a protected right. Firearms are. If the government bans masks and it turns out we have a revolution that needs masks, I dare say we can make our own masks in mere minutes. Not exactly the same for guns and ammunition. That's why the latter is specifically protected by the second amendment to the constitution, and nobody worries about the former - because it'd be stupid.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not anarchists. It's really tiresome how every time I talk about a lawful, constitutional, REASONABLE restriction, someone has to say "but, but, I thought you were a Libertarian!" Libertarians want laws and police officers and firefighters, too.

Oct 25, 2017#243

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not anarchists. It's really tiresome how every time I talk about a lawful, constitutional, REASONABLE restriction, someone has to say "but, but, I thought you were a Libertarian!" Libertarians want laws and police officers and firefighters, too.

Oh, there's the hangup. I don't think banning masks is reasonable. I've had legitimate occasions to wear masks. Winter colds and wind being right at the top of the list.

And just so you know for next time. I don't think Libertarian means anarchist. Never did. Always thought it was about minimal government intervention, and it was on that thought that it confused me that you would be okay with banning face coverings because it seems to me an overstepping of government control for little reason.

And it just seems to me that it's only in situations where there are legitimate reasons to identify me that I shouldn't be allowed to obscure my identity if I choose. Banning masks is too broad - banning masks in all but those situations is reasonable.

And it's somewhere around there that I expected you'd draw the line. That is I expected you to be closer to me on this issue than you are.

. . . or maybe I'm an anarchist :aaah:

Oct 25, 2017#244

Dei

I'm really confused right now because Gruebeard is saying coherent things that I agree with, and not just nonsense.

Oct 25, 2017#245

GasBandit

Gruebeard said:
Oh, there's the hangup. I don't think banning masks is reasonable. I've had legitimate occasions to wear masks. Winter colds and wind being right at the top of the list.

Well obviously "common sense" needs to be a thing here. Wearing a balaclava in a driving snowstorm is one thing. Wearing it in the mall food court might be a teensy bit more suspicious.

And just so you know for next time. I don't think Libertarian means anarchist. Never did. Always thought it was about minimal government intervention, and it was on that thought that it confused me that you would be okay with banning face coverings because it seems to me an overstepping of government control for little reason.

And it just seems to me that it's only in situations where there are legitimate reasons to identify me that I shouldn't be allowed to obscure my identity if I choose. Banning masks is too broad - banning masks in all but those situations is reasonable.

Well, we could go the "you need a driver's license" route and say it only covers areas of public use. You can do whatever you want on your own private property

Oct 25, 2017#246

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Well obviously "common sense" needs to be a thing here. Wearing a balaclava in a driving snowstorm is one thing. Wearing it in the mall food court might be a teensy bit more suspicious.

Its too easy.

Oct 25, 2017#247

DarkAudit

Relevant: lady refused to remove hijab and caused family to miss their flight.

American 191.

Oct 26, 2017#248

GasBandit

DarkAudit said:
Relevant: lady refused to remove hijab and caused family to miss their flight.

American 191.

I half expected that story to end "That man's name? Albert Einstein. And then the whole bus clapped."

Oct 27, 2017#249

Eriol

And another Muslim women comments on Bill 62:
Farzana Hassan: Quebec’s niqab ban is a chance for women to embrace Western freedom

In fact, when concerns about religious divisions caused France to ban the hijab in schools years ago, many among the Muslim community expressed relief.

The women’s organization Ni Putes Ni Soumises surveyed niqab-wearing women after their 2011 ban. Its research revealed some high-profile acts of defiance, but other women anxiously waited for the law to free them of their husband’s pressures.

...

The niqab is a vestige of a tribal and pre-Islamic culture defined by men. It was instituted when women were considered chattel owned by men. The concept of sexual consent by women is of course a recent development even in the West, but in patriarchal cultures it is taking much longer.

The niqab is a primitive society’s primitive attempt to proclaim ownership rights. Naturally, it is aggressively marketed by those with a vested interest in prolonging such a dehumanizing value system.

...

But Canadians also expect him to support the rights of those forced by husbands, in-laws or even parents to cover up. What about the Charter rights of Aqsa Parvez and the Shafia girls?

Niqabi women believe the niqab protects them, and even gives them back their humanity. Seriously? By becoming anonymous and invisible? Their best chance to attain the respect they deserve as people lies not in rejecting the open garb of other women, but in emulating it.

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).

Aqsa's brother, Waqas, had strangled her to death when she chose to not wear a hijab covering.

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.

Oct 27, 2017#250

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
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.

Oct 27, 2017#251

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
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.

Oct 27, 2017#252

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
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.

Oct 31, 2017#253

Eriol

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.

Nov 1, 2017#254

Eriol

Fascinating: Jewish groups question census results showing dramatic population decline

The size of the country's Jewish community appears, on the surface, to have seen its most dramatic decline in decades, with newly released census data on the country's ethnic makeup suggesting a 56 per cent drop in numbers over a five-year period.

The decline to 143,665 in 2016 from about 329,500 in 2011 — a drop of almost 186,000 people — is the largest such drop for any ethnic group recorded in the census data released last week.

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.

Nov 1, 2017#255

blotsfan

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.

Nov 1, 2017#256

Eriol

@blotsfan I appreciate your perspective, and the article mentions a slow steady decline that was previously there, but 50% in 5 years? There's something else going on with the statistical method there, don't you think?

Nov 1, 2017#257

GasBandit

I would normally put this in the funny political pictures thread, but it seems apropos to recent topics...

Nov 1, 2017#258

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
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.

The census wasn't mandatory, for one.[DOUBLEPOST=1509557418,1509557370][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
I would normally put this in the funny political pictures thread, but it seems apropos to recent topics...

Weird. I'd pick something quite different.

Nov 1, 2017#259

Eriol

I'm sure they have nothing at all to hide, right? Alberta privacy commissioner investigates 800,000 deleted government emails

Alberta’s privacy commissioner has launched an investigation into 800,000 emails deleted by government and political staffers under the NDP, including in the premier’s office.

The numbers also showed Notley’s then chief of staff Brian Topp had just one email in his sent folder, 78 in his inbox and an empty deleted mail folder, despite being in the job since the NDP formed the government in May 2015.

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.

Nov 1, 2017#260

Chad Sexington

Eriol said:
I'm sure they have nothing at all to hide, right? Alberta privacy commissioner investigates 800,000 deleted government emails

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.

Everything worked out when they did that in Ontario, right?

Nov 2, 2017#261

Eriol

Supreme Court approves B.C. ski resort development on Indigenous lands

OTTAWA—The constitutional guarantee of aboriginal rights does not give Indigenous groups the right of a veto over land development in the name of religious freedom, says the country’s top court.

In a landmark decision on how courts should protect not only Indigenous religious beliefs, but all religious beliefs, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that a British Columbia First Nation, the Ktunaxa people, could not block the development of a ski resort in the Jumbo Valley.

The high court ruled that the constitution’s religious freedom guarantee protects Canadians’ freedom to hold religious beliefs and to act in accordance with them, but does not require the state or courts to protect the “object of beliefs or the spiritual focal point of worship, such as Grizzly Bear Spirit.”

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

Nov 6, 2017#262

Eriol

"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 :popcorn:

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!

Nov 6, 2017#263

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
. . . "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.

Nov 6, 2017#264

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
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.

Nov 6, 2017#265

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
The real problem is that everyone looking to run the show is a cheat.

I'm still pushing the rationale I suggested over four years ago.

--Patrick

Nov 6, 2017#266

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
I'm still pushing the rationale I suggested over four years ago.

--Patrick

...you think a good politician won't spend time telling everyone he's the greatest, best and mostest at everything? Hah!

Nov 6, 2017#267

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
...you think a good politician won't spend time telling everyone he's the greatest, best and mostest at everything? Hah!

A good one wouldn't.

--Patrick

Nov 17, 2017#268

Eriol

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.

Nov 24, 2017#269

Eriol

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.

Nov 24, 2017#270

Gruebeard

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)

Nov 24, 2017#271

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
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)

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.

Nov 24, 2017#272

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Beyond your summary, about $6B is "expected" to be matched by the provinces (we'll see what various provinces say)

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.

Nov 25, 2017#273

Frank

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

Nov 25, 2017#274

Eriol

Frank said:
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

A meme floating around social media claims Albertans’ home heating bills will increase by 75 per cent thanks to a carbon tax hike Jan. 1.

The meme is authored by Alberta Can’t Wait, a political action committee that backed conservative unity and, now, the United Conservative Party and its leader Jason Kenney.

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.

Nov 25, 2017#275

Frank

I literally said associated with.

Eriol said:
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.

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.

Nov 25, 2017#276

Bubble181

My power bill iseasily double that, and I live in a well-insulated house in a temperate climate. Truly, energy prices on your continent are ridiculous when compared to the Old World.

Nov 25, 2017#277

Eriol

Frank said:
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.

Nov 25, 2017#278

PatrThom

It's not hard for the gas bill here to be US$300/mo in the wintertime. There have been months where it's been > $500.
I'm thinking people who are complaining about $30/mo need some perspective.

--Patrick

Nov 25, 2017#279

GasBandit

PatrThom said:
It's not hard for the gas bill here to be US$300/mo in the wintertime. There have been months where it's been > $500.
I'm thinking people who are complaining about $30/mo need some perspective.

--Patrick

Meanwhile I look forward to winter so that my utility bills go under $100. The costs you describe are like my summer electricity bills

Nov 25, 2017#280

PatrThom

GasBandit said:
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?

--Patrick

Nov 27, 2017#281

Eriol

Eriol said:
More from the "OMG he's even worse than I thought" file: Morneau Shepell, Sears and more — they’ve all forgotten about the little guy

Surprising that isn't a crime to do that... but then we get into our Finance Minister:

So the Finance Minister allows one of the larger retailers in Canada to crater, its employees without a funded pension plan... and then benefits from it DIRECTLY?

This is some serious WTF-level stuff.

More continuations of this kind of thing: Morneau sides with shareholders, not Canadian workers

Perhaps it is not strange that executives running some of Canada’s biggest companies would choose to shortchange their employees’ pension plans, preferring instead to pay dividends to themselves and other shareholders.

But, what seems odd is that our government allows it.

Of course, in running any business there are choices to be made. But surely whether or not employees should be paid what they are owed cannot be not one of them. That is an obligation.

Or it should be.

But there was disturbing news in a report last week by David Macdonald, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. According to Macdonald’s research, many Canadian companies are paying massive dividends to shareholders even while they are underfunding their employees’ pension plan.

I don't agree with Parkin on much, but on this issue, I'm with him 100%. Some of the comments in that article raise the idea of why should the company bear the risk, and the employees none? Because they're employees you idiot. Part of the compensation package is a promised pension with benefits A, B, & C. How would you like it if your employer said to you "ya, we had a bad year, so your pay is being cut by 30%. Oh my pay? Oh no, I couldn't cut that." That's basically what's happening here, and in other companies as well.

I think that Parkin's (the author) argument is particularly well-supported by citing large companies that ARE doing the right thing and supporting employee pension plans. It lends extra weight to his arguments.

Again, Parkin and I are on opposite sides of MANY issues, but this isn't one of them.
X

Nov 29, 2017#282

Eriol

New Supreme Court Justice on the way: New Supreme Court justice will be Alberta’s Sheilah Martin

Not really much to say about this. The PM has almost-complete authority on whom to appoint, so this'll probably happen.

Nov 29, 2017#283

Gruebeard

theo_moudakis_trudeau_apology_tour.jpg.size-custom-crop.0x650.jpg

Nov 29, 2017#284

blotsfan

I don't get why they aren't doing something about that. Is anyone really going to be upset by pardoning them (or whatever the canadian equivalent)?*

*Besides people that still want pot to be illegal who I'd imagine don't like Treaudau anyways.

Nov 29, 2017#285

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
View attachment 26043

Last I heard they were STILL going to fuck over small businesses. So kinda disingenuous on that one.

Dec 14, 2017#286

Eriol

Eriol said:
Last I heard they were STILL going to fuck over small businesses. So kinda disingenuous on that one.

New rules released! What you need to know about Morneau’s changes to ‘income sprinkling’ rules

Yep, still fucking over small businesses. Especially professionals (doctors, etc).

The family member is 25 or older, and owns a percentage of the business that is equal or greater to 10 per cent. Family members who own part of a service-based or professional corporation (that carries on the professional practice of an accountant, dentist, lawyer, medical doctor, etc) would not qualify for this off-ramp.

So good for franchise owners and stuff, but still fucking over professionals. Great how you guys want to discourage more General Practitioner Doctors. They're not that needed.

Oh wait, yes they are. There's a huge shortage.

F'n idiots.

Dec 14, 2017#287

Covar

Is a CCPC the same as an S or C Corp here in the states, or an LLC? The former being a separate legal entity in all forms such as income tax, the latter being much more limited, designed to ease the liability of the owners if the business went belly up, income & loss is distributed out to the owners for tax purposes.

Dec 21, 2017#288

Eriol

Covar said:
Is a CCPC the same as an S or C Corp here in the states, or an LLC? The former being a separate legal entity in all forms such as income tax, the latter being much more limited, designed to ease the liability of the owners if the business went belly up, income & loss is distributed out to the owners for tax purposes.

I can't answer that Covar. I don't know about the various types and what they mean, here OR there. That's why I didn't respond to this earlier, as I had nothing to add.

In other news: Ethics Watchdog’s Report Draws Blunt Conclusions About The Trudeau-Aga Khan Friendship

Dawson wrote that the Aga Khan struck up a friendship with prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the late 1960s which "developed into a family friendship."

But with the exception of Pierre Trudeau's funeral in 2000, she wrote, the current prime minister had "no private or personal interactions" with the Aga Khan between 1983 and the fall of 2013 — after he had become a federal party leader.

"There was no evidence that the Aga Khan ever tried to contact Mr. Trudeau in those 30 years, including when the Aga Khan made official visits to Canada while Mr. Trudeau was a Member of the House of Commons," she wrote.

That section is particularly damning. Basically he had contact when they were a family with/in power. For those in the USA, "the late 1960s" until 1983 is when Trudeau Sr. was in power federally. So this relationship is all about influencing power in Canada, not "true friends" or anything like that. That Justin didn't see the results of the report and realize how he's being used just shows how incompetent he is IMO.

Jan 15, 2018#289

Eriol

So there was a hate-crime of trying to cut off the hijab of a grade-6 girl on Friday: 'I felt really scared:' Toronto girl says man tried to cut off her hijab as she walked to school

This made international headlines. One problem: it never happened: Until it was found to be a hoax, Toronto girl's hijab made news, not the attack on her

I leave any and all other analysis on this one up to the reader.

Jan 16, 2018#290

Gruebeard

I liked the responses of our Prime Minister and Toronto's mayor, which were essentially "we're relieved she wasn't assaulted."

Jan 16, 2018#291

HCGLNS

I don't know what the correct play for a politician is here. If you're not outraged when you here the news it's bad. If you wait for the facts it's bad. Do you just send thoughts an prayers to the person and support the police?

Jan 16, 2018#292

Gruebeard

HCGLNS said:
I don't know what the correct play for a politician is here. If you're not outraged when you here the news it's bad. If you wait for the facts it's bad. Do you just send thoughts an prayers to the person and support the police?

I think most politicans and community leaders handled it well.

Whoever organized that original press conference, though, that person fucked up. They fucked up even if the assault was real. Putting a kid who had just been assaulted into the public spotlight is stupid.

Jan 25, 2018#293

HCGLNS

Yikes! Two provincial party leaders quit over sexual harassment charges in two days.

Jan 25, 2018#294

Eriol

HCGLNS said:
Yikes! Two provincial party leaders quit over sexual harassment charges in two days.

The Ontario one I saw, link on the other? Ontario is swamping the search results for me (despite never having lived there, and continually telling Google "not interested" on anything remotely Toronto-related).

Jan 25, 2018#295

HCGLNS

Eriol said:
The Ontario one I saw, link on the other? Ontario is swamping the search results for me (despite never having lived there, and continually telling Google "not interested" on anything remotely Toronto-related).

Narf!

Jamie Ballie from Nova Scotia.

Jan 26, 2018#296

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
The Ontario one I saw, link on the other? Ontario is swamping the search results for me (despite never having lived there, and continually telling Google "not interested" on anything remotely Toronto-related).

HCGLNS said:
Narf!

Jamie Ballie from Nova Scotia.

It's funny because @Eriol's there, but's getting the Ontario news.

Jan 26, 2018#297

HCGLNS

Gruebeard said:
It's funny because @Eriol's there, but's getting the Ontario news.

Hence the "Narf!"

Jan 27, 2018#298

Gruebeard

And now the federal Disabilities Minister has resigned while he defends himself against harassment allegations from back in his Alberta days.

Jan 27, 2018#299

HCGLNS

We'll show those Yanks how it's really done!

Jan 29, 2018#300

HCGLNS

Are there any members of the Ontario PC party left? Their leader and entire election staff gone last week, their party president today.

Jan 30, 2018#301

Gruebeard

HCGLNS said:
Are there any members of the Ontario PC party left? Their leader and entire election staff gone last week, their party president today.

The worst of it is that Doug Ford is gonna run for leader.

This sucks.

May 10, 2018#302

Gruebeard

So, the Liberal party has been attacking Doug Ford for being like Trump. Well, he has never sounded so much like Trump as he did when answering a reporter who asked him to describe how a bill is passed. After pointing out the reportee was playing gotcha, Ford said

But don’t worry. I’m going to show you how many bills we’re going to pass. We’re going to pass endless bills down there and I hope you’re down there to watch the bills get passed.”

They're gonna be yuge!

May 13, 2018#303

Eriol

They're not even fucking TRYING to hide bribing people for their votes: Trudeau calls Quebec byelection 3 days after pledging $60M for project in riding

On top of the headline, you also have this!

Several Liberal cabinet ministers and MPs have also visited the riding in recent weeks to distribute several million dollars worth of interest-free loans to local businesses.

Jun 2, 2018#304

Gruebeard

I'm kinda tempted to vote for him.

Jun 2, 2018#305

PatrThom

Yes I definitely feel like he’s less evil than the other supreme chancellor.

—Patrick

Jun 4, 2018#306

ThatNickGuy

I would bow down before him! Both me, and one day, MY HEIRS!

Jun 6, 2018#307

Frank

Man, it sure is the age of fat, glistening children of money getting to be as publicly sleazy as possible and still likely to end up in charge isn't it?

Jun 7, 2018#308

PatrThom

Frank said:
Man, it sure is the age of fat, glistening children of money getting to be as publicly sleazy as possible and still likely to end up in charge isn't it?

Wait, are you talking about Trump? Or Ford?
I can't tell.

--Patrick

Jun 7, 2018#309

Bubble181

Frank said:
Man, it sure is the age of fat, glistening children of money getting to be as publicly sleazy as possible and still likely to end up in charge isn't it?

Money is power; democracy was a nice experiment but it's pretty much failing at the moment. People are being played with propaganda, and all over the world, slimy rich people and/or military tough men are taking over again. It'll get worse before it gets better.

Jun 7, 2018#310

blotsfan

PatrThom said:
Wait, are you talking about Trump? Or Ford?
I can't tell.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:
View attachment 26998

--Patrick

Jun 7, 2018#311

PatrThom

Yup. Just calling it out because I don’t know how many people knew there was another Ford in the making.
Seriously, that family...

—Patrick

Jun 7, 2018#312

Frank

The very definition of glistening, those brothers. Like suckling pigs over a fire.

Jun 7, 2018#313

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
Yup. Just calling it out because I don’t know how many people knew there was another Ford in the making.
Seriously, that family...

—Patrick

Aye. I've been watching their boorish ignorance since they were Toronto city councillors. Now I get to watch one become my premier today.

Jun 7, 2018#314

Frank

He's already siding with Trump over Canada. Have fun Ontario. We're gonna do the same thing in a year or so when we elect a complete piece of shit into power in Jason Kenney.

Jun 7, 2018#315

ThatNickGuy

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-horwath-wynne-pc-ndp-liberal-green-1.4696736

*sigh* Goddammit.

There's really no point in having hope for the world anymore, is there?

Jun 7, 2018#316

jwhouk

Fords : Canada :: Trumps : USA.

Jun 8, 2018#317

Dirona

Ford is a dollar-store knock-off Trump. And I'm nauseated by Ontario's results. This is not going to go well for anyone.

Jun 8, 2018#318

Gruebeard

well, at least it's not Mike Harris.

Hey, which emoticon expresses sighing in resignation to this bullshit?

Jun 8, 2018#319

Dirona

Gruebeard said:
well, at least it's not Mike Harris.

Hey, which emoticon expresses sighing in resignation to this bullshit?

The facepalming one?

Jun 8, 2018#320

GasBandit

Dirona said:
The facepalming one?

Or this one

:okay:

Jun 8, 2018#321

Gruebeard

Dirona said:
The facepalming one?

Maybe.

Well, at least it's not Mike Harris

I guess that'll do.

Jun 8, 2018#322

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Or this one

Well, at least it's not Mike Harris :okay:

Better. But as I keep saying this, I'm starting to worry that Ford's gonna make Harris look good, the way Trump makes Dubya look like a statesman.

Jun 8, 2018#323

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
'm starting to worry that Ford's gonna make Harris look good, the way Trump makes Dubya look like a statesman.

That isn’t a silver lining, it’s mercury.

—Patrick

Jun 28, 2018#324

Frank

Harper undermining our government during these tense ass times sure is a good look.

Jun 28, 2018#325

Eriol

I think it's far more interesting how Justin turned out to be a groping scumbag, despite his "feminist" credentials.

Jun 28, 2018#326

@Li3n

Shut up Canada, no one cares about you...

Jun 28, 2018#327

Gruebeard

I don't get the joke.

Are you upset no one's talking about Spain? (You're Spanish, right? )

Jun 28, 2018#328

Frank

Eriol said:
I think it's far more interesting how Justin turned out to be a groping scumbag, despite his "feminist" credentials.

I'm not surprised. Not that I don't think it's not important, but being that thousands of people's jobs are on the line, having a former prime minister (who still holds great sway in the opposition party) sneaking behind our governments back with a famously irrational dickweed wannabe dictator is complete garbage.

Jun 29, 2018#329

@Li3n

Good news Canada, Denbrought does care about you.

Or maybe he's just pretending to get into your pants, i don't know, you guys figure it out.

....

On a more serious note, that's just the 1st thing that popped in my mind when i saw the thread go to the top late at night, while i was pretty tired, so i just posted it.

But the really funny thing is that, instead of actually not caring, i went and looked up the Trudeau thing... man, the guy had the Dude-Bro look down pat back then.

Post automatically merged: Jun 29, 2018

Gruebeard said:
I don't get the joke.

Are you upset no one's talking about Spain? (You're Spanish, right? )

No habla espanol!?

Jun 29, 2018#330

Denbrought

@Li3n said:
Good news Canada, Denbrought does care about you.

Or maybe he's just pretending to get into your pants, i don't know, you guys figure it out.

Aug 8, 2018#331

Frank

Man, criticize a single human rights violation on Twitter and fucking Saudi Arabia threatens to fly a plane into the CN Tower.

Fuck Saudi Arabia.

Also, fuck every single country's government that doesn't have Canada's back on this one. Fuck you Trump, fuck you May, fuck you Merkel, fuck you Macron, fuck all of you. You fucking cowards.

Aug 9, 2018#332

strawman

Diplomacy by tweet has worked so well for trump I guess trudeau had to try it out.

Aug 9, 2018#333

DarkAudit

Frank said:
Fuck Saudi Arabia

Not with your, my, or anyone else's dick.

Aug 9, 2018#334

Frank

stienman said:
Diplomacy by tweet has worked so well for trump I guess trudeau had to try it out.

It wasn't even Trudeau, it was a minister.

Aug 9, 2018#335

HCGLNS

"Very alarmed to learn that Samar Badawi, Raif Badawi’s sister, has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Canada stands together with the Badawi family in this difficult time, and we continue to strongly call for the release of both Raif and Samar Badawi."

We are such a shit disturbing nation.

Raif is a journalist facing a death sentence in KSA, his wife fled KSA to Canada when the fatwa was pronounced. She and her children became Canadian citizens on July 1 2018. Raif has been imprisoned since 2012 and repeatedly flogged.

Aug 9, 2018#336

Eriol

Remember to stand by your principals Quebec, that it's much worse to have a pipeline from Alberta going through Quebec to New Brunswick, than it is to have Saudi Oil being imported so you can have gasoline.

The real reason is that they don't think they can exploit such a pipeline to their benefit like they did with Churchill Falls: https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/churchill-falls.php
Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station

Aug 9, 2018#337

HCGLNS

2041 Quebec is fucked.

Aug 9, 2018#338

strawman

So far as I can tell, it really isn't even about the Canadian tweet - Canada is just a convenient target.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/8/6/...ada-ambassador-persona-non-grata-samar-badawi

Post automatically merged: Aug 9, 2018

HCGLNS said:
2041 Quebec is fucked.

Like every other industrialized country, Canada will have to face its declining population. Since many of these social systems are based on having a younger work force to bear the burden - a fine plan if your country is growing - they will fail when the workforce starts to decline - which necessarily happens when the fertility rate drops below the replacement rate.

That happened in Canada 40 years ago. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

So the social systems must adjust, and like a pyramid scheme the ones at the bottom of the pyramid get screwed the most. The ones at the top - now long dead - had to pay little into the system and got the most out of it. The ones facing the bankruptcy of the social system get to pay the most, and get the least out of it.

That's the problem foisted off onto them by the architects of the social system. The side effects aren't often felt until generations later, and while the rich will weather the storm, the poor will suffer due to the failure of such systems.

Aug 9, 2018#339

Frank

Again, fuck Saudi Arabia.

Aug 9, 2018#340

HCGLNS

Did you need to get that off your chest? Because my post was regarding the Churchill Falls contract expiring. When 15% of Quebecs hydro will jump from 1971 prices to 2041 price overnight.

Aug 9, 2018#341

@Li3n

So, no one posted teh tweet in question yet?

The Saudi responses are something else:

Aug 9, 2018#342

strawman

HCGLNS said:
Did you need to get that off your chest? Because my post was regarding the Churchill Falls contract expiring. When 15% of Quebecs hydro will jump from 1971 prices to 2041 price overnight.

Your post initially said 2039 with no context, and the only Quebec 2039 thing that I could find in the news was the Quebec pension plan projected failure.

I know you enjoy posting cryptically, but are you really surprised when someone guesses wrong?

Aug 9, 2018#343

@Li3n

stienman said:
Like every other industrialized country, Canada will have to face its declining population. Since many of these social systems are based on having a younger work force to bear the burden - a fine plan if your country is growing - they will fail when the workforce starts to decline - which necessarily happens when the fertility rate drops below the replacement rate.

What is immigration?

stienman said:
That happened in Canada 40 years ago. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

So the social systems must adjust, and like a pyramid scheme the ones at the bottom of the pyramid get screwed the most. The ones at the top - now long dead - had to pay little into the system and got the most out of it. The ones facing the bankruptcy of the social system get to pay the most, and get the least out of it.

That's the problem foisted off onto them by the architects of the social system. The side effects aren't often felt until generations later, and while the rich will weather the storm, the poor will suffer due to the failure of such systems.

Ah yes, i think we all remember the giant upheaval of Canadian society 40 years ago, in the late 1970's... no other place was plagued by so much upheaval at that time...

The funny tihng about SS is that you can always pay it if your economy is growing (yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism), and if it's not... well then, the entire capitalist system is in trouble anyway, the lack of pension funds will not be the main thing to worry about.

Post automatically merged: Aug 9, 2018

stienman said:
Your post initially said 2039 with no context, and the only Quebec 2039 thing that I could find in the news was the Quebec pension plan projected failure.

I know you enjoy posting cryptically, but are you really surprised when someone guesses wrong?

You missed the post right above his... and the norm that forum posts can be responses to the previous post if they directly follow it, with quotes only for when it doesn't.

Aug 9, 2018#344

strawman

@Li3n said:
What is immigration?

I suspect this is only a short term fix. As other countries rise economically, immigration to a low birth rate country is less desirable.

It's better, IMO, to fix the social system so it's not a pyramid in the first place.

@Li3n said:
The funny tihng about SS is that you can always pay it if your economy is growing (yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism)

This assumes that the economy is closely coupled to people's wages. It's possible for the economy to grow while wages stagnate, and in fact I suspect that's happening in the US as corporations and the rich are constructing economic systems that pass profits to them, skipping the lower and middle class entirely.

@Li3n said:
You missed the post right above his... and the norm that forum posts can be responses to the previous post if they directly follow it, with quotes only for when it doesn't.

And if he had posted "2041" in the first place rather than an edit later I might have caught it. As it is the wikipedia post mentioned nothing about 2039, and google brought me nothing but the Quebec pension system failure date.

Aug 9, 2018#345

@Li3n

stienman said:
I suspect this is only a short term fix. As other countries rise economically, immigration to a low birth rate country is less desirable.

In the long term, all solutions are short term...

stienman said:
It's better, IMO, to fix the social system so it's not a pyramid in the first place.

Yeah, a square would be the best shape... but then the old people with the most time on their hands to go vote would object to their pensions being too low...

stienman said:
This assumes that the economy is closely coupled to people's wages. It's possible for the economy to grow while wages stagnate, and in fact I suspect that's happening in the US as corporations and the rich are constructing economic systems that pass profits to them, skipping the lower and middle class entirely.

Hence teh "(yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism)" part, which you even quoted yourself...

stienman said:
And if he had posted "2041" in the first place rather than an edit later I might have caught it. As it is the wikipedia post mentioned nothing about 2039, and google brought me nothing but the Quebec pension system failure date.

I don't see the relevance of the year, especially since it didn't jump out at me even after skimming the links Eriol posted.

If you actually read them in depth, it's even less of an excuse, since they should have been fresh in your mind, and asking him if he's by any chance mistaken about the year seems like less of a leap then googling sometihng that's unrelated to what the thread is on about at the time.

Like, it's ok to admit you went in a weird place with your assumptions...

Aug 9, 2018#346

Eriol

First, the year was posted by @HCGLNS not me. Minor, but if you re-read your post, you think it was me.

@Li3n said:
Hence teh "(yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism)" part, which you even quoted yourself...

Second, the problem we're in here is that we disagree on both the problem and the solution here. Is income inequality a problem in the first place? It arguably is if people are dying as a result of it, but by its very nature? That's something separate. And then after that, let's just say it is a problem, is taxation really the best solution to such? Giving more money to government, who is more easily influenced by power players, just seems like a means to entrench power in those elites even more. I'm just re-stating @stienman here though, as the government is the one who usually most heavily influences which "system" we're in.

Aug 9, 2018#347

@Li3n

Eriol said:
First, the year was posted by @HCGLNS not me. Minor, but if you re-read your post, you think it was me.

Nope: after skimming the links Eriol posted.

Eriol said:
Second, the problem we're in here is that we disagree on both the problem and the solution here. Is income inequality a problem in the first place? It arguably is if people are dying as a result of it, but by its very nature? That's something separate. And then after that, let's just say it is a problem, is taxation really the best solution to such?

Fix it in another way, i'll wait.

And sure, of course income inequality isn't an issue if it doesn't lead to anything bad... that's what makes most things issues.

But anyway, i was mostly pointing out the flaw in his argument, so even if you did find a way to make SS work without taxes (post scarcity, but then it would no longer be SS, just free access to what you need), the point i was making still stands...

Eriol said:
as the government is the one who usually most heavily influences which "system" we're in.

It's like you don't believe in democracy as a concept.

And for fucks sakes, it's still just taxation, you're not even giving them more power, not paying 1% taxes or 50% taxes still end with you in jail.

Plus, how have you not understood by now that money will get to corrupt politician even without taxes, as clearly demonstrated by lobbying and PAC's etc.

Aug 15, 2018#348

Frank

Add John Baird to the list hypocritical traitors doing everything to undermine Canada on the international stage. 3 years ago the Saudi flogging of a protestor waa a concern but now it's Canada sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong? Fuck you. Stay in Saudi Arabia you piece of shit.

Aug 15, 2018#349

drawn_inward

Frank said:
Again, fuck Saudi Arabia.

Completely agree. Still pissed at fucking W and his goddamned hand holding with those backwards dipshits. I support Canada standing up to those pricks.

Aug 15, 2018#350

Adam

Frank said:
Add John Baird to the list hypocritical traitors doing everything to undermine Canada on the international stage. 3 years ago the Saudi flogging of a protestor waa a concern but now it's Canada sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong? Fuck you. Stay in Saudi Arabia you piece of shit.

The John Baird that sits on the advisory board for Barrick which has substantial mining interests in SA? That John Baird? (Asshole)

The John Baird that tweeted this out 3 years ago?

(Asshole)

Aug 15, 2018#351

Eriol

Frank said:
Add John Baird to the list hypocritical traitors doing everything to undermine Canada on the international stage. 3 years ago the Saudi flogging of a protestor waa a concern but now it's Canada sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong? Fuck you. Stay in Saudi Arabia you piece of shit.

The original thing doing it via Tweet was dumb, but at least they were SAYING the right things. Hearts in the right place for once.

Baird going on TV was idiotic, especially with whom he did it with. Saying all that stuff on CBC or something? Sure, fine. Where he did it? Yikes.

So, Energy East Pipeline everyone? Stop importing Conflict Oil?

Aug 15, 2018#352

Frank

Yes Christ, lets start refining our own fuel too.

Aug 15, 2018#353

PatrThom

Frank said:
Yes Christ, lets start refining our own fuel too.

It's good to pump the green, green gas of home.

--Patrick

Sep 12, 2018#354

Frank

Doug Ford's been premier for what, six minutes and he's already moved into using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a suggestion.

Fucking Christ.

Sep 13, 2018#355

Gruebeard

Frank said:
Doug Ford's been premier for what, six minutes and he's already moved into using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a suggestion.

Fucking Christ.

It has been . . . interesting.

Sep 13, 2018#356

blotsfan

In fairness to our brothers to the west, it's not like there have been any recent examples of why electing dumb far-right populists is a bad idea that they could look at.

Sep 13, 2018#357

HCGLNS

West? Where are you at now @blotsfan ?

Sep 13, 2018#358

blotsfan

I need to go to Canada, I drive west.

Sep 13, 2018#359

Gruebeard

blotsfan said:
I need to go to Canada, I drive west.

I just hope you're in the North end of Buffalo.

There's nothing West of Lackawanna!

Nov 18, 2018#360

@Li3n

Damn, racism against white people in Canada is so totally rampant:

When will minority learn that calling out racism is racist to white people...

Nov 18, 2018#361

Frank

Rob Ford voter.

She sounds exactly like my racist garbage cousin.

Nov 18, 2018#362

HCGLNS

@Li3n said:
Damn, racism against white people in Canada is so totally rampant:

When will minority learn that calling out racism is racist to white people...

Oh thank goodness, I thought this was the forced sterilization of indigenious women in Saskatoon story.

Nov 18, 2018#363

figmentPez

Ugh, that video is auto-playing, and now it's auto-playing twice over with the quoted version.

Nov 18, 2018#364

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Ugh, that video is auto-playing, and now it's auto-playing twice over with the quoted version.

I share this rant.
-Click on embedded video to start playback.
-Video starts playing.
-Some stupid javascript wakes up and says, "Oh, you clicked! Let me take you to the original site!"
-New window/tab opens to page where video came from.
-New window/tab startsts playinging immediatelyly, twotwo secondsds behindind embeddeded videoeo.

--Patrick

Dec 6, 2018#365

HCGLNS

Ford, what an imbecile.

Dec 18, 2018#366

HCGLNS

Heard on the radio today that the Catholic church in NB is fighting the insurance industry to have insurance cover their molestation payouts.

Dec 18, 2018#367

LittleSin

WTF. Molestation insurance? Please tell me that's not a thing that can actually exist.

Dec 18, 2018#368

Denbrought

LittleSin said:
WTF. Molestation insurance? Please tell me that's not a thing that can actually exist.

The argument, I think, is that it's a type of intentional injury that was covered by the language in their liability policy at the time.

Here's a CBC article on it: Insurers bring case against Bathurst diocese to Supreme Court

Excerpts said:
Aviva Insurance Company is bringing its fight against the Catholic diocese of Bathurst to the country's highest court.
In October, New Brunswick's Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Catholic Church, ordering the insurers to pay it $3.4 million to go toward compensation for victims of pedophile priests.
(..) The church had been arguing the insurance policy at the time of the abuse included coverage for "bodily injury caused intentionally by … the archdiocese."
But the insurers claimed the church failed in its obligation to disclose information about the abuse, and the coverage was therefore void.
(..) Victims in the Bathurst case have already been paid, and it is now a matter of whether the insurance company will reimburse the church.

Jan 11, 2019#369

Gruebeard

And Canada's cold war with Saudi Arabia is intensifying, as we take in a famous refugee.

Jan 11, 2019#370

Eriol

Gruebeard said:
And Canada's cold war with Saudi Arabia is intensifying, as we take in a famous refugee.

First of all: she's in a horrific situation that typifies a lot of women in Saudi Arabia. I hope she DOES get out (no more shenanigans) be it to Australia, or here.

Second: we're screwed for any negotiating power, or moral impact as long as the oil tankers from Saudi keep docking here and offloading. Energy East would have made that obsolete, but Montreal objected. Eastern Canada & Quebec would rather have their oil with some blood in it, than buy from Alberta apparently.

A political cartoonist in the 90s summed up Quebec's attitude well, with a cartoon with Manning, Chretien, and Bouchard in it, where the PM is serving tea to Bouchard, with Manning off to the side in a folding chair, and Chretien says "You must understand Preston, Monsieur Bouchard may be a separatist bent on destroying Canada, but at least he's not a westerner."

Jan 11, 2019#371

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
A political cartoonist in the 90s summed up Quebec's attitude well, with a cartoon with Manning, Chretien, and Bouchard in it, where the PM is serving tea to Bouchard, with Manning off to the side in a folding chair, and Chretien says "You must understand Preston, Monsieur Bouchard may be a separatist bent on destroying Canada, but at least he's not a westerner."

I can totally picture that!

Jan 14, 2019#372

Frank

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/chinese-court-sentences-canadian-to-death-1.4252218

Canadian man in China sentenced to 15 years for drug crimes has been retried because prosecutors "SUDDENLY" decided it was too lenient. Sentenced to death very quickly. Not being very opaque at all there China.

Jan 14, 2019#373

blotsfan

Canada should retaliate by seizing all Chinese-owned apartments in Vancouver.

Jan 14, 2019#374

Eriol

blotsfan said:
Canada should retaliate by seizing all Chinese-owned apartments in Vancouver.

Somebody would claim that's racist.

Jan 15, 2019#375

Frank

https://globalnews.ca/news/4848320/china-canada-diplomatic-relations/

China's government sucks and is trying to do it's thing of pushing smaller naitions around.

Jan 16, 2019#376

Eriol

Frank said:
https://globalnews.ca/news/4848320/china-canada-diplomatic-relations/

China's government sucks and is trying to do it's thing of pushing smaller naitions around.

Our PM is the one who has an "admiration" "basic dictatorship" of China. I'm amazed he's standing up at all to them, even temporarily.

Jan 16, 2019#377

Gruebeard

I'ma gonna go full @bhamv3 here.

Gruebeard said:
And Canada's cold war with Saudi Arabia is intensifying, as we take in a famous refugee.

This story is inspiring me to escape from Saudi Arabia, so Canada might furnish me with my own personal translator.

Jan 16, 2019#378

HCGLNS

Our cold war with Saudi Arabia continues as they help one of their citizens flee Canada.

In Nova Scotia doncha know.

Jan 16, 2019#379

Gruebeard

HCGLNS said:
Our cold war with Saudi Arabia continues as they help one of their citizens flee Canada.

In Nova Scotia doncha know.

Aye I heard about that. When I heard about it, I thought of you, even. Well, you and your fellow Halforum Haligonians.

I said "He's Haligone!"

Jan 16, 2019#380

HCGLNS

There's 4 of us here donchaknow, making it the capital of Halforums.

Jan 16, 2019#381

Gruebeard

Oh dear. You're forgetting someone.

And a couple cats. Because they make regular appearances here, I consider Pud and Diomedes as honorary members.

Jan 16, 2019#382

HCGLNS

Pudding doesn't count, Pudding is an idiot.

I look up from painting and the furball eats the paint.

Jan 16, 2019#383

Dirona

Poor Alia and Pandora! I must post more about them.

Jan 16, 2019#384

Gruebeard

Dirona said:
Poor Alia and Pandora! I must post more about them.

Yes. Cats are awesome.

And if you've got 2, that means all of the Halforums Haligonians are cat people, and the cats outnumber the humans.

Halifax is awesome.

Jan 16, 2019#385

HCGLNS

There's the hobo and the elf rogue and the dragon born geologist and the lizard minister.

Jan 16, 2019#386

Gruebeard

And Nick

Jan 16, 2019#387

HCGLNS

Is that the druid with the dragon?

Jan 16, 2019#388

Gruebeard

He seems more like a Superman. But Druids do like to play in the mud, too.

Feb 28, 2019#389

Eriol

So the former attorney general has testified about the SNC-Lavalin affair: The PMO's office for 4 months (at least) tried to pressure her into a sweetheart deal with the company so they could avoid prosecution, because "votes in Quebec."

I thought she'd get the waiver of confidentiality and basically say "We had conversations, but it was not coercion" to toe the party line. What she actually said was something closer to "they made my life a living hell for 4 months, and then kicked me out of the job, then out of cabinet." (I'm paraphrasing here)

She said that for four months, the prime minister, people in his office, members of the Privy Council Office and staff in the office of finance minister Bill Morneau conducted a “consistent and sustained” effort to intervene politically to secure a deferred prosecution agreement for Montreal-based engineering giant SNC Lavalin.

Links (pick your preferred bias)
CBC - Wilson-Raybould says she faced pressure, 'veiled threats' on SNC-Lavalin; Scheer calls on PM to resign
National Post -
Damning testimony from a principled witness
Wilson-Raybould's convincing testimony may cost Trudeau his job
Global - The Trudeau brand takes a hit after Jody Wilson-Raybould testimony
Sun - Wilson-Raybould: I was pushed, got veiled threats on SNC-Lavalin
Macleans - Trudeau and senior Liberals kept linking SNC-Lavalin prosecution to elections
Toronto Star - SNC-Lavalin scandal a ‘constitutional crisis,’ lawyers say

This is basically evidence of corruption at the highest levels (INCLUDING the Prime Minister). The best quote IMO is from the first National Post opinion there: "Either Wilson-Raybould is flat out lying about this, or Trudeau and his people are. It is difficult to see why she would. It is easy to see why they might" Both of the National Post articles include embedded transcripts of her 4 hour testimony.

Remember: it's an election year Nationally this year folks.

Feb 28, 2019#390

PatrThom

While you're at it:

Police In Canada Tracking People's 'Negative' Behavior In a 'Risk' Database

...I thought you guys seceded from jolly ol' England ages ago?

--Patrick

Feb 28, 2019#391

LittleSin

And to think I was coming here to post about my dear province having a Womens conference...that only had men as speakers and passed out pamphlets advising them to 'smile', 'pray', and 'rest to retain your looks'.

Feb 28, 2019#392

PatrThom

They must be saving the part about fertility and footwear for their newsletter.

--Patrick

Feb 28, 2019#393

GasBandit

LittleSin said:
And to think I was coming here to post about my dear province having a Womens conference...that only had men as speakers and passed out pamphlets advising them to 'smile', 'pray', and 'rest to retain your looks'.

Feb 28, 2019#394

Eriol

Her opening statements are really the most damning of all:

For a period of approximately four months between September and December 2018, I experienced a consistent and sustained effort by many people within the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in my role as the Attorney General of Canada in an inappropriate effort to secure a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with SNC-Lavalin. These events involved 11 people (excluding myself and my political staff) from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, and the Office of the Minister of Finance. This included in-person conversations, telephone calls, emails, and text messages. There were approximately 10 phone calls and 10 meetings specifically about SNC-Lavalin that I and/or my staff was a part of.

Within these conversations, there were express statements regarding the necessity for interference in the SNC-Lavalin matter, the potential for consequences, and veiled threats if a DPA was not made available to SNC. These conversations culminated on December 19, 2018, with a phone conversation I had with the Clerk of the Privy Council a conversation for which I will provide some significant detail. A few weeks later, on January 7, 2019, I was informed by the Prime Minister that I was being shuffled out of the role of Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada.

This is the opposite of Rule of Law. Anything else happening in the country right now pales in comparison.

Feb 28, 2019#395

Adam

LittleSin said:
And to think I was coming here to post about my dear province having a Womens conference...that only had men as speakers and passed out pamphlets advising them to 'smile', 'pray', and 'rest to retain your looks'.

Is this Manitoba? Because it sure sounds like Manitoba.

Feb 28, 2019#396

Gruebeard

Eriol said:
Her opening statements are really the most damning of all:

This is the opposite of Rule of Law. Anything else happening in the country right now pales in comparison.

One of the really annoying things about this is that China can crow about being right in calling us hypocrites over the Huawei business.

Feb 28, 2019#397

Dirona

Adam said:
Is this Manitoba? Because it sure sounds like Manitoba.

Newfoundland, if the other news I saw is correct.

Feb 28, 2019#398

LittleSin

Dirona said:
Newfoundland, if the other news I saw is correct.

Yeh, NL.

Also, loving this quote as it reads as being said by a Ferengi:

"We have reached out to females for this session," Haley said. "Unfortunately we couldn't get anyone available, the ones that we were looking at. So next time we will look a little further, I guess, for a female."

Feb 28, 2019#399

Frank

God, that is such a Liberal party scandal. Boring and grossly corrupt at the same time.

Feb 28, 2019#400

PatrThom

LittleSin said:
Also, loving this quote as it reads as being said by a Ferengi:

"We have reached out to females for this session," Haley said. "Unfortunately we couldn't get anyone available, the ones that we were looking at. So next time we will look a little further, I guess, for a female."

"You let your feeeemales wear shoes? That's disgusting!"

--Patrick

Mar 2, 2019#401

Vrii

Frank said:
God, that is such a Liberal party scandal. Boring and grossly corrupt at the same time.

And it might be enough to let the conservatives win the next election and dismantle the country like they're doing to Ontario. Ugh.

Mar 13, 2019#402

Eriol

So, this keeps getting worse, internationally too now!
OECD anti-bribery officials ‘concerned’ by SNC-Lavalin affair, plan to ‘closely monitor’ case

As a Party to the Anti-Bribery Convention, Canada is fully committed to complying with the Convention, which requires prosecutorial independence in foreign bribery cases pursuant to Article 5. In addition, political factors such as a country’s national economic interest and the identity of the alleged perpetrators must not influence foreign bribery investigations and prosecutions.

I heard analysis about this, and it basically boils down to "they basically never point out EXACTLY what a country is doing wrong unless it's an egregious violation." Even if the "Quebec would lose 9000 jobs unless they get an agreement" claim were true (it's not, they're stuck there for years because of a previous deal for their headquarters with Quebec), it would STILL be illegal to do, and pressure on that basis is ALSO illegal.

And then there's our "illustrious" former Deputy PM staying "classy" on twitter by using the "B-word" to refer to the two Women cabinet ministers with enough integrity to resign:

And then accusing the former attorney general of being a racist:

And yes they're both still up, and she actively defends them.

Mar 21, 2019#403

Frank

My province is so keen to have Jason Kenney as it's premier despite the, oh I dunno, billion corruption scandals he's currently embroiled in. Not to mention his direct ties to racist and homophobic groups.

Blech.

Mar 21, 2019#404

blotsfan

I've always heard Alberta is the Texas of Canada.

Mar 21, 2019#405

LittleSin

blotsfan said:
I've always heard Alberta is the Texas of Canada.

You heard right.

Mar 21, 2019#406

PatrThom

Frank said:
My province is so keen to have Jason Kenney as it's premier despite the, oh I dunno, billion corruption scandals he's currently embroiled in. Not to mention his direct ties to racist and homophobic groups.

We here in America feel your pain.

--Patrick

May 21, 2019#407

Eriol

In news from the other national scandal right now, Admiral Mark Norman gives an interview with the National Post giving his side of the story: 'The fight of your life': In a Postmedia exclusive, Mark Norman tells his side of the story

Not short, give it 20 minutes to read. The section below is particularly damning of many things happening at the DoD:

There was another moment of high drama when a young major in the Canadian Forces came forward to testify on Norman’s behalf.

On Dec. 18, 2018 the officer, whose name is protected by a publication ban because of fears of professional reprisal, testified that his superior told him Norman’s name was deliberately not used in internal files — meaning any search for records about Norman would come up empty.

The witness said he was processing an access-to-information request about Norman in 2017 that returned no results. When he sought clarification, the officer testified, his supervisor — a brigadier general — smiled and told him: “Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back the nil return.”

“He seemed proud to provide that response,” the witness said.

The witness told court he has no relationship with Norman, and came forward only because it’s “the right thing to do.”

“It just doesn’t seem right, the way the whole situation kind of played out, when I was thinking back about it,” the witness said. “I just wanted to make it known, whether it’s relevant or not.”

As the witness testified, Norman said, he could hear an audible response ripple throughout the courtroom. “It was a shocking piece of testimony. There was a lot of people sucking air through their teeth when that happened.”

Justice Heather Perkins-McVey described the testimony as “very disturbing.”

“I was really impressed by that young officer, by his bravery, his composure,” Norman said.

But he wasn’t surprised at the officer’s testimony. Past investigations and documentation have showed the Canadian Forces and Department of National Defence have a track record of destroying, hiding or delaying the release of potentially embarrassing records requested under Access to Information law. “The organization had spent a lot of time and energy over the course of my career, from my personal observation, to figure out ways to deny people access to information, whether it was in a formal application process or whether it was in a broader general sense,” Norman said.

I'm glad he's "cleared" though that they're only staying the charges is additional layers of bullshit.

May 27, 2019#408

Frank

The north is on fire. My hometown is still on the cusp of annihilation and Jason Kenney is in fucking Ontario campaigning for Ford.

Cool. I remember how furious conservatives were that Notley wasn't right there boots on the ground during the MacMurray wildfire. I see nothing about this.

May 27, 2019#409

Timmus

Frank said:
The north is on fire. My hometown is still on the cusp of annihilation and Jason Kenney is in fucking Ontario campaigning for Ford.

Cool. I remember how furious conservatives were that Notley wasn't right there boots on the ground during the MacMurray wildfire. I see nothing about this.

Why do you hate jobs and business Frank? Sarcasm aside I wonder if you took that stupid blue truck to Ontario.

Jun 18, 2019#410

HCGLNS

@Emrys you said you had the @Celt Z situation under control!

Apparently not, as an army of banana people have invaded the capital!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/polit...costumes-push-anti-trudeau-campaign-1.4470049

Jun 18, 2019#411

Timmus

As long as Ford keeps Fording I'm hopeful Ontario won't give us another blue federal government.

Jun 18, 2019#412

Celt Z

HCGLNS said:
@Emrys you said you had the @Celt Z situation under control!

Apparently not, as an army of banana people have invaded the capital!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/polit...costumes-push-anti-trudeau-campaign-1.4470049

MWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! I'VE GONE ROGUE!

Jun 18, 2019#413

Emrys

Celt Z said:
MWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! I'VE GONE ROGUE!

I'm so proud of you!

Jun 18, 2019#414

Eriol

How stupid the plastic bag ban is: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-sorry-banning-plastic-bags-wont-save-our-planet/

We also need to consider the wider environmental impact of our bag choices. A 2018 study by the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food looked not just at plastic waste, but also at climate-change damage, ozone depletion, human toxicity and other indicators. It found you must reuse an organic cotton shopping bag 20,000 times before it will have less environmental damage than a plastic bag.

If we use the same shopping bag every single time we go to the store, twice every week, it will still take 191 years before the overall environmental effect of using the cotton bag is less than if we had just used plastic.

Even a simple paper bag requires 43 reuses to be better for the environment – far beyond the point at which the bag will be fit for the purpose.

The study clearly shows that a simple plastic bag, reused as a trash bag, has the smallest environmental impact of any of the choices.

And if we really want to make a meaningful impact on ocean plastics coming from land, we should focus on the biggest polluters such as China, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam, and emphasize the most effective ways to cut the plastic load, namely better waste management in the developing world.

We should also recognize that more than 70 per cent of all plastics floating on oceans today – about 190,000 tonnes – come from fisheries, with buoys and lines making up the majority. That tells us clearly that concerted action is needed to clean up the fishing industry.

Remember, the Danish Ministry of Environment did this study.

The plastic ban is just more virtue-signalling from our PM that actually does more harm than good.

Jun 18, 2019#415

Bubble181

Yup, and the whole EU is going along with it, too. Banning plastic q-tips, but letting oil tankers clean their holds with ocean water, is just completely ridiculous. I mean, i'm all in favor of going more green in all kinds of ways, but we're well past "trying to do some good and not be wasteful" and well into the "pestering the small man while pretending not to notice the elephnat i nthe room" territory. If Belgian household CO2 emissions and plastic go to 0 and all houses are turned into completely energy neutral buildings, it will still have less impact than a 5% tax on kerosine use, invested in environmental clean-up, if the airlines actually filled up where they land. Obviously they don't, which is why kerosine taxes need to be European or global, but, you know.

Aug 8, 2019#416

HCGLNS

Canada's ambassador to the USA is retiring after 31 years 9 months on the job.

Aug 12, 2019#417

Eriol

HCGLNS said:
Canada's ambassador to the USA is retiring after 31 years 9 months on the job.

Where exactly are you getting your information from man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_MacNaughton

David MacNaughton is a Canadian diplomat, business leader, political strategist, and strategy consultant who most recently was the Chairman of StrategyCorp, a communications, public affairs, and management consulting firm. He is currently Canada's ambassador to the United States, succeeding Gary Doer. MacNaughton presented his diplomatic papers to US President Barack Obama on March 2, 2016.

I heard about how he's retiring. That's fine. But what's the joke (or something) with the 31 years thing?

Aug 12, 2019#418

HCGLNS

1 month of cheeto = 1 year of normal service

Aug 12, 2019#419

PatrThom

HCGLNS said:
1 month of cheeto = 1 year of normal service

Dog ~~days~~ years.

—Patrick

Aug 12, 2019#420

Dave

Okay so March 2, 2016 to today. That's 3 years, 5 months, 10 days. Or, to put it another way...

125.8 Mooches.

Aug 12, 2019#421

Eriol

This is a little older, but still always good to remember At least 20 people donated max to both Liberals and Conservatives in 2018. https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2019/7/29/1_4527435.html

Cash for access. It's a thing.

Aug 12, 2019#422

Adam

$1500 max isn’t exactly going to get you a private meeting with an MP. I am on a first name basis with my MLA and my MP has a nickname for me and I certainly didn’t spend money to get that.

Aug 12, 2019#423

Eriol

Oh I'm sure that's not enough, but when trying to get on a "glad hand" list, being a "top donor" is always going to help grease the wheels. It's that it's BOTH PARTIES that's the headline.

Aug 12, 2019#424

HCGLNS

Well for a mere $2 5 M you could donate the max to every candidate in all 5 parties for every riding.

Aug 19, 2019#425

HCGLNS

Elections Canada, you're being silly again.

Bernier and his party deny climate change and have it as part of their platform.

As such Elections Canada has ruled that for the duration of the election, this issue will be partisan in nature.

As such all agencies that receive government funding can not speak on the issue without addressing both sides.

Aug 19, 2019#426

blotsfan

"The policemen shouldn't stop anyone from shooting members of the People's party."

Oh boy now it's partisan.

Aug 19, 2019#427

Frank

HCGLNS said:
Elections Canada, you're being silly again.

Bernier and his party deny climate change and have it as part of their platform.

As such Elections Canada has ruled that for the duration of the election, this issue will be partisan in nature.

As such all agencies that receive government funding can not speak on the issue without addressing both sides.

Both sides is a term that constantly makes my fucking skin crawl.

I think black people are human beings.

WAIT A SECOND, WE NEED TO HEAR BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE HERE.

Aug 23, 2019#428

HCGLNS

Canadian Ambassador to Denmark
Emi Furuya (BA Hons [Political Science specialization, French Literature major], University of Toronto, 1996; MA [Political Science], University of Toronto, 1997) worked as a consultant for the Canadian International Development Agency, specializing in democratization and good governance before joining the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 1999. Ms. Furuya has served abroad as political counsellor at the embassy in Paris (2006 to 2010), as second secretary (political) at the embassy in Tokyo (2000 to 2003) and as junior adviser at the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations in New York City (1999). In Ottawa, she has worked on Commonwealth affairs; managed peace support operations, including security sector policy and deployments; and served as deputy director for the department’s international assistance envelope and international financial institutions division. She has also served as deputy director for the G7 and G20 summits, as director of the Office of the Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and, most recently, as executive director of the Office of the Deputy Minister of International Development. Ms. Furuya and her spouse have two sons.

American Ambassador to Denmark
Carla Sands started a career in acting in 1987, starring in different episodes of the TV Series "The Bold and the Beautiful". From 1988 to 1990 she starred in several movies, and was best known for her work in Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell.
Following her graduation, Sands then started her career working as chiropractor in private practice from 1990 to 1999. Sands had been active in her husband's businesses throughout his career and in 2015, following his death, Sands became the chair and CEO of Vintage Capital Group, which has around $150 million in assets, and of Vintage Real Estate. In 2016, Sands served on President Trump's Transition Finance Committee and the Economic Advisory Council. Sands was the 2016 California Delegate for the 33rd Congressional District to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
U.S. Ambassador to Denmark
Sands was confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark on November 2, 2017. She formally assumed the office on December 15, 2017.

Aug 23, 2019#429

Eriol

Both seem better than when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonso_Gagliano was appointed.

On November 17, 2004, an article in the New York Daily News alleged that Gagliano was associated with the Bonanno crime family of New York City.[5] In the article, former capo Frank Lino, turned informant for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, is quoted as saying Gagliano was first introduced to him during a meeting with other mob members in Montreal in the early 1990s. Lino also stated that Gagliano was a made man of the Mafia.[6] It was not the first time Gagliano's name has been linked to organized crime. In April 1994, La Presse reported that Gagliano was the accountant for Agostino Cuntrera, cousin of cocaine baron Alfonso Caruana, also a native of Siculiana, who was convicted in the gangland slaying of Paolo Violi in Montreal in 1978.[7] Gagliano denied any links to the Mafia.[6]

To be fair this was revealed AFTER he was ambassador. He was given the appointment to get him out of Cabinet because he was involved in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal

That this is all Denmark is extra-funny.

Aug 23, 2019#430

blotsfan

I wonder if ambassador jobs are historically given as a bit of a reward because the thought is that countries like the US and Denmark are close enough that the formal ambassador isn't necessary for actually ensuring that the two countries have a good relationship, making it more symbolic.

Aug 23, 2019#431

HCGLNS

They are typically given as perks to donors (USA example) or used as training positions for more serious jobs (Canada example).

Aug 23, 2019#432

Adam

Good ambassador jobs are given as a reward (Canada->US, Canada->England, etc.). A typical ambassador posting is a combination of experience, education and ability. A bad ambassador posting is where they put people who want to work up to the typical ambassador job.

Aug 23, 2019#433

blotsfan

Adam said:
A bad ambassador posting is where they put people who want to work up to the typical ambassador job.

Which seems backwards to me since diplomacy is much more delicate when it's a country you're not on great terms with.

Aug 23, 2019#434

Adam

blotsfan said:
Which seems backwards to me since diplomacy is much more delicate when it's a country you're not on great terms with.

I should clarify "Bad ambassador posting" isn't necessarily somewhere we aren't on good terms with. It's Canada, we're on relatively good terms with everyone. A bad posting would be somewhere non-English/French speaking, less developed, less modern, potentially unstable, and low profile. For example, Tunisia or Latvia.

Aug 23, 2019#435

GasBandit

I've often heard of ambassadorial positions being given out to friends or people who do you favors, as a reward. It's often said to be a cushy sinecure.

Aug 23, 2019#436

Adam

GasBandit said:
I've often heard of ambassadorial positions being given out to friends or people who do you favors, as a reward. It's often said to be a cushy sinecure.

Ambassador to Syria doesn't feel like a reward

Aug 23, 2019#437

jwhouk

Wait a minute - Latvia? C'mon, that's not a "potentially unstable" location. Unless, of course, you don't like hockey...

Aug 23, 2019#438

blotsfan

jwhouk said:
Wait a minute - Latvia? C'mon, that's not a "potentially unstable" location. Unless, of course, you don't like hockey...

They've interfered in our elections in the past.

Aug 23, 2019#439

jwhouk

So? If he were still alive, I probably would have voted for Karlis for the All-Star Game.

Sep 13, 2019#440

HCGLNS

So the press bus ran into the Liberal campaign plane yesterday.

Sep 18, 2019#441

blotsfan

I know tredeau was probably going to lose anyways but blackface isn't a good look.

Sep 19, 2019#442

Frank

blotsfan said:
I know tredeau was probably going to lose anyways but blackface isn't a good look.

He's probably not going to lose. Ontario and Quebec will, as always, determine the PM and Ford is ball and chain around the Federal Conservatives.

Sep 19, 2019#443

blotsfan

Frank said:
He's probably not going to lose. Ontario and Quebec will, as always, determine the PM and Ford is ball and chain around the Federal Conservatives.

Odd. The way I've heard this election talked about has been like it's basically a done dea.

Sep 19, 2019#444

HCGLNS

blotsfan said:
Odd. The way I've heard this election talked about has been like it's basically a done dea.

What are your sources?

Sep 19, 2019#445

blotsfan

HCGLNS said:
What are your sources?

I honestly don't know where at this point. I'm sure it's not right if you guys are disagreeing.

Sep 19, 2019#446

Vrii

If Ontario can elect Doug Ford, there's nothing we're not collectively dumb enough to do.

Sep 19, 2019#447

Frank

Vrii said:
If Ontario can elect Doug Ford, there's nothing we're not collectively dumb enough to do.

True. Doug Ford's incompetence is, savagely hurting the CPC in the polls there. Scheer is having Alberta UPC go to Ontario to help campaign and if I know Ontarians, it's that they love being told what to do by Albertans.

Sep 19, 2019#448

Frank

I swear to God though, if we get Andrew "Gay People = Dogs" Scheer as PM because dipshit Trudeau wore blackface costumes in drama school 20 years ago I will fucking melt internally.

Sep 19, 2019#449

Frank

This whole election cycle has already made me tired of politics. How the fuck do Americans deal with this for like 2 out of 4 years at a time?

Sep 19, 2019#450

MindDetective

Frank said:
This whole election cycle has already made me tired of politics. How the fuck do Americans deal with this for like 2 out of 4 years at a time?

Have you seen us lately? We aren't really dealing well with it.

Sep 19, 2019#451

Frank

It's really unhealthy and I'm glad we legally only have to deal with it for like 6 weeks every 3-5 years.

Sep 19, 2019#452

Krisken

Yeah... we don't. We are freaking tired, and this bullshit Trump era is the worst yet.

Sep 21, 2019#453

HCGLNS

So Scheer appears to have given the election to Trudeau by outing him for appearing in blackface.

Sep 21, 2019#454

Frank

Yeah, it seems to be backfiring mega hard. Scheer keeps being asked if he'll apologize for comparing gay people to dogs and his comments on gay marriage and he's not handling quite as well as JT did the whole blackface thing.

Scheer sucks.

Most of the current leaders suck. I like Singh and I like his political beliefs, but he's a fucking terrible leader for the NDP. They have so little money and are so disorganized they're not even able to field candidates everywhere. They need someone to do shitty political work like fundraising and the like if they want to be back to where they were.

Oct 10, 2019#455

HCGLNS

11 days to the election. Inmates have voted and early voting everywhere starts tomorrow.

And the water cooler talk is who will replace Scheer as leader.

Ow. How the fuck does a party let that happen?

Oct 11, 2019#456

HCGLNS

I have voted.

I also have Chinese food.

Oct 21, 2019#457

HCGLNS

Go vote you turnip eating toque wearers!

And remember you are guaranteed a 3 hour window to do so. Your employer must accommodate this, and pay you for any time you miss work as a result.

Oct 21, 2019#458

Dirona

I have voted.

This pleases me.
Though I feel that the election results will not.

Oct 21, 2019#459

Frank

Eh, best case for me right now is a Liberal minority. Minority governments are the best we get.

Oct 21, 2019#460

HCGLNS

Canadians love their minorities. Like Pakistanis, the Inuit and the Winnipeg Jets.

Oct 21, 2019#461

Frank

Well I voted. Just about retched when I saw Michael Cooper's name on the ballot and that that piece of shit is going to be my representative.

Oct 21, 2019#462

HCGLNS

40 days is too long for an election, 76 days last time was horrible. But finally the ads and signs are finished.

27.4 M eligible to vote. Apparently 5M voted in the advance polls. Not sure how many prisoners voted.

Oct 21, 2019#463

blotsfan

HCGLNS said:
40 days is too long for an election,

Laughs in American

Oct 21, 2019#464

Dei

blotsfan said:
Cries in American

Ftfy

Oct 21, 2019#465

Krisken

I presumed that’s what he meant.

Oct 21, 2019#466

Adam

HCGLNS said:
Canadians love their minorities. Like Pakistanis, the Inuit and the Winnipeg Jets.

You shut your mouth!

Oct 21, 2019#467

Timmus

Voted on thanksgiving weekend but since I live in Alberta it's only a moral victory as far as my riding is concerned.

Oct 21, 2019#468

Simfers

I'm on my way there as I type...

Edit: Aaaaaand done. Cynicism won out a bit in the end and I voted strategically instead of ideologically, but I'm comfortable with my choice (it's not like the strategic choice was completely out of step with me anyway, they just weren't my FIRST choice).

Oct 21, 2019#469

Far

Done on the 12th in advanced polls. Happy to see turnout improved over last election for that. Hoping that translates to today as well.

Oct 21, 2019#470

HCGLNS

Ladies and gentlemen the first poll in Newfoundland are reporting in and based upon the results thus far, we expect a Conservative majority, taking all 338 seats.

Oct 21, 2019#471

HCGLNS

It's been one minute since the previous update and we now predict a Liberal majority government, all 338 seats based upon 3 yes 3 ridings in NFLD reporting in.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/results/

Oct 21, 2019#472

blotsfan

Simfers said:
Edit: Aaaaaand done. Cynicism won out a bit in the end and I voted strategically instead of ideologically, but I'm comfortable with my choice (it's not like the strategic choice was completely out of step with me anyway, they just weren't my FIRST choice).

Maybe I don't understand, but doesn't voting ideologically still kinda work out since the parties have to work together to form a majority government?

Oct 21, 2019#473

Simfers

In this particular instance, yes, it worked out that way. I'm actually pretty satisfied with tonight's results, at least as of right now.

Oct 21, 2019#474

HCGLNS

Yep. 4 more years of Liberal government. And most likely a new Leader for the CPC and Lib as well in the next election.

Oct 22, 2019#475

Frank

Scheer still a smarmy shit-eating cunt even in his "concession" speech. If the CPC leaves him in charge, they deserve every L they get forever.

Oct 22, 2019#476

Timmus

Frank said:
Scheer still a smarmy shit-eating cunt even in his "concession" speech. If the CPC leaves him in charge, they deserve every L they get forever.

That dumb loser has such a dumb loser voice.

Oct 22, 2019#477

blotsfan

But from what I've seen, the conservatives got the most votes but not the most seats?

Deletes every post ever made regarding the electoral college

Oct 22, 2019#478

Frank

blotsfan said:
But from what I've seen, the conservatives got the most votes but not the most seats?

Deletes every post ever made regarding the electoral college

It's because Alberta votes unbelievably conservative. Like, it's a 50/30/20 split or even closer all over the rest of Canada, in Alberta, it's a 70/everyone else split for conservatives.

Oct 22, 2019#479

HCGLNS

Yep, like always national numbers mean nothing. It's about ridings.

But Ralph Goodale and Lisa Raitt. Wow.

Oct 26, 2019#480

Frank

In a massive shock to no one, Kenney is attacking the most vulnerable to enrich the least. After record profits, massive tax cuts and huge layoffs as a result in the Oil+Gas industry, he's cutting AISH benefits for the permanently disabled to make up for the billions in lost revenue. God damn you Justachel Notrudeauly.

I hate the Conservatives and I fucking hate Albertans. I'm out of this province as soon as I can drop this ball and chain of a fucking house.

Nov 18, 2019#481

blotsfan

Just read about Wexit. Is this just an Alberta thing or would BC actually be ok with it?

Nov 18, 2019#482

grub

I don't speak for the whole province; but, the people at the coast are not. Our thoughts are more about diversification of economy and workforce.

Nov 18, 2019#483

Dirona

Speaking as a former Vancouver Islander - there's been a long-standing semi-serious joke about BC joining Washington state, Oregon and California and becoming a separate country (Cascadia, I believe).

But as for joining with Alberta? No. Not so much. Like, ever.

Nov 18, 2019#484

Frank

Wexit is a tiny amount of really stupid, mostly older, Albertans, led by a couple of white nationalist assholes (one a former Mountie, in case you ever wonder why I'm no longer). It does not, thankfully, represent most Albertans and is honestly one of the fucking stupidest God damn things to come out of this stupid God damn province. It absolutely doesn't include BC, because why the fuck would BC ever want to hitch their wagon to Alberta?

Nov 19, 2019#485

Frank

THAT SAID, Alberta is a fucking stupid fuckhole of a province and it didn't even take a year for our provincial government to embroil itself in disgusting corruption bullshit. I legitimately hate this place.

Nov 19, 2019#486

Vrii

Basically the one good thing about Ontario is that it's not Alberta. We still manage to elect terrible politicians who act against our best interest, but at least we occasionally take a break from it.

Nov 24, 2019#487

ThatNickGuy

I've heard many people say the NDP did a lot of good, despite spending most of the time cleaning up Conservative messes. That they were starting to make real, positive change. I don't know enough about politics to know if that's true or not. Anyone confirm?

Nov 24, 2019#488

Frank

ThatNickGuy said:
I've heard many people say the NDP did a lot of good, despite spending most of the time cleaning up Conservative messes. That they were starting to make real, positive change. I don't know enough about politics to know if that's true or not. Anyone confirm?

Confirm

Nov 25, 2019#489

Adam

The opposite is true in Manitoba where the NDP spent decades running Manitoba finances into the ground and now the Conservatives are trying to clean up the mess. I think a regular rotation of political party is essential to a well-functioning democracy.

Dec 12, 2019#490

Frank

Man, Canada really screwed up when it failed to replace a corrupt Liberal with *checks notes* a Conservative leader that literally embezzled money.

Dec 13, 2019#491

Dirona

Frank said:
Man, Canada really screwed up when it failed to replace a corrupt Liberal with *checks notes* a Conservative leader that literally embezzled money.

Dec 13, 2019#492

HCGLNS

It's not embezzlement or a crime or anything sexy like that. CPC leadership knew and approved it. This was the powers of the CPC fed up with Scheer not resigning, leaking this to the news and forcing him out. There is no positive spin to this story and they leaked it early enough to be forgotten by the next election.

Most damning insult I've seen thus far is , "Huh, well now Scheer is interesting. "

Mar 31, 2020#493

Frank

Gov of Alberta just fired 25000 employees, mostly education staff. Our province will be in fucking ruins when this is done. Oh they're still building a pipeline to ship our 3 dollars a barrel garbage though for over a billion dollars and we're still spending 30 million a year for Kenneys warroom. Literally the worst government Alberta's ever had.

Mar 31, 2020#494

HCGLNS

Look like they are just kicking the buck to the feds. 25000 lay offs, feds pay you now no questions asked, taked those freed up funds and dump them into healthcare. Kinda greasy Kenney, making love to JT like that.

Mar 31, 2020#495

Frank

It's hilarious, see a lot of love for how Doug fucking Ford is handling it in Ontario, but none of that here. Kenney is shit. Kenney is shitter than Doug fucking Ford. What a fucking joke.

Mar 31, 2020#496

Squidleybits

That’s unacceptable. That’s not what the benefit is for.

Sorry, I know I’m not a political poster.

Mar 31, 2020#497

PatrThom

Squidleybits said:
Sorry, I know I’m not a political poster.

I know you're Canadian, but it's all right. You can be outraged at this one. It's perfectly justified.
All across North America, nobody wants to let go of the money-making contracts they worked so hard to engineer and ram through government, even if it means losing money and/or killing the future.

--Patrick

Apr 2, 2020#498

Frank

Kenney's going full Trump and just fucking lying.

Kenney says many Alberta school boards were planning layoffs before his government announced them | Globalnews.ca

Premier Jason Kenney offered new details on Wednesday about why his government announced temporary layoffs in Alberta's education system over the weekend.

globalnews.ca

Nope. Wasn't a thing.

Glad we'll have spent 7 billion dollars for a pipeline to ship our *check's current prices* 4.90 a barrel oil that no company will ever be willing to dig up because that's a ludicrously small price at the cost of TWENTY FIVE FUCKING THOUSAND education jobs.

Oh, he's bitching about how much we pay medical staff in Alberta too, you know, DURING A GLOBAL FUCKING PANDEMIC.

The WORST government Alberta's ever had.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/jason-nixon-covid-19-coronavirus-martin-olyszynski-alberta-1.5518567?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar&fbclid=IwAR1L6INxiuItpRHoLpbsmyY7euLyYFUTOhqz7pLN8mU9pyNrwJDi57U5UPY

COOL!

I hope this pandemic kills every Albertan.

Apr 2, 2020#499

PatrThom

Frank said:
I hope this pandemic kills every Albertan.

Would you be ok with it just killing a small, specific handful of Albertans?

--Patrick

Apr 6, 2020#500

Frank

OH GOOD.

The provincial Conservatives here have voted to give cabinet ministers sweeping authority to write any laws they wish without debate.

Bill 10: Alberta government gives itself sweeping new powers to create new laws without Legislative Assembly approval | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The passing of Bill 10 means that, in addition to the already existing powers under the Alberta Public Health Act, any single politician can now also write, create, implement and enforce any new law, without approval or consultation. CALGARY: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms...

www.jccf.ca

NEAT. This is the same thing the CPC flew into a huff over the federal government trying to do (for good reason, it's horseshit garbage).

Forums