[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

Viper, VIPPPPPER.

You have a good, real reason to bash the Trudeau government. Come & do it!

CdM ran him off

Really? Fuck.

you speak French, you must have a way of contacting him

[Malthus]

Viper, VIPPPPPER.

You have a good, real reason to bash the Trudeau government. Come & do it!

CdM ran him off

When did this happen?

[HVC]

a month or so ago? temp Banned him. hasn't come back since.

[Valmy]

Seedy temp-banned him when Viper called him a bitch at some point a few weeks ago. Viper obviously was outraged since he has not been seen since.

[Grey Fox]

Viper, VIPPPPPER.

You have a good, real reason to bash the Trudeau government. Come & do it!

CdM ran him off

Really? Fuck.

you speak French, you must have a way of contacting him

Yeah, we are facebook friends.

[HVC]

tell him he's missed, even by Anglo Canadians!

[Grey Fox]

It is my dream, that on languish, all thread are eventually full of Canadian arguments to American problems. Seedy can't stop us all!

[crazy canuck]

I don't know much about her, other than what I've read recently.

She seems well-respected across political lines, which isn't unusual for Canadian judicial appointments - we have not, thank goodness, caught the US disease of making each and every judicial appointment into a partisan political battle - yet.

The NDP has cottoned on to the irony of appointing someone one of whose notable characteristics is "Indigenous issues" and "increasing the number of underrepresented groups in law schools and the legal profession" who is not herself indigenous ... and so whose appointment does not, in and of itself, increase the number of the "underrepresented" on the top court ... but their grumbling is pretty muted.

She spent a long time as Dean of a law school.  It would have been surprising if she had not spent time dealing with those issues in particular since they have been points of emphasis for law schools over the last 20 years or so.  But I think the muted disappointment speaks to the high expectations the Liberals created for themselves with the first nations constituency and now the NDP are trying to cash in on the disappointment.

I fear that we are headed down the slippery slope to politicizing these appointments.

[crazy canuck]

It is my dream, that on languish, all thread are eventually full of Canadian arguments to American problems. Seedy can't stop us all!

[Barrister]

I fear that we are headed down the slippery slope to politicizing these appointments.

SCC appointments have been politicized for as long as I can remember.  It's just politicized in a very Canadian context - all about regionalism and language issues, with a side helping of gender issues.

[crazy canuck]

I fear that we are headed down the slippery slope to politicizing these appointments.

SCC appointments have been politicized for as long as I can remember.  It's just politicized in a very Canadian context - all about regionalism and language issues, with a side helping of gender issues.

How far back do you remember?   

Regional representation is a constitutional convention not a political judgment made by the government currently in power.  Quite the contrary.  Governments have always respected the conventions related to appointments.  It is true the bilingual language ability and gender balance are recent but I find it difficult to understand that how those are "political" in the sense that Americans appoint judges who are more likely to decide specific issues in a particular manner.  Rather we seek to appoint the best group of judges (reflective of regional, linguistic and gender diversity) so that we have some confidence the decisions that Court makes will reflect our national values. 

[Malthus]

I fear that we are headed down the slippery slope to politicizing these appointments.

SCC appointments have been politicized for as long as I can remember.  It's just politicized in a very Canadian context - all about regionalism and language issues, with a side helping of gender issues.

It isn't really the same thing though, because all three parties more or less agree on these matters. 

[PRC]

Some more Alberta news... Jason Kenney's UCP culture and tourism critic Ron Orr apparently believes that marijuana legalization is going to lead us into a communist revolution.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3889241/alberta-mla-says-marijuana-legalization-could-lead-to-communist-revolution/

Alberta MLA says marijuana legalization could lead to communist revolution

An Alberta MLA has drawn parallels between the legalization of marijuana in Canada and the communist revolution in China.

In the Alberta legislature on Wednesday, United Conservative Party (UCP) culture and tourism critic Ron Orr suggested marijuana legalization could lead to human tragedy similar to the one suffered in China during the communist revolution.

"It wasn't until the 1950s that China began to seriously eradicate the opium trade, the opium business, the opium tax revenue and all of these wonderful things that are supposed to be generated from recreational use of drugs," Orr said.

"The human tragedy of what's going to happen with this has yet to be revealed."

On Twitter, NDP MLA Michael Connolly questioned Orr's argument and his "grasp on reality."

The Alberta government is introducing rules to align with the federal cannabis legalization plan, including changes to align its rules with pending Criminal Code amendments.

Marijuana is to be legal across Canada as of July 1, 2018.

[Malthus]

Some more Alberta news... Jason Kenney's UCP culture and tourism critic Ron Orr apparently believes that marijuana legalization is going to lead us into a communist revolution.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3889241/alberta-mla-says-marijuana-legalization-could-lead-to-communist-revolution/

Alberta MLA says marijuana legalization could lead to communist revolution

An Alberta MLA has drawn parallels between the legalization of marijuana in Canada and the communist revolution in China.

In the Alberta legislature on Wednesday, United Conservative Party (UCP) culture and tourism critic Ron Orr suggested marijuana legalization could lead to human tragedy similar to the one suffered in China during the communist revolution.

"It wasn't until the 1950s that China began to seriously eradicate the opium trade, the opium business, the opium tax revenue and all of these wonderful things that are supposed to be generated from recreational use of drugs," Orr said.

"The human tragedy of what's going to happen with this has yet to be revealed."

On Twitter, NDP MLA Michael Connolly questioned Orr's argument and his "grasp on reality."

The Alberta government is introducing rules to align with the federal cannabis legalization plan, including changes to align its rules with pending Criminal Code amendments.

Marijuana is to be legal across Canada as of July 1, 2018.

As hilarious as that is, it's a misreading of what the guy said. Seems to me he's claiming that it took until 1950 to undo the harm of the opium trade in China, and so analogizing pot to opium; so presumably it will take as long to undo the harm of pot legalization.

Which is still dumb, but less dumb than claiming pot will cause a communist revolution.

[Jacob]

Yeah, that's one ignorant headline.

As for Orr's point - I think the real problem with the opium trade was that the Chinese government couldn't regulate it and when they tried, foreign powers defeated them and essentially overthrew the government. Seems to me that's an unlikely outcome with legalizing marijuana in Canada.