Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by HisMajestyBOB - Today at 02:46:25 PM

So Denmark has invited the US to participate in the upcoming military exercises in Greenland.

As OPFOR?

#2

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by Jacob - Today at 02:31:01 PM

So Denmark has invited the US to participate in the upcoming military exercises in Greenland.

#3

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 02:26:57 PM

The Liberal federal government and yes, they chose to not do so because they were on the sides of the convoy. Especially, it's chief.

#4

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 01:30:50 PM

On Jenrick - there are defections where you get a sense that people are quite sad to see a person go and there is a more in sorrow than anger sie to the criticism from his former party. That is not the case for Jenrick and the way Tories are absolutely giong in for him gives me a slight sense that they all hated him and on a purely personal level he is quite possibly just a prick

I mentioned it but Badenoch speaking to the Scottish Tories after firing him (sorry can only find on Twitter):
https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2011867986408153333?s=20

Then Ben Obese-Jecty - he quoted a post by Nigel Farage six months ago calling Jenrick a fraud:

Ben Obese-Jecty MP
@BenObeseJecty

Until yesterday morning Robert Jenrick was my boss.

A man I never considered to be a potential party leader for a second.

A man of no principles, who'll say whatever he thinks will help his own career.

He'll fit right in with Nigel.

Or David Davis:

Conversation
David Davis MP
@DavidDavisMP
·
22h
It's entirely up to @RobertJenrick  what he does next with his career. But he should stop blaming others for the state of the country.

After serving as Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Minister of State for Health and Minister of State for Immigration, he is as responsible as anyone else.

Particularly considering that he chose to walk out of government after not being promoted by Rishi Sunak, he now attacks from the sidelines the colleagues he abandoned.

Unlike him, some of his colleagues chose not to serve in governments that were doing the wrong thing.

Or Cleverly:

James Cleverly🇬🇧
@JamesCleverly
My main takeaway from the Jenrick/Reform move is this:

The people who were denouncing each other days or weeks ago are now praising each other to the heavens.

They are willing to say anything and then shift their position. You can't believe or trust anything any of them say.

In all of these I think there's a level of persona animus to Jenrick that is actually quite striking and I can't help but feel reflects the experience of working with him. Even a party video of Farage and Jenrick slating each other ending with Badenoch saying "Robert Jenrick is not my problem anymore, he's Nigel Farage's problem now".

Reform have already been plateauing in the polls and recently starting to fall. Could be totally wrong but I think Zahawi and Jenrick might be quite toxic and hurt the brand more - as Tamas says - for starting to look like a tribute act to the last goverment. I also slightly wonder if these defections will also have the effect of slightly helping de-toxify the Tories.

#5

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 01:28:34 PM

Who is the they who refuses to acknowledge and what do you mean by compromised?

There is another section of the decision that explains that there is no evidence that police forces could not have dealt with the situation if they had chosen to do so. And unfortunately the Chief of Police in Ottawa chose the do nothing option - and that is maybe what you are referring to?

#6

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 01:17:59 PM

All this because they refuse to acknowledge that the Ottawa Police was compromised.

#7

Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...

Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 01:07:37 PM

Our Federal Court of Appeal just dismissed the Federal governments appeal of the lower court's decision that the invocation of the Emergencies Act by Trudeau infringed Charter rights.

A timely decision given the discussion of the importance of the rule of law in the threads about our friends to the South.

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the decision for administrative and constructional lawyers that I won't bore you with, but I will probably find the factual weakness in the Cabinet's decision of some interest - the report cabinet had actually said there was no threat, but they did it anyway:

[219] Of course, the CSIS assessment that there were no threats to the security of Canada was
not determinative and could not bind Cabinet. The Federal Court and the respondents agree that
the GIC was not limited to considering the intelligence collected by CSIS or by its analysis of
that intelligence. Because of its expertise in investigating threats to the security of Canada,
however, CSIS's threat assessment should nevertheless have carried substantial weight; after all,
it is one of CSIS's principal activities to investigate, analyze, and retain information and
intelligence on security threats: X(Re), 2016 FC 1105 at para. 159, citing the Pitfield Report at
para. 28.

[220] If Cabinet was not satisfied with CSIS's threat assessment, it was always open to it to ask
for further information and analysis from CSIS, the RCMP, or other relevant federal departments
or agencies. In fact, it appears from the record that an alternative threat assessment was requested
by the Clerk of the Privy Council on February 14, 2022. Without going into the details of what
happened on that day, what is clear is that no alternative threat assessment was ever prepared
before the invocation of the Act.

[221] In the Invocation Memorandum which was prepared by the Clerk of the Privy Council
and that ended up being the last piece of advice that went to the Prime Minister, we find the
mention that "[a] more detailed threat assessment is being provided under separate cover"
(Invocation Memorandum, p. 2; AB, Vol. 1, Tab 5, p. 189). Yet the Clerk testified that "there
was no written detailed threat assessment provided under separate cover": Commission
Testimony of Clerk Charette and Deputy Clerk Drouin (excerpts) (November 18, 2022), Exhibit
D, Zwibel Affidavit, AB, Vol. 1, Tab 11.8, p. 419.

[222] Apart from the fact that no further threat assessment was provided to the Prime Minister
prior to his decision to declare the public order emergency, this Memorandum is significant
because it was the "culmination ... of the public service advice to the prime minister", in the
Clerk of the Privy Council's own words: Public Order Emergency Commission Testimony of
Page: 91
Clerk Charette and Deputy Clerk Drouin (November 18, 2022), AB, Vol. 6, Tab 13.8.4, p. 3245.
What is remarkable is that it does not contain discussion of any discrete risks of "serious
violence". In the background part of this heavily redacted document, we find in very broad
strokes a mere reiteration of the general concerns about disruption of the peace, the impacts on
the Canadian economy, and a "general sense" of public unrest. There is also a vague reference to
"slow roll activity, slowing down traffic and creating traffic jams, in particular near POEs, as
well as reports of protesters bringing children to protest sites to limit the level and types of law
enforcement intervention": Invocation Memorandum, AB, Vol. 6, Tab 13.8.2, p. 3217.

[223] In the part of the Memorandum providing advice to the Prime Minister, the only portion
dealing with the "threats to the security of Canada" reads as follows:
...while municipal and provincial authorities have taken decisive action in key
affected areas, such as law enforcement activity at the Ambassador Bridge in
Windsor, considerable effort was necessary to restore access to the site and will
be required to maintain access. The situation across the country remains
concerning, volatile and unpredictable. While there is no current evidence of
significant implications by extremist groups or international sponsors, PCO notes
that the disturbance and public unrest is being felt across the country and beyond
the Canadian borders, which may provide further momentum to the movement
and lead to irremediable harms – including to social cohesion, national unity, and
Canada's international reputation. In PCO's view, this fits within the statutory
parameters defining threats to the security of Canada, though this conclusion may
be vulnerable to challenge. (Invocation Memorandum, AB, Vol. 1, Tab 11.6,
p. 391)

[224] In light of all the foregoing, has the appellant met his burden to show that the GIC had
reasonable grounds to believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the
Act when it declared a public order emergency? Was there a reasonable basis in the record to
support the GIC's opinion? As troubling as the discoveries of weapons and ammunition at
Coutts, the talk of overthrowing the government, the serious disturbances occasioned by the
Convoy in Ottawa and the potential for serious violence that it created, and the economic impact
of the blockades at various points of entry may have been, were they sufficient to meet the test of
"threats to the security of Canada"? Like the Federal Court, we are of the view that they were
not

If you want to read the case here is the link https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/521758/1/document.do

#8

Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 01:07:29 PM

I don't think so, the books haven't been burned yet

Some of us are even working to increase the volume of physical object books!

#9

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 01:06:13 PM

It's quite possible that these institutions hold. My point is always that these institutions do not exist in a vacuum, removed from civil society. It will be easier for them to hold if people know that someone out there finds something abhorrent. Institutions normalize: that's what they do, and it's frighteningly easy to get carried by the stream of the routine. They are also slow. It's part of the design: slowness allows for input. It's part of the problem: slowness allows them to be bypassed by fascists, who all celebrate swiftness.

Also many of these institutions are not democratic or neutral in any event. Looking to institutions for salvation is, I think, often predicated on a partial reading of those institutions' histories and roles. The idea that the FBI is a force for civic good seems to me to only work if you focus on the Trump era very specifically. For about half of its history it was run by J Edgar Hoover and we literally don't know what was in the safe in his personal office. A significant part of its origin story is the first red scare which was the repression of certain political views and organising, often through deportations, and the Hoover era is not the end of its deep participation in domestic surveillance.

I think you can say something similar with the courts. These are broadly speaking non-democratic, relatively unaccountable bodies who recruit from a narrow spectrum of well educated, high status people (with all the intersections of class, gender, race that entails at any given time). I think their role has very often been supporting, disseminating and policing ideology that justifies and preserves their power - and therefore the system that is producing them.

To the extent we look at them as sources of civic virtue I think is in part because the background of their personnel is now more similar to the background of people on the broadly left-of-centre of politics in a way that wasn't the case in the past (and may not be in the future). But also I think it is through a sometimes folk memory of their heroic moments. For the Supreme Court a couple of shining eras of expansive and progressive judgemanship and the FBI literally just the last 10 years.

I also think there is a strategic trap here. In becoming the party of norms and institutions you can undermine your capacity to present an alternative. Part of this is the point that Buttigieg has made (which I think is also the Abundance point to an extent). Biden got big important spending bills passed and Buttigieg said that, to his huge frustration, in his department very little of that spending had actually happened by 2024 because it was wrapped up in process. If you are the party of norms and institutions and there are systemic/structural problems you may not be able to actually govern effectively which just reinforces the appeal of the outsider anti-institutional candidate. You maybe need to be able to subvert or cut through those norms to deliver. Similarly I think I was on the wrong side of this but Tusk in Poland after beating PiS used extraordinary legal powers to basically purge the state broadcaster of a lot of PiS appointments that basically turned it into a very party political broadcaster. On the one hand that creating a precedent for the next time PiS win - on the other they'd already done it so they don't need a precedent and not doing it is perhaps the equivalent of political unilateral disarmament. This is perhaps the Merrick Garland paradox: fabuloously qualified, astonishingly useless.

ICE is beyond saving: that institution is much too steeped into authoritarianism. But there will be a time when the army may be asked to fire on a crowd, or to invade Denmark; a time when judges will be told the desired outcome of a trial; a moment when a Member of Congress will be offered a bribe, or cowed into silence or compliance. That time is upon us.

Totally agree. As I say in my view it is time for civil disobedience against ICE. It is that bad and, to the Gandhi/satyagraha point, given how violent and uncontrolled ICE are that may involve people putting themselves at risk. But I don't think lawyers or judges, for example, should cooperate and I think they should take the risk.

There are always extremists who exploit protests for their own ends. These people are useful to whoever is against the protest, they can be shown breaking the law or with offensive slogans or signs, which is then used to blacken the name of the entire protest movement.

Totally agree.

Although on the extremist point I'd add that I think there's a slight element of the self-reinforcing from the left on this. I think we are in an era of radical chic intellectually. So there's lots of work that has re-discovered radical movements ahead of their time and the ideas they had which may seem either still current (so by implication: still unachieved) or normalised. It's also done by looking at the radical history of sanitise figures like Gandhi or MLK. This is all true and valuable but I think it can be misleading. It can focus on intellectual fertile and important groups or groupuscules, while I actually think you need to look at the deliberately sanitising stuff that people like MLK or Gandhi did in order to make their movements succeed.

I think about this with the whole antifa, punch fascists stuff which is loosely inspired by the German Communist Party's Antifascist Aktion in the 20s and early 30s. Because I always wonder to myself - do the people making those points know what happed to the German Communist Party in the late 30s? It's a little like Peter Cook's gag about the power of satire and being inspired by "those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to top the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War". I mention those examples because I think France is the only country where there was a serious fascist threat in the inter-war era and the democratic, republican system prevailed. And the lesson there is about broadening your coalition - it's Popular Front politics and mass mobilisation (obviously there was some street violence but it was less of the strategy than it was for the KPD).

As I say I think we are in a moment of the more radical wing and action just being a bit cooler if less effective. As well as provoking reactions that allow Trump to pose as the party of order (I think, incidentally, this is where ICE may undo itself because I don't think that's how it comes across). And I think we'd be better served with more thinking about how to build the broader coalitions, mobilise as many as possible etc even at the risk of disappointing the cool kids - I sort of think this about the slight disdain by some for the "resist libs" which I get but also think people need to get over themselves. Those are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people ready to be mobilised in my view.

I basically think the division of power in the US is dead. The executive reigns supreme over the legislative, the judicial is (at least at the Supreme Court level) subservient to the executive and the so-called fourth estate of the media has been defanged entirely.

I fail to see which institution to pin my hopes on. So the US system and society seems to be heading only way - towards an authoritarian, kleptocratic state, riven with violence and no social cohesion.

In that context, handwringing about whether protestors are to rude or acting unruly seems like a massive loss of perspective.

I think this is key. I'd slightly frame it differently in that I think a huge number of problems in the US right now ultimately comes from a decades long process of Congress successivly abdicating its role and its power. And if Congress isn't the place of governance and legislation - which it isn't - that power doesn't just sort of fall away. Other institutions will fill the void. The executive through executive orders but also the vast apparatus of the administrative state, the huge discretionary powers on foreign policy and matters of war and peace. But also the judiciary through a process of legalising political questions - because it's no longer possible to achieve political change through Congress. It is simply astonishing reading about even relatively recent periods in the past when Congress - and individual Senators and Congresspeople - were so much more significant.

I don't know how you unwind this. But I think any solution will run through Congress re-asserting itself and getting a little bit of its dignity and power back.

On your wider point I find the echoes with Latin American countries and constitutional breakdowns interesting. But I don't know (this goes for looking at the world too) as on the one hand I can't think of an example of a democratic society recovering itself from the sort of situation and issues the US has on the other hand not many people have made money betting against the US.

#10

Off the Record / Re: US - Greenland Crisis Thre...

Last post by Crazy_Ivan80 - Today at 01:04:50 PM

And now krasnov is threatening tariffs for countries that don't support his Greenland bs.

Bon, tariffs then and hopefully the eu retaliates tit for tat.