[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The big question now - why did the government take no action to warn the MP at the time the government knew the MP was being targeted by the Chinese?

Some misguided fear of displeasing China.

It depends on who the decision maker was.

If it was a CSIS decision not to inform, it could be for a variety of reasons that are reasonable and well intentioned - protecting sources, protecting ongoing investigations, etc.

But the reports that are now coming out cast some doubt on CSIS being the decision maker.  The leaks indicate a high level of frustration within CSIS caused by political decision makers failing to act on the briefing they receive from CSIS.

Trudeau has denied he knew anything about the targeting.  But there were earlier reports that CSIS had briefed the PM - although the reports are not specific about what level of detail he received.  It could have just been a high level briefing that China posed a threat. 

The Parliamentary Committee looking into all of this seems to have toned down the partisan rhetoric and seems to be digging into matters in a more thoughtful way.  Hopefully that continues and our political class can figure out what happened, but more importantly how to prevent or at least reduce the risk that this happens again.

Getting the discussion back on track.


It didn't take long for Trudeau's version of events to go off the rails.  It turns out the report was given to Trudeau's national security advisor. Trudeau had claimed it had not gone up through senior political channels.

Reporters are all over Trudeau at the Liberal convention today.

[Jacob]

Not a good look.

[viper37]

Smith removes sovereignty act, provincial police force from UCP campaign

Best 2 things of the UCP, damn!

BB will be happy she scraps this.  But... she stands a better chance of getting elected without it.

[Grey Fox]

That seems weird. Weren't those 2 things what would get her elected?

What do Alberta conservatives care about?

[viper37]

What do Alberta conservatives care about?

Oil & country music?

[Grey Fox]

They should remember that they are not Americans.

[Jacob]

In the internal PC disagreement over where to stand in the culture war against LGTBQ+ people, it looks like Pierre Poillievre is taking the side of those who think supporting LGTBQ+ kids and students is a step too far.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-new-brunswick-lgbtq-students-1.6889770

He - unsurprisingly - puts in the effort to contrast himself with Trudeau on this as well.

[Barrister]

In the internal PC disagreement over where to stand in the culture war against LGTBQ+ people, it looks like Pierre Poillievre is taking the side of those who think supporting LGTBQ+ kids and students is a step too far.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-new-brunswick-lgbtq-students-1.6889770

He - unsurprisingly - puts in the effort to contrast himself with Trudeau on this as well.

I think Poilievre is 100% correct on this.

Parents are the ones primarily responsible for raising kids.  If one of my kids started identifying as a girl and wanted to be called female pronouns I would want to know about it immediately.  Why, on this one issue, do we just assume that all parents are anti-gay/anti-trans monsters who are going to abuse their children?

And to the extent that some minority of parents are such abusive monsters we already have a system for dealing with that - CFS.

[Jacob]

If one of my kids started identifying as a girl and wanted to be called female pronouns I would want to know about it immediately.  Why, on this one issue, do we just assume that all parents are anti-gay/anti-trans monsters who are going to abuse their children?

Presumably if you're not an anti-gay/anti-trans monster your child will consent to tell you?

[viper37]

If one of my kids started identifying as a girl and wanted to be called female pronouns I would want to know about it immediately.  Why, on this one issue, do we just assume that all parents are anti-gay/anti-trans monsters who are going to abuse their children?

Presumably if you're not an anti-gay/anti-trans monster your child will consent to tell you?

Funny.

When the Conservatives wanted an hotline for heinous crimes, you guys were against it on the reasoning that they just had to go the police, that there was no such thing as peer pressure that would put a person in a situation where they would not denounce the crime to the police.

But here, it is automatically assumed that the parents are monsters and the children must be protected.

Don't you find this is some twisted logic?

[Jacob]

Though I'll admit to being a little confused... if a kid can (or could, under the now changed rules) request a name/gender change on their official records without parental consent then the parents are going to find out pretty soon.

"Oliver, why are you bringing home a report card for someone named Esmeralda?" The argument that it'd keep information from the parent doesn't really stand up.

I guess the only scenarios where official records being altered without parental consent really makes a difference is where there's a conflict between the child and the parents, or where the kid is outright estranged from the parents and lives elsewhere.

Seems to me that most parents are never going to have to deal with the implications of this policy, since in spite of the current culture war shenanigans there aren't that many trans people around. Those of us who might end up with trans or gender-questioning kids are hopefully going to be providing loving and supportive homes where the child works through whatever it is they're going through at home.

I mean, if I found out my kid is trans because they requested to change their name on official school records rather than because they told me I'd be upset - not because the school accommodated the request, but because I apparently fucked up to the point that the kid felt more at ease talking to the school bureaucracy about this before they told me.

So yeah, in my analysis it seems this (now removed) provision is primarily about protecting trans kids with potentially abusive parents, while not really impacting anyone else.

[HVC]

If one of my kids started identifying as a girl and wanted to be called female pronouns I would want to know about it immediately.  Why, on this one issue, do we just assume that all parents are anti-gay/anti-trans monsters who are going to abuse their children?

Presumably if you're not an anti-gay/anti-trans monster your child will consent to tell you?

Funny.

When the Conservatives wanted an hotline for heinous crimes, you guys were against it on the reasoning that they just had to go the police, that there was no such thing as peer pressure that would put a person in a situation where they would not denounce the crime to the police.

But here, it is automatically assumed that the parents are monsters and the children must be protected.

Don't you find this is some twisted logic?

I may be misremebering,  but it wasn't heinous crime, it was Muslim crime. Puts a different spin on it.

[HVC]

Nonconsensual Outings are bad, whether it's an adult or child. You don't know how people in their lives will react to the news. And while I agree parents should be made aware of most information about their kids, i think this is a valid exception. Like Jake said, the accepting parents won't care when when they find out and bigoted parents... well, I don't care about them.

[Jacob]

Funny.

When the Conservatives wanted an hotline for heinous crimes, you guys were against it on the reasoning that they just had to go the police, that there was no such thing as peer pressure that would put a person in a situation where they would not denounce the crime to the police.

But here, it is automatically assumed that the parents are monsters and the children must be protected.

The issue is whether a kid can get the name changed on their official records without parental consent.

There are a few main scenarios where it might apply:

• The kid comes from a loving home, the conversation has already been had at home, the parents would give consent anyways - not an issue
• The kid comes from a loving home, the conversation may not have been had (so parents will find out when the receive official communication from the school with the changed name) and/ or they won't give consent - obviously the loving family has some things to work through in terms of communication etc, but in the meantime the school will respect the child's decision
• The child comes from an abusive family, but they'd still give consent - obviously shitty, but this particular policy would not be a problem.
• The child comes from an abusive family and withholds consent - in this case the school supports the child, removing the ability of an abusive parent using gender identity as a bludgeon to further abuse the child

Now with parental consent changed, nothing changes in scenario 1. Scenario 2 is potentially more awkward for the kid, but with a loving family it'll still get worked through somehow. Scenario 3 is unchanged. Scenario 4 is much worse for the kid who is already experiencing abuse.

Seems to me the change - requiring parental consent - doesn't change much except make things much worse for a minority of kids with abusive families. This, in my eyes, argues for not requiring parental consent.

Don't you find this is some twisted logic?

No

[viper37]

I may be misremebering,  but it wasn't heinous crime, it was Muslim crime. Puts a different spin on it.

It wasn't targeted specifically at muslim.  It was about barbaric cultural practices.  It could have been much better worded, but it concerned a lot cultural communities, and did not affect Christians though. Well, not mostly.

Forced marriage, excisions, etc aren't exclusive to muslims.

The reasoning is the same.  Opponents of the bill were saying victims were free to call the police then if they felt pressured into anything.  Here, we put onus on the parents to prove they aren't monsters so they are informed on something by the school.