[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

The Globe and Mail is reporting that former Defence Minister Harjitt Sajjan instructed Canadian forces to rescue a number of Afghan Sikhs after the fall of Kabul and the Taliban takeover.  Three separate sources said this rescue directly impacted effort to assist Canadian citizens or Afghans tied to Canadian forces (translators and the like).

Harjitt Sajjan is, of course, Sikh himself.

The article itself is paywalled.

Big if true.

[Barrister]

Here's a CBC article responding to the Globe reporting, and quoting it somewhat.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-relayed-information-sikhs-in-afghanistan-1.7248417

Sajjan says he didn't instruct the CF, he merely passed along information passed along to him from a Sikh NGO.

That reminds me a lot of SNC-Lavalin scandal where Trudeau and the PMO insisted they didn't pressure Justice Minister Wilson-Raybold to drop charges against SNC-Lavalin - they were merely advocating for a constituent.  No - you're the boss.  It's almost impossible to distinguish between a "suggestion" and an "order".

Sajjan also plays the discrimination card - saying nobody would be questioning him if he wasn't Sikh (he said "wearing a turban").  True, but that's kind of the heart of the alleged scandal - that you ordered Canadian Forces to use their efforts to rescue Sikhs who, while in danger, had no connection to Canada rather than to assist Canadian citizens or those with ties to Canada to escape.  In the end the CF were unable to get this group of Afghan Sikhs out of the country.

[HVC]

I obviously know nothing about the law, and no doubt this is impossible, but in my ideal world I'd charge him with negligent homicide. Assuming he did it of course. I take a dim view of political corruption when it kills people (I think people should hang for the uk postal thing too).

[crazy canuck]

edit: I posted the Globe article in full for BB's benefit.  But since he is ignoring my posts there is no point and I have deleted it.

[viper37]

The average man on the street has no idea who Mark Carney is.  The fact he was former Bank of Canada governor 2008-2013, if people knew that at the time, has been forgotten.

I agree.

That is why I said one year is to short for him.

He should come after Trudeau has ran the Libs to the ground to rebuild them.

I don't think I'd vote for him, it's still the Liberal party, but if he stands a chance, that's how he should do it.

And who knows, the Libs might still pull it?

[viper37]

Told you long ago he'd make a bad defense minister.

[viper37]

I'm taking BBs side in this one, at least with respect to Carney. I'd argue most Canadians couldn't name the current BoC governor, let alone one from over 10 years ago.

Freeland is a different story but I doubt anyone with a Fuck Trudeau bumper sticker will vote for her

Most Canadians could not name the Prime Minister of Canada or their Premier.

[Barrister]

I obviously know nothing about the law, and no doubt this is impossible, but in my ideal world I'd charge him with negligent homicide. Assuming he did it of course. I take a dim view of political corruption when it kills people (I think people should hang for the uk postal thing too).

I'm unimpressed (to say the least) by Sajjan in this incident - but it's almost impossible to charge a politician with a crime when they're acting within the scope of their authority - and for good reason.

Every decision by a politician will involve trade-offs.

Trying to think of a simple example... Minister of Transport is presented with a plan to slow down traffic on a given road by installing speed bumps.  Minister says no - it would slow down the overall flow of traffic too much.  One year later a pedestrian is killed right where the proposed speed bumps would have gone - the speed bumps might well have saved that person's life if they had been installed.  You can't charge the minister with "negligent homicide".*

No - the proper recourse is (as it is here) political - that voters are allowed to say "Harjit Sajjan that's bullshit you're prioritizing Afghan Sikhs over those with ties to Canada".



*(I could go into the fact there is no charge of negligent homicide in Canada - the closest equivalent is criminal negligence causing death, and that even then it requires "wanton and reckless disregard" for the lives of others, which I don't think is at all made out here, as poorly thought out as this order/"suggestion" was)

[Barrister]

I'm taking BBs side in this one, at least with respect to Carney. I'd argue most Canadians couldn't name the current BoC governor, let alone one from over 10 years ago.

Freeland is a different story but I doubt anyone with a Fuck Trudeau bumper sticker will vote for her

Most Canadians could not name the Prime Minister of Canada or their Premier.

I will disagree with you here.  I think even schoolchildren can name the Prime Minister or Premiere.  Maybe their mayor.

But that's about the limit of it for wide-spread knowledge.

[viper37]

I'm taking BBs side in this one, at least with respect to Carney. I'd argue most Canadians couldn't name the current BoC governor, let alone one from over 10 years ago.

Freeland is a different story but I doubt anyone with a Fuck Trudeau bumper sticker will vote for her

Most Canadians could not name the Prime Minister of Canada or their Premier.

I will disagree with you here.  I think even schoolchildren can name the Prime Minister or Premiere.  Maybe their mayor.

But that's about the limit of it for wide-spread knowledge.

In most vox populi, people mix both names.  Or add more complexity: go beyond the PM/Premier/Mayor and go for leading cabinet position and you lost most adults.

Go for actors/actresses/reality tv stars however, and you got them.

Heck, I don't even know who's the Federal housing minister...

[Sheilbh]

I will disagree with you here.  I think even schoolchildren can name the Prime Minister or Premiere.  Maybe their mayor.

But that's about the limit of it for wide-spread knowledge.

I think that's about right generally.

People interested in politics (including people doing it) vastly overestimate how much most people pay attention to it. It's why you need 2-3 years of repeating the same message for it to actually be picked up by regular voters.

Although there's also just a group with strong confident opinions of everything (they are men ). In the UK those name recognition surveys often have a fake control politician and there's a solid 5-10% who have an opinion about them

[Barrister]

I'm taking BBs side in this one, at least with respect to Carney. I'd argue most Canadians couldn't name the current BoC governor, let alone one from over 10 years ago.

Freeland is a different story but I doubt anyone with a Fuck Trudeau bumper sticker will vote for her

Most Canadians could not name the Prime Minister of Canada or their Premier.

I will disagree with you here.  I think even schoolchildren can name the Prime Minister or Premiere.  Maybe their mayor.

But that's about the limit of it for wide-spread knowledge.

In most vox populi, people mix both names.  Or add more complexity: go beyond the PM/Premier/Mayor and go for leading cabinet position and you lost most adults.

Go for actors/actresses/reality tv stars however, and you got them.

Heck, I don't even know who's the Federal housing minister...

I'll do you one better - I had to google who the Alberta Minister of Justice was - and that person is technically my boss!

(I will say I could name the last couple, and for all the wrong reasons, so keeping a low profile as Minister of Justice is maybe a good thing)

[Barrister]

I will disagree with you here.  I think even schoolchildren can name the Prime Minister or Premiere.  Maybe their mayor.

But that's about the limit of it for wide-spread knowledge.

I think that's about right generally.

People interested in politics (including people doing it) vastly overestimate how much most people pay attention to it. It's why you need 2-3 years of repeating the same message for it to actually be picked up by regular voters.

And on a related note - people who are interested in politics are always, always, misunderstanding how unideological most voters are.  People do not think of themselves as existing on a right-left spectrum.  That's how you can get Conservative-NDP swing voters (or in the UK: Labour-Reform swing voters).

Although there's also just a group with strong confident opinions of everything (they are men ). In the UK those name recognition surveys often have a fake control politician and there's a solid 5-10% who have an opinion about them

I did a political opinion survey just yesterday I think.  I must be on a list as I get these calls not infrequently.  Now look I will answer "no opinion" if I truly know nothing about a topic, but I remember answering a few questions on that survey thinking "oh man - I don't know a whole lot about this..."

The problem with adding the fake control question - is the people who answer still have as much of a vote as anyone else.

[Sheilbh]

And on a related note - people who are interested in politics are always, always, misunderstanding how unideological most voters are.  People do not think of themselves as existing on a right-left spectrum.  That's how you can get Conservative-NDP swing voters (or in the UK: Labour-Reform swing voters).

Yeah - vastly less ideologically coherent and people have unpredictable priorities too. I mean back in the day you even have examples of Lib Dem-UKIP swing voters

As you say I think it's a big challenge for the politically committed or even interested to grasp. I also, kind of, think it's an amazing thing about democracy - people are wild.

I did a political opinion survey just yesterday I think.  I must be on a list as I get these calls not infrequently.  Now look I will answer "no opinion" if I truly know nothing about a topic, but I remember answering a few questions on that survey thinking "oh man - I don't know a whole lot about this..."

The problem with adding the fake control question - is the people who answer still have as much of a vote as anyone else.

I have strong badly informed views on more or less everything so I sympathise.

I'm not sure it's a problem. I know I've mentioned it a few times but it is my favourite piece of social science. The people most vulnerable to disinformation or misinformation are high information voters with strong ideological views - basically confirmation bias is one hell of a drug. Every democracy needs a very solid ballast of politically uninterested voters just doing their civic duty on vibes alone.

[Josephus]

I use the "my 88 year old mother with mild dementia" system.

My mom knows who the prime minister is.

She knows who Ontario's premier is.

No clue about our mayor.

I didn't ask her about the bank of canada governor, current or otherwise.