[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Two related themes I see coming up regularly - though I don't know how real it is vs a perception repeated ad nauseum on the internet are:

1. Repeat offender does something violent, gets arrested by the police, and is back on the street again the same day.

2. Someone does something violent, gets super low sentence (often contrasted with sterner sentences people allegedly get for defending themselves).

The narrative being pushed is very much that dangerous offenders and "scum" don't suffer significant consequences due to lenient legislation or judges, and limited capacity.

I don't know how true it is in practice, but it for people who like the visceral (and very human) satisfaction of seeing obvious miscreants "getting what they had coming", it seems fairly slim pickings.

I guess Beeb is one of our experts here - is the criminal justice system under resourced and/ or too lenient. Is the sense that the FO part of FAFO is too feeble actually correct?

#1 is not much of a problem.  Once he is a repeat offender, the criminal justice system seems to take care of the culprit.  Except maybe for driving while impaired, but it's always hard to guess when the sentences happened from newspaper articles.

#2 Is the problem, as we are losing faith in our justice system.  Outside of murder, most of the crimes get light sentence.   Take your car or a truck, drive recklessly, kill someone or multiple someones, make less than 2 years in jail.  White collar crimes are a joke.  Injure someone from a severe beating, get off lightly.  Juvenile detention gets light sentence, even for hard crimes. 18-19 years old who commits crimes with guns, car theft, or drugs get very light sentence for a 1st offense and will often repeat as soon as they're out of jail.

And these last two remove a big deterrent for crimes.  Criminal gangs recruit youths to commit these crimes.  Since they get light sentences, they have no incentives to denounce the higher ups, stalling police investigation.

Add on this the stop on police arrest for general motives, and police can't arrest a suspicious bunch of youth driving at 3:00 am in a residential area who might happen to be gang members on the look out for new cars to steal.

Again, less deterrent to crimes.


Also, the blanket cover we give to hate speech when it's done under the guise of religion.  Say you want Jews to be cleanse from the Face of the Earth, use the religious defense, you're free to go.  Same for Israeli extremists advocating the murder of Palestinians.  It's their religion, you can't do anything about it.

[viper37]

Please tell me who on the list is objectionable.  Surely you wouldn't say that any right-wing American is automatically objectionable?

Wolf was an architect of the Trump administration family separation policy in 2018,^[5] and was prominently involved in the deployment of federal law enforcement forces in Portland and elsewhere beginning in July 2020.
In September 2020, a whistleblower accused him of having ordered staff to stop reporting on threats from Russia.^[6][7] In November 2020, District Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled Wolf's appointment unlawful,^[2][8] and overturned a set of Wolf's orders as "not an exercise of legal authority".^{[9][8][10][2]} Wolf resigned his post on January 11, 2021, after a number of similar court rulings.



Another one:

VA inspector general investigation and report

The VA Office of Inspector General (IG) determined that Wilkie and his senior staff sought to discredit a woman who reported being sexually assaulted by a contractor at the D.C. Medical Center (the flagship VA hospital in Washington, D.C.) and impugn her credibility.[23][24][25][26] The woman, a U.S. Navy veteran and an aide to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, made the report in the fall of 2019; prosecutors declined to file sexual assault charges.[23]

Wilkie and his senior staff openly questioned the veterans' account and suggested that her report was politically motivated.[24] In February 2020, Wilkie abruptly fired James Byrne from his position of deputy secretary of veterans affairs. The dismissal was a surprise because Byrne had been popular among veterans' groups and was seen as a loyalist to Wilkie. Wilkie provided little reasoning for the decision, suggesting only that Byrne "who was not jelling with other members of the team."[27] Byrne later said he was fired because he declined to participate in an effort by Wilkie to smear the woman, telling Stars & Stripes, "I've gotten crossways with Wilkie over the [sexual assault] matter by refusing to trash this woman."[28]

In a 68-page report issued in December 2020, VA IG Michael J. Missal determined that "The tone set by Secretary Wilkie was at minimum unprofessional and at worst provided the basis for VA leaders' attempts to undermine the veteran's credibility" and concluded that "Using denigrating remarks and questioning the credibility of a veteran who reported being sexually assaulted, and then failing to fully explore the facts, is ... contrary to the ongoing missions of improving VA and of serving the veteran community with respect."[24] The IG did not substantiate an allegation that Wilkie had accessed the complainant's military and electronic health records, or asked others to do so, in an attempt to "dig up dirt" on her.[24][25]

Wilkie and his two top press aides gave an interview to the investigators from the VA IG's Office, but refused to sit for follow-up interviews.[24] The IG informed the Justice Department of possible criminal conduct by Wilkie (specifically relating to interference into the assault investigation and perjury during testimony to investigators); the IG did not make a formal criminal referral, and the Justice Department did not charge Wilkie with a crime, reportedly believing the evidence was insufficient.[23][24][29] Wilkie denied all wrongdoing.[23][24]

After the issuance of the IG report in December 2020, the heads of six major veterans organizations (the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans of America) called upon President Trump to fire Wilkie from his post. The New York Times editorial board also called for Wilkie to be dismissed.[30][31]
Pro-Confederate speeches

In a 1995 speech at the U.S. Capitol, Wilkie called Confederate President Jefferson Davis a "martyr to 'The Lost Cause'" and an "exceptional man in an exceptional age"; in a pro-Confederate event in 2009, Wilkie spoke about Robert E. Lee to the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). He also called abolitionists who opposed slavery "radical", "mendacious", and "enemies of liberty", and stated that the Confederate "cause was honorable,"[32] while also condemning slavery as "a stain on our story as it is a stain on every civilization in history".[33] Wilkie is a former member of the SCV and its Confederate Memorial Committee, having been listed as a member at least through 2010;[34] In June 2018, a Defense Department spokesperson said that Wilkie no longer considered himself a member of the group.[35]

During Wilkie's confirmation hearings to be VA secretary, he gave inaccurate answers to Senators regarding the dates of his speaking to Confederate groups.[36] In sworn statements to the Senate as part of the nomination questionnaire, he failed to include his membership in the SCV and omitted his event speeches from responses asking for details on them.[35]
Swastikas on grave markers

In 2020, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation demanded VA remove three headstones in two VA cemeteries (Fort Sam Houston in Texas and Fort Douglas Post in Utah) that mark the graves of World War II German prisoners of war. The three gravestones at issue featured the Nazi swastikas, the Iron Cross, and tributes to Adolf Hitler ("He died far from his home for the Führer, people and fatherland.").[37]

After coming under pressure from Congress to remove the headstones from the national cemeteries, Wilkie initially declined to do so, suggesting that "erasing these headstones removes them from memory"; that "divisive historical figures or events" should be recognized; and that removal would require a lengthy process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.[37] Amid continued pressure, Wilkie reversed himself, and VA quietly removed the grave markers in 2020.[38][39]



If that's the kind of people modern Conservatives-aligned people want to associate with, fine.  I'm out of there for good.  This is supposed to be the future of the party, where it'll get it's inspiration, it's ideas, where new talent will emerge from.

All it does is cater to the MAGA crowd like the rest of the party.

[Barrister]

On the buttons, the story is IMO that the Conservatives are politically vulnerable to charges of being in bed with odious radical right trends in the US and the Liberals did something underhanded to hit that weakness.

How you react to that depends, I suppose, on whether you think the Liberals' underhandedness is a bigger or smaller deal than the Conservatives' involvement with the US radical right.

Ooh!  I didn't think of this one!

Jacob goes with the "blame the victim" defence!

Look - just because LBJ reportedly once called his opponent a pigfucker just so his opponent would have to deny it didn't make LBJ's opponent vulnerable to accusations of pigfuckery.

https://www.thestanduplawyer.com/make-the-sonofabitch-deny-it-the-rise-of-pig-fucker-politics/



Look, I didn't expect that little story to change anyone's votes.  I found it amusing, "delicious" even, because it so succinctly sets out the Liberal strategy - to run against Trump, not Poilievre.

And hey, it seems to be working for them.

But I just found it kind of sad that of everyone who commented on the story nobody could simply say "well they shouldn't have done that" and moved on.

[crazy canuck]

I am more worried about how the Conservatives are restricting access to PP by the media.  Only four questions, no follow up questions. And oh ya, the Conservatives select the four people who ask the four questions.

Whereas CC goes with the time-honoured "whataboutism" defence of trying to change the subject.

If you want to talk about media access, Carney has now "suspended" his campaign three times where he then proceeds to answer zero questions from any media.

How is this what whataboutism?

I am worried about decisions PP and his senior staff have made. Is there any evidence the pins were the idea of Carney?  If there is then I would be more concerned about that.

[HVC]

Campaigning against trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

[crazy canuck]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

[Barrister]

Two related themes I see coming up regularly - though I don't know how real it is vs a perception repeated ad nauseum on the internet are:

1. Repeat offender does something violent, gets arrested by the police, and is back on the street again the same day.

2. Someone does something violent, gets super low sentence (often contrasted with sterner sentences people allegedly get for defending themselves).

The narrative being pushed is very much that dangerous offenders and "scum" don't suffer significant consequences due to lenient legislation or judges, and limited capacity.

I don't know how true it is in practice, but it for people who like the visceral (and very human) satisfaction of seeing obvious miscreants "getting what they had coming", it seems fairly slim pickings.

I guess Beeb is one of our experts here - is the criminal justice system under resourced and/ or too lenient? Is the sense that the FO part of FAFO is too feeble actually correct?

The justice system is too unpredictable, is probably it's biggest flaw.  It's too complicated is probably it's second.  It's wildly under-reported-on, which is probably it's third.

I now have over 20 years in the middle of it, so I do feel like I can speak with some authority.  But I could write a book, so one Languish post will hardly do the topic justice.

Lack of judicial appointments?  I mean sure it's a perennial issue.  Trudeau should have appointed more judges.  But while it might make the top 10 list of problems, it's near the bottom.

But just let me go through in point form perhaps:

-there's no local media.  Nobody is at the courthouse actually reporting on what goes on. So when a big story does come up the media is lacking any details and frequently gets things wrong

-no predictability.  Sentences (and bail) are widely in the discretion of the judge.  So while you may get a really strong sentence from one judge, you get a really weak one from another.  Any time Parliament tries to step in with things like minimum sentences in order to give more predictability the SCC strikes them down.

-it's too complicated.  Just to pick two examples... we're choking to death on video.  Body-worn is going to make things even worse.  An assault case used to be quite simple - just call one or two eyewitnesses.  Now, in addition to the witnesses, you have to call the custodians of the video, plus deal with all the disclosure of the video.

Or remember the Jian Ghomeshi case?  Ghomeshi's lawyer wound up ambushing the victims based on letters they had written to Ghomeshi.  Parliament responded by passing s. 278.92 and related sections - now any such cross-examination requires a pre-trial application.  Which means we're drowning in such applications.

In my twenty years a criminal case has only ever gotten more complicated, never less.  Lead times for trials only get longer - despite the fact that funding has increased.

[crazy canuck]

But just let me go through in point form perhaps:

-there's no local media.  Nobody is at the courthouse actually reporting on what goes on. So when a big story does come up the media is lacking any details and frequently gets things wrong

-no predictability.  Sentences (and bail) are widely in the discretion of the judge.  So while you may get a really strong sentence from one judge, you get a really weak one from another.  Any time Parliament tries to step in with things like minimum sentences in order to give more predictability the SCC strikes them down.

-it's too complicated.  Just to pick two examples... we're choking to death on video.  Body-worn is going to make things even worse.  An assault case used to be quite simple - just call one or two eyewitnesses.  Now, in addition to the witnesses, you have to call the custodians of the video, plus deal with all the disclosure of the video.

Or remember the Jian Ghomeshi case?  Ghomeshi's lawyer wound up ambushing the victims based on letters they had written to Ghomeshi.  Parliament responded by passing s. 278.92 and related sections - now any such cross-examination requires a pre-trial application.  Which means we're drowning in such applications.

In my twenty years a criminal case has only ever gotten more complicated, never less.  Lead times for trials only get longer - despite the fact that funding has increased.

I agree with all of that.  Where we disagree is the importance of judicial appointments.  You don't see the impact as much because criminal matters always get preference.  If you were a member of the civil bar, having your hearing bumped for the fourth time, and you finally get on after a two or three year delay just to get a judge, you might have a different view.

[Barrister]

I am more worried about how the Conservatives are restricting access to PP by the media.  Only four questions, no follow up questions. And oh ya, the Conservatives select the four people who ask the four questions.

Whereas CC goes with the time-honoured "whataboutism" defence of trying to change the subject.

If you want to talk about media access, Carney has now "suspended" his campaign three times where he then proceeds to answer zero questions from any media.

How is this what whataboutism?

I am worried about decisions PP and his senior staff have made. Is there any evidence the pins were the idea of Carney?  If there is then I would be more concerned about that.

I mean if you need it spelled out...

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

It's text-book perfect whataboutism.  In responding to an allegation of Liberal dirty-tricks (the fake campaign buttons) you ignore it completely and bring up a counter-accusation (Poilievre not taking reporters questions).

[crazy canuck]

Please tell me who on the list is objectionable.  Surely you wouldn't say that any right-wing American is automatically objectionable?

Wolf was an architect of the Trump administration family separation policy in 2018,^[5] and was prominently involved in the deployment of federal law enforcement forces in Portland and elsewhere beginning in July 2020.
In September 2020, a whistleblower accused him of having ordered staff to stop reporting on threats from Russia.^[6][7] In November 2020, District Judge Nicholas Garaufis ruled Wolf's appointment unlawful,^[2][8] and overturned a set of Wolf's orders as "not an exercise of legal authority".^{[9][8][10][2]} Wolf resigned his post on January 11, 2021, after a number of similar court rulings.



Another one:

VA inspector general investigation and report

The VA Office of Inspector General (IG) determined that Wilkie and his senior staff sought to discredit a woman who reported being sexually assaulted by a contractor at the D.C. Medical Center (the flagship VA hospital in Washington, D.C.) and impugn her credibility.[23][24][25][26] The woman, a U.S. Navy veteran and an aide to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, made the report in the fall of 2019; prosecutors declined to file sexual assault charges.[23]

Wilkie and his senior staff openly questioned the veterans' account and suggested that her report was politically motivated.[24] In February 2020, Wilkie abruptly fired James Byrne from his position of deputy secretary of veterans affairs. The dismissal was a surprise because Byrne had been popular among veterans' groups and was seen as a loyalist to Wilkie. Wilkie provided little reasoning for the decision, suggesting only that Byrne "who was not jelling with other members of the team."[27] Byrne later said he was fired because he declined to participate in an effort by Wilkie to smear the woman, telling Stars & Stripes, "I've gotten crossways with Wilkie over the [sexual assault] matter by refusing to trash this woman."[28]

In a 68-page report issued in December 2020, VA IG Michael J. Missal determined that "The tone set by Secretary Wilkie was at minimum unprofessional and at worst provided the basis for VA leaders' attempts to undermine the veteran's credibility" and concluded that "Using denigrating remarks and questioning the credibility of a veteran who reported being sexually assaulted, and then failing to fully explore the facts, is ... contrary to the ongoing missions of improving VA and of serving the veteran community with respect."[24] The IG did not substantiate an allegation that Wilkie had accessed the complainant's military and electronic health records, or asked others to do so, in an attempt to "dig up dirt" on her.[24][25]

Wilkie and his two top press aides gave an interview to the investigators from the VA IG's Office, but refused to sit for follow-up interviews.[24] The IG informed the Justice Department of possible criminal conduct by Wilkie (specifically relating to interference into the assault investigation and perjury during testimony to investigators); the IG did not make a formal criminal referral, and the Justice Department did not charge Wilkie with a crime, reportedly believing the evidence was insufficient.[23][24][29] Wilkie denied all wrongdoing.[23][24]

After the issuance of the IG report in December 2020, the heads of six major veterans organizations (the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans of America) called upon President Trump to fire Wilkie from his post. The New York Times editorial board also called for Wilkie to be dismissed.[30][31]
Pro-Confederate speeches

In a 1995 speech at the U.S. Capitol, Wilkie called Confederate President Jefferson Davis a "martyr to 'The Lost Cause'" and an "exceptional man in an exceptional age"; in a pro-Confederate event in 2009, Wilkie spoke about Robert E. Lee to the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). He also called abolitionists who opposed slavery "radical", "mendacious", and "enemies of liberty", and stated that the Confederate "cause was honorable,"[32] while also condemning slavery as "a stain on our story as it is a stain on every civilization in history".[33] Wilkie is a former member of the SCV and its Confederate Memorial Committee, having been listed as a member at least through 2010;[34] In June 2018, a Defense Department spokesperson said that Wilkie no longer considered himself a member of the group.[35]

During Wilkie's confirmation hearings to be VA secretary, he gave inaccurate answers to Senators regarding the dates of his speaking to Confederate groups.[36] In sworn statements to the Senate as part of the nomination questionnaire, he failed to include his membership in the SCV and omitted his event speeches from responses asking for details on them.[35]
Swastikas on grave markers

In 2020, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation demanded VA remove three headstones in two VA cemeteries (Fort Sam Houston in Texas and Fort Douglas Post in Utah) that mark the graves of World War II German prisoners of war. The three gravestones at issue featured the Nazi swastikas, the Iron Cross, and tributes to Adolf Hitler ("He died far from his home for the Führer, people and fatherland.").[37]

After coming under pressure from Congress to remove the headstones from the national cemeteries, Wilkie initially declined to do so, suggesting that "erasing these headstones removes them from memory"; that "divisive historical figures or events" should be recognized; and that removal would require a lengthy process under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.[37] Amid continued pressure, Wilkie reversed himself, and VA quietly removed the grave markers in 2020.[38][39]



If that's the kind of people modern Conservatives-aligned people want to associate with, fine.  I'm out of there for good.  This is supposed to be the future of the party, where it'll get it's inspiration, it's ideas, where new talent will emerge from.

All it does is cater to the MAGA crowd like the rest of the party.

The one I knew about from Globe reporting was Lighthizer

A prominent Canadian conservative think tank has invited the top tariff power broker from Donald Trump's first cabinet to a conference in Ottawa this week that includes a who's who of premiers, former politicians and Conservative strategists.

Former U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer, who supports dramatically higher tariffs and dismisses concerns about tanking the global economy, will be the keynote speaker at the Canada Strong and Free Network conference.

[crazy canuck]

It's text-book perfect whataboutism.  In responding to an allegation of Liberal dirty-tricks (the fake campaign buttons) you ignore it completely and bring up a counter-accusation (Poilievre not taking reporters questions).

If we were going to treat like for like, I would be pointing to all the dirty tricks Conservative supporters are using in social media posting fake information about Carney.  If I did that it would be whataboutism.

Once again, the point I am making is I am far more concerned with things the candidates themselves are doing, not their supporters.  It would be unfair to judge PP by what his supporters are doing because he has said he does not support those actions or views.

I would hope that you would do the same for Carney.

[Valmy]

to run against Trump, not Poilievre.

Just glad running against Trump works someplace.

[crazy canuck]

to run against Trump, not Poilievre.

Just glad running against Trump works someplace.

One of the things that has made it very effective is a not insignificant part of the Conservative base is pro-Trump and so the Conservatives have to careful about how they criticize him during the election.

An indication of how closely the Trumpists are tied to the Conservative rank and file is the guest list for the right wing conference that was recently held.

[Barrister]

It's text-book perfect whataboutism.  In responding to an allegation of Liberal dirty-tricks (the fake campaign buttons) you ignore it completely and bring up a counter-accusation (Poilievre not taking reporters questions).

If we were going to treat like for like, I would be pointing to all the dirty tricks Conservative supporters are using in social media posting fake information about Carney.  If I did that it would be whataboutism.

Once again, the point I am making is I am far more concerned with things the candidates themselves are doing, not their supporters.  It would be unfair to judge PP by what his supporters are doing because he has said he does not support those actions or views.

I would hope that you would do the same for Carney.

So the reporting of this story says it was done by "Liberal Party staffers".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-oppo-csfn-1.7509217

The Liberal response didn't deny the reporting, but said it's people "got carried away".

https://x.com/BryanPassifiume/status/1911569486697668629

There's lots of bullshit online - from both pro-Liberal and pro-Conservative sources.  I wouldn't hold either against either party unless it can somehow be tied more directly to the campaigns themselves.

[HVC]

to run against Trump, not Poilievre.

Just glad running against Trump works someplace.

Give the conservatives time. If the trajectory doesn't change we'll have our own true trump and not just someone taking crib notes and pandering to maple MAGA.