[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Disapointed by the Supremer Court.  It seems you can successfully claim you did not know about a court order and it is sufficient to be absolved of contempt.  It seems the 3 judges from Quebec ruled against Gabriel Nadeau Dubois while the 6 from Canada agreed to his defense that he had no idea of a judgement concerning him.  Distateful.

I don't know about the specific case you are talking about, but it has always been the law that to be in contempt a person must know the contents of the Court Order they are said to have violated.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16202/index.do#

I think it was impossible for Nadeau-Dubois to not be aware of the court ruling, given it was the talk of the media everywhere and as a public figure he was very aware of everything going on in the media.

I had a brief look at the decision; I must say, I agree with the court on this one.

The student activist was accused (and in the lower court, convicted) of contempt based on him saying this:

[translation]

RDI Interviewer: Let's talk in concrete terms about what's happening on the ground, Léo Bureau-Blouin, so tomorrow, we see that at the Rosemont CEGEP, students are being encouraged to return to class.  You, for your part, are you still urging strikers to set up picket lines to prevent students from entering . . . Lionel‑Groulx as well . . . there are injunctions all over the place in some CEGEPs . . . ?

Léo Bureau-Blouin: There're no demonstrations organized directly by the federation, but every time there are forced returns to class like this, of course it leads to picket lines that go up right in front of the college. We have of course urged students, for example, to comply with the injunctions, you know, when there are specific court orders, not to block the path of certain students, I think it's important to comply with them, but it's sure that the decision made by Rosemont College, I think it's a dangerous decision that could potentially cause tension because, first of all, the vote by the students was a democratic one after all, so this creates some uneasiness for teachers in actually crossing the picket lines there or going to give classes despite the vote, but it also causes tension above all because there're students who want to go to class and there're others who don't want classes to resume, and this leads to heated exchanges and potentially to fights, whereas at this point we're in fact trying to calm the dispute, and it's working, as the situation's been a bit calmer in Montréal the last few days.

RDI Interviewer: As for CLASSE, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, what's the reaction to the return to class tomorrow, are you, well, are you still encouraging picketing to prevent, um . . . ?

Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois: What's clear is that such decisions, such attempts to force students back to class, they never work because the students who've been on strike for 13 weeks are standing together, they respect, and I'm speaking generally here, respect the democratic will expressed through the strike vote, and I think it's perfectly legitimate for students to take action to uphold the democratic choice that was made to go on strike. It's quite unfortunate that there's really a minority of students who're using the courts to circumvent the collective decision that was made. So we find it perfectly legitimate for people to do what they have to do to enforce the strike vote, and if that takes picket lines, we think it's a perfectly legitimate way to do it.

Falls well short of "contempt".

Leaving aside what he knew of the order, his speech simply did not violate it. As the Supremes (majority) stated:

[39]                          In addition, Jacques J. inferred in the circumstances that Mr. Nadeau-Dubois' endorsement of students picketing in general amounted to an encouragement to use picket lines to block access to classes.  Still, Émond J.'s May 2nd injunction did not prohibit picketing per se. It only proscribed conduct that would have the effect of impeding access to classes; picketing that fell short of blocking this access was permitted. Mr. Nadeau-Dubois did not refer to obstructing and preventing access to classes in his comments. His general statement about picket lines was at the very least compatible with encouraging the continued use of picket lines in a way that is permitted under the injunction. At most, merely saying that picketing was legitimate, even if understood as equivalent to barring access, fell far short of encouraging others to engage in unlawful conduct.

If you read the impugned speech, the activist was saying:

1. Picket lines are the inevitable result of "forced returns to class" (whatever that means).

2. He encourages students to obey injunctions.

3. It's unfortunate that a minority of students use injunctions to thwart the will of the majority.

4. "Speaking generally", it is perfectly legitimate for the majority to enforce its will using picket lines.

What is missing is any express statement "students, please use picket lines to prevent that M. from getting into class despite his injunction". In fact, his rambling interview statement can better be interpreted as meaning the exact opposite: "students, I support your picketing in general, but while doing so please obey all court injunctions obtained by specific students and let them into class".

To my mind it's a pretty clear case: nowhere near enough to sustain a contempt ruling.

Edit: I'll add that I have no particular knowledge of this specific situation, but in general I am not inclined to sympathize with students complaining of how hard done by they are! That lack of sympathy, however, does not affect my opinion either way. 

[viper37]

To my mind it's a pretty clear case: nowhere near enough to sustain a contempt ruling.

I disagree because I look beyond the words, and I look at everything said & done by this clan, l'ASSÉ, and his representative.  They did prevent student from attending their classes on multiple occasions, before and after.  His call to resume picketing was a clear message to disregard the injunction and and his comment about the college&universities creating a dangerous situation was a thinly veiled threat: suspend the classes, or it's gonna get even uglier than it is now.

Of course, Oex will disagree with my reading of the situation, I don't think we agree on much concerning politics.

[viper37]

16 years after it was first released to the public, more than 20 years after his crimes were committed one of the key actor for the Liberal sponsorship scandal has been sentenced to jail.  Him alone stole 7M$ from the government treasury to re-invest in the Liberal Party electoral treasury, lining his pocket along the way.

Meanwhile, most major actors of the fraud are still members of the Liberal Party and actively supporting Justin Trudeau, financially or otherwise.  Chrétien, blamed by Commissioner Gommery, managed to find himself a sympathetic liberal judge he helped nominate to reverse the blame he received.  He has a well paid job doing nothing other than providing his name for a law firm.

Crime does pay.  The party is comfortably seated in power while its key members should have been barred for life from any political activity and the party itself forced to dismantle and vanish from our existence.

[garbon]

Wait the path to liberty is to like monarchy and kings? I am not sure I can accept this heretical attack on my worldview

The prince is nailing a Canadian. Progress!

Which prince? Harry is dating an American.

[Oexmelin]

I disagree because I look beyond the words, and I look at everything said & done by this clan, l'ASSÉ, and his representative.  They did prevent student from attending their classes on multiple occasions, before and after.  His call to resume picketing was a clear message to disregard the injunction and and his comment about the college&universities creating a dangerous situation was a thinly veiled threat: suspend the classes, or it's gonna get even uglier than it is now.

Regardless of whatever politics Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois stood for, I think there are two things here. One is a misconception you may not agree with, but perhaps the other will give you pause.

The first is misconception of the inner workings of the CL(ASSÉ). The media, pundits and assorted commentators never truly *got* how it worked (and I would venture that the Quebec judges did not either, by the way t, that it was a thoroughly decentralized organization, and that there was a reason why GND was called a spokesperson, rather than a leader. In fact, many people within the ASSÉ thought GND was taking too much space to the detriment of the decentralized nature of the ASSÉ. GND was in no position to threaten, or enforce anything, much less actual violence. But in the right-wing radio that loves to personalize debates, he was presented as this all-powerful malevolent genius.

The second is that, *even* if GND was in a position to enforce total, blind obedience from the students of the ASSÉ, the Court should still err on the side of caution in letting people express their opinions as long as it is not direct hate-mongering. And I do think here, that people should even be able to suggest, in public, civil disobedience without fearing repercussions for their words. Let people face the law when they *engage* in civil disobedience. I think by equating what GND was saying with anarchy, the dissent in the decisions were themselves engaging in extremely deleterious hyperbole.

Of course, Oex will disagree with my reading of the situation, I don't think we agree on much concerning politics.

You got that right... I'd still have a beer with you though, next time I'm in Saint-Pacôme for something other than a funeral...

[viper37]

I disagree because I look beyond the words, and I look at everything said & done by this clan, l'ASSÉ, and his representative.  They did prevent student from attending their classes on multiple occasions, before and after.  His call to resume picketing was a clear message to disregard the injunction and and his comment about the college&universities creating a dangerous situation was a thinly veiled threat: suspend the classes, or it's gonna get even uglier than it is now.

Regardless of whatever politics Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois stood for, I think there are two things here. One is a misconception you may not agree with, but perhaps the other will give you pause.

The first is misconception of the inner workings of the CL(ASSÉ). The media, pundits and assorted commentators never truly *got* how it worked (and I would venture that the Quebec judges did not either, by the way t, that it was a thoroughly decentralized organization, and that there was a reason why GND was called a spokesperson, rather than a leader. In fact, many people within the ASSÉ thought GND was taking too much space to the detriment of the decentralized nature of the ASSÉ. GND was in no position to threaten, or enforce anything, much less actual violence. But in the right-wing radio that loves to personalize debates, he was presented as this all-powerful malevolent genius.

We got all that.  They are anarchists, he ain't Cobra Commander.  Their organizational model is closer to Al-Queida than the Decepticons

That being said, he holds a tremendous amount of influence, if not direct authority.  A word for him, to pause, to assess the situation, to avoid interfering with the law would have meant much.  Instead, he inflamed passions.

The second is that, *even* if GND was in a position to enforce total, blind obedience from the students of the ASSÉ, the Court should still err on the side of caution in letting people express their opinions as long as it is not direct hate-mongering. And I do think here, that people should even be able to suggest, in public, civil disobedience without fearing repercussions for their words. Let people face the law when they *engage* in civil disobedience. I think by equating what GND was saying with anarchy, the dissent in the decisions were themselves engaging in extremely deleterious hyperbole.

It ain't about freedom of expression.  The dissenting judges understood that correctly, in the climate prevaling at the time.
He knew exactly what he was doing.

If you incite violence, like he did on numerous occasions, it is a crime.  We have freedom of expression, yet, I can not call to violence, even veiled, against muslims of jews.  Which is what he did, against those who opposed his destructive movement.  When you defy a court order, you should be held in contempt.  It does not warrant a special status because you're a media darling.

The case was about wether or not he knew about the court ruling.  He said he didn't know about it, and 6 judges believed him.  I don't. 

Civil disobience is permitted.  Vandalism isn't.  Threatening public security isn't.  Attacking students who disagree with you isn't.  Criminal harrassement shouldn't be tolerated just because your victim isn't to the left of the political spectrum.

You got that right... I'd still have a beer with you though, next time I'm in Saint-Pacôme for something other than a funeral...

Mes sympathies

You are of course welcome, here or in Quebec city.  I don't often go to Montreal anymore, but you're not there much often either, I think.

[viper37]

As predicted, we are seeing a repeat of the Liberals helicopter debacle, this time with our aircrafts.

The Libs just announced an emergency replacement for the CF-18 by purchasing Super Hornets.  Our actual CF-18 can fly up until 2025 without any problems.  There are upgrades that were being done to make sure they would still be operational by that time.

Now, by purchasing Boeing Super Hornets, if we were to decide to replace our fleet, ca 2022, with a different model, the best one at the best price, we would have to train our pilots on 2 different types of fighter/bombers.  Maintain 2 seperate sets of replacement parts, 2 different set of infrastructures to accomodate these fighters.

When and if we decide to replace our fleet with a formal public bidding process, Boeing will have a huge advantage over anyone else, since Canada will have to factor in the costs of maintaining the Super Hornets we just bought on top of any addition costs to replace the other airplanes.

But, as with the American elections, I guess we avoided the worst.  Thank God it wasn't Harper as Prime Minister.  That would have been really, really, really bad.  All those foreign investors unable to invest in our economy by paying to privately meet the Prime Minister, all those lobbyists constrained to hard rules, clean political financing instead of what we have now..  I shudder to think of a Canada under Harper rather than a moron...

Article (français)

[Grey Fox]

10 years was enough. 10 years of nothing but crippling the future in all aspect. Economic, social, cultural, environment.

[viper37]

10 years was enough. 10 years of nothing but crippling the future in all aspect. Economic, social, cultural, environment.

10 years were we made progress on the economic, social and cultural front.  On the environmental front, unfortunately, nothing changed.  But we did not lose ground.

GDP was higher, average wages were higher, disposable income was higher, government expenses were down.  All of this, despite the recession of 2008.

[Grey Fox]

Because it all relied on the fossil fuel industry! A temporary gain and a crippling future.

Also, don't give me "government expense are down" like it's a good thing.

[Admiral Yi]

Because it all relied on the fossil fuel industry! A temporary gain and a crippling future.

What kind of economic activity would have resulted in a permanent gain and a healthy, vibrant future?

[viper37]

Because it all relied on the fossil fuel industry! A temporary gain and a crippling future.

What kind of economic activity would have resulted in a permanent gain and a healthy, vibrant future?

to abandon fossile fuel, they would have needed to come back on the previous Liberal govt tax credit for oil companies, and that would have had a very adverse effect on the economy.  Phasing it out would have lessened the impact, but it would have alienated them their support base in Alberta and not gain so many votes in Quebec.

However, they could have avoided cutting fundamental research, invested in clean energy research, subsidize (tax credit) construction of energy efficient buildings for a time, avoid funding religious charities promoting solely their own agenda, and maybe adopter a stronger tone toward the US during trade disputes, but to their credit, they listened to the industry by cutting our losses instead of fighting to the death.

But no matter the investment, Canada would still have been hit hard by the 2008 financial meltdown.  Even if the Feds had been a little less generous toward the oil industry, it was mainly Alberta's and Saskatchewan's policies that drove the industry, not the Feds.  As for defending the tar sands on the international level, I expect no less from my government, for all canadian industries.

[viper37]

235 government employees involved in the Super Hornet buying process had to sign lifetime NDAs.  No talking about that process.  Ever.

so much for transparency

What was it again with the Conservatives preventing their employees from speaking publicly?  Was it good or was it bad, from a Liberal point of view?  I just can't remember... Maybe a Liberal supporter will remind me

[Monoriu]

235 government employees involved in the Super Hornet buying process had to sign lifetime NDAs.  No talking about that process.  Ever.

so much for transparency

What was it again with the Conservatives preventing their employees from speaking publicly?  Was it good or was it bad, from a Liberal point of view?  I just can't remember... Maybe a Liberal supporter will remind me

As a civil servant, I won't talk about government secrets, ever, with or without NDAs.   

[Grey Fox]

Because it all relied on the fossil fuel industry! A temporary gain and a crippling future.

What kind of economic activity would have resulted in a permanent gain and a healthy, vibrant future?

to abandon fossile fuel, they would have needed to come back on the previous Liberal govt tax credit for oil companies, and that would have had a very adverse effect on the economy.  Phasing it out would have lessened the impact, but it would have alienated them their support base in Alberta and not gain so many votes in Quebec.

However, they could have avoided cutting fundamental research, invested in clean energy research, subsidize (tax credit) construction of energy efficient buildings for a time, avoid funding religious charities promoting solely their own agenda, and maybe adopter a stronger tone toward the US during trade disputes, but to their credit, they listened to the industry by cutting our losses instead of fighting to the death.

But no matter the investment, Canada would still have been hit hard by the 2008 financial meltdown.  Even if the Feds had been a little less generous toward the oil industry, it was mainly Alberta's and Saskatchewan's policies that drove the industry, not the Feds.  As for defending the tar sands on the international level, I expect no less from my government, for all canadian industries.

Yes, as a I said 10 years of that was enough.