[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

ok. thanks.  I hadn't read GF comment&your answers.

[viper37]

With the extremes of White Nationalism being spouted daily in the US, this is a story that flew under the radar - if Coyne had not mentioned it in his piece in the NP this week, I would have missed it entirely.  But, according to Coyne, the Conservatives were planning a Trump style attack on the Media for our election cycle.  But also according to Coyne, cooler heads of prevailed but, as he observed there is still concern about the Conservatives copying the Trumpist attack on facts.  Here is what Coyne had to say about that:

The issue isn't whether people trust the press these days, but whether they trust anyone. Healthy skepticism about this or that story or source is too often curdling into a blind rejection of knowledge itself, and of those whose business it is to know stuff: experts, or as they are now dismissed, "elites." What do economists know about free trade? What do climate scientists know about climate? After all, I read something on the internet ...

This is the bitter fruit of today's class politics, where class is defined, not by income, but by education and culture. There's fault on both sides of this divide, but the Conservatives' indulgence of populist egghead-bashing is especially dangerous. It puts the whole institutional apparatus through which knowledge is collected, tested and disseminated — what journalist Jonathan Rauch has called "the constitution of knowledge" — in play: mere experts, to be dismissed not in spite of their expertise but because of it.

When Scheer sneers, for example, that on carbon pricing the Liberals have not only the media on their side, but "the academics and think-tanks" — when he takes a broad consensus of experts as suggestive, not of the weight of the evidence and analysis, but of a near universal partisan bias among the educated classes — he veers close to conspiracy theory.

Expert consensus need not be taken as proof that a position is right, but it should never be offered as proof that it is wrong. That way lies madness.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-conservative-war-on-media-fizzles-in-canada-but-war-on-truth-remains

Scheer is anti-science and pro-religion.  It is a known fact.  It bothers me a lot.

But framing the Conservatives electoral strategy as "imitating Trump" is a known Liberal campaign tactic.  Comparing Canada's Conservative Party to the Republicans is their modus operandi. Andre Coyne maybe writing in the NP today, but he's a known Liberal Party supporter and resigned from the Editorial board because of dissenting views on this.

Saying journalists are against the Conservatives when they are, how is it wrong?  Everything they do is amplified and twisted against them.  The Liberals have had an honeymoon with the media, despite censoring them as much as the Conservatives when it suits them, censoring scientists too (albeit less severe than the Cons), racking a huge deficit (much bigger and for longer than their promises), inviting refugees to come here as if we were some paradise where everyone is welcomed and shifting the costs to the provinces, lots of exagerated travel expenses, costly renovations to the PM's house, a huge increase in staff for the wannabe First Lady, constant fights with the provinces, etc).

Where's the media criticism compared to Harper's years?  Barely nowhere.  No vitriol either.  Deficit is higher, greenhouse gas are still having a party, he can't properly managed something as simple as a pipeline, he refuses to answer to questions on the new NAFTA, he almost never respects a promises.   In my book, it's worst than Hitler Harper.

But he has increased funding for the CBC, so all is good.


On the carbon tax issue, unfortunately, I think we're there.  We have no choice.  But as usual, the Liberals will never miss an opportunity to fuck with Quebec.  Other provinces will receive a financial compensation, but since Quebec has its own carbon market, we get nothing.

[Barrister]

On the carbon tax issue, unfortunately, I think we're there.  We have no choice.  But as usual, the Liberals will never miss an opportunity to fuck with Quebec.  Other provinces will receive a financial compensation, but since Quebec has its own carbon market, we get nothing.

Why would Quebec get money from a carbon tax that does not apply to Quebec?  I don't know the details of Quebec's carbon market, but your province already gets 100% of the revenue that market creates.  And if you'd prefer to have a carbon tax, Quebec is free to impose one as well.

[PRC]

With the extremes of White Nationalism being spouted daily in the US, this is a story that flew under the radar - if Coyne had not mentioned it in his piece in the NP this week, I would have missed it entirely.  But, according to Coyne, the Conservatives were planning a Trump style attack on the Media for our election cycle.  But also according to Coyne, cooler heads of prevailed but, as he observed there is still concern about the Conservatives copying the Trumpist attack on facts.  Here is what Coyne had to say about that:

The issue isn't whether people trust the press these days, but whether they trust anyone. Healthy skepticism about this or that story or source is too often curdling into a blind rejection of knowledge itself, and of those whose business it is to know stuff: experts, or as they are now dismissed, "elites." What do economists know about free trade? What do climate scientists know about climate? After all, I read something on the internet ...

This is the bitter fruit of today's class politics, where class is defined, not by income, but by education and culture. There's fault on both sides of this divide, but the Conservatives' indulgence of populist egghead-bashing is especially dangerous. It puts the whole institutional apparatus through which knowledge is collected, tested and disseminated — what journalist Jonathan Rauch has called "the constitution of knowledge" — in play: mere experts, to be dismissed not in spite of their expertise but because of it.

When Scheer sneers, for example, that on carbon pricing the Liberals have not only the media on their side, but "the academics and think-tanks" — when he takes a broad consensus of experts as suggestive, not of the weight of the evidence and analysis, but of a near universal partisan bias among the educated classes — he veers close to conspiracy theory.

Expert consensus need not be taken as proof that a position is right, but it should never be offered as proof that it is wrong. That way lies madness.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-conservative-war-on-media-fizzles-in-canada-but-war-on-truth-remains

In Alberta, Jason Kenney has taken the move of screening party members, members - not just candidates, for hateful / extreme viewpoints.  Good for him I guess, because clearly he sees that there are UCP candidates with extreme views, and their membership is being flooded with "deplorables" - but that may be his own fault to begin with.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/graham-thomson-kenney-ucp-screen-members-1.4888561

Kenney's plan to screen new party members for hateful, extreme views is unprecedented

'It's an extraordinary measure but for the UCP these are extraordinary times

The United Conservative Party calls them growing pains.

Well, they're certainly a pain.

And they seem to be growing.

The latest jab came this week when UCP Leader Jason Kenney issued a statement saying he was "shocked and disturbed by reports of hateful and extreme online activity by a UCP member named Adam Strashok."

What shocked and disturbed Kenney were news reports that Strashok had posted anti-Semitic comments on social media and is a promoter of an online store that sells white supremacist memorabilia.

Strashok wasn't just a rank-and file-member of the UCP but ran the call centre for Kenney's leadership campaign in 2017.

When the story broke about Strashok's links to racism, Kenney moved quickly to kick Strashok out of the party.

"Neither I nor anyone on my staff was aware of the extreme views of the individual in question," said Kenney's statement. "I have since instructed Party officials to cancel Mr. Strashok's membership."

At this point, you might be having a feeling of dé​jà​ vu.

The UCP has been busy booting out or elbowing aside members who have made controversial, hateful or ridiculous postings on social media or who have defended people for making controversial, hateful or ridiculous postings on social media.

The party's executive director, Janice Harrington, has become something of a master at writing letters to would-be UCP candidates telling them in no uncertain terms they are not welcome to run for the party.

There was, for example, the candidacy hopeful who defended the anti-immigration stance of the Soldiers of Odin and the would-be candidate who had social media postings ranting at Muslims. Others have made homophobic comments.

The party seemed to be playing whack-a-mole with its own members. It wasn't clear who was winning. And then came the news story about Strashok.

It couldn't have come at a worse time for the UCP, just days after the massacre of Jewish worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Kenney wanted to move quickly and definitively.

Boy, did he ever. Not only did he kick out Strashok, Kenney suggested he wants a system in place to make sure another Strashok isn't waiting in the wings to damage the party's reputation.

"I recently also asked the Board of the UCP to develop a process for screening applicants for membership to block those who have expressed hateful or extreme views."

It is a remarkable statement. And a remarkable goal.

Kenney wants the party to screen all new members of the UCP.

It would seem to be a difficult, if not impossible, task if the party continues to sign up thousands of people. (It currently has 130,000 members.)

Kenney hasn't explained how the new vetting system would work.

UCP house leader Jason Nixon didn't seem to know.

"Mr. Kenney made that instruction to the party, obviously party officials are going to have to figure out the best way to comply with the leader's instructions," Nixon told reporters. "We made a commitment to try. I think it's unprecedented."

Nixon suggested the UCP might have more people with extreme views than other parties simply because the UCP has many more members than any other party.

Hmm. I'm not sure that's much of a defence.

Anyway, having a party screen its members for "hateful and extreme views" certainly is unprecedented, to say the least.

It's an extraordinary measure but for the UCP these are extraordinary times.

The party is doing well in public opinion polls but is in danger of self-immolation thanks to members with extreme views.

Even former Wildrose leader Brian Jean weighed in this week via a tweet, urging Kenney to "stop playing footsy with freaks!"

Watching this unfold with an I-told-you-so on his lips is MLA Richard Starke, who refused to join the UCP last year after the unification vote between the Progressive Conservatives and Wildrose.

Starke thought the new United Conservatives under Kenney would be too conservative for most Albertans.

"The decision I made has been confirmed," he said in an interview Thursday. "The new party is further to the right than either the Progressive Conservatives or the Wildrose party."

Starke says he believes that as part of a strategy to win the leadership races for the PCs and then the UCP, Kenney attracted people with extreme viewpoints.

Now, Kenney is living with the consequences.

As are Albertans, said Starke.

"They're not enamoured with the current government and they don't want to see the current government get re-elected but they have real reservations about the UCP. So, they're sort of saying, 'Well what else is there?' "

It's a question Starke is asking himself.

Starke still calls himself a Progressive Conservative but the PC party is effectively dead. Starke is in reality an Independent. He's looking for a political home before the next election.

No doubt, just like a whole bunch of Albertans.

[Admiral Yi]

Ridiculous posts? 

[Barrister]

I don't think it is realistically possible to screen members - I mean anyone with $10 can become a member.

But I also don't think it means anything that a few kooks buy a party membership.  Preston Manning used to say "a bright light will always attract a few moths".

[Valmy]

I don't think it is realistically possible to screen members - I mean anyone with $10 can become a member.

But I also don't think it means anything that a few kooks buy a party membership.  Preston Manning used to say "a bright light will always attract a few moths".

I don't think the concern is that there will be a few kooks, but that there might become many kooks.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it is realistically possible to screen members - I mean anyone with $10 can become a member.

But I also don't think it means anything that a few kooks buy a party membership.  Preston Manning used to say "a bright light will always attract a few moths".

I don't think the concern is that there will be a few kooks, but that there might become many kooks.

And the Reform party is actually a good example of that happening.

[crazy canuck]

Watching the Bannon/Frum debate at Munkdebates.com

A good watch

[crazy canuck]

Unfortunately it went from a debate about populism vs liberal democracy to a debate about Trumps presidency

[Zoupa]

You have a weird definition of abuse. Rescuing citizens from danger?

Is a citizen simply someone who holds a passport?

Yes

[viper37]

On the carbon tax issue, unfortunately, I think we're there.  We have no choice.  But as usual, the Liberals will never miss an opportunity to fuck with Quebec.  Other provinces will receive a financial compensation, but since Quebec has its own carbon market, we get nothing.

Why would Quebec get money from a carbon tax that does not apply to Quebec?  I don't know the details of Quebec's carbon market, but your province already gets 100% of the revenue that market creates.  And if you'd prefer to have a carbon tax, Quebec is free to impose one as well.

The Liberals announced provinces would get more than they pay from the Feds.  Trying to sweaten the deal.

[viper37]

You have a weird definition of abuse. Rescuing citizens from danger?

Is a citizen simply someone who holds a passport?

Yes

So, if you travel to Nicaragua and get into trouble, who'se responsibility are you, the country where you pay your taxes or the country with the biggest military?

[crazy canuck]

So, if you travel to Nicaragua and get into trouble, who'se responsibility are you, the country where you pay your taxes or the country with the biggest military?

Depends of what you mean by "responsibility".  Canada provides consular services to all its citizens. From the Canadian government website, those services include:

help in a medical emergency by providing a list of local doctors and hospitals;
provide advice and contact information for local police and medical services to victims of robbery, sexual assault or other violence;
provide assistance in cases of missing persons or the abduction of a child to another country;
replace a lost, stolen, damaged or expired passport;
contact relatives or friends to request assistance in sending you money or airline tickets;
transfer funds if urgent financial assistance is required and all other options have been exhausted;
contact next of kin, with your authorization, if you have had an accident or are detained by police;
advise local police in Canada to contact next of kin in case of death;
provide assistance to repatriate the remains of your loved one back to Canada;
help you, in case of a death abroad, to identify a funeral home experienced in international funeral arrangements in the region where the death took place as well as a funeral home in Canada;
request timely and transparent investigations into suspicious circumstances in the event of an alleged or apparent crime or death (although consular officials cannot interfere in an investigation or legal matter);
contact friends or family on your behalf, with your authorization.
provide you with a list of local lawyers;
provide you with sources of information about local laws and regulations.

[Barrister]

Well the question is whether Canada should provide those services to Canadian citizens, if said Canadian citizen has not lived in Canada for several years, lives in a second country where they also have citizenship (and probably has been a citizen of that country since birth), and does not pay taxes in Canada.