[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

You think so? I really think abortion is a nonissue. Who are the pro-abortionists gonna vote for? Trudeau?

The concern of course is that they don't vote at all.  That they don't donate, or volunteer.

Nah, they hate Trudeau too much for that.

[Barrister]

You think so? I really think abortion is a nonissue. Who are the pro-abortionists gonna vote for? Trudeau?

The concern of course is that they don't vote at all.  That they don't donate, or volunteer.

Nah, they hate Trudeau too much for that.

I didn't say they would vote Lib.  They just... stay home.

[crazy canuck]

OTT - Does Canada really have more lakes than the rest of the world combined? 

I thought the country with most lakes is Finland? 

Finland has a lot of lakes but it is about the size of one of our provinces - not including the Maritimes. Ontario alone probably has as many lakes.

[viper37]

I'm a ABC voter so I'll vote for the Liberals.

I'd vote Bloc, but they've chosen to nominate a moron at their head, so I'll pass.

I'll vote Conservative again, I guess.  I do like our MP.  Scheer does not inspire confidance, and I think he just delivered victory to Trudeau last week by refusing to vote for a motion on abortion.  It was a trap, and he fell for it.

You think so? I really think abortion is a nonissue. Who are the pro-abortionists gonna vote for? Trudeau?

the battle isn't decided by the 30% who will always vote Liberal no matter what, or the 30% who will vote Conservative no matter what.  It's the 5-10% in the center, people who change from election to election, or simply decide to vote or not, depending on how frustrated they can be with an issue. 

If Trudeau manages to paint Scheer as Canada's Mike Pence, he can easily pull a 2nd victory.

[viper37]

OTT - Does Canada really have more lakes than the rest of the world combined? 

I thought the country with most lakes is Finland? 

Finland has a lot of lakes but it is about the size of one of our provinces - not including the Maritimes. Ontario alone probably has as many lakes.

maybe the most lakes per sq/m?

[viper37]

Seems the latest Federal inquiry was a waste of time and money, as the Conservatives predicted.
Bullshit conclusion, no real progress, indifference after 48hrs in the media, no outrage in the populace.

[Barrister]

OTT - Does Canada really have more lakes than the rest of the world combined? 

I thought the country with most lakes is Finland? 

Finland has a lot of lakes but it is about the size of one of our provinces - not including the Maritimes. Ontario alone probably has as many lakes.

maybe the most lakes per sq/m?

Apparently Finland has the most "official" lakes, at 187,888 (at a size of at least 500 meters squared).  But at the same size threshold, it is estimated Canada has close to two million lakes.

[Oexmelin]

Seems the latest Federal inquiry was a waste of time and money, as the Conservatives predicted.
Bullshit conclusion, no real progress, indifference after 48hrs in the media, no outrage in the populace.

You've read the report, then?

[Josephus]

You think so? I really think abortion is a nonissue. Who are the pro-abortionists gonna vote for? Trudeau?

The concern of course is that they don't vote at all.  That they don't donate, or volunteer.

Nah, they hate Trudeau too much for that.

I didn't say they would vote Lib.  They just... stay home.

I know. But I mean, no they won't because they hate Trudeau too much and don't want him to win. So they'll vote for Scheer

[Barrister]

I know. But I mean, no they won't because they hate Trudeau too much and don't want him to win. So they'll vote for Scheer

Not liking the opponent isn't always enough.  It's part of the reason Trump won - lots of people didn't like Trump, but they stayed home rather than vote for A fairly unpopular Hillary Clinton.  Overall Democratic votes were well down compared to Obama.

[Valmy]

I know. But I mean, no they won't because they hate Trudeau too much and don't want him to win. So they'll vote for Scheer

Not liking the opponent isn't always enough.  It's part of the reason Trump won - lots of people didn't like Trump, but they stayed home rather than vote for A fairly unpopular Hillary Clinton.  Overall Democratic votes were well down compared to Obama.

That is what I am counting on for 2020.

[Malthus]

Here's the supplemental report on Genocide, which is really what is generating so much bad press (and the amusing sight of our Prime Minister having, through clenched teeth apparently, to state that the government he heads - and so is responsible for - is in the process of committing "genocide"; presumably putting his head on the dock, if anyone took it seriously):

https://www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Supplementary-Report_Genocide.pdf

To summarize:

"Genocide" is normally thought of as a singular event (like a massacre), but arguably can be founded on a whole series of events over a long period of time, undertaken with the intent to get rid of a people - they use the term "colonial genocide".

There were undoubted acts in the past that meet this definition - some in the 19th century, others more recent like the residential school scandal. Looked on separately, they can each be said to be mostly if not wholly in the past. However, looked at 'correctly', they - together with present-day government actions or omissions that disadvantages natives - can be seen as parts of an overall pattern with a single motive, and so composing a single crime that spans centuries and that is still ongoing.

Selected quotes (these were often in bold in the report - to demonstrate I'm not making this up):

The insidious and gradual nature of the obliteration of Indigenous peoples, and the lack of a uniform  national policy spearheaded by a totalitarian mastermind, differentiate colonial genocide from our traditional understanding of what constitutes a genocide. These distinguishing factors have, unfortunately, allowed the Canadian consciousness to dismiss Canada's colonial policies as racist and misconceived, rather than acknowledge them as explicitly genocidal and, even, ongoing.
...
Regardless of the debate as regards individual criminal liability, the National Inquiry is of the view that a state's specific intent to destroy a protected group can only be proved by the existence of a genocidal policy or manifest pattern of conduct. This is particularly inescapable in the context of colonial genocide where, as already noted, the internationally wrongful act is slower, more insidious, structural, systemic, and often spans multiple administrations and political leadership.
...
As we will demonstrate in the analysis below, interpreting genocidal intent as encompassing only physical and biological destruction does not accord with the ordinary meaning of the word "destruction" in its context (i.e. the prohibited acts) and in light of the object and purpose of the Convention. Moreover, a restrictive interpretation of the term "destroy" leads to absurd results, particularly the forcible transfer of children, but also many non-lethal genocidal conduct encompassed in the definition, which can hardly be reconciled with any of those aims.
...
After careful examination of divergent views and a rigorous analysis of the definition of genocide as it currently stands, the National Inquiry is of the view that the "specific intent to destroy" covers not only physical or biological destruction, but also, at a minimum, the destruction of a group as a social unit.
...
Having established the composite character of the wrongful acts committed for decades by Canada, in violation of the international prohibition of genocide, the National Inquiry also concludes that Canada, as a state, has exhibited the requisite mens rea. Canada has displayed a continuous policy, with shifting expressed motives but an ultimately steady intention, to destroy Indigenous peoples physically, biologically, and as social units, thereby fulfilling the required specific intent element.
...
Legally speaking, this genocide consists of a composite wrongful act that triggers the responsibility of the Canadian state under international law. Canada has breached its international obligations through a series of actions and omissions taken as a whole, and this breach will persist as long as genocidal acts continue to occur and destructive policies are maintained. Under international law, Canada has a duty to redress the harm it caused and to provide restitution, compensation and satisfaction to Indigenous peoples. But first and foremost, Canada's violation of one of the most fundamental rules of international law necessitates an obligation of cessation: Canada must put an end to its perennial pattern of violence against and oppression of Indigenous peoples.

It may seem intuitively obvious that, whatever issues Indigenous people have today may be causally linked to things done in the previous decades or centuries, that is not the same thing as imputing criminal responsibility on Canada today for an alleged unitary program of genocide (lasting centuries), but not to the authors. Which is why I suspect this aspect of the Report (which is unfortunately the one getting press) will go exactly nowhere. This sort of reasoning makes a mockery of the term "genocide"; if the word now means what the authors want it to mean, it is watered down to the point of near-worthlessness. How can we maintain the same level of outrage over Justin Trudeau, practitioner of genocide, as the term ought to justify?

Now, that said, it is easy to see why the authors thought this was a good idea: genocide shocks the conscience - so using the term ought to galvanize the government into doing (what the authors want done). Why, they have a *legal responsibility* not to commit "acts of omission" that contribute to "genocide", and so presumably a legal duty to rectify those by [doing what the authors want done].

What they failed to consider is that coming to conclusions that make no sense to the reader, either casually or who takes the time to read their report, undermines whatever useful recommendations they may have had.

[Valmy]

If the determination is that Canada is currently committing genocide than that pretty much makes the term meaningless.

[Malthus]

If the determination is that Canada is currently committing genocide than that pretty much makes the term meaningless.

Yeah, my opinion exactly.

The problem with using the term this way (and with our Prime Minister publicly stating he's of the opinion such use is correct) is two-fold.

1. It dilutes whatever is worthwhile in the rest of the Report, for no good reason (this was a supplemental Report on this specific topic; the rest of the report, two volumes of it, is on the original subject - missing Indigenous women); and

2. I can already see evil regimes worldwide salivating at the whattaboutism they can now indulge in, every time Canada attempts to call them out on their bad behaviour (or even when they don't). Myanmar's government busy massacring its Muslim minority? Who is Canada to say that's bad - Canada, who publicly admits *they* are currently committing "genocide"? I can already see the leader of Myanmar now: "We'll stop committing acts you label "genocide" when you do, Canada" or "We are just as evil as Canada".

[viper37]

Seems the latest Federal inquiry was a waste of time and money, as the Conservatives predicted.
Bullshit conclusion, no real progress, indifference after 48hrs in the media, no outrage in the populace.

You've read the report, then?

In finance, if your conclusion is invalid, we got zero on our work, even if the rest was valid.

Concluding to a genocide just dilutes the report, which will end up fossilized like all other public inquiries.