[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

Um CC he said maybe...

Um yeah, maybe that and maybe it was a stunt.  Those are the two options BB proposed.  This is how it works folks.  A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.  Well screw that.

CC,

I think my record on the BQ is well known.  I am not a fan.

But more importantly... the guy literally didn't say a word!  You can not possibly argue he "talked shit" in this case.

[garbon]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

Um CC he said maybe...

Um yeah, maybe that and maybe it was a stunt.  Those are the two options BB proposed.  This is how it works folks.  A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.  Well screw that.

CC,

I think my record on the BQ is well known.  I am not a fan.

But more importantly... the guy literally didn't say a word!  You can not possibly argue he "talked shit" in this case.

I thought he meant you are the person we like who is talking shit.

[Barrister]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

Um CC he said maybe...

Um yeah, maybe that and maybe it was a stunt.  Those are the two options BB proposed.  This is how it works folks.  A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.  Well screw that.

CC,

I think my record on the BQ is well known.  I am not a fan.

But more importantly... the guy literally didn't say a word!  You can not possibly argue he "talked shit" in this case.

I thought he meant you are the person we like who is talking shit.

A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.

I've misread things before, so I don't fault you.  But I don't think that's a reasonable reading of what CC said.

[Valmy]

I like both of you for some stupid reason I thought I was calming the situation down a bit. That was a bad decision.

[viper37]

So your problem isn't that black people are discriminated against? its that they should be more discriminated against than francophones? I mean I guess gandhi would be proud at least.

My problem is there is no systemic discrimination against blacks.  Against francophones, it varies from place to place, but it's mostly individual intolerance, just like other "different" communities, including blacks.
1st nations is another problem entirely.
So far the examples of systemic racism I have seem against blacks are:- a drunk driver got pulled over while he was apparantly driving straight.  He claims racial profiling as his defense.- young black guys in luxury cars getting pulled over for a check.  Happenned to me all the time when I had a Camaro.  Got followed around by cops, nearly ran into, arrested twice per day, borderline false charges of speeding, etc, etc.  Black gang criminalities is a problem in cities, and when there's a reccurance of car theft, it's normal for cops to investigate.  They might be overzealous, but again, this doest not mean it's systematic.- black person arrested on a drug bust, confronted by some moronic lady telling an half black policeman he was just a racist white cop ganging on a poor young black man.
Until I see stats, and clear examples of laws or procedures that discriminate against blacks, I will not believe we have systemic racism, as per the official definition.
I've seen, I've heard, lots of description of individual racism - people told "to go back home" even if they were born here, but that it's not indicative of a systemic racist system.  There are and will always be morons.  Today its blacks, yesterday it was the "Redmen", tommorrow it might be Aliens from another planet.
I'm not denying there was slavery in Canada, under New France (mostly institutional and mostly 1st nations from US (Pawnees, mainly)), than expanded by the British in Ontario's farms and lots of loyalists who brought their slaves with them in Nova Scotia, and some parts of Quebec.  I'm not even denying that while the French Canadians were dying on the Union fields of battles the English Canadians in Quebec were profiting from commerce with the Confederacy and helping them with their cause.

But that is past.  We can not change what has already happenned.  And Canada does not have to apologize for past mistakes of former colonial powers occupying our territory.  No more than 1st nations should apologize for capturing white citizens and other 1st nations accross americas to make them slaves in the 16th-17th century.

I do not think we should glorify British officers who offered a bounty on Micmac's scalps, but I do not think their statues should be destroyed either.  I'm certainly not at ease with public places being named to honor butchers and war criminals, but that is the past, it was the norm back then.

I'm not denying Canada was founded as an colonial power in itself - to expand into our vast territory in the place of the Americans.  I'm not denying we collectively shafted the 1st nations and they got the short end of the stick.

But I will be denying that blacks, asians, muslims and any other non "whites" are officially and systemically discriminated against by our laws and our institutions.

When the Liberal party pretends otherwise, it's only what is known as clientelisme - pandering to immigrant communities to gain their votes.  It's even been proven by internal emails leaked to the press and testimony from former members of the party.  Not that it matter, they have the moral high ground, everyone else is racist, even if they don't care at all about improving everyone's life in this country.

As I said before, multiple times, we do have a huge problem on how we handle mental illness - independant on skin colour - and that needs fixing.  By the time the police intervenes, it's too late to do anything and the risks of a violent death has increased tenfold
But it's a seperate issue.

[viper37]

A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.  Well screw that.

That's exactly what you're doing CC.Or do you mind quoting us what the Bloc MP said that triggered Singh - and you - to call him racist?

I won't hold my breath since we all know he said nothing.

[viper37]

More proof that Singh was just making a political stunt:
https://twitter.com/ThomasHall17/status/1274801539278929920

It just shows how racist the NDP is, underneath their veneer of respectability.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

Um CC he said maybe...

Um yeah, maybe that and maybe it was a stunt.  Those are the two options BB proposed.  This is how it works folks.  A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.  Well screw that.

CC,

I think my record on the BQ is well known.  I am not a fan.

But more importantly... the guy literally didn't say a word!  You can not possibly argue he "talked shit" in this case.

I thought he meant you are the person we like who is talking shit.

Yep, BB's comments about Singh's motivations were, to say the least, limited by BB's own world view.

[grumbler]

   I have to admit, I find this development in the thread funny as hell.  Singh makes a grandstand gesture (quite successfully) which obfuscates the fact that he is totally in the wrong, and CC not only supports Singh's actions, but make ad hom arguments about BB when BB dares to mention the truth.

BB, I don't agree with you on everything, but I do on this.  Ignore CC's "outrage culture" insults; those are never intellectually honest.

[Barrister]

I read an interesting little tidbit.

The "No" vote that so outraged Singh wasn't even a vote on the merits of the motion.  Rather, the NDP leader's motion hadn't been presented with enough notice.  As such it required unanimous support in order to waive the notice period.  The BQ member was only voting "no" to the waiving of the notice period.

[Oexmelin]

I read an interesting little tidbit.

The "No" vote that so outraged Singh wasn't even a vote on the merits of the motion.  Rather, the NDP leader's motion hadn't been presented with enough notice.  As such it required unanimous support in order to waive the notice period.  The BQ member was only voting "no" to the waiving of the notice period.

Yes, B. Thomas Hall, former procedural clerk of the HoC posted this on Twitter I believe.

[crazy canuck]

I read an interesting little tidbit.

The "No" vote that so outraged Singh wasn't even a vote on the merits of the motion.  Rather, the NDP leader's motion hadn't been presented with enough notice.  As such it required unanimous support in order to waive the notice period.  The BQ member was only voting "no" to the waiving of the notice period.

Yeah, that was the whole point of Singh's reaction.  The no vote prevented the matter moving forward expeditiously.  Instead a procedural objection was raised for no reason other than to create the delay. 

[crazy canuck]

A couple of things I am surprised Canadian Languish did not comment on yet.

Supreme Court's French language rights case ruling BC breached its constitutional obligation to properly fund French schools in the province.  I think this is going to have a pretty dramatic effect on the number who will now opt for a French school education.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stefanovich-supreme-court-of-canada-french-language-bc-1.5608067

And the other is the Chair of the Board of UBC stepping down because of his twitter history.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-board-chair-departure-korenberg-1.5623095

[Barrister]

And the other is the Chair of the Board of UBC stepping down because of his twitter history.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ubc-board-chair-departure-korenberg-1.5623095

Yeah, I saw that one the other day, and I'm kind of troubled by it.

So at the outset being Chair of the Board of Governors is a public position, so it is fair to hold him up to scrutiny.  And he did resign, rather than be forced out.

But it's the substance of the claim that troubles me.  He's not being criticized for anything he posted - rather it's all about what posts he "liked" on Twitter.   While many of his likes were fairly tamed, he also liked posts by Seb Gorka, Dinesh D'Souza, Bill Reilly, Charlie Kirk.

But the problem is the University, as a public institution, has to respect the Charter, which includes freedom of expression and thought.  The posts in question were inherently political.  Personally I am not interested in what Seb Gorka has to say about any subject, but it's troubling to try and define political expression as being "unacceptable".

[crazy canuck]

Your last paragraph is based on a false premise.  The Charter does not apply to the university.*  There are decisions out of AB to that effect, but every other province has distinguished those cases.

edit * except for the exception where it carries out a government program.  But so long as it is operating under the powers given to it under the University Act (which creates the university as an entity autonomous from government) the Charter will not apply.