[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

To your main substantive point - is liking a twitter post an act of expression?  If it is, is it relevant that he himself did not write the post that he liked?

[PRC]

Meanwhile in Alberta, the UCP take steps to ensure they can buy local municipal elections and help get the ideologue candidates beholden to them elected.  More money (without knowing who donated it until after an election) in political campaigns can only be good for democracy right?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-bill-removes-limits-on-donations-to-trustee-municipal-candidates-in-alberta-1.5625799

People could donate up to $5,000 to as many candidates as they want under changes proposed in a new municipal election financing bill introduced in the Alberta legislature Wednesday.

Bill 29, the Local Authorities Election Amendment Act, allows an individual with enough money to donate to as many municipal or school trustee candidates as they want in any jurisdiction across the province.

The bill proposes the removal of limits on spending by third-party advertisers outside the local elections campaign period that runs from May 1 to election day in October. The bill also proposes removing the requirement for candidates to disclose their donors prior to election day.

Second to all that Kenney's speechwriter (and former Harper speechwriter) has been caught out for calling residential schools a "bogus genocide story" in a 2013 piece.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/paul-bunner-residential-school-bogus-genocide-1.5625537

[viper37]

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.

more likely, he was told he should resign and leave quietly.  He likely got a severance package in exchange.

[viper37]

Meanwhile in Alberta, the UCP take steps to ensure they can buy local municipal elections and help get the ideologue candidates beholden to them elected.  More money (without knowing who donated it until after an election) in political campaigns can only be good for democracy right?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-bill-removes-limits-on-donations-to-trustee-municipal-candidates-in-alberta-1.5625799

People could donate up to $5,000 to as many candidates as they want under changes proposed in a new municipal election financing bill introduced in the Alberta legislature Wednesday.

Bill 29, the Local Authorities Election Amendment Act, allows an individual with enough money to donate to as many municipal or school trustee candidates as they want in any jurisdiction across the province.

The bill proposes the removal of limits on spending by third-party advertisers outside the local elections campaign period that runs from May 1 to election day in October. The bill also proposes removing the requirement for candidates to disclose their donors prior to election day.

Second to all that Kenney's speechwriter (and former Harper speechwriter) has been caught out for calling residential schools a "bogus genocide story" in a 2013 piece.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/paul-bunner-residential-school-bogus-genocide-1.5625537

americanisation of politics. <sigh>  Don't we have enough to contend with that leftist bullshit without the Right engaging in it too?  It's hopeless.

[viper37]

as if we needed more examples of why that leftist activism is bad for us:
CBC journalist suspended

now, you can't quote historial truths, and you can't quote someone, period.

[crazy canuck]

So you are basing your conclusion of what happened based entirely on her apology posted on twitter.  You may be making some assumptions....

[viper37]

So you are basing your conclusion of what happened based entirely on her apology posted on twitter.  You may be making some assumptions....

Le nègre blanc d'Amérique is a book written in 1968.  I don't see anything wrong in quoting the book's title, within context.  Agreeing with its content or not is a different matter, and I don't see any indications that it was different.  As for the rest, her explanations are plausible.  That one might have been border line.

If you have different information than her defense, feel free to present it.  Since no one has come forward to dispute her statement, I'll assume this is indicative of the truth.

[viper37]

More example of Liberal hypocrisy

Link

In early 2018 a story broke about one of my former Conservative colleagues. It told the story of a female Parliament Hill staffer who had filed a report with the Ottawa police in 2014 because my former colleague had allegedly sexually assaulted her. While these allegations were not proven in court, the story went on to outline how senior brass in my party knew about this incident, it hadn't been resolved, and they had considered dropping my former colleague as a candidate prior to the 2015 election.
They instead chose to let him run.
When a story like this breaks, members of Parliament are presented with a choice. Under Ottawa's current power structure, in a situation like this the centre of power in a political party is often focused on how to make the story go away as quickly as possible. This structure is endemic and exists in every partisan political entity in Canada.
Members of Parliament can choose to make public comments and demand action. However, making that choice, while often the right course of action, comes with consequences. You will have added to the story instead of having helped kill it. You are likely to be deemed noncompliant; a troublemaker who is unworthy of promotion or association. In contrast, staying silent is usually rewarded, because you can be relied upon to not rock the boat for those at the top.
That said, the choice for me that day was easy. When a situation regarding potential sexual harassment is not immediately dealt with appropriate process and potential consequence, it sends a signal that a culture of misogyny and tokenism is acceptable. My silence would have been a tacit endorsement of the status quo. So, I went into the House of Commons, made a speech that called out the issue, named it as disgusting, and demanded accountability from my party. At the same time, some of my party colleagues were also publicly expressing their anger and demanding change.
Our party leader announced that an inquiry would be held. It was. It resulted in stricter vetting for candidates, including incumbents, ahead of every election and a formal process to deal with these types of complaints. It publicly shamed those responsible for the system failure that enabled this situation to arise. 
When action is demanded from people who enjoy the benefits of residing within a power structure, or who have something to lose by doing so, it shifts the culture of an organization for the better. It becomes known that anyone who attempts that sort of garbage will be publicly held to account by their own tribe. They will not profit from the silence of feebly circled wagons.

This was not the first time I had publicly called for change. In 2016, in these pages, I wrote an oped that recounted some of the sexual harassment that I had been subjected to as a member of Parliament. Several prominent female Liberal MPs were quick to add their voices. Carolyn Bennett, Patty Hajdu and Chrystia Freeland all agreed with me, and called for changes.
Fast forward to last week, when a similar embarrassment emerged from within the Liberal party. It was reported that member of Parliament Marwan Tabbara, who is currently facing assault and criminal harassment charges, was allowed to run for the Liberals in 2019 despite an internal sexual harassment investigation that substantiated some of the allegations that had been made.
To date, not a single Liberal MP, no doubt all self-styled feminists, has publicly demanded answers from Trudeau on why Tabbara was allowed to run under these circumstances. No elected Liberal has called for an inquiry, or changes to the party system. Bennett, Hajdu and Freeland, who were so quick to support me when I talked about sexism in general, are publicly silent now that it's about a member of their own party.
They, and all the others, have made their choice: keep quiet. They will be rewarded for it. And that is how systems of misogyny and violence are perpetuated.
Because there is no public pressure on Trudeau from his own tribe to demand an inquiry, to change the process for vetting candidates or for handling the consequences of a sexual harassment inquiry, the status quo will be maintained. Under those conditions, why would any woman in the party come forward to report harassment? In turn, why would any man in the party feel like they couldn't get away with it? Why would any woman think that they would receive justice, when it isn't universal?
Perhaps this is because Trudeau has yet to substantively address his own harassment allegation. However, a line in the CBC article that broke this story speaks volumes, "The sources who spoke to CBC News requested anonymity, citing the risk of being blacklisted within Liberal circles and it negatively impacting their careers." 
I'm not perfect. Neither is my party. But the silence of the Liberal caucus, and frankly of women's organizations that receive funding from the Liberal government, on a #metoo that allegedly happened in their own backyard, is troubling. It's also why a party full of people who regularly dine out on proclamations of being allies and feminists has given rise to four male Liberal MPs under Trudeau's tenure as prime minister see substantiated allegations of harassment.

Calling for justice on these issues should not be a partisan exercise. If someone is capable of calling out a member of a warring tribe, then that courage should carry through when it happens within their own tent. I was willing to. Why aren't they? I will speak up for Liberal women, and any woman, targeted by this kind of abusive behaviour. Why won't other Liberals?
Allies and feminists, indeed.

[crazy canuck]

So you are basing your conclusion of what happened based entirely on her apology posted on twitter.  You may be making some assumptions....

Le nègre blanc d'Amérique is a book written in 1968.  I don't see anything wrong in quoting the book's title, within context.  Agreeing with its content or not is a different matter, and I don't see any indications that it was different.  As for the rest, her explanations are plausible.  That one might have been border line.

If you have different information than her defense, feel free to present it.  Since no one has come forward to dispute her statement, I'll assume this is indicative of the truth.

Like I said, you are making assumptions about what really happened based on very limited information. 

[viper37]

So you are basing your conclusion of what happened based entirely on her apology posted on twitter.  You may be making some assumptions....

Le nègre blanc d'Amérique is a book written in 1968.  I don't see anything wrong in quoting the book's title, within context.  Agreeing with its content or not is a different matter, and I don't see any indications that it was different.  As for the rest, her explanations are plausible.  That one might have been border line.

If you have different information than her defense, feel free to present it.  Since no one has come forward to dispute her statement, I'll assume this is indicative of the truth.

Like I said, you are making assumptions about what really happened based on very limited information. 

No one has contradicted her version of events.  If you have other information that contradicts what she wrote, please do post that information here.

[crazy canuck]

So you are basing your conclusion of what happened based entirely on her apology posted on twitter.  You may be making some assumptions....

Le nègre blanc d'Amérique is a book written in 1968.  I don't see anything wrong in quoting the book's title, within context.  Agreeing with its content or not is a different matter, and I don't see any indications that it was different.  As for the rest, her explanations are plausible.  That one might have been border line.

If you have different information than her defense, feel free to present it.  Since no one has come forward to dispute her statement, I'll assume this is indicative of the truth.

Like I said, you are making assumptions about what really happened based on very limited information. 

No one has contradicted her version of events.  If you have other information that contradicts what she wrote, please do post that information here.

You are assuming that Federacy privacy laws would allow the CBC to present another version - it does not.  You are also assuming there was not some form of negotiation to allow her to post that rather self serving apology.

[viper37]

You are assuming that Federacy privacy laws would allow the CBC to present another version - it does not.  You are also assuming there was not some form of negotiation to allow her to post that rather self serving apology.

Privacy laws can be waived.

Such negotiations usually don't involve such self serving apology with multiple details.  They go more general, like " I am sorry if my choice of words offended someone, it was not my intention".

Here, she provides a detailed explanation of the context: English Canadian journalists were engaged in a ritual session of Quebec bashing, she tried to explain the cultural context by quoting a book title and giving further explanations, she got reprimended, the others were totally fine with calling Quebec a racist province.

Business as usual for the CBC.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure why she would waive her statutory rights if it would result in facts less than flattering being released.

You are assuming bad faith on meagre facts.

[viper37]

I am not sure why she would waive her statutory rights if it would result in facts less than flattering being released.

Because otherwise, her employer could leak some info to another media, or simply state they can not answer because she has not waived her statutory right and that would shed doubt on her testimony.

I've seen it happen last year (and it wasn't the first time, SRC/CBC is notorious for doing that), after a journalist departed for another media, a third party produced multiple anonymous "witnesses" saying she was an horrible person to work with and was about to be fired if she did not quit on her own.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure why she would waive her statutory rights if it would result in facts less than flattering being released.

Because otherwise, her employer could leak some info to another media, or simply state they can not answer because she has not waived her statutory right and that would shed doubt on her testimony.

I've seen it happen last year (and it wasn't the first time, SRC/CBC is notorious for doing that), after a journalist departed for another media, a third party produced multiple anonymous "witnesses" saying she was an horrible person to work with and was about to be fired if she did not quit on her own.

If she doesn't waive her rights, her employer will breach those rights?  That makes no sense.