[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

So Danielle Smith gave a speech to the province tonight.  I went to the CBC website to see what she said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news

What I found was the top SIX stories were all about trans issues.  'Poilievre backs banning trans women from female sports, bathrooms and change rooms".  A video of someone saying Poilievre "champions hateful policies".  An analysis of Poilievre's views.  A story about Alberta's policies.  And finally a CBC "explainer" about Canada's trans policies for kids.

This is what I'm talking about when I say the CBC is biased.  This was a story worth reporting on (indeed I already commented on it) but hardly worth this kind of coverage.

I clicked on the link, the first three were about the troubles the Liberals were having, the fourth was about your Premier's speech.

I suspect you did not see it because it was not yet post.

Perhaps the bias is assuming, as the right wing in this country does, that the CBC is biased.

So these news sites frequently change the stories they list - they do want you to come back frequently after all.  That's why I typed out the six news articles headlines - because I knew they might change.  And indeed going back to the main CBC news site I don't see any of the Poilievre trans stuff - not at the top at least (I'm sure they're still there somewhere).

The bias comes not so much in the reporting itself (though you can see hints of it) - but rather in the choices of what to cover and in how much to cover it.

The Danielle Smith story was there last night - it was just under all the trans stuff.

Yes, they change frequently and that is the point. When you logged into the site, the big story of the day was the the conservative leader had made.  It is not biased for the CBC to report it. It would be negligent for the CBC not to do so.  Please acknowledge the lens through which you are viewing all of this.

[Barrister]

So Danielle Smith gave a speech to the province tonight.  I went to the CBC website to see what she said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news

What I found was the top SIX stories were all about trans issues.  'Poilievre backs banning trans women from female sports, bathrooms and change rooms".  A video of someone saying Poilievre "champions hateful policies".  An analysis of Poilievre's views.  A story about Alberta's policies.  And finally a CBC "explainer" about Canada's trans policies for kids.

This is what I'm talking about when I say the CBC is biased.  This was a story worth reporting on (indeed I already commented on it) but hardly worth this kind of coverage.

I clicked on the link, the first three were about the troubles the Liberals were having, the fourth was about your Premier's speech.

I suspect you did not see it because it was not yet post.

Perhaps the bias is assuming, as the right wing in this country does, that the CBC is biased.

So these news sites frequently change the stories they list - they do want you to come back frequently after all.  That's why I typed out the six news articles headlines - because I knew they might change.  And indeed going back to the main CBC news site I don't see any of the Poilievre trans stuff - not at the top at least (I'm sure they're still there somewhere).

The bias comes not so much in the reporting itself (though you can see hints of it) - but rather in the choices of what to cover and in how much to cover it.

The Danielle Smith story was there last night - it was just under all the trans stuff.

Yes, they change frequently and that is the point. When you logged into the site, the big story of the day was the the conservative leader had made.  It is not biased for the CBC to report it. It would be negligent for the CBC not to do so.  Please acknowledge the lens through which you are viewing all of this.

CC - please go back and look at what I wrote.  I have bolded the part I think you missed.

[crazy canuck]

I read it, and it amazed me that you would have at least that degree of insight, but still accuse the news outlet of bias.

[crazy canuck]

From the website of the Conservative Party of Canada:

The Hon. Rob Moore, Conservative Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, released the following statement on one of Canada's most prolific serial killers, Robert Pickton, being eligible for parole:

"Robert Pickton, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, becomes eligible for parole today. This is unacceptable. Monsters like Pickton should never be eligible for parole. Much like Paul Bernardo, the only way Robert Pickton should ever leave prison is in a coffin.

"Pickton's parole eligibility means that for every two years from now until his death, he can retraumatize the families of his victims by making them explain why he must be held in prison.

"Conservatives believe that mass murderers like Robert Pickton should serve consecutive sentences so that a life sentence actually guarantees life behind bars.

"A common sense Conservative government will ensure that serial killers receive sentences that keep them in prison, where they are unable to retraumatize those to whom they have caused so much harm."

I would have hoped the honourable member who is the shadow minister for Justice would have some understanding of recent cases from the Supreme Court of Canada which clearly say that what he calls for in his statement would be unconstitutional.  Two possibilities come to mind.  He does know but is counting on the fact the people he is trying to reach either do not know or do not care about the constitutional requirements.  Or he himself does not know or does not care what the constitutional requirements are.  In either case one wonders why the honourable member is the shadow minister for Justice.

[Grey Fox]

or he wants to open the constitution?

Quebec's in favour of that.

*drops 50 000 pages of demands on the table*

[HVC]

As an aside shadow minister is a cool sounding title.

[crazy canuck]

or he wants to open the constitution?

Quebec's in favour of that.

*drops 50 000 pages of demands on the table*

 

As an aside shadow minister is a cool sounding title.

Yeah, one of the cooler aspects of the Parliamentary system. 

[Sheilbh]

As an aside shadow minister is a cool sounding title.

I'll never forgive Blair for abolishing the Law Lords

[Jacob]

I'll never forgive Blair for abolishing the Law Lords

Who will oppose the Chaos Lords?!?!?!

[Sheilbh]

Who will oppose the Chaos Lords?!?!?!

Right?! And look at us - they are running amuck.

[Barrister]

I would have hoped the honourable member who is the shadow minister for Justice would have some understanding of recent cases from the Supreme Court of Canada which clearly say that what he calls for in his statement would be unconstitutional.  Two possibilities come to mind.  He does know but is counting on the fact the people he is trying to reach either do not know or do not care about the constitutional requirements.  Or he himself does not know or does not care what the constitutional requirements are.  In either case one wonders why the honourable member is the shadow minister for Justice.

I think there is ample opportunity for the use of the Notwithstanding clause (which, of course, is part of the constitution).

I mean, personally, I'm not super offended that 74 year old Robert Pickton, who has been in jail (or even gaol) since 2002, has the opportunity to seek day parole (which I would bet good money he doesn't get).  And I think there are other areas that I'm more offended at how sentencing works.

And actually thinking about it, if Pickton were sentenced later on the Crown could have sought an increased parole period, which I don't think would have been unconstitutional.

But people aren't necessarily wrong to be upset at Pickton potentially getting parole.

[Barrister]

I read it, and it amazed me that you would have at least that degree of insight, but still accuse the news outlet of bias.

You're amazed that someone would consider the same factors as you, yet come to a different conclusion?

You either don't think very much of me, or think very highly of yourself.

[Jacob]

Knowing CC as I do, I think it's the second one 

[HVC]

I just wanted an opportunity to use the meme

[crazy canuck]

I would have hoped the honourable member who is the shadow minister for Justice would have some understanding of recent cases from the Supreme Court of Canada which clearly say that what he calls for in his statement would be unconstitutional.  Two possibilities come to mind.  He does know but is counting on the fact the people he is trying to reach either do not know or do not care about the constitutional requirements.  Or he himself does not know or does not care what the constitutional requirements are.  In either case one wonders why the honourable member is the shadow minister for Justice.

I think there is ample opportunity for the use of the Notwithstanding clause (which, of course, is part of the constitution).

I mean, personally, I'm not super offended that 74 year old Robert Pickton, who has been in jail (or even gaol) since 2002, has the opportunity to seek day parole (which I would bet good money he doesn't get).  And I think there are other areas that I'm more offended at how sentencing works.

And actually thinking about it, if Pickton were sentenced later on the Crown could have sought an increased parole period, which I don't think would have been unconstitutional.

But people aren't necessarily wrong to be upset at Pickton potentially getting parole.

And your last sentence is of course the reason he made his statement.  And I refer you back to my point he is hoping people just don't understand the law regarding parole.

If he had said that a Conservative government would invoke the notwithstanding clause to avoid the application of the Charter, that would be an interesting point to discuss.  But he did not say that.