[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

The last thing we need is an ideologically driven bench.  One more lesson we can learn from our friends to the South.

+1.

Heh, one commentator I have read somewhere lambasted Harper for holding back the tide of progress - by making good judicial appointments who have proved non-ideological, respected jurists. Because, said this commentator, if he made bad ones, at least Canada would get more quickly a public vetting process. 

[Jacob]

+1.

Heh, one commentator I have read somewhere lambasted Harper for holding back the tide of progress - by making good judicial appointments who have proved non-ideological, respected jurists. Because, said this commentator, if he made bad ones, at least Canada would get more quickly a public vetting process. 

I think the NDP critic said something along the lines of "the appointee is good, but the process that led to it is faulty." I think that's a legit criticism to make, on the face of it (given that I don't have strong opinions about the process itself, and only mild opinions on the outcome).

[Malthus]

+1.

Heh, one commentator I have read somewhere lambasted Harper for holding back the tide of progress - by making good judicial appointments who have proved non-ideological, respected jurists. Because, said this commentator, if he made bad ones, at least Canada would get more quickly a public vetting process. 

I think the NDP critic said something along the lines of "the appointee is good, but the process that led to it is faulty." I think that's a legit criticism to make, on the face of it (given that I don't have strong opinions about the process itself, and only mild opinions on the outcome).

Certainly - what I found amusing was going that extra step and claiming that good appointees were preserving the faulty process. It may be true, but it does raise the question - if a process consistently produces good appointees, is change really necessary?

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure the proposed process will result in better appointments.  I am concerned it will politicize the process.

edit: Malthus beat me to it.

[Jacob]

Certainly - what I found amusing was going that extra step and claiming that good appointees were preserving the faulty process. It may be true, but it does raise the question - if a process consistently produces good appointees, is change really necessary?

Yeah, that is pretty funny

[Jacob]

I am not sure the proposed process will result in better appointments.  I am concerned it will politicize the process.

Yeah, on this sort of thing I tend to be pretty conservative. If the process produces good outcomes, why change it?

[crazy canuck]

A little bit more is being learned about the allegations of one of the NDP members.  She gave him a condom when she went up to the buys hotel room at 2 am for drinks!  But she claims there was no consent because she didnt explicitly say yes to sex.

Good going Justin.

[crazy canuck]

According to a poll in the Globe the Cons and Libs are now even or, in other words, the more voters get to know Justin the less they like him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-tories-and-trudeaus-liberals-in-dead-heat-poll/article21943118/

[Josephus]

Maybe. For sure an interesting trend. BUT--I think it's all irrelevent until the campaign heats up. During the campaign, Trudeau can go both ways, either pull people towards him, or, hopefully, turn them towards the NDP. My biggest fear is that he'll turn middle of the road Liberals to Harper. We shall see.

[Grey Fox]

My biggest fear is that he'll turn middle of the road Liberals to Harper. We shall see.

Again? For the 2nd election in a row?

[Jacob]

A little bit more is being learned about the allegations of one of the NDP members.  She gave him a condom when she went up to the buys hotel room at 2 am for drinks!  But she claims there was no consent because she didnt explicitly say yes to sex.

I don't believe that giving someone a condom - and otherwise being engaged in preparations for sex - means that you cannot be sexually assaulted by the other person?

I've come around to your POV that Trudeau has not handled this well, but this particular bit shades a little too much into "she led him on" and "she asked for it" for my tastes.

What is the relevance of this information, in your opinion?

[viper37]

A little bit more is being learned about the allegations of one of the NDP members.  She gave him a condom when she went up to the buys hotel room at 2 am for drinks!  But she claims there was no consent because she didnt explicitly say yes to sex.

I don't believe that giving someone a condom - and otherwise being engaged in preparations for sex - means that you cannot be sexually assaulted by the other person?

I've come around to your POV that Trudeau has not handled this well, but this particular bit shades a little too much into "she led him on" and "she asked for it" for my tastes.

What is the relevance of this information, in your opinion?

I'll admit to not having followed everything on this story, but isn't "assault" a strong word?  They had sex, she says it was unwanted, but she did follow him to his hotel room.  I don't know if it's the same girl, but one of them says she froze and let him continue.  Really, how is he supposed to know she does not want sex when he presses forward and she doesn't say "stop" ?  Especially if she bought the condoms?  There's a bit of mixed-signals here.

If he literally jumped on her, assaulted her, raped her, or if she was passed out, it's a totally different matter.

But it looks more & more like a girl wakes up in the morning, decides she did a mistake and accuses the man of raping her.

But I could be missing some facts... 

[Jacob]

I'll admit to not having followed everything on this story, but isn't "assault" a strong word?  They had sex, she says it was unwanted, but she did follow him to his hotel room.  I don't know if it's the same girl, but one of them says she froze and let him continue.  Really, how is he supposed to know she does not want sex when he presses forward and she doesn't say "stop" ?

I personally don't think the issue is the specific acts that occurred, but rather how the allegations were dealt with. Having the court of public opinion decide that "he didn't know" or "she should have known better" or "yeah, he's a beast" is definitely not the right way to handle it in my opinion.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that the guy is completely blameless on one hand, and that he did terrible possibly illegal things on the other. I am not, however, particularly interested in being the person deciding which one it is, nor in getting into yet another "sexual assault laws are politically correctness gone mad" discussion. What matters to me is that the allegations are dealt with appropriately for everyone involved.

[crazy canuck]

I'll admit to not having followed everything on this story, but isn't "assault" a strong word?  They had sex, she says it was unwanted, but she did follow him to his hotel room.  I don't know if it's the same girl, but one of them says she froze and let him continue.  Really, how is he supposed to know she does not want sex when he presses forward and she doesn't say "stop" ?

I personally don't think the issue is the specific acts that occurred, but rather how the allegations were dealt with. Having the court of public opinion decide that "he didn't know" or "she should have known better" or "yeah, he's a beast" is definitely not the right way to handle it in my opinion.

Yes, that is the point.  The fact that she gave him a condom isn't determinative of whether there was consent but it sure raises the distinct possibility which is exactly the issue Justin should have turned his mind to (or at least the process to investigate the matter) before publicly condemning the accused. 

[viper37]

I personally don't think the issue is the specific acts that occurred, but rather how the allegations were dealt with. Having the court of public opinion decide that "he didn't know" or "she should have known better" or "yeah, he's a beast" is definitely not the right way to handle it in my opinion.

But that's what we're doing here... 
Anyway, we all agree, that Trudeau reacted badly on this and should have instead have asked a written statement by the victims, confronted the accused and refer to a House comittee on this, so that the accused could have a chance of offering their version of events.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that the guy is completely blameless on one hand, and that he did terrible possibly illegal things on the other. I am not, however, particularly interested in being the person deciding which one it is, nor in getting into yet another "sexual assault laws are politically correctness gone mad" discussion. What matters to me is that the allegations are dealt with appropriately for everyone involved.

Well, the victims don't want to press charges, they don't want an inquiry, yet, they give little details here&there to the media, so are the accused, sometimes, too.

I would also prefer to see a formal inquiry on the matter.
These two guys have their political carrier ruined, and maybe they deserved it, maybe they didn't.