Quote5 former prime ministers say fly the flag on Saturday to stand up to Trump
This weekend marks 60 years since red maple leaf was first raised on Parliament Hill
John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Feb 11, 2025 1:56 PM MST | Last Updated: 1 hour ago
All of the country's living former prime ministers are asking Canadians to fly the red maple leaf this weekend in a huge display of national pride as the country stares down U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to its economy and sovereignty.
Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper have jointly written an open letter, telling Canadians to "show the flag as never before" as the country contends with "threats and insults from Donald Trump."
Quote from: Jacob on Today at 05:30:11 PMThough, historically, the rise of Fascists and right wing dictators appear to have been enabled by conservatives and national conservatives in most of the examples I'm familiar with.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 03:27:26 PMI hate any hint of fascism creeping into our country. Yes, that is certainly true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 04:45:05 PMQuote from: Barrister on Today at 04:29:35 PMThat's completely ridiculous.Be interested in Garbon's take on this too - hopefully it's less ridiculous than it sounds.
Look, if you want to argue these people are a "without cause" termination and should receive notice (or payment in lieu of notice) I'm not horribly offended by that notion. But to say they must remain on the payroll indefinitely? Bullshit.
QuoteIn her ruling, Mrs Justice Lang said the Met's powers did not "extend to the dismissal of a police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance".
Her judgement, external stated that dismissal should be provided for in regulations from the Home Secretary, which they are currently not.
Mrs Justice Lang added: "This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed."
She ruled that part of the problem was that the previous Conservative government had not decided on potentially more effective rules before the election was called.
The new Labour government announced last October it would introduce rules to dismiss officers who could not hold vetting – and the formal consultation on its proposals is closing this week.
Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesperson said it was "acting rapidly" to ensure police forces could "dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance".
Quote from: Barrister on Today at 05:17:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on Today at 05:14:48 PMRight, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland". You claimed it had never happened. RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.
Great.
So maybe you can take it easy on the "you have gone full MAGA or have a bad memory" stuff.
I had thought it was obvious I was speaking about "before Garland", but glad we could clear up that confusion.
Quote from: grumbler on Today at 04:03:04 PMQuote from: Iormlund on Today at 03:16:50 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on Today at 03:03:56 PMQuote from: Iormlund on Today at 02:58:49 PMQuote from: frunk on February 10, 2025, 06:28:58 PMThat means RBG would have needed significant foresight to think that the situation would deteriorate so badly that her dying 5 years in the future would help lead to this crisis in 10 years.
You don't need foresight to acknowledge that elections are sometimes won and sometimes lost.
She gambled. And you all lost.
Again, people who make this claim are forgetting that the Senate was preventing all judicial appointments. There was no gambling here. There was reality.
When Kagan was confirmed RBG was almost 80, and a twice cancer-survivor.
That's true, but I don't think that you can blame her for taking the chance that she could survive into a new administration and provide at least the chance of a non-rightwing justice succeeding her, rather than retiring and giving the Republicans years to poison the well of any nominee to replace her.
I agree that, in hindsight, her decision turned out poorly. That wasn't at all clear to me at the time, though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 05:14:48 PMRight, in the post I was responding to, you didn't make the caveat "before Garland". You claimed it had never happened. RBG didn't step down when her health started failing, because at that point the Senate definitely would have played games.
Page created in 0.020 seconds with 13 queries.