[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

No, what is obvious is that he is using language that has clear and direct links to other parts of the right-wing mediasphere, where it is deployed to create and amplify very well-known talking points stoking fear about "gender ideology" as a sort of hidden agenda pushed unto "the children".  I think it is also disingenuous to suggest that somehow, Poilievre is entirely disconnected from the sort of talking points that are relayed by right-wing commentators on both sides of the border. I don't think it really "could mean anything, really".

"gender ideology" is, yes, a right-wing talking point.  Sure.  I'm certainly not saying "could mean anything, really".  I mean try actually reading my post and give my argument an honest reading.

But the PP article immediately jumps to the worst possible interpretation of the phrase citing how it's linked to attacks on women's and gay rights, and starts talking about Ron de Santis.

And you don't need to talk about a 'hidden agenda pushed onto the children' - it's not hidden at all.  There is a very real societal movement that promotes the idea that gender is fluid and malleable, that children can and should be allowed to change their gender, including irreversible medical intervention, and that parents shouldn't even be informed if this is happening, never mind have any say in it.  These are very real things that are going on in the world - google the Tavistock Clinic or or the Washington University Gender Clinic.


You want to say that Poilievre is using vague language?  Sure.  But then his critics are taking that vague language and immediately leaping to the worst possible interpretation, and then attack anyone who suggest a different interpretation.

What a reporter should do is say to Poilievre "you accuse Trudeau of imposing a radical gender ideology on our kids.  What do you mean by that.  Be specific".  Question him with his own words, and not just imply and assume what they mean.

[Barrister]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-say-no-evidence-of-terrorism-in-bridge-blast-criticize-poilievre-for-terrorist-attack-remark-1.6657992

So this has been an interesting, yet confusing, story about everyone's favourite opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre.

So yesterday there was that huge car crash at the Rainbow Bridge.  As we noted here on Languish there was some suspicion it might have been a terrorist attack.

So in Question Period Poilievre asks "Mr. Speaker, we just heard media reports about a terrorist attack at the border in Niagara. Two people may have been killed and a third injured. Can the prime minister give us any information about this terrorist attack?"

So a couple different observations.  1. He cites "media reports about a terrorist attack".  and 2. It's hardly an attack line - it's actually a fairly straight question. 

Trudeau answers that it's very serious and they're trying to get answers.  Trudeau in fact excuses himself shortly thereafter.

Afterwards the Liberal house leader attacked Poilievre from leaping to the assumption that it was a terrorist attack.

So I'm mostly on Poilievre's side here.  It is clear that security service were treating it as a possible terrorist attack - likely on the "better safe than sorry" line of reasoning.  Poilievre's asking a straight question, and not trying to attack the government on what is a breaking news story.

And then afterwards Poilievre is asked if it was "responsible" to state that it was a terrorist attack.  Which is again a very aggressive "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.  It is clear from the transcript that Poilievre was merely citing "media reports", not making any assessment of his own.

But this is then where Poilievre goes after the reporter and gets himself a little bit sideways.  He cites a CTV news report calling it a possible terrorist attack.  Problem is CTV tweeted that story about 15 minutes after Poilievre's question period question.  So then there's a big long debate about the timing of tweets, and whether or not Poilievre got his "media reports" from Fox News (if he did - so what?).

So this is a situation where again the media is guilty of trying to create a "gotcha" with Poilievre, but Poilievre was too aggressive in going after the reporter which just increased the size of the story.

[Jacob]

No, what is obvious is that he is using language that has clear and direct links to other parts of the right-wing mediasphere, where it is deployed to create and amplify very well-known talking points stoking fear about "gender ideology" as a sort of hidden agenda pushed unto "the children".  I think it is also disingenuous to suggest that somehow, Poilievre is entirely disconnected from the sort of talking points that are relayed by right-wing commentators on both sides of the border. I don't think it really "could mean anything, really".

Agreed completely.

It's not a "hidden agenda" when you're using the same language and talking points as people who have a very clear agenda when they coined those terms.

[Barrister]

I see Jacob is ignoring my posts.

That is his right, of course.

I'm certainly not trying to get in "the last word" so I'll do him the courtesy of not replying to him any longer.

[Jacob]

I see Jacob is ignoring my posts.

That is his right, of course.

I'm certainly not trying to get in "the last word" so I'll do him the courtesy of not replying to him any longer.

As I recall it last time I engaged with you, you got pretty mad at me. I'm happy to discuss thing with you - including (in fact, especially) Canadian politics as I value your perspective - but the pattern seems to be that it ends up with you declaring I'm a jerk in one way or another. I got the implication that you were putting my on your ignore list as well, but maybe that was incorrect.

So yeah, I've been taking a break from responding to your posts to let things simmer down a bit. I'm perfectly happy to start a direct conversation again. Give me a bit and I'll formulate a direct response.

[Barrister]

I see Jacob is ignoring my posts.

That is his right, of course.

I'm certainly not trying to get in "the last word" so I'll do him the courtesy of not replying to him any longer.

As I recall it last time I engaged with you, you got pretty mad at me. I'm happy to discuss thing with you - including (in face, especially) Canadian politics as I value your perspective - but the pattern seems to be that it ends up with you declaring I'm a jerk in one way or another. I got the implication that you were putting my on your ignore list as well, but maybe that was incorrect.

So yeah, I've been taking a break from responding to your posts to let things simmer down a bit. I'm perfectly happy to start a direct conversation again. Give me a bit and I'll formulate a direct response.

I did in fact tell you to "fuck right off", which I stand by.

I did not say I was putting you on my ignore list, as I do sometimes find value in exchanging views with you.

[Zoupa]

and whether or not Poilievre got his "media reports" from Fox News (if he did - so what?).

          

[HVC]

and whether or not Poilievre got his "media reports" from Fox News (if he did - so what?).

          

Yeah, that's a huge red flag for most politicians, but especially a Canadian one. I'd be very worried about their ability to properly assess sources and information.

[Jacob]

So Jacob, the article you linked was from Press Progress. That's an advocacy group funded by the Broadbent Institute as an explicitly left-wing progressive news organization.  So I mean while there's nothing wrong with linking to them, it's the equivalent to linking to Rebel News in terms of bias.  I mean I can (and will!) complain about outfits like the CBC having a bias, but it's far more explicit and obvious with Press Progress.

I will concede that both Rebel News and Press Progress can publish legitimate news, but that I will be skeptical of both of them at first.

Obviously there's a bias. Nothing wrong with that IMO, especially if the bias is declared (which it is), if the facts are correct (which I believe they are), and if the arguments are sound (which they seem to be to me).

The article itself quotes 4 individuals.  Those individuals are linked to "Egale Canada, a Canadian LGBTQ+ organization", "the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD", "the Canadian Anti-Hate Network" and "Human Rights Watch" (none of which are meant as scare quotes, rather I was just literally quoting how they were described in the article).  Again that's fine, but all are linked to activist organizations.  If you were trying to publish a more neutral piece I think you would try to link to sources from both sides, or at least try to find an academic or someone who comes across as more neutral, rather than just activists.

They're quoting activists discussing their specific area of concern. Those activists obviously have an agenda - to protect and further the rights of LGBTQ+ people. That's the subject they spend a bunch of time analyzing. They are sharing their expert opinion. That seems pretty legitimate to me, even if their opinion aligns more with one political party than another.

I don't think there's a particular obligation - as you say, this is a publication with a specific (clearly apparant) bias - to provide counter arguments.

On the other hand, if there is a legitimate counter argument this would be the time to advance it.

So if you dig down the source of this is a video (first reported by the right wing Western Standard) where Poilievre says "Justin Trudeau does not have a right to impose his radical gender ideology on our kids and on our schools,"

So this is the problem, both on the right and the left, with these fucking culture wars.  "radical gender ideology" is just as malleable a term as "woke".

It sure is. Seems to me that both terms are being used by the right - and in this case Poillievre - to speak out of both sides of their mouths. They can coddle the hateful bigots and angry social media activists who enjoy doxxing teachers and harassing trans people, while simultaneously allowing them to disavow any sinister intent when called on it.

The article states (without attribution) that "The term "gender ideology" has been described as a "Hydra-like global conspiracy myth" aimed at rolling back women's and LGBTQ+ rights."

I think it's a pretty apt description. It certainly matches how it's used in my observation. Regardless of attribution or the lack thereof, would you say that it's incorrect? Is the term "gender ideology" frequently used with an agenda other than to roll back women's and LGBTQ+ rights?

So it is by implication saying that by Poilievre by using the phrase "gender ideology" wants to roll back women's and gay's rights.  Let me just personally say I would be highly doubtful that a Prime Minister Poilievre would do any such thing.

It wasn't that long ago the idea of limiting abortion access in the US was obviously unthinkable, yet here we are.

We all know that education is a provincial concern, not a federal one. And provincially, we've seen actual policy rolling back the protection of trans youth in the name of parents rights and combating gender ideology. Poillievre is directly endorsing those actions and using the same language in that endorsement. It seems pretty clear that the only reason Poillievre might not do anything on the topic is due to lack of jurisdiction - but the way he's talking it sure sounds like he's looking for a way to act nonetheless.

I am going to suggest there is a more charitable interpretation of the phrase "radical gender ideology" which revolves more around specific trans-issues - ideas like "self-id" (that merely by saying you're a different gender you are) and youth gender transition (giving youths access to medications or surgeries that will have permanent and life-altering consequences).

Now you can argue both sides of self-id and youth transitioning, but I would suggest those are at a minimum some pretty valid public policy arguments to have.

Agreed there's a legitimate public policy debate to be had. Framing it in terms of combatting "gender ideology" is not the way to have that debate, it's a way to victimize vulnerable people to score cheap political points from some folks' bigotry.

Finally, the article just comes across as just as conspiratorial as any right-winger complaining about Davos and the "globalists".  So right-wingers from around the world talk and share notes.  Big whoop.

I disagree.

The radical and populist right in the US has seen great success from focused campaigns to get representatives on (or take over) school boards and all sorts of other low level democratic institutions. That their Canadian fellow travellers would attempt a similar move is not far fetched at all - even less so since there seems to be clear plans to follow that exact strategy. To those of us who disagree with that point of view, that's a legitimate thing to be concerned about I'd think.

[Jacob]

I did in fact tell you to "fuck right off", which I stand by.

Naturally.

I did not say I was putting you on my ignore list, as I do sometimes find value in exchanging views with you.

... and I'm the one who's supposed to be condescending

[Jacob]

... whether or not Poilievre got his "media reports" from Fox News (if he did - so what?).

Fox is highly sensationalistic, is on the record saying they're "entertainment, not news", and has a clear agenda to drive up tensions and villify particular population groups. Prematurely claiming "terrorism" fits perfectly within that.

If Poillievre wants to watch Fox, that's fine (well not really, but okay) - but I'd hope that the potential future leader of our country would be media literate and self-aware enough to not treat Fox's untruths as facts when engaging with the governance of the country.

So this is a situation where again the media is guilty of trying to create a "gotcha" with Poilievre, but Poilievre was too aggressive in going after the reporter which just increased the size of the story.

The media is not guilty of creating a "gotcha". Poillievre, on the public record, stated something as a fact that was in fact not true. In times of crisis I believe it's best to be calm and collected and not jump to unwarranted conclusions. In fraught times, it's best to not increase tension and paranoia more then necessary.

Poillievre failed on this - true, only in a small way - but it's a failure nonetheless.

It's perfectly natural for the media to ask about this. He didn't handle it well, which again is on Poillievre. Maybe being angry and hostile is his personality, maybe it's the shctick that works for the people he wants to vote for him - who knows, but that's how he came across.

And now, to top it off, it's the media's fault that Poillievre messed up.

Personally it sets up the expectation that at such a time that Poillievre is Prime Minister he will refuse to be accountable and instead blame the media for all of his mistakes.

[Grey Fox]

The RoC, nothing more than the US with a QueenKing.

[viper37]

Don't you folks get mandatory French classes in school? Why is French proficiency so terrible in anglocanada?

In English Canada, they begin French classes only in high school (Lycée), and or 5 years.

Anything else is optional.

[viper37]

Yesterday, 560k Union member were on strike. The biggest numbers in Quebec's history. It will probably grow again before christmas.

I saw some footage on that, but with sound off. What are the issues? What's the likely path the the conflict will take?

The issue is, this government is totally inept at everything it's doing post-pandemic.

Right before they're going into negotiations, they are announcing a pay rise of 30% for all MPs and their cabinet support staff.

And offering less than 10% over 5 years for all public sector work employees.

Now granted, things are different.  MPs have different responsibilities, they don't have job securities, teachers and nurses have had their wages increased before - as recently has last year - , the MPs don't get a raise every year (outside of indexation to cost of life), but it's the signal.  You don't go and offer yourself 30% pay rise a few months before negotiating with your employees.  That sounds like Bob Iger telling the actors they make unreasonable demands.

When asked about the difference in pay raise, the Minister of Education was very, very, condescending in comparing teachers and MPs.

The Minister of Finance tells everyone that due to the inflation and the slow economic growth, our reserves are completely gone and hard times are coming by.  Then he finds 7 million$ to give to Québécor so they can bring the LA Kings next fall for their training camp in Quebec city.

Then just this week, the Premier announced that he would offer more money to the public workers in exchange of more flexibility in their work schedule. 12hr work schedule for the nurses to reduce the need of having a nurse do a double 8hr shift, and attributing classes for teachers in June instead of August.  They're all very good ideas.  The problem is, it requires a lot of organizational changes in both fields.  That's not something you negotiate in public, and that's not something you negotiate once your workers are on strike.  It's too fucking late.  It should have been planned 1-2 years ago.

This government was supposed to freeze hiring and reduce the size of the public workforce by attrition, but instead, it kept growing, and not just for teachers, nurses or other specialists since we got out of the pandemic. Our government is still a bloated machine, only a few programs have been questioned as to whether or not they are performing to expectations.

This government continues to rely on grants to attract businesses, on top of cheap electricity.  There's no way we're getting our money back on those deals, at best, it's 1:1.  A lot of money for big corporations, for projects that I'm wondering why, exactly in a time where we are at full level employment already.

I think we have a very good example of what happens at the Federal level when the government grows too big: nothing gets done.  And it's happening again in Quebec.  Better have less pubic workers and pay them more in exchange for some concessions.

[viper37]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-say-no-evidence-of-terrorism-in-bridge-blast-criticize-poilievre-for-terrorist-attack-remark-1.6657992

So this has been an interesting, yet confusing, story about everyone's favourite opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre.

So yesterday there was that huge car crash at the Rainbow Bridge.  As we noted here on Languish there was some suspicion it might have been a terrorist attack.

So in Question Period Poilievre asks "Mr. Speaker, we just heard media reports about a terrorist attack at the border in Niagara. Two people may have been killed and a third injured. Can the prime minister give us any information about this terrorist attack?"

So a couple different observations.  1. He cites "media reports about a terrorist attack".  and 2. It's hardly an attack line - it's actually a fairly straight question. 

Trudeau answers that it's very serious and they're trying to get answers.  Trudeau in fact excuses himself shortly thereafter.

Afterwards the Liberal house leader attacked Poilievre from leaping to the assumption that it was a terrorist attack.

So I'm mostly on Poilievre's side here.  It is clear that security service were treating it as a possible terrorist attack - likely on the "better safe than sorry" line of reasoning.  Poilievre's asking a straight question, and not trying to attack the government on what is a breaking news story.

And then afterwards Poilievre is asked if it was "responsible" to state that it was a terrorist attack.  Which is again a very aggressive "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.  It is clear from the transcript that Poilievre was merely citing "media reports", not making any assessment of his own.

But this is then where Poilievre goes after the reporter and gets himself a little bit sideways.  He cites a CTV news report calling it a possible terrorist attack.  Problem is CTV tweeted that story about 15 minutes after Poilievre's question period question.  So then there's a big long debate about the timing of tweets, and whether or not Poilievre got his "media reports" from Fox News (if he did - so what?).

So this is a situation where again the media is guilty of trying to create a "gotcha" with Poilievre, but Poilievre was too aggressive in going after the reporter which just increased the size of the story.

I see many problems:
1) He is a politician, not just any, he is the Official Opposition Leader.  He should be prudent before using loaded words like "terrorist attack".  He should have said "There was an incident at the border.  Can the Prime Minister elaborate on that?".

2) No Canadian news network had talked about a terror attack.  Why would a Canadian politician, a high ranking one at that, get his news from foreign medias?  Aren't our medias good enough for him?  They're all bad?  They are all against him?

3) Two medias talked of terror attack: Fox News and the Mirror.  He wasn't reading the Mirror.

Fox News is problematic for multiple reasons.  They invent facts ("alternative facts", remember?), they twist the truth, and they help to generate sufficient furor to convince a mob to launch an assault on the US Congress.  It should be enough for any serious politician in Canada who pretends that democracy is important to not take its news from there or at least, not take it at face value.


That makes it a man with zero credibility to lead this country.
He has his own preconceived ideas about the truth and he will never listen to anything else.  He will not trust the Canadian medias because "they are all against him", he will not trust his own intelligence agencies, he will not trust anyone who does not tell him what he does not already think.

So, this is not Trump whom you would manipulate by flattery, but this is someone like Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu.

And that's not better for the country.