[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

to run against Trump, not Poilievre.

Just glad running against Trump works someplace.

Perhaps not surprisingly it can be much easier to run against someone who actually isn't running.

In fact Trump was a master of that - running against Obama and Bill Clinton just as much as he ran against Hillary in 2016.

[Grey Fox]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

Canada's #1 non-event tv show.

I did not watch it. Both leaders were frenchwashing/Quebecwashing their campaigns. Nothing new was said if Chantal Hébert is to be believed.

I'll watch them, report back.


PP's interview. He wasn't roasted but he was asked about it. His answers were politician double speak banking on the fact that the french audience doesn't watch english media. His plan to keep Radio-Canada but close CBC won't pass the smell test. Most interesting none-answer was after the question about how we don't see any of the CPC candidates. Overall, PP did pretty good. He sounded like a real person, but so much Quebecwashing.

Carney's interview. I hate that man, if Trump wasn't around he would be dead in the water like Ignatieff. He speaks like the international banker that he is. Enjoys being the PM more than being the PM of Canada. His french is de-rusting, getting there. Doesn't understand or even accepts Quebec nationship. Less double speak than PP and Singh but he doesn't get hard questions in english.

[Jacob]

Ooh!  I didn't think of this one!

Jacob goes with the "blame the victim" defence!

Look - just because LBJ reportedly once called his opponent a pigfucker just so his opponent would have to deny it didn't make LBJ's opponent vulnerable to accusations of pigfuckery.

https://www.thestanduplawyer.com/make-the-sonofabitch-deny-it-the-rise-of-pig-fucker-politics/

My mistake in responding to one of your posts when you're in campaign mode.

Look, I didn't expect that little story to change anyone's votes.  I found it amusing, "delicious" even, because it so succinctly sets out the Liberal strategy - to run against Trump, not Poilievre.

And hey, it seems to be working for them.

But I just found it kind of sad that of everyone who commented on the story nobody could simply say "well they shouldn't have done that" and moved on.'

They shouldn't have done that.

[Jacob]

The justice system is too unpredictable, is probably it's biggest flaw.  It's too complicated is probably it's second.  It's wildly under-reported-on, which is probably it's third.

I now have over 20 years in the middle of it, so I do feel like I can speak with some authority.  But I could write a book, so one Languish post will hardly do the topic justice.

Lack of judicial appointments?  I mean sure it's a perennial issue.  Trudeau should have appointed more judges.  But while it might make the top 10 list of problems, it's near the bottom.

But just let me go through in point form perhaps:

-there's no local media.  Nobody is at the courthouse actually reporting on what goes on. So when a big story does come up the media is lacking any details and frequently gets things wrong

-no predictability.  Sentences (and bail) are widely in the discretion of the judge.  So while you may get a really strong sentence from one judge, you get a really weak one from another.  Any time Parliament tries to step in with things like minimum sentences in order to give more predictability the SCC strikes them down.

-it's too complicated.  Just to pick two examples... we're choking to death on video.  Body-worn is going to make things even worse.  An assault case used to be quite simple - just call one or two eyewitnesses.  Now, in addition to the witnesses, you have to call the custodians of the video, plus deal with all the disclosure of the video.

Or remember the Jian Ghomeshi case?  Ghomeshi's lawyer wound up ambushing the victims based on letters they had written to Ghomeshi.  Parliament responded by passing s. 278.92 and related sections - now any such cross-examination requires a pre-trial application.  Which means we're drowning in such applications.

In my twenty years a criminal case has only ever gotten more complicated, never less.  Lead times for trials only get longer - despite the fact that funding has increased.

Thanks for laying it out.

If you got to set the direction for government action on this, what would be the best things the government could do to improve the situation?

[viper37]

If you want to talk about media access, Carney has now "suspended" his campaign three times where he then proceeds to answer zero questions from any media.

He is the Prime Minister.  Did you forget that?
Did you forget that our closest ally has turned on us and pretty much everyone? 
Have you not notice the financial markets crumbling?

You're entering YFB territory with so much bad faith.

He answers questions from journalists and their reply.
He doesn't take the microphone from them to yank it at will.  he doesn't call the CBC reporters "protestors".
He doesn't unleash a Twitter storm of harassment against a reporter fact checker and her employer to have her fired because he doesn't like to be challenged.
He doesn't have his staff ruflle journalists before an event to teach them who's the boss.


Look, I know you want to show party loyalty, I know it's your world, you've known these people for all your political life, but you have to wake up: it is not the same political party as it once was.

[Barrister]

Ooh!  I didn't think of this one!

Jacob goes with the "blame the victim" defence!

Look - just because LBJ reportedly once called his opponent a pigfucker just so his opponent would have to deny it didn't make LBJ's opponent vulnerable to accusations of pigfuckery.

https://www.thestanduplawyer.com/make-the-sonofabitch-deny-it-the-rise-of-pig-fucker-politics/

My mistake in responding to one of your posts when you're in campaign mode.

But that is literally what you did!!!111oneoneone

[viper37]

Dubious story.  There's no fact checking on this.

*see other post.

Viper, I saw where you called this a "false flag" with absolutely no evidence.

Yes.  It was a mistake based on their other behavior.  Like posting signs on people's lawns without asking permission first and attacking journalists.


I apologize.

It's still nothing compared to the list of speakers invited to the conference.

[crazy canuck]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

Canada's #1 non-event tv show.

I did not watch it. Both leaders were frenchwashing their campaigns. Nothing new was said if Chantal Hébert is to be believed.

I'll watch them, report back.

Thanks 

[crazy canuck]

Dubious story.  There's no fact checking on this.

*see other post.

Viper, I saw where you called this a "false flag" with absolutely no evidence.

Yes.  It was a mistake based on their other behavior.  Like posting signs on people's lawns without asking permission first and attacking journalists.


I apologize.

It's still nothing compared to the list of speakers invited to the conference.

I don't think the conference is a fair attack on the Conservative leader.  He had nothing to do with organizing the conference.

But it is worrying that the core supporters of the Conservative party would invite Trumpists to speak.

[viper37]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

Not "roasted".

The talk show host is in all likelyhood the worst interviewer in Quebec.  He can't roast anyone.  They've long abandoned the practice of doing some kind of show with other guests humiliating their target.


PP was asked if "he was a mini-Trump".  In his famous style of non answer:
"No, we are very different.  Mr Trump comes from a rich family, I come from a poor, working class family".

It's a good answer though, as it helps him connect to his base, relate to them: People will hear that he is poor like them, while Carney is rich like the others.  It's the messaging the Cons are pushing.

[Barrister]

Thanks for laying it out.

If you got to set the direction for government action on this, what would be the best things the government could do to improve the situation?

There are no easy answers, because it's always a matter of trade-offs.

Take my saying that the courts aren't predictable.  My answer is that there should be a US-style sentencing grid.  You did this offence, with three aggravating features, it's your third offence - and out spits your sentence.

The counter-argument though is it lacks individuality, that it can miss the individual features of the Accused.  Which it does.  But thats kind of the point of the idea also.

I do think that Parliament should be a little more willing to use s. 35 (Notwithstanding clause) just to bring a little more balance in what is supposed to be a "discussion" between the Courts and Parliament.  But obviously there is a danger that Parliament just starts to use s. 35 on everything once that taboo is broken federally.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks for laying it out.

If you got to set the direction for government action on this, what would be the best things the government could do to improve the situation?

There are no easy answers, because it's always a matter of trade-offs.

Take my saying that the courts aren't predictable.  My answer is that there should be a US-style sentencing grid.  You did this offence, with three aggravating features, it's your third offence - and out spits your sentence.

The counter-argument though is it lacks individuality, that it can miss the individual features of the Accused.  Which it does.  But thats kind of the point of the idea also.

I do think that Parliament should be a little more willing to use s. 35 (Notwithstanding clause) just to bring a little more balance in what is supposed to be a "discussion" between the Courts and Parliament.  But obviously there is a danger that Parliament just starts to use s. 35 on everything once that taboo is broken federally.

I am concerned about the SCC giving leave to hear arguments about the meaning of s. 35 in the context of Quebec invoking it in relation to their legislation regarding religious symbols.  If the SCC reads down the clause, that will have significant ramifications for our federation. 

[viper37]

I don't think the conference is a fair attack on the Conservative leader.  He had nothing to do with organizing the conference.

But it is worrying that the core supporters of the Conservative party would invite Trumpists to speak.

He didn't organize the Trucker's convoy.  He gave them his total, unwavering support.

I've been critical of the left all my life for letting the radicals in their ranks free-reign.  I'll do the same when my former party does it.

All I see are anti-vaxx, conspiracy theorists, these anti-globalist talks as if free trade was making us somehow poorer.

[Jacob]

Well Carney has responded to the button incident:

Liberal Leader Mark Carney said Monday it was "totally unacceptable" for some members of the party's war room to plant phoney campaign buttons at a conservative gathering in Ottawa last week, and those campaign staffers have been "reassigned" as a result.

"I was unaware of this behaviour but on behalf of my campaign I apologize for it unreservedly," Carney told reporters during a defence announcement in Montreal.

"I made it absolutely clear to my campaign that this behaviour or anything approximating it, or in that spirit, is unacceptable and cannot happen," he said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-buttons-staffers-reassigned-1.7509662

[Grey Fox]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

Canada's #1 non-event tv show.

I did not watch it. Both leaders were frenchwashing their campaigns. Nothing new was said if Chantal Hébert is to be believed.

I'll watch them, report back.

Thanks 

In my usual non-verbose style.

PP's interview. He wasn't roasted but he was asked about it. His answers were politician double speak banking on the fact that the french audience doesn't watch english media. His plan to keep Radio-Canada but close CBC won't pass the smell test. Most interesting none-answer was after the question about how we don't see any of the CPC candidates. Overall, PP did pretty good. He sounded like a real person, but so much Quebecwashing.

Carney's interview. I hate that man, if Trump wasn't around he would be dead in the water like Ignatieff. He speaks like the international banker that he is. Enjoys being the PM more than being the PM of Canada. His french is de-rusting, getting there. Doesn't understand or even accepts Quebec nationship. Less double speak than PP and Singh but he doesn't get hard questions in englis