-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
matthewwhatever
Member
The Chief of the Defence Staff issued a statement about those wannabe fascist naval officers from a few days ago:
I'd love to see a breakdown of how much money his government cost us just in legal fees. Years ago I worked as an assistant at a law firm, and I'll always remember the senior partner telling me that taking a case to the SCC cost at least $1 million. That was almost 15 years ago, so I imagine that number has gone up a little. Now consider how many times Justice Canada lawyers had to argue for Harper government actions that were clearly wrong -- particularly those in clear violation of the Charter -- in some way. (I know that these lawyers would've been doing something regardless, so it's not a perfectly 1:1 spending thing, but it can't have been cheap.
I'd love to see a breakdown of how much money his government cost us just in legal fees. Years ago I worked as an assistant at a law firm, and I'll always remember the senior partner telling me that taking a case to the SCC cost at least $1 million. That was almost 15 years ago, so I imagine that number has gone up a little. Now consider how many times Justice Canada lawyers had to argue for Harper government actions that were clearly wrong -- particularly those in clear violation of the Charter -- in some way. (I know that these lawyers would've been doing something regardless, so it's not a perfectly 1:1 spending thing, but it can't have been cheap.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, I saw that. If this doesn't end with immediate dishonorable discharge or whatever the Canadian equivalent is, then I think that sends a clear sign that about what the military culture condones.
AuthenticM
Member
I must have missed this episode. Was it posted in here?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yep, probably a few pages back now.
IISANDERII
Member
For the second year running, Ottawa is Canada's top ranked city to live in. Toronto is not even in the top 100. I always laugh when I see Toronto somewhere near the top in some world ranks of livable cities, this place is so busted.
http://www.moneysense.ca/canadas-best-places-to-live-create-your-own-ranking/
http://www.moneysense.ca/canadas-best-places-to-live-create-your-own-ranking/
I've checked through 4 pages so far, and nothing
I've checked through 4 pages so far, and nothing
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ifax-indigenous-ceremony-proud-boys-1.4189020
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I feel like this is where I read about it first... but I could be wrong.I've checked through 4 pages so far, and nothing
gutter_trash
Banned
Can't fault Harper on this one though,
majority of Canadians agreed with him on this issue. Including Liberal voters
Considering Harper's refusal to have him brought over to Canada is what lead to Khadr being to being tortured and the subsequent court rulings that his rights were violated and Canada's government was neglectful in protecting his rights, thus the apology and reparations...yeah, his government and him are absolutely at fault, regardless of whether you agree with the decision or not.
I suspect your appeal to populism is, shall we say, opportunistic. Separatism has been, at times, popular in Quebec. Cool to separate then?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Time for a Quexit!
Let's not and have a referendum to remove the Queen as the head of state instead.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Canadian republicanism is probably even more remote possibility than a resurgent separatist movement in Quebec.
(I bet we lose the Queen/GG before we get either electoral or senate reform though lol)
Considering the current political situation here if someone with a minimum charisma and intellect tries for a referendum again he could probably aim for a wit but for a terrible reason. People always hated religion but the fear of Islam and Muslims seems to have cranked it up to eleven. There's not a single day without some kind of hysteria related to that. There was one yesterday where there was a Muslim group in a Safari Park and it lead to some insane boycott campaign. I would have thought after the terrorist mosquée shooting in QC that it would have dialed back a bit but it doesn't seem to be the case.
The Omar Khadr story is pretty interesting. It really shows how people simply takes a side without debating much anymore and shooting insults at each others. The article in Le Devoir today paints quite a bleak picture on the original case. According to classified documents it's not even clear in the first place that he was responsible for throwing the grenade in the first place according to other witnesses but he admitted everything after being interrogated and tortured. Considering the Canadian Government let him rot in Guantanamo bay and denied his rights compensation seems like the correct solution. There is always the possibility he's still responsible for the murder but even then I feel it's like those cases where murderers get away with it but you need to take a hit to show the judicial system works most of the time and to assure rights are respected.
He probably won't get his money for long because it seems Tabitha Seer will sue him/and the Canadian Government to get the money because of his role in the murder of his husband.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I can't imagine he'd have to pay, even if it's a fraction of the ridiculous 120 million dollar sum.
Which begs the question, why can't Afghan civilians sue individual Canadian/American/NATO soldiers for their role in killing their family members?
It's Quértie
Bill-101 and all...
They could if:
-They're able to identify the culprit (doubtful)
-The culprit goes back to Aghanistan to stand trial (doubtful)
-They manage the get the judgment enforced in the US/Canada (doubtful)
firehawk12
Subete no aware
lol touche.
Well if an American can sue a Canadian in an American court, it all seems like fair game. I suppose it's all a token gesture anyway.
The CIA station chief in Islamabad was sued in Pakistan by the father of someone killed by a drone strike:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/17/cia-chief-pakistan-drone-cover
Not sure what happened with the civil case. The criminal charges were dropped:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/pakistan-drops-case-cia-station-chief-150430065639281.html
There's scene about this in Zero Dark Thirty.
We'll probably lose the monarchy once someone unpopular inherits it and does something scandalous. (Lookin at you Charles)
There's really not enough interest in getting the ball rolling, but once it does I also can't imagine there would be enough interest in stopping it to do so.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I'm not a separatist, but I swear, if the CPC ever comes back into power because of the RoC, I'm becoming one xD
What if the CPC comes back into power because of Quebec?
Become a separatist and then move to the RoC?
This is a really great intro and deserves to be shared here. The actual podcast is pretty good too.
https://soundcloud.com/boys-in-short-pants/episode-22-missing-their-appointments
https://soundcloud.com/boys-in-short-pants/episode-22-missing-their-appointments
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Won't happen, but...
Start a Montreal separatist movement to separate from Québec and become our own city-state.
Won't happen, but...
Start a Montreal separatist movement to separate from Québec and become our own city-state.
go on i'm listening
Silent Chief
Member
I can totally fault Harper because he was free to do what he wanted.
I can't fault Obama for not closing Guantanamo because he didn't have the support in Congress to do it.
Silent Chief
Member
Can't lose the Queen at this point, but I'd drop King Chuck in a heartbeat.
gutter_trash
Banned
did he really require Congressional support to close it since it was created without Congress in the first place?
---
on the off topic of Quebec hypotheticals, I'm going to toss one here that will probably make lots of you go ???:
imagine if Quebec became a full fledged member of the European Union and adopted the Euro as currency. Now that would be the only condition for me supporting it
matthewwhatever
Member
NDP leadership news: Peter Julian is dropping out this afternoon. He probably realized that being dead last in fundraising after entering the race well before anyone else probably didn't bode well for his chances. The race is now down to four people: Ashton, Angus, Caron, and Singh.
I know these guys! They were in my Master's program last year. Neat to see their podcast being referenced by someone who (I assume) doesn't know them.
I know these guys! They were in my Master's program last year. Neat to see their podcast being referenced by someone who (I assume) doesn't know them.
AuthenticM
Member
...I think I might be okay with this idea. I think.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Abolishing the monarchy requires a unanimous constitutional amendment. The whole reason we don't make changes like that is because people know that once you reopen the Constitution, suddenly everybody is insisting that their pet issue be addressed.
Unless Charles declares his allegiance to ISIS, there's never going to be sufficient motivation to restart the constitutional debate solely to make Canada a republic.
AuthenticM
Member
Wasn't there a study that was passed around some years ago about how constitutional monarchies were more stable and formed a "healthier" democracy than republics?
Well, I was able to find this blog post in the NYT.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hut-up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/
It includes this chart showing that constitutional monarchies are better off on average. But I'll point out that there are totally republics up there too.
This blog post reminds us that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. https://smokeandstir.org/2013/07/25...es-lead-to-stability-or-the-other-way-around/
In essence, perhaps instead of the monarchy adding stability it was the political stability that allowed the monarchy to stick around.
The second argument in the NYT piece tries to demonstrate how constitutional monarchy would cause greater stability.
"Only in constitutional monarchies — where governments have much broader discretion to decide their fates than in republics —are early elections more common as a mode of discretionary cabinet termination than nonelectoral replacement," Schleiter and Morgan-Jones write. In other words, only constitutional monarchies force prime ministers to consult the people before shaking up their governments.
And though presidents who are indirectly elected by parliament are bad on this score, those, like Ireland's or Finland's, who are elected by the people directly are worse. Having a popularly-elected president almost doubles the odds of non-electoral replacement. That's what you'd expect; the president is more legitimate when popularly elected, and so is more likely to feel like she can refuse to dissolve the government when it suits her.
Basically arguing that constitutional monarchies have more elections and less regime change without them.
This blog presents a counter-argument to that, including a Canadian example.
http://suffragio.org/2013/07/24/are...esidential-republics-correlation-≠-causation/
In the end I feel like everyone basically comes to the conclusion that constitutional monarchies aren't necessarily worse than republics, though the NYT piece rather tepidly argues they help a bit.
Personally it seems like the detail of a monarchy or a symbolic presidency just isn't really an important variable in the equation. So then it boils down to how silly the monarchy is and if it's worth it to change it. To be honest, it probably isn't worth the effort to change it, but I do think it's quite silly.
There is an idea floating around to just not recognize Queen Elizabeths death and have her be Queen forever. It'd be some Warhammer 40k shit and I support it.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Let's just keep the monarchy as head of state. It's one of the biggest things that makes Canada not America.
You mean aside from universal* healthcare, an embracing of same-sex marriage by the country's government, bilingualism, lacrosse, maple syrup, beavers, the CBC, apologizing for literally everything, even if they did nothing wrong (which, to be clear, we've done a lot of things wrong i.e. residential schools, 60s Scoop, Head Tax/Immigration Act, Ukranian/Japanese interment camps and laws that restricted land ownership for the latter for four years after WWII ended) and Terry Fox?
*Universal under this definition precludes gender reassignment, dentistry, etc.
Calling it now: Angus is going to win this with little room between him and Singh. He's the only candidate that, based on what i've seen in the debates, has improved in my eyes. He doesn't have a chance against Trudeau in the next general election short of discovering that Justin has secretly been funding PETA, but he's a strong candidate who might be able to put enough pressure on the Trudeau government to get them to improve their current efforts in regards to indigenous affairs.
Silent Chief
Member
We have a monarch that lives in another country and that's really just a side product of a colonial system. The Dominion of Canada, establish in 1867, wasn't an independent country. The Governor General was a British lord until 1952. It's now just a puppet position.
The appointed Senate was made to rule over the elected House of Commons according to the British system. If you look inside the buildings you can see it was supposed to be like flying in first class vi traveling in coach. The Governor General lives in Rideau Hall, the Canadian palace. Trudeau is actually living in a 22 room house that traditional houses the servants of the Governor General.
It's pretty insane that some people want a proportional system but are happy with those arrangements.
The appointed Senate was made to rule over the elected House of Commons according to the British system. If you look inside the buildings you can see it was supposed to be like flying in first class vi traveling in coach. The Governor General lives in Rideau Hall, the Canadian palace. Trudeau is actually living in a 22 room house that traditional houses the servants of the Governor General.
It's pretty insane that some people want a proportional system but are happy with those arrangements.
PCs ahead, but Ontario Liberals still have a path to victory
More region specific stuff behind the link.
INNOVATIVEs monthly telephone tracking poll shows the PCs maintaining a narrow lead as anger towards the Liberals ebb and Patrick Brown begins building a positive image. Despite the dramatic policies announcements coming from the Liberal government over the past several months, the changes in Ontarios core political numbers remain quite limited. (Click here for methodology and details).
If Ontario held an election today, the PCs would likely win by a hair: 3-in-10 (30%) would vote PC, compared to 27% who would likely vote Liberal. Over the past two months the PC lead has been narrower than it was earlier in the spring.
The Liberals remain in the race because they enjoy a 7-point lead in party identification. However, the PCs are more effectively at mobilising their base with 85% of those who identify as Progressive Conservatives planning to vote PC, compared with just 61% of Liberals and 67% of NDP.
Wynne underperforming with base, but hostile groups shrink
The numbers paint a murky picture for the Ontario Liberals. On the one hand, the Liberals are underperforming with their base of Core/Soft Liberal supporters (25% of the electorate) only 6-in-10 (61%) plan to vote Liberal in the upcoming election.
On the other hand, the group of Liberal-identified voters who are hostile to the government (those who strongly agree it is time for a change and strongly disagree that the Liberals are the best party to form government) is 27%, down from a high of 33% in February 2017.
The primary hope for the Wynne Liberals is the relatively large group (19%) of conflicted those who say its time for a change in government but still believe that the Liberals are the best party to form government. Nearly half of these time-for-change Liberals (49%) plan on voting Liberal.
Brown and Wynne show small improvements in image
On leader brand, there is no big news, just small changes. Patrick Brown is slowly filling in his blank slate with favourable. While more than half (53%) of Ontarians dont recognize or know his name, this is down from 65% when he became leader. Browns net favourable have gained four points to +13 with a two point increase in favourable and two point decrease in unfavourables.
Most Ontarians still do not have a favourable impression of Kathleen Wynne (net favourable: -34) but this is an 8-point improvement from February. The change has come mostly from a 6-point drop in unfavourable views.
Andrea Horwath enjoys the most positive image of all three leaders with a +17 net favourable but she is actually dropping in her overall awareness with 44% saying they dont recognise her, up 6 points from the winter.
Brown (23%) is currently ahead as Best Premier with Horwath (18%) in second and Wynne (15%) trailing in third.
More region specific stuff behind the link.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
It's the South Park turd vs douche situation. No one wants to pick anyone. lol
So, this happened: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...pposing-bilateral-free-trade/article35481613/
Andrew Scheer isn't even well known in Canada and yet he's already making enemies abroad.
I mean, Brown is a Tory so the choice is pretty simple: Vote for whoever has the best shot of keeping his party out of power in swing ridings. We don't need a repeat of the Harris years.
Andrew Scheer isn't even well known in Canada and yet he's already making enemies abroad.
I mean, Brown is a Tory so the choice is pretty simple: Vote for whoever has the best shot of keeping his party out of power in swing ridings. We don't need a repeat of the Harris years.
AuthenticM
Member
The conservatives don't seem to mind making deals with Saudi Arabia over petrol so wow it's almost like they are a bunch of hypocrites or something.
That much was obvious re: Scheer's comments in regards to Omar Khadr when he was a part of the government that caused him to suffer in Gitmo.
Scheer is unhappy about the settlement to Omar Khadr:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cabinet-explain-omar-khadr-settlement-1.4194467
No matter your thoughts on the size of the settlement, I feel that saying "Khadr should just be happy he's in Canada today" diminishes the suffering he would have to endure as a child soldier and in Guantanamo.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cabinet-explain-omar-khadr-settlement-1.4194467
CBC said:
No matter your thoughts on the size of the settlement, I feel that saying "Khadr should just be happy he's in Canada today" diminishes the suffering he would have to endure as a child soldier and in Guantanamo.
Leaving aside that there were Liberal MPs who said that Khadr should be brought back to Canada, the Harper government was the one went to court on three separate occasions just to keep Khadr out of Canada in spite of the growing coverage surrounding the human rights abuse that occurred in Guantanamo. They were complicit in the torture that he suffered as a result, including Scheer, the spineless Harper wannabe that he is.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I bet when the Tories win, they'll start up with the "New Government (tm)" nonsense again. lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked