Canadian Politics Thread

[Ryan Strome]

6 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

potatoe patatoe my dude, he was an aspiring and front runner in the race to replace the Progressive Conservative leader. You don't do yourself any favours with that line of obfuscation, it is painfully clear to every human that finished grammar school who i mean AND that he is the leader of the Conservatives. 

Personal attacks from a moderator. Cool stuff.

 

Anyhow, I will be above that and point out to you that it is very much you that is doing this during political discussion. The fact of the matter is very simple. He was not the leader of the opposition. you claim They were trying to court the leader of the opposition. So unless they have magical powers, what you said was just not accurate. You can own that or not own it. That's your choice but I'm going to keep my word and not quote you and I would ask just out of respect not to quote me because otherwise it comes across as I'm ignoring you if I don't respond back.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Ryan Strome

[Optimist Prime]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Personal attacks from a moderator. Cool stuff.

 

Anyhow, I will be above that and point out to you that it is very much you that is doing this during political discussion. The fact of the matter is very simple. He was not the leader of the opposition you claim. They were trying to court the leader of the opposition. So unless they have magical powers, what you said was just not accurate. You can own that or not on it. That's your choice but I'm going to keep my word and not quote. You and I would ask just out of respect not to quote me because otherwise it comes across as I'm ignoring you if I don't respond back.

"you don't do yourself any favours with that line of obfuscation' is not a personal attack but since you want to weaponize my position here then I can't be a part of this thread anymore. Good bye. 

[4petesake]

8 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

You don’t look at charts very often do you 

 

Hey come on stop, you’ve embarrassed us enough. Now you you out me and my dirty little secret of my disdain for charts.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, 4petesake said:

 

Hey come on stop, you’ve embarrassed us enough. Now you you out me and my dirty little secret of my disdain for charts.

What a boring life you live.

[4petesake]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

What a boring life you live.

 

My mom caught me in my closet looking at charts when I was 13 and now they do nothing for me.

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

"you don't do yourself any favours with that line of obfuscation' is not a personal attack but since you want to weaponize my position here then I can't be a part of this thread anymore. Good bye. 

No need to leave. It's just it seems like when there's a counter position to left wing ideology it makes you angry. Then you blame me for it when it's quite clear that I am the odd one out. In this forum and the previous forum, you could probably count the number of conservatives on one hand in the election threads over their whole duration and in fact the previous forum had a bad habit of allowing those on the left of the spectrum to constantly violate board rules while not trying very hard to get rid of people that didn't share the same views. 

 

You said the protesters or terrorists or whatever you guys want to call them were buddying up with the leader of the opposition. I clearly pointed out he was not the leader of the opposition. It would be no different if you said Thomas Mulcair didn't support it I would have corrected you and said Jag was the leader of the NDP. It wasn't personal nor was I trying to obfuscate anything. I was stating the truth. 

[Satchmo]

Anybody had their minds changed yet?  

 

I think we should change the title of this thread to "Ryan's Hope". 

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

Anybody had their minds changed yet?  

 

I think we should change the title of this thread to "Ryan's Hope". 

 

 

I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I'm just looking for all this proof and evidence that I was told existed. I was told things were in arguable and grounded in facts yet I haven't seen any of that. If you wanted to change the name of the thread, might I propose left-wing views only? I mean that's how it was on the old forum..

[Ryan Strome]

@Satchmo Let me offer you a breakdown of this thread.

 

- Alf ask for evidence of Jack Layton being at a Rub and tug so I provide the evidence. But he tells me that no charges were laid so it didn't happen. When it's factual he was at the house. The more bizarre part was it was brought up as a joke because I don't think anybody would care what he does in his personal time. But because there was no charges laid it didn't happen.

 

Agent asks for proof of Trudeau saying personally he's against abortion so I provide them with the proof and he claims I misled him when I even apologized if I use the wording wrong. My bad but I made clear Trudeau's position previously and now. He then proceeds to tell me that facts are important but doesn't have one fact or piece of evidence to point towards all the conservatives he claimed that were anti-woman's right to choose.

 

Blackface is a nothing burger and wasn't racist even though the person in question said it was racist. Whatever conservative MP is being attacked at any given time is called a racist with no facts or proof.

 

Interfering and getting rid of your justice minister is just fine and okay as long as it's Trudeau but if it's a conservative prime minister, they shouldn't interfere on these things.

 

Honest question my man. Do you see any sort of trend here? 

 

 

[bishopshodan]

58 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

I got so much to do today but this is just so addicting and amusing.

 

Be careful you're doing things twice.

[FTG]

19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

No need to leave. It's just it seems like when there's a counter position to left wing ideology it makes you angry. Then you blame me for it when it's quite clear that I am the odd one out. In this forum and the previous forum, you could probably count the number of conservatives on one hand in the election threads over their whole duration and in fact the previous forum had a bad habit of allowing those on the left of the spectrum to constantly violate board rules while not trying very hard to get rid of people that didn't share the same views. 

 

You said the protesters or terrorists or whatever you guys want to call them were buddying up with the leader of the opposition. I clearly pointed out he was not the leader of the opposition. It would be no different if you said Thomas Mulcair didn't support it I would have corrected you and said Jag was the leader of the NDP. It wasn't personal nor was I trying to obfuscate anything. I was stating the truth. 

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, bishopshodan said:

 

Be careful you're doing things twice.

Would you just stop. Maybe if you weren't such a far left lunatic, he would have remembered speaking to you.

[bishopshodan]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Would you just stop. Maybe if you weren't such a far left lunatic, he would have remembered speaking to you.

 

It's my early onset dementia. 

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

It's my early onset dementia. 

That's what happens when you don't go to work and think you can just hang out and relax and smoke blunts on a beach all day.

[bishopshodan]

5 minutes ago, FTG said:

Welcome back!

 

 

[bishopshodan]

14 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

That's what happens when you don't go to work and think you can just hang out and relax and smoke blunts on a beach all day.

Well, i have been to the beach but just to let Tess chase the ball in the water. Parksville beach is great. Now off to get treats for my one cheat day of the week. Then, once this incredibly coached Vancouver Canucks hockey team take to the ice tonight...I will blaze 1-5 marijuana cigarettes 

Edited October 6, 2023 by bishopshodan

[BlockerHigh]

5 hours ago, moosehead said:

 

If is much  cheaper in Canada to import American culture. Producing it is much more expensive.

 

Without CBC. Canada is another american state.   Many here would be happy with this.  I prefer to be Canadian.  

 

Go visit quebec and experience the wonderful culture they have managed to build as a francophone island surrounded in north america by anglophone culture.  Quebec government invests heavliy into funding quebec culture....  

 

I want Canada to stay Canadian .  CBC is a critical investment for all of us that love being Canadian. 

I've visited Quebec and love it....and partially subsidizing canadian content to retain culture is good, if people actually watch it.

 

What I don't like is the CBC News (media) getting funding from the govt. The News media / journalism is supposed to hold government accountable, its supposed to be unbiased and independent. If the govt is funding the news, its hard for the news to be independent, and that is paramount to a functioning democracy.

 

Now, if a media conglomerate owns the news media, I don't think we get around that issue, its just a bias from another angle...so I am not claiming I know the solution to that....but I don't think main stream media is trustworthy, and unlike the USA where there is alot more independent, objective journalists of quality to follow, we in Canada are challenged that way.

 

Cheers

Edited October 6, 2023 by BlockerHigh

[Rook]

13 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

So just one? 

What's also concerning is his wanting to restrict strippers from coming here.

 

Edit: you still haven't provided proof. This is just hearsay ATM. Like all I see is alleged comments from like in between 10 and almost 20 years ago.

So you post links and it’s credible, but someone else does the same and it’s.. anyone can write anything?  Is there a reason for this?  

[Satchmo]

10 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

@Satchmo Let me offer you a breakdown of this thread.

 

- Alf ask for evidence of Jack Layton being at a Rub and tug so I provide the evidence. But he tells me that no charges were laid so it didn't happen. When it's factual he was at the house. The more bizarre part was it was brought up as a joke because I don't think anybody would care what he does in his personal time. But because there was no charges laid it didn't happen.

 

Agent asks for proof of Trudeau saying personally he's against abortion so I provide them with the proof and he claims I misled him when I even apologized if I use the wording wrong. My bad but I made clear Trudeau's position previously and now. He then proceeds to tell me that facts are important but doesn't have one fact or piece of evidence to point towards all the conservatives he claimed that were anti-woman's right to choose.

 

Blackface is a nothing burger and wasn't racist even though the person in question said it was racist. Whatever conservative MP is being attacked at any given time is called a racist with no facts or proof.

 

Interfering and getting rid of your justice minister is just fine and okay as long as it's Trudeau but if it's a conservative prime minister, they shouldn't interfere on these things.

 

Honest question my man. Do you see any sort of trend here? 

 

 

I think there is much more going on in this thread that what you mentioned.   

 

Personally, I don't care what Jack Layton was doing in a massage parlor.  My memory of him is still positive (though I did not want to see him as PM). Alf is Alf and if he didn't supply enough evidence maybe he was distracted by a cat.   Or maybe he thought it was not worth the effort.   This thread can be trying.

 

Facts are important.   So are feelings which often arise from facts seen days, months, years before.    I feel a con government is more likely to impede women's rights than a lib government.   That's how I feel based on what I have seen and read and will ignore any requests for facts to back it up.

 

To me blackface is a maxi burger.   I found that episode despicable.  Still do.

 

Did someone actually say only a lib pm may fire a justice minister?  That incident was sketchy but I don't think sketchy is only the domain of libs.   

 

Yes, this seems to be a predominately left leaning forum.   It is what it is and we are who we are.   The recent poll suggest we are mostly all older fogies and therefore most likely set in our ways.  Know your audience.

 

Breathe.  Type.  Re-read.  Post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rook]

5 hours ago, moosehead said:

 

If is much  cheaper in Canada to import American culture. Producing it is much more expensive.

 

Without CBC. Canada is another american state.   Many here would be happy with this.  I prefer to be Canadian.  

 

Go visit quebec and experience the wonderful culture they have managed to build as a francophone island surrounded in north america by anglophone culture.  Quebec government invests heavliy into funding quebec culture....  

 

I want Canada to stay Canadian .  CBC is a critical investment for all of us that love being Canadian. 

You hit the nail on the head here bud!  Our “overreaching” govt is the reason we have our own music, tv, and culture.  So many have been convinced that things like bills passed recently are just the govt controlling our media.. no, it’s to protect our way of life and ensure those that are creating are also being compensated. 

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

So I'm willing to give you this one person and she's a terrible human being for her never-ending attempts at this, if in fact this is true. I don't even know her to be perfectly honest. I never even heard her name until you guys brought it up. But I don't think her last bill had anything to do with abortion, but I would be okay with throwing her out of the party.

 

 

and there's the problem. You would, but PP isn't. In fact he's kind of hypocritical on it. He claims to be personally pro-choice but he lets his backbenchers bring forward anti-choice ideas.

 

People are upset about it because even though its a long-shot idea, it is a possibility that the strategy could work. Get a couple of so-called mother and/or fetus laws passed, bring in a few more social-con leaning SCoC judges and maybe they get their abortion law. Yes its a long-shot and not likely to happen but its theoretically possible, and they have their inspiration with Roe in the US.

 

Its Poilievre's hypocrisy thats bothersome and gives the criticism legs. He won't come out and stop his backbenchers, so he doesn't have any credibility on this topic. 

 

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, 4petesake said:

 

A bit of a long read so I know few will bother but a pretty accurate summation for anyone whose interest is genuine.

*Apologies for the wall of text as copy and paste has deleted paragraph separation for some reason.

(And no I don’t believe this is Conservative policy but is absolutely the policy of a segment of the party.)

 

 

Andréanne Larouche Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, rising this evening to speak to Bill C‑311 is utterly exasperating. The Criminal Code amendment in the bill would force the courts to consider the fact that an assault victim is a pregnant woman an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes. 

I realize this may seem like a sensitive issue, but, as usual, the Conservatives want to reopen the abortion debate. This bill is the latest in a long line of attempts to grant the fetus legal status in order to undermine women's right to control their own bodies. 

I will start by explaining the pernicious effects of this bill. Then I will go over the Conservatives' history of back-door attempts. Lastly, I will remind the House about this difficult struggle for women.

First, without explicitly naming the fetus, this bill seeks to create an aggravating circumstance when the offence of assault is committed against a pregnant woman. If passed, the Conservative proposal could strengthen the premise that the legislator's intent is to grant the fetus implicit legal status. The Bloc Québécois opposes any attempt at such legislation, which would set women's rights back. 

It is important to point out that the Criminal Code already enables judges imposing a sentence to consider as an aggravating factor an offence that has a significant impact on the victim, considering their personal circumstances, including their health. The victim's personal circumstances can include pregnancy, and the court can consider that as an aggravating factor under the circumstances. 

Femicides against pregnant women have been documented by Canadian police forces since 2005. According to Statistics Canada, in 2005, 12 pregnant women were killed by their intimate partner, and eight pregnant women were killed by someone other than their intimate partner. Let us remember that. Not one more.

In a 2021 ruling, the Court of Quebec examined this issue when sentencing a man who pleaded guilty to assaulting his ex-wife. The judge was unequivocal about the consequences of committing such a crime against a pregnant woman. Her condition makes her more vulnerable to assault and less able to defend herself. The Quebec and Canadian courts are therefore inclined to consider a victim's personal circumstances, namely, a pregnancy, when handing down a sentence.

Our society has a duty to punish violence against women, especially violence against pregnant women, but the mechanisms to do so exist already. While it may have been tabled in good faith, the amendment in the Conservative bill brings nothing new to the table. However, we have strong reason to believe that it may be part of an anti-abortion strategy.

Second, it is important to point out that the Conservative member is continuing her ideological war against women's reproductive health.

During the previous Parliament, she sponsored a bill to criminalize abortions performed on the basis of an unborn child's sex. Despite the Leader of the Opposition's claims about being pro-choice, his caucus is clearly divided on the issue and still includes anti-choice members.

The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes Bill C‑311 given the bill's ulterior motive of securing legal status for fetuses. Bill C‑311 is an anti-abortion bill. The Bloc will make no compromise when it comes to defending women's right to control their own bodies, their right to choose, and supporting free, accessible and safe abortion services.

The Conservatives are trying to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. This bill is nothing less than an attempt to amend Canadian law in favour of their outdated anti‑abortion position, which Quebeckers have rejected. If passed, this legislative amendment could set a dangerous precedent if a Canadian court were to rule on the issue of the right to abortion. 

Our elected members have a responsibility to carry out their duties honestly and to state their real intentions when they engage in dialogue on behalf of the constituents they represent. This is necessary for a healthy democracy. Obfuscating the debate for purely ideological purposes undermines the effective functioning of our democracy. These tactics need to be recognized, called out and stopped.

The Bloc Québécois demands that the Leader of the Conservative Party publicly recognize that Bill C-311 is just a partisan strategy to attack abortion, that he call on his members to oppose it and that he rein in the member for Yorkton—Melville. If he does not, if he chooses instead to vote for Bill C‑311, as he announced today, it says a lot about the influence of religious lobby groups on the Conservatives. In Quebec, we believe in secularism, which takes religion out of governance.

The member for Yorkton—Melville has previously presented anti-abortion bills. In 2016, she introduced Bill C-225, the protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, also known as Cassie and Molly's law, which would have handed out a life sentence to anyone who “directly or indirectly causes the death of [a] preborn child”.

Is it not curious that the member for Yorkton—Melville never openly attacks the right to abortion, but that her efforts are somehow always directed at making this medical act a criminal offence with harsh sentences?

For all these reasons, we recommend that members vote against Bill C‑311.

It is also worth noting that the issue of selective abortion is not new in federal politics. A Conservative member moved a motion to condemn it in 2012, reopening the abortion debate in the process. That motion came after Conservative Stephen Woodworth's motion on the rights of the fetus that called for a parliamentary committee to study at what point a fetus should be considered a human being for the purposes of enforcing Criminal Code provisions.

These tactics, aiming to surreptitiously criminalize abortion, were carried out despite former prime minister Stephen Harper's campaign promise to not reopen the abortion debate.

Third, I would remind members that women's right to access abortion in Canada is intimately connected to Dr. Henry Morgentaler's fight to legalize this medical treatment. Prior to 1969, performing abortions was illegal in Canada. Women died trying to perform their own abortions with knitting needles and coat hangers. Do we really want to go back to that?

In 1969, Parliament made several important amendments to the Criminal Code. The section on abortion, section 273 at the time, specified when an abortion could legally be performed. The section set out criminal sanctions for doctors who did not respect the strict rules.

That same year, Dr. Henry Morgentaler opened his first clinic in Montreal, where he performed abortions after doctors and groups had debated whether or not to approve it. A year later, he was charged with performing illegal abortions. After his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1975, he served a 10-month sentence in prison.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. In 1983, Dr. Morgentaler, along with two other doctors, was charged with performing illegal abortions at Dr. Morgentaler's clinic in Toronto. Although complex, the case rests primarily on one specific point of law, namely, whether the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code infringed in an unjustified way a woman's right “to life, liberty and security of the person” as guaranteed by section 7 of the charter.

Although the ruling is also complex, the court concluded that the abortion section of the Criminal Code infringed a woman's right to security of the person, that the process by which the woman was deprived of that right was not in accord with fundamental justice, and that the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable.

In conclusion, over 30 years after abortion was decriminalized in Canada, the Conservatives are pursuing their anti-choice militancy by tabling a bill like this one in Parliament. Their attacks on women's rights are a political manoeuvre to pander to the religious right.

The Bloc Québécois must firmly resist the Conservatives' attacks on the integrity of women and their hard-won right to control their own bodies.

 

great summary. Its why PP has no credibility and is an easy target for criticism on abortion, he won't put a stop to this crap in his party. Until he does that, he'll be weak on this issue.

[Bob Long]

29 minutes ago, BlockerHigh said:

I've visited Quebec and love it....and partially subsidizing canadian content to retain culture is good, if people actually watch it.

 

What I don't like is the CBC News (media) getting funding from the govt. The News media / journalism is supposed to hold government accountable, its supposed to be unbiased and independent. If the govt is funding the news, its hard for the news to be independent, and that is paramount to a functioning democracy.

 

Now, if a media conglomerate owns the news media, I don't think we get around that issue, its just a bias from another angle...so I am not claiming I know the solution to that....but I don't think main stream media is trustworthy, and unlike the USA where there is alot more independent, objective journalists of quality to follow, we in Canada are challenged that way.

 

Cheers

 

but there's been a lot of criticism of Trudeau on CBC. The whole JWR and SNC thing had daily critique of him. You guys seem to get upset when there's a positive story, as if thats never supposed to happen. 

[BlockerHigh]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

but there's been a lot of criticism of Trudeau on CBC. The whole JWR and SNC thing had daily critique of him. You guys seem to get upset when there's a positive story, as if thats never supposed to happen. 

I just don't see anything positive from him other than taking selfies to make himself feel better.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, BlockerHigh said:

I just don't see anything positive from him other than taking selfies to make himself feel better.

 

OK. What does that have to do with CBC funding?