Because, hey, Canada needs some love as well.
Now, then, as a Yank to the Canadians, what has Stephen Harper done as Prime Minister, what were the top parties and how did the general election turn out this year?
I...wow. 154 seats. Ok. Point more than proved.
Is something like that 70% turnout normal, or did the conservatives come off that badly. (Also, trying to absorb the name "Progressive Conservatives.") ![]()
And I'd guess Ottawa would have that in the bag. One country has none of the top ten things that'll kill you deader than dead and the other has them all and probably Cthulhu too...
edited 2nd Mar '17 9:10:12 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesProgressive Conservative is code for center-right. Nowadays its also used to distance yourself from the federal Conservatives (who dropped that label after merging/being taken over by the right-wing Canadian Alliance). The Progressive Conservatives in Nova Scotia never fail to correct media outlets when they leave the Progressive part out.
edited 2nd Mar '17 9:19:12 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.It's a normal turn out. Last Election (2015) was 68.3% We were in the lower 60s and high 50s for much of the early 2000 due to a succession of minority (short lived) government which led to some voter fatigue and disillusionment.
edited 2nd Mar '17 10:21:24 AM by Ghilz
Not a usual poster here, but found this in my news feed and felt it worth sharing.
Canadian Judge Resigns After Furor Over 'Knees Together' Remarks In Rape Case
A Canadian judge who made some rather disgusting comments to the victim in a tape trial has been forced to resign, costing him any eligibility for pension or payouts.
edited 10th Mar '17 4:47:40 PM by sgamer82
As I said in the other thread, fucker fought this long and hard, wasting public money to.
Good riddance.
However, here in my home town of Halifax, we had another bad judgment on a sex assault case. A woman was assaulted by a cab driver, while she was black out drunk (the cops literally walked in of them to). The judge basically said she might not have been drunk enough to not be able to consent, may have set a really bad precedent on consent in law.
"A drunk can consent", my fucking ass.
In national news, a Conservative Senator (Harper appointee) brought up some blatant revisionist bullshit on the Residential Schools. When hearings regarding the recounilation process came up, she said it was a shame that all the "good work" (like sorta educating the kids and forcibly converting them to Christianity) wasn't focused on.
Instead the report focused on atrocities like the 6,000 kids who died in the system, the tens of thousands of others who were physically, psychologically an sexually abused, or the problem of the entire system being designed for cultural genocide.
I really wish genocide denial was illegal in Canada....
In a good sign though, more or less every party (including the other Conservatives in the Senate) have told to her to piss off, though sanctioning her might be impossible due to the rules in place. One NDP MP outright compared her words to Holocaust denial/revisionism.
Oh, and another Senator is in hot water for being in a relationship with a 16 year old.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/don-meredith-disgusting-resign-1.4019721
Man, all we need is another financial scandal for the classic Senate trifecta.
edited 10th Mar '17 5:04:36 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Technically wouldn't be genocide denial since the legal definition of genocide is so narrow it probably wouldn't apply here.
It's still reprehensible. Sure, a few people might have benefited from Residential Schools but considering how many others were killed or irreparably damaged there's a very good reason not to try to gloss over the results of the report with the little bit of silver lining that exists.
Oissu!While it wasn't a full out Nazi/Armenia/Rwanda/too many etcs extermination attempt, forcibly seizing children en masse and transferring them away to another group for reeducation is considered a genocidal act by the UN.
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf
But the point is that she's just causing more harm to the victims and their families. And as of now she's completely unrepentant.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.We need to confront the evil of the Residential Schools head on. No one wants to really acknowledge them, because they were literally created to destroy a culture. Yeah, it's technically a step down from straight up genocide, but in a way, it's far more insidious, because they were being "educated". I'll bet that at least once when someone stood up against the schools the response was basically "so are you against education then? You're okay with your own kids going to school, why not these kids?"
Russia's coming attack on Canada
Macleans lays out the case that we might be the next target of Russian government disinformation campaigns.
In some ways, I miss the Cold War. Sure, the world exploded in bloody proxy armed conflicts, but at least Soviet interference in foreign democracies went to aid (alleged/aspiring) progressives and internationalists struggling for the little guy and against xenophobia ("WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!").
Now it's like a competition for what kind of right-wing ideal to support:
- an international, cosmopolitan, Capital-run globalized economy with extreme labor mobility where it doesn't matter where you're from so long as you got wealth. Run by billionaires.
- a nationalist, xenophobic, isolationist, compartmentalized economy with neo-serfdom where your origins and pedigree are essentially everything. Run by billionaires.
Honestly, I like option 1 much better (option 2 invites WAR, and what is that good for?), but they're both fucking depressing, especially as automatization and wealth disparity keep increasing.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
There is one advantage Canada has. We don't have a Rupert Murdoch running around. He's tried to break into the Canadian news ecosystem a couple times, but failed both times. Our news media isn't perfect, but we don't have a racist old white person deliberately distorting everything for his own agenda. Like, my grandparents over in Alberta are pretty much modern Republicans. They don't like any Canadian news sources because "they all have a liberal bias", so they actually watch Fox News.
Well, we do have a Canadian version of Breitbart in the form of The Rebel.
And if the Russians really wanted to disrupt us, they should have started earlier in the Conservative race. The most disruptive candidate (Leitch) is way down, and the runner up (O'Leary) is at a disadvantage due to the ranked ballot system the Tories use.
And if they think that they can somehow radicalize the NDP (without driving the party to extinction), they need to lay off the vodka.
edited 13th Mar '17 5:59:03 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Yeah, there's maybe the crazy fringe in the Green Party, but the backlash when they tried removing Elizabeth May from the party leadership means that no matter how loopy the fringe is, the party's reigns are being held by an extremely sensible and smart woman.
I am hoping that the conservative leader ends up being one of the eleven non-entities. Someone with no personality who's obvious out of touch won't be able to win the federal election.
Its probably going to be Bernier, whose sensible enough. His libertarian streak might make up enemies within the party, to say nothing of the provinces.
The Tories aren't stupid enough to put a social conservative in, they remember the time when Reform/the Alliance couldn't win seats east of Manitoba.
Leitch would kill them in immigrant heavy areas.
O'Leary would probably get tossed out of the Commons for flipping off the Speaker or something.
The old Harper Cabinet members (Riatt, Alexander, etc) wouldn't be bad, but if they want to the party's image to change they aren't the right choice.
If they want to win, their best options are Bernier or Chong (though both might undermine the base, but the base tends to vote no matter what).
As for the Greens, they can barely make any headway with a moderate leader. If they go fringe, they'll become as viable as Christian Heritage or the Libertarians or whatever Socialist party hasn't been disbanded yet.
edited 13th Mar '17 6:44:12 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Wildrose on Campus communications director uses "Feminism is Cancer" as subject of email, is promptly fired
. In other words, how not to advertise the screening of a garbage documentary.
Yes, I laughed at it.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThe whole thing was a stunt to make redpillers look even more pathetic.
Seriously though, how did the fact that a Wildrose branch was airing The Red Pill slip through the cracks? Morons.
... The obvious answer is that Wildrose espouses those views and only backtracked due to public anger but I wish that were not the case.
Oissu!Apparently this campus group isn't an official part of the party, and only now have they taken steps to stop them from using their name and logo. Though its obvious that they had tacit approval until this happened.
Still, this is pretty stupid for a mainstream party. Associating themselves with something this fringe is something that their comms people should have caught earlier.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.From what I've gathered, the Wild Rose has a lot of "kind of but not really associated with them" groups. My (sane) aunt, who moved to Alberta recently has been getting a lot of junk mail from a group that claims to be associated with the Wild Rose, and the Wild Rose hasn't disavowed them or anything.
The group in question is APEC, Albertans for the Preservation of the English in Canada (a spinoff group from the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada which Leitch appears to have been the head of for a while). The Albertan version seriously believes that the Federal government is moments away from stomping out English entirely in Canada, apparently because Alberta is a hotbed of really stupid alt-righters.

Let's imagine that the UK abolishes monarchy for itself (if I'm not mistaken, the monarch holds the crown separately for each Commonwealth country, so this sounds possible if unlikely). Would Canada offer to become the new residence of the Royal Family? If so, would the monarch replace the Governor-General or still appoint one?