The Ugly Canada Thread

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The media coverage of the Stanley-Boushie verdict has been just brutal. Actually, I am a bit depressed by it.

The article from CBC's Ottawa station about the protest on Parliament Hill after the verdict said that Boushie and his friends stopped at the Stanley farm to get help after their car got a flat tire.

Really? Even Boushie's friends in their testimony confirmed that that was not the case.

There are a couple inconvenient truths that are not being said in all the hoopla going on here. Such as the group being at a previous farm and attempted to steal a vehicle, that they were very drunk and driving a vehicle at the time (what would have happened if this car had crashed into another a killed people?). I wish that the supporters of Mr Boushie would acknowledge the bad decisions made by the 5 young people leading up to interaction. I think this would allow some rationality to enter the discussion.
Mr Boushie did not deserve to die, but if the 5 people in the car made one or two better decisions non of this would have taken place.

[WhipperSnapper]

I can find three articles that make Toronto seem like Mega City One. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not being dismissive. However, saskscraper's response as if, and whats, and poppycocks is more compelling than any of those articles.

Gerald Stanley wasn't killed. What he did do was shoot to kill and suffer no repercussions. It just opens the door for more extreme vigilante justice and racial motivated murder under the guise of self defense.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I can find three articles that make Toronto seem like Mega City One. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not being dismissive.

As I said, I have no idea of the magnitude of the phenomenon.

The sources he quoted are not bogus news sources. (Not even The Western Producer BTW.)

The thing is that even if something remains of marginal frequency, when you go from, say, almost zero annual farm invasion attacks on the Prairies for 30, 40 or even 50 years, to all of a sudden a couple or a half dozen or 10, that will raise some alarm bells.

I've lived in my neighbourhood for about 20 years. Number of shootings in this area in those 20 years? ZERO.

If all of sudden we get 2 or 3 during 2018, that's still marginal and rare statistically. But do you think that fact will reassure me and my neighbours?

[SignalHillHiker]

I read two articles about this, and can't remember now who wrote either. One made the point that, excluding the circumstances of the case, the fact a racially charged case could go to court in Canada with an all-white jury because the defense purposefully and openly screened out any potential juror with aboriginal ancestry is a huge problem.

The other said think about which possessions you would be willing to have your relative shot and killed to protect. If it was your sister, or brother, or whatever, what material possession is so valuable that you would tell the owner, yeah, go ahead and shoot. Probably none, so we need to get away from this American idea of Stand Your Ground.

Kind of agree with both, I think.

[Acajack]

BTW the comments from people at protests saying they fear for their own kids because of this ruling make me wanna barf.

I wouldn't fear for my kids even if they were aboriginal (well, they kind of partly are, but that's another story...) and if your kids aren't up to serious trouble they won't ever get into this type of situation.

Again, this isn't to say that Colten Boushie deserved to die, but certain situations are more conducive to bad shit happening, unfortunately.

And yes, I am aware there have been quite a few cases in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere where people (usuaully from minorities) have gone onto someone's property legitimately seeking help and have been killed by racist or trigger-happy property owners.

As tragic as it was, nothing indicates that this was this type of case.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

There are a couple inconvenient truths that are not being said in all the hoopla going on here. Such as the group being at a previous farm and attempted to steal a vehicle, that they were very drunk and driving a vehicle at the time (what would have happened if this car had crashed into another a killed people?). I wish that the supporters of Mr Boushie would acknowledge the bad decisions made by the 5 young people leading up to interaction. I think this would allow some rationality to enter the discussion.
Mr Boushie did not deserve to die, but if the 5 people in the car made one or two better decisions non of this would have taken place.

You're just clouding the situation and leading support to racists and extreme vigilante justice. Mr Boushie's death and how do we prevent the next Mr Boushie from dying now matters more than how a dumb 22 year old fated himself.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As I said, I have no idea of the magnitude of the phenomenon.

The sources he quoted are not bogus news sources. (Not even The Western Producer BTW.)

The thing is that even if something remains of marginal frequency, when you go from, say, almost zero annual farm invasion attacks on the Prairies for 30, 40 or even 50 years, to all of a sudden a couple or a half dozen or 10, that will raise some alarm bells.

I've lived in my neighbourhood for about 20 years. Number of shootings in this area in those 20 years? ZERO.

If all of sudden we get 2 or 3 during 2018, that's still marginal and rare statistically. But do you think that fact will reassure me and my neighbours?

Like I said, I'm not being dismissive of the situation. The complete condoning of Stanley's actions are just going to make things much worse. You can over analyse things. There's shades of grey to everything.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I read two articles about this, and can't remember now who wrote either. One made the point that, excluding the circumstances of the case, the fact a racially charged case could go to court in Canada with an all-white jury because the defense purposefully and openly screened out any potential juror with aboriginal ancestry is a huge problem.

The other said think about which possessions you would be willing to have your relative shot and killed to protect. If it was your sister, or brother, or whatever, what material possession is so valuable that you would tell the owner, yeah, go ahead and shoot. Probably none, so we need to get away from this American idea of Stand Your Ground.

Kind of agree with both, I think.

If you read the testimony, this wasn't really a case of Stanley simply not wanting five native kids make off with his motorized toys.

It came out in the trial that the kids' vehicle was moving around erratically and at one point Stanley lost sight of his wife who was part of the altercation and though she might be under one of the vehicles or about to be hit by one.

The kids also had at least one loaded weapon in the vehicle, though I am not sure if Stanley knew that.

I am not a fan of "Stand Your Ground" either but not sure if this case is really the same as shooting a guy in the back as he's running away with your iPhone.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I can find three articles that make Toronto seem like Mega City One. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not being dismissive. However, saskscraper's response as if, and whats, and poppycocks is more compelling than any of those articles.

Gerald Stanley wasn't killed. What he did do was shoot to kill and suffer no repercussions. It just opens the door for more extreme vigilante justice and racial motivated murder under the guise of self defense.

Your city has a cop, firefighter or paramedics who are minutes if not seconds away if you need them. In the rural prairies you are looking at maybe an hour before any of those types of responders will reach your place. Thieves of all stripes know this and I'm surprised it has taken them this long to start to probe this weakness.

That being said, Stanley should have gotten careless use of a firearm at a bare minimum and no more than manslaughter as the max. Finally the idea that a group of people can just drive drunkenly drive around trying to steal things is one that should be discouraged by all cultures and social strata.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

BTW the comments from people at protests saying they fear for their own kids because of this ruling make me wanna barf.

I wouldn't fear for my kids even if they were aboriginal (well, they kind of partly are, but that's another story...) and if your kids aren't up to serious trouble they won't ever get into this type of situation.

Again, this isn't to say that Colten Boushie deserved to die, but certain situations are more conducive to bad shit happening, unfortunately.

And yes, I am aware there have been quite a few cases in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere where people (usuaully from minorities) have gone onto someone's property legitimately seeking help and have been killed by racist or trigger-happy property owners.

As tragic as it was, nothing indicates that this was this type of case.

But to get off free?

I really don't care if this was racially motivated or not. I'm more concern that the decision will only embolden trigger happy rural landowners. Killing is the last ,last resort which is why I thought we left it to trained individuals under a mountain of oversight than someone just protecting his Ikea chesterfield.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

But to get off free?

I really don't care if this was racially motivated or not. I'm more concern that the decision will only embolden trigger happy rural landowners. Killing is the last ,last resort which is why I thought we left it to trained individuals under a mountain of oversight than someone just protecting his Ikea chesterfield.

The defence's argument which the jury obviously bought was that the shooting was accidental.

Not saying he should get off "free" though.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Your city has a cop, firefighter or paramedics who are minutes if not seconds away if you need them. In the rural prairies you are looking at maybe an hour before any of those types of responders will reach your place. Thieves of all stripes know this and I'm surprised it has taken them this long to start to probe this weakness.

That being said, Stanley should have gotten careless use of a firearm at a bare minimum and no more than manslaughter as the max. Finally the idea that a group of people can just drive drunkenly drive around trying to steal things is one that should be discouraged by all cultures and social strata.

I haven't just lived in Toronto. I've lived in places and still have homes in places where you're lucky to get any response.

My point is that letting him off with nothing is about the same as charging him with first degree murder. It's a fucked up situation. I don't really know the specifics so I'm not going to blame the jury's decision when it could easily have been the crown's fault. The trial and its results are secondary here.

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The media coverage of the Stanley-Boushie verdict has been just brutal. Actually, I am a bit depressed by it.

The article from CBC's Ottawa station about the protest on Parliament Hill after the verdict said that Boushie and his friends stopped at the Stanley farm to get help after their car got a flat tire.

Really? Even Boushie's friends in their testimony confirmed that that was not the case.

I don't follow anything CBC related but the fact that National media including CBC nationally couldn't get any details of the Stanley/Boushie case correct doesn't surprise me & is a common occurence in presenting Saskatchewan news to the Canadian populace.

Media reported that there were no aboriginal jurors in the trial but there is no determination of race in the jury selection. News Media using it's own racial profiling to the same degree of any pot-bellied donut-eating Toronto Police officer to determine the race of each of the jurors isn't using fact & is just another false reporting.

This is the 21st Century with dozens of generations of people interacting and having children in the Province, you can't just say someone is 'White' because they 'look' like it. My roommate is a fair skinned ginger but is 1/8 aboriginal.
The current Saskatoon police chief is a blue eyed, blond haired Metis.

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/prince-albe...-as-new-saskatoon-police-chief-1.3763873

People from out of the province can profess an easy armchair solution in dealing with the increase of aboriginal community targeting law abiding business owners/farmers while law enforcement is 10 to 20 times the response time that city dwellers enjoy getting.
Telling farmers to accept being repeated targets over & over again while their homes, family, property AND career is jeopardized every time someone tries to steal/damage property & farm equipment worth 100s of thousands of dollars isn't the same as protecting your favourite big screen tv.

There's a Go Fund Me page started for Gerald Stanley to help the family deal with the damage to their property, vehicles & equipment and the lost harvest income and expense of dealing with the difficulty of the situation they didn't ask for.

http://www.ckom.com/syn/648/242686/242686/

It'll be interesting to see if a very similar murder trial in Hamilton, Ontario later this year regarding a case of an aboriginal death when trying to steal property gets any National Media attention to the same degree as the Stanley-Boushie case and whether 'Alternate truths' are reported by news agency's again.

http://www.chch.com/peter-khill-back-court/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...-death-of-jon-styres-gets-bail-1.3453633

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I read two articles about this, and can't remember now who wrote either. One made the point that, excluding the circumstances of the case, the fact a racially charged case could go to court in Canada with an all-white jury because the defense purposefully and openly screened out any potential juror with aboriginal ancestry is a huge problem.

The other said think about which possessions you would be willing to have your relative shot and killed to protect. If it was your sister, or brother, or whatever, what material possession is so valuable that you would tell the owner, yeah, go ahead and shoot. Probably none, so we need to get away from this American idea of Stand Your Ground.

Kind of agree with both, I think.

I have partial disagreements with each, actually.

In the first case, why must we make it a racially-charged case? Someone shot someone else, let's look at facts and actions and evidence in a color-blind way, no?

In the second case, it's not only about the possessions. If I'm armed and have intruded into your house, the (somewhat valid) reason you'd shoot me isn't that you're afraid I might take some of your stuff, but rather that you're afraid I might shoot you first.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The media coverage of the Stanley-Boushie verdict has been just brutal. Actually, I am a bit depressed by it.

The article from CBC's Ottawa station about the protest on Parliament Hill after the verdict said that Boushie and his friends stopped at the Stanley farm to get help after their car got a flat tire.

Really? Even Boushie's friends in their testimony confirmed that that was not the case.

I agree it's kind of worrying if now CBC = Fake News ...

Worrying and disappointing.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by lio45

I agree it's kind of worrying if now CBC = Fake News ...

Worrying and disappointing.

Why would CBC be any different than the other struggling news outlets pandering to ever more fragmented audiences?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Doug

Why would CBC be any different than the other struggling news outlets pandering to ever more fragmented audiences?

Well, it's state-owned, so that's already a major difference. It should never need to pander to anyone, as it will always have the funding needed to stay fully independent and impartial.

Interestingly, NPR is doing a great job of staying totally away from fake news in any way shape or form, and they don't even have this kind of public funding.

Especially considering the above, I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold the CBC to a really high standard as a broadcaster, given that it's an arm of the government and publicly funded. I mean, if it starts to be the exact equivalent of any other private network and completely interchangeable with those, then we'll pull the plug on it in a heartbeat, won't we? Why continue to finance something that serves no purpose anymore?

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The media coverage of the Stanley-Boushie verdict has been just brutal. Actually, I am a bit depressed by it.

The article from CBC's Ottawa station about the protest on Parliament Hill after the verdict said that Boushie and his friends stopped at the Stanley farm to get help after their car got a flat tire.

Really? Even Boushie's friends in their testimony confirmed that that was not the case.

Originally Posted by lio45

I agree it's kind of worrying if now CBC = Fake News ...

Worrying and disappointing.

I couldn't find anything on CBC to that effect. The CP wording used in multiple media outlets is this:

The SUV driver testified the group had been drinking during the day and tried to break into a truck on a neighbouring farm, but went to the Stanley property in search of help with a flat tire.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/no...k-eye-canada-indigenous-leader-1.4530071

"The SUV driver testified..." is not the same as the CBC "saying" Boushie and his friends went to get help with a flat tire. I think you can spare yourself the anguish over the CBC being "fake news."

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I couldn't find anything on CBC to that effect. The CP wording used in multiple media outlets is this:



"The SUV driver testified..." is not the same as the CBC "saying" Boushie and his friends went to get help with a flat tire. I think you can spare yourself the anguish over the CBC being "fake news."

I am not saying the CBC is "fake news", but this is the story I was referring to from Saturday. I guess they changed the wording at some point. (I definitely didn't dream that up.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-vigil-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4530151

Obviously not everyone on here will believe me about this one, but it's not hard to find lots of news articles about this going back for months where it's noted that Boushie and his friends were just looking for help because they got a flat tire.

Until this weekend when I started reading up on it, I myself believed that that was the story based on all of the news reports I had heard over the past few months (most of them on the CBC I assume - it's the only news outlet I listen to that covers this type of issue), so again, I am not dreaming up this media angle. Where else would I get that idea all by myself?

So does this mean the CBC is now "fake news"? Certainly not. But it is revealing of a certain eagerness to jump to conclusions about certain issues. I would surmise that the article about the protest on the Hill was written during quiet hours on the weekend by a younger staffer at CBC's local Ottawa station, who made some quick assumptions about the case simply because of the fact that they were people protesting the death of a young indigenous man at the hands of a "white" farmer.

[MonctonRad]

Under JT's watch, the SJWs at the CBC are running amok. Their funding is secure so they can say whatever they want, and pursue whatever stories that they want. All they have to do is throw in a few couch words like "allegedly" and everything is cool as far as the legal department is concerned. Sources can remain safely anonymous and "alleged" perpetrators are hung out to dry. It's so easy these days to destroy someone's life and reputation - and with no consequences to boot. Literally every second story on our supposed national public broadcaster deals with social justice issues. There is quite definitely an agenda being pushed. The National is a mere shadow of its former self under the Mansbridge era. I detest the new format. The CBC has lost a (formerly) devoted viewer.