Federal Government & Politics II

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A new government may or may not change these things of course. Likely some, but maybe not all of them.

The signalling will simply shift to other "virtues". PP does it all the time.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Seems like the Conservatives have no problem with naming names of parliamentarians who consorted with foreign agents. Ball is in the corrupt Trudeau Liberals' court now.

Opposition asks Liberals to name parliamentarians colluding with foreign powers
STEVEN CHASE SENIOR PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER
MARIEKE WALSH SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO
UPDATED 1 HOUR AGO
FOR SUBSCRIBERS

The Official Opposition challenged the government Wednesday to release the names of all parliamentarians whom a national security watchdog believes are colluding with foreign powers.

A report released Monday by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, a watchdog set up by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, said a number of federal politicians, whom it declined to identify, are collaborating with countries such as India and China.

Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong on Wednesday urged the minority Liberal government to identify these parliamentarians. Were the government to name these people in the House of Commons, anyone doing so would be protected from legal action by parliamentary immunity.

“The report reveals that parliamentarians including members of this House, knowingly and willingly assisted a hostile foreign state, in Parliament and in our elections, to the detriment of the people of Canada,” Mr. Chong said during Question Period.

“Parliamentarians’ duty is not to a foreign state, but to the people of Canada. A simple question. Will the Prime Minister release the names of these parliamentarians?”.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc said it would be irresponsible to identify the parliamentarians.

“No responsible government would reveal names under these types of confidential circumstances,” Mr. LeBlanc told the Commons....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...olluding-with/

"Seems like" because they know the names won't be released by the government. The Conservatives would not release them if the roles were reversed. If they ever come out, it will be through the judicial process, if investigations establish that crimes may have been committed.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm gay and I think that both the giant acronyms and the constant adding of more shit to the pride flag are both ridiculous. Stick to LGBTQ and the original rainbow. Both are already inclusive. There is technically an infinite number of possible sexualities and gender identities so trying to encapsulate every possible one with an ever longer acronym and an ever more crowded flag is just a fool's errand.

I feel that a growing number of older "G"s have doubts about "T"s as members of the club. "Q" seems as likely to be a fashion statement as it is an expression of sexuality.

[casper]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

"Seems like" because they know the names won't be released by the government. The Conservatives would not release them if the roles were reversed. If they ever come out, it will be through the judicial process, if investigations establish that crimes may have been committed.

Obviously the Liberals are doing the responsible thing in not naming them. Should their be sufficient evidence to laws have been broken that would be a matter for the RCMP.

Will the conservatives take this to the logical conclusion. Will they make it a campaign promise to release these name. I don't think will go that far.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

Obviously the Liberals are doing the responsible thing in not naming them. Should their be sufficient evidence to laws have been broken that would be a matter for the RCMP.

Will the conservatives take this to the logical conclusion. Will they make it a campaign promise to release these name. I don't think will go that far.

Given that the Conservatives are pushing for the names to be released it’s pretty clear they’re confident it is Liberals named on the list. And not surprisingl given their cosy McKinsey-fuelled love in with China.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Given that the Conservatives are pushing for the names to be released it’s pretty clear they’re confident it is Liberals named on the list.

Really all the Conservatives have to do is keep it in the news cycle. I expect that the fact that the Liberals won't release the names is even more damaging that releasing the names, as the electorate will assume the worst, including that JT's name is on that list.

Think back to when the Liberals didn't want to release details about SNC, and then when they were released, it did look like JT and the Gang were in bed with SNC. In the voter's minds, that scandal being just yet another example of the Liberals disregarding the ethic rules. Given the currently poor goodwill towards the governing Liberals, I can't help but expect that the voter's imagination is even more "colourful" this time.

While summer is coming, I think that another month of this will not be kind to the Liberal's polling numbers.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by casper

Will the conservatives take this to the logical conclusion. Will they make it a campaign promise to release these name. I don't think will go that far.

They don't have to as this could possibly kill the last goodwill towards the Liberals. This is unlikely to be an issue in 2025 as the Conservatives will say that they absolutely assure that none of their candidates are tainted - something that the Liberals will have trouble saying as they are the ones keeping the list secret. Regardless of whether it is appropriate or not.

The imagination can be way more powerful than reality.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Obviously the Liberals are doing the responsible thing in not naming them. Should their be sufficient evidence to laws have been broken that would be a matter for the RCMP.

Will the conservatives take this to the logical conclusion. Will they make it a campaign promise to release these name. I don't think will go that far.

Where did the "Parliament should only be informed of wrongdoing if the RCMP lays charges" rule come from?

The NDP also apparently wants the names released, so the Liberals may not have much say in the matter. If the Liberals were smart they would release the names the Friday night before the Canada Day long weekend, after Parliament has risen and hope the story dies over the summer.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm gay and I think that both the giant acronyms and the constant adding of more shit to the pride flag are both ridiculous. Stick to LGBTQ and the original rainbow. Both are already inclusive. There is technically an infinite number of possible sexualities and gender identities so trying to encapsulate every possible one with an ever longer acronym and an ever more crowded flag is just a fool's errand.

A former significant other of one of my kids was a European exchange student who applied to LCBO for a part-time job. There was a question on sexual orientation in the application platform (already bizarre to begin with). When you clicked on the drop down menu there were something like 72 options

'You're gonna need a bigger flag."

[Acajack]

Personally I'm the type of person who generally has no trouble keeping up with terminology.

But I've witnessed the holier-than-thou go apeshit on those who can't and often innocently make a faux pas.

As if referring to Indigenous people as aboriginal in 2024 was equal to calling them savages. True story btw.

And when less than a decade ago a federal department had "aboriginal" in its name.

Oh yeah and we still have a federal law in effect for "Indians".

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I agree that these acronyms can get too long, thereby losing their potency, but in my experience, the people mocking these acronyms are always those that do not find themselves represented as one or more of the groups encapsulated by these acronyms. Often, they are the same ones that find it necessary to complain when the descriptor for a certain group gets changed (Indigenous to First Nations, African-Americans to Blacks, Handicapped to Disabled, gender pronouns, etc.), because, you know, it is such a chore to remember to use the new terminology.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It seems gay people are most likely to speak out about the extra letters. I guess the rest of us are afraid. Some say you should be more understanding as the LGB of 30 years ago are the TQ+ of today. It is interesting as the anti-gay marriage folks kind of predicted all this. "Give them an inch and they will take a mile". I was skeptical at the time but it seems like who knows what is next at this point.

It's not hard to find examples of that "extra mile" these days, and I definitely wasn't one of those who warned against that back in the day.

In the darker corners of the movement you even have people subtly legitimizing MAPs these days.

Again I would have been among those highly skeptical saying this possibility was absurd but there it is now.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Where did the "Parliament should only be informed of wrongdoing if the RCMP lays charges" rule come from?

The NDP also apparently wants the names released, so the Liberals may not have much say in the matter. If the Liberals were smart they would release the names the Friday night before the Canada Day long weekend, after Parliament has risen and hope the story dies over the summer.

Key question is, should parliament be informed, if doing so will compromise an RCMP investigation or undermined some activity CSIS is doing.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by casper

Key question is, should parliament be informed, if doing so will compromise an RCMP investigation or undermined some activity CSIS is doing.

Again, the Liberals don't have a positive record on this front and the more they delay, the more the populace will think that the rot extends to the top

Ottawa blocks RCMP on SNC-Lavalin inquiry

The RCMP has been looking into potential obstruction of justice in the handling of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., but its examination has been stymied by the federal government’s refusal to lift cabinet confidentiality for all witnesses, The Globe and Mail has learned.
...

link

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Key question is, should parliament be informed, if doing so will compromise an RCMP investigation or undermined some activity CSIS is doing.

Those are reasonable questions, but it should not be the Liberal Party that makes that assessment. If CSIS or the RCMP believe this is the case then they should testify at a Parliamentary committee to inform them of this concern.

It isn't normally the case that the public release of a name of a person who has committed wrongdoing jeopardizes a potential criminal investigation. The ArriveCan key players are all known to the public, despite the fact that some of them may face criminal charges or civil action at some point.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Personally I'm the type of person who generally has no trouble keeping up with terminology.

But I've witnessed the holier-than-thou go apeshit on those who can't and often innocently make a faux pas.

As if referring to Indigenous people as aboriginal in 2024 was equal to calling them savages. True story btw.

And when less than a decade ago a federal department had "aboriginal" in its name.

Oh yeah and we still have a federal law in effect for "Indians".

And I have trouble keeping up (largely because I don't actually care). When did "aboriginal" become offensive? And to whom?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

And I have trouble keeping up (largely because I don't actually care). When did "aboriginal" become offensive? And to whom?

https://library-archives.canada.ca/e...rminology.aspx

A collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three distinct groups of Aboriginal peoples. “In this Act, ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.” These are separate groups. Each has a unique and diverse heritage, language, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. Today, people mostly use the term “Aboriginal” in a legal context. It's no longer considered appropriate when referring to people. For more information, see Indigenous.

[emphasis added]

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

https://library-archives.canada.ca/e...rminology.aspx

A collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. Section 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three distinct groups of Aboriginal peoples. “In this Act, ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.” These are separate groups. Each has a unique and diverse heritage, language, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. Today, people mostly use the term “Aboriginal” in a legal context. It's no longer considered appropriate when referring to people. For more information, see Indigenous.

[emphasis added]

So, comparable to "Oriental". Makes sense I suppose.

[Acajack]

And yet it's still widely used out there in the anglosphere, such as in Australia where it's the official term for their indigenous population.

So while "Indigenous" may indeed be the preferred term for First Nations, Inuit and Métis people in Canada, it's hard to believe that it's offensive to the point of someone getting viciously slagged for innocently using it.

Very recently I spent some time abroad and had gatherings with people from all sorts of different countries, and at one point a person from a faraway land referred to Indigenous people as "American Indians" or something like that.

I could tell that a couple of bien-pensant types from the anglosphere almost threw up in their mouths a little bit upon hearing that.

As if we're all knowledgeable about the up-to-date terms to refer to every single group in every single country.

Oh yeah, and BTW: https://americanindian.si.edu/

[niwell]

American Indian is a term that's self-referential by certain groups in the US, no?

I'm not one to particularly care if someone uses the wrong term in good faith, but I don't see what's wrong with correcting someone so they will use correct terminology. These titles do in fact have meaning, as can be seen often when someone from a particular ethnic background is mislabeled in certain contexts. Though it's something I didn't realize in this particular one before dating an Inuk woman long ago whose family would readily yell at someone for calling them "Indian".

[acottawa]

I believe indigenous people understand the latin prefix "ab" to mean "not" so aboriginal means "not original." In fact it means "from" (so "from the beginning" which is exactly the meaning they actually want to convey much more than indigenous which has a closer meaning to native and does not imply a particularly long term association.)