So is it really the beginning of a new era in Canadian politics or simply more of the same?

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
So is it really the beginning of a new era in Canadian politics or simply more of the same?

So, in Huff Post Canada, there is this headline today, "PM says Federal Minimum Wage Hike Won't help low income Canadians". Then, it goes on to show Trudeau repeats the same stupid justifications the Libs used in the last election. We already know how much the LPC "Middle Class Tax Cut", was really one for the UPPER Middle Class. Then there is site C decision, the LNG decision, the failure to live up to promises to First Nations, and on and on.

So my question is, at what point will Canadians finally wake up and see the Emperor has no clothes? Even here on this board we have gotten stuck in endless process arguments about Mulcair as leader, and other things of that type and the discussion seems to have gotten completely side tracked from things political and discussion on what the governing party is actually doing. Has the Canadian Left simply run out of gas? Here it appears that the usual gang of Mulcair haters and Liberal loving, Justin praising Sycophants. have successfully moved all discussion critical of Trudeau and the Liberals into the background, basically claiming that if you attack Trudeau, no one will listen because it means you have no ideas and are "shrill", and we should all therefore vote Liberal, because...Harper.

Indeed, there is a real dearth of posts from many old Rabble voices such as Wilf Day, and Malcom French, good old time lefties who have fought the fight and simply given up on forums like this.

So we are really in what I would call a kind of "phony war", state of affairs nothing important seems to be happening, and navel gazing is therefore, ok.

Clearly, Trudeau is showing his neo-con, mealy mouthed liberal way. He sounds like pretty much every other LPC PM we have had who talks a good game but does nothing that doesn't meet with the approval of his Bay Street Backers and the 1%. At the cabinet level, people like Bennet, Philpott, Monsef and Saijan don't seem to feel even the slightest twinge of embarrassment. I find Bennet particularity galling; her self-satisfied Tweets are sickening. She is the consummate example of a Liberal Politician; self-absorbed and tone-deaf.

I think we have fallen back to the old status-quo, with Canadians once more having traded one set of Cats for another. Tommy Douglas was right.

And by the way, the Cats he was referring to were either Liberals or Tories. That hasn't changed. He WASN'T referring to the NDP, OR, the Canadian Left. 

Issues Pages: 
Ken Burch

One of the big problems has been that much of the Canadian Left(not all, but a significant sector of it) seems to have accepted the idea that the fightback against the felineocracy can't go forward until the NDP chooses a new leader.

This is a deadly mistake.

The state of the NDP should not define the range of possibilities and the strategic choices of Canada's Left.

This time SHOULD be used by activist sector to make a REAL challenge to the "market values" consensus, presenting alternatives and mobilizing at the local level.

It's a situation in which the maxim "if the people lead, the leaders will follow" should be the organizing principle.

From that, recovery will follow.

Unionist

Glad to see you back here, Arthur!

And I too wish Wilf Day would post more regularly, though he is still around when he needs to be.

As for Malcolm French? Yeah, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-news-features/dion-era?page=3#comment-937...'s my hero[/url]. Never had a single useful word to say about anything.

Michelle, in 2007 wrote:

quote:Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
Personally, I find it really tedious when Liberal syncophants pretend to be progressive.

I'm getting pretty tired of you attacking unionist in this manner. But now I understand why. Looking at the other thread where you were recently attacking him in late December (I didn't have a chance to do something about it because I received the complaint right when I was about to go on vacation), I see you brought up CCFer, supposedly a "good friend" of yours, and unionist linked to the thread where he was banned for being such an obnoxious presence on babble and writing such nasty posts.

And gosh, you and CCFer are such good friends that you share an IP address and, presumably, a computer. Like, maybe you're such good friends that you even share the same body or something.

Now, I haven't noticed you do too much outside of babble policy except occasionally attacking unionist as a "Liberal apologist" or a "Liberal sycophant". And perhaps CCFer really is a roommate or spouse or something like that, since that account was registered long after yours was. I doubt it, but I suppose it's always a possibility.

So here's the deal. You get to stay for now, and you immediately stop your little vendetta against unionist. I watch you carefully for the next while and if you keep up the CCFer-like bullshit, you're gone.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I too agree that the NDP should not wait for Mulcair's replacement to challenge the drift to the right and broken promises of the Liberals.

It is early days yet and we may yet see Mulcair put up a spirited opposition in this parliament.

Mulcair's present situation is one of some mixed authority due to his less than powerful advocacy for NDP principles during the election. However, he is in a good position to call the Liberals on their suggestions that the NDP was less progressive than they were -- less ambitious now that we see the Liberals backing away from promises and delaying spending -- this after they criticized the NDP for proposing to spend too slowly.

Mulcair at the moment is a damaged leader but not without an opportunity. In his current position it could be possible, if he really worked at it, to earn back his leadership position. With a strong opposition now he has a unique ability, if he wanted to, to re-assert himself as a candidate in the leadership race. While his support is low as long term leader, I think this is largely due to him not demonstrating the kind of progressive direction the party wants. This plus a real admission of what really went wrong in the last election could change things. I was left assuming that he either did not want to redeam himself or did not think he had to.

 

quizzical

why the talk about Mulcair and whomever else who used to be here? bit weird imv.

let's talk about the lying liars the Liberals whom this thread is about.

Quote:
The Liberal government has deferred justice for working women by delaying the introduction of pay equity legislation until the end of 2018, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) said today.

“We are disappointed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is using stalling tactics while women across the federal sector face years more of pay discrimination,” said Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE. “The government could introduce legislation this fall, but it has chosen instead to delay. We don’t need more study. We don’t need more consultations. We need action.”

Yesterday, the Liberal government issued its response to the Report of the Special Committee on Pay Equity. While acknowledging the gender wage gap and the need for a proactive pay equity model, the government has now said it will wait years before acting. CUPE is repeating its call for pay equity legislation without further delay. 

https://cupe.ca/trudeau-liberals-delay-pay-equity-working-women

 

 

 

quizzical

same old Stephen Harper and the Conservatives silencing of Canadians and eroding of democracy......

sadly in the fullest measure nothing has changed

Quote:
.....We can't give you her name because her boss told her not to speak to the media. Speaking with her over the phone, I could tell she was upset, and eager to tell her story. 

"I come to work every day like a good public servant and do my job," said the woman, who told me her situation has left her feeling depressed.

But she also feels that if she speaks out, her job could be in jeopardy. And she can't afford to lose it.

That chill is a growing problem for those of us who are covering the Phoenix pay system saga.

Something has changed

I began working on these stories in July, when public servants were freely sharing the details of their cases. For much of the summer they were more than willing to appear on camera, and didn't seem worried that speaking out could cost them their careers.

But something has changed.....

yup following Harper's play book instead of pretending.

 

quizzical

The numbers show that the Trudeau government has used the law far more aggressively than the Harper government itself.

Quote:
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau made the sanctity of citizenship an issue in last year's federal election.

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," Trudeau said in a leaders' debate three weeks before storming to victory.

He used it to dress down Stephen Harper for passing Bill C-24, a law that aimed to strip dual citizens of their Canadian passports if they were convicted of crimes of terrorism, treason or espionage against Canada, or took up arms against Canada.

Immigrant communities rallied to the Liberal Party, concerned that Canadians born overseas would be reduced by C-24 to an insecure second-class status.

Once elected, one of the Liberals' first acts was to repeal the parts of C-24 that applied to those convicted of terrorism-related crimes, ensuring that they can keep their Canadian passports.

But the Trudeau government left intact other parts of the law that allow the government to strip citizenship from other holders of Canadian passports for misrepresentation.

The 184 revocation decisions of the first 10 months of the Trudeau government nearly match the total number of decisions over a 27-year period between 1988 and the last month of the Harper government in October 2015.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

why the talk about Mulcair and whomever else who used to be here? bit weird imv.

let's talk about the lying liars the Liberals whom this thread is about.

Quote:
The Liberal government has deferred justice for working women by delaying the introduction of pay equity legislation until the end of 2018, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) said today.

“We are disappointed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is using stalling tactics while women across the federal sector face years more of pay discrimination,” said Mark Hancock, national president of CUPE. “The government could introduce legislation this fall, but it has chosen instead to delay. We don’t need more study. We don’t need more consultations. We need action.”

Yesterday, the Liberal government issued its response to the Report of the Special Committee on Pay Equity. While acknowledging the gender wage gap and the need for a proactive pay equity model, the government has now said it will wait years before acting. CUPE is repeating its call for pay equity legislation without further delay. 

https://cupe.ca/trudeau-liberals-delay-pay-equity-working-women

 

 

 

The reason for the mention of Mulcair is that he is the leader and he has an opportunity to do something given the rather rapid unraveling of the progressive face of the "new" Liberal party.

I would say he has an obligation as well.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....given the rather rapid unraveling of the progressive face of the "new" Liberal party.

I would say he has an obligation as well.

some things never change.

threads about the Liberals become what about Mulcair or anything else.

keep up the good work sean!!!!!

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
....given the rather rapid unraveling of the progressive face of the "new" Liberal party.

I would say he has an obligation as well.

some things never change.

threads about the Liberals become what about Mulcair or anything else.

keep up the good work sean!!!!!

Not sure I get this post.

He is the leader so saying that he has an opportunity to make an impact -- one would think -- would be natural.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean I am inclined to agree with Quizzical here. I really wasn't starting this thread so we could talk more about the issues with Mulcair and NDP leadership.

We already have an excessive number of threads that deal with the issue of Mulcair's leadership on here. I was really quite serious when I talked about all the Navel Gazzing that is going on here. It used to be the Lib Sycophants on here would start threads that turned into NDP slag fests, but lately we NDP supporters have been doing all their dirty work for them. This forum is just getting completely bogged down in self introspection and questioning about the NDP and its future. I was trying to move the discussion off of this. Personally, I'm getting pretty sick of it. As I said, there are already more than enough threads focusing on the issues plaguing the NDP and not enough focusing on what the Libs are actually doing and the questions of policy and issues Liberal governance raises.

So, I would say from my perspective, that is fair to ask if we can knock off all this NDP slagging in every thread? Its getting tiresome and I am of the opinon that turning every new thread into more NDP/Mulcair bashing and introspection is not helpful. One of the useful things on this forum was that there was discussion that focused on the Libs and allowed us to all inteact, verify, and clarify the issues and where the Libs stood on things.

Let's be clear here, the Liberals are in every way as bad or worse than the Tories, but have a much more attractive figure head delivering the message. They are devoid of morality, conviction, or honesty. To continue to focus on slagging Mulcair and the NDP on every thread only undermines the conversation we should be having in various other areas. Yes, I know all about Mulcair, and the NDP, and all the issues, but I don't want every thread to turn into variations on the same thing over and over.

I respect you greatly, but I didn't start this thread with the intent of it becoming just one more place to hammer Mulcair and the party.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Sean I am inclined to agree with Quizzical here. I really wasn't starting this thread so we could talk more about the issues with Mulcair and NDP leadership.

We already have an excessive number of threads that deal with the issue of Mulcair's leadership on here. I was really quite serious when I talked about all the Navel Gazzing that is going on here. It used to be the Lib Sycophants on here would start threads that turned into NDP slag fests, but lately we NDP supporters have been doing all their dirty work for them. This forum is just getting completely bogged down in self introspection and questioning about the NDP and its future. I was trying to move the discussion off of this. Personally, I'm getting pretty sick of it. As I said, there are already more than enough threads focusing on the issues plaguing the NDP and not enough focusing on what the Libs are actually doing and the questions of policy and issues Liberal governance raises.

So, I would say from my perspective, that is fair to ask if we can knock off all this NDP slagging in every thread? Its getting tiresome and I am of the opinon that turning every new thread into more NDP/Mulcair bashing and introspection is not helpful. One of the useful things on this forum was that there was discussion that focused on the Libs and allowed us to all inteact, verify, and clarify the issues and where the Libs stood on things.

Let's be clear here, the Liberals are in every way as bad or worse than the Tories, but have a much more attractive figure head delivering the message. They are devoid of morality, conviction, or honesty. To continue to focus on slagging Mulcair and the NDP on every thread only undermines the conversation we should be having in various other areas. Yes, I know all about Mulcair, and the NDP, and all the issues, but I don't want every thread to turn into variations on the same thing over and over.

I respect you greatly, but I didn't start this thread with the intent of it becoming just one more place to hammer Mulcair and the party.

What the hell -- did anyone actually read what I wrote or just notice that I mentioned the leader?

I said that this issue -- you know the one thread is about -- is an opportunity for Mulcair and that he even has an obligation to respond. To this issue -- you know the one the thread is about.

Please someone explain in detail why mentionning his name is such a freakin problem. While you are at it please explain how the defenders of the leader now seem to want to have a discussion of the party where we do not name the leader. Should we have a code word for him or must we discuss what the NDP must do and avoid at all costs sayign that there is an opportunity for the leader to -- well you know -- lead?

My post was not about the race but to say that this topic -- you know the one the thread is about -- is so important that it needs attention in spite of the leadership issues.

Holy crap.

This leadership context remains -- saying that the NDP does not have to wait for resolution to the leadership race to lead on this is relevant -- at least to me -- given the importance of what the Liberals are actually doing. To name the elephant in the room and place it as something that should not distract should not create this kind of response. Is the NDP now too sensitive that it cannot ackowledge the context of what is happening? That sayinf despite these issues we need a response?

I guess we are far more fucked than I thought.

mark_alfred

The tendency for introspection and self-criticism from many lefties is something that in recent years has been exploited by war room Liberal types like Gerald Butts.  Here it's led at times to an almost bizarre coalition of purists with Liberal apologists.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

The tendency for introspection and self-criticism from many lefties is something that in recent years has been exploited by war room Liberal types like Gerald Butts.  Here it's led at times to an almost bizarre coalition of purists with Liberal apologists.

If the party is worth anything it ought to be able to deal with self criticism in order to grow stronger.

To be attacking those who offer constructive criticism with the same venom as the opposition, indeed to find it difficult to tell the difference, suggests those party members are sadly bankrupt of confidence.

The context of this comment after the discussion about mine appears to be trying to not very subtly send a message that the party is best controlling conversation rather than embracing it.

As usual the NDP sets its own limits and then complains about the chains.

quizzical

start a thread about it Sean, or post about it in one of the many many threads on the NDP and Mulcair.

people derailing every thread about the Liberals with juxpositions about the bad NDP or Mulcair and then compounding it by fighting with us who take exception.......is getting over the top.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

The tendency for introspection and self-criticism from many lefties is something that in recent years has been exploited by war room Liberal types like Gerald Butts.  Here it's led at times to an almost bizarre coalition of purists with Liberal apologists.

If the party is worth anything it ought to be able to deal with self criticism in order to grow stronger.

To be attacking those who offer constructive criticism with the same venom as the opposition, indeed to find it difficult to tell the difference, suggests those party members are sadly bankrupt of confidence.

The context of this comment after the discussion about mine appears to be trying to not very subtly send a message that the party is best controlling conversation rather than embracing it.

As usual the NDP sets its own limits and then complains about the chains.

Exhibit A: Greg Selinger and what's left of the Manitoba NDP.

mark_alfred

Some rumblings about an upcoming Housing Strategy:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/homeless-liberals-housing-plan-1.3799638

The fact that there's even rumblings on this is good.  We'll see what comes of it though.

mark_alfred

Not sure what I think of this one:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/talk-shows-tax-credit-trudeau-joly-1.379...

A tax credit for Canadian TV talk-shows.  A positive sign in this new era?  An investment in culture, I suppose.

mark_alfred

[oops!  just noticed this already had been posted in post #6]

In answer to the thread question, it seems just more of the same.  In some respects, it's even worse.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1....

Quote:

Trudeau government revoking citizenship at much higher rate than Conservatives

The Trudeau government used powers granted by the Harper government's controversial citizenship law to make 184 revocation decisions without legal hearings between November 2015 and the end of August. About 90 per cent of the decisions resulted in a negative finding and the loss of a person's citizenship.

The numbers show that the Trudeau government has used the law far more aggressively than the Harper government itself.

[..]

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau made the sanctity of citizenship an issue in last year's federal election.

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," Trudeau said in a leaders' debate three weeks before storming to victory.

[..]

Immigrant communities rallied to the Liberal Party, concerned that Canadians born overseas would be reduced by C-24 to an insecure second-class status.

Once elected, one of the Liberals' first acts was to repeal the parts of C-24 that applied to those convicted of terrorism-related crimes, ensuring that they can keep their Canadian passports.

But the Trudeau government left intact other parts of the law that allow the government to strip citizenship from other holders of Canadian passports for misrepresentation.

The 184 revocation decisions of the first 10 months of the Trudeau government nearly match the total number of decisions over a 27-year period between 1988 and the last month of the Harper government in October 2015.

[..]

In recent days, following revelations that the birthplace of one of its own cabinet ministers was misrepresented on her passport documents, the government has said it is open to reforming the system.

But in the preceding months, it had used the revocation measures at an unprecedented rate.

"The Liberals criticized these provisions when they were in opposition," says Laura Track of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. "They said they were going to fix it. And yet they have been using it even more than the Conservatives did."

kropotkin1951

mark_alfred wrote:

Not sure what I think of this one:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/talk-shows-tax-credit-trudeau-joly-1.379...

A tax credit for Canadian TV talk-shows.  A positive sign in this new era?  An investment in culture, I suppose.

Just what our "democracy" needs. Tax breaks to the elite to run political spin programs. A positive in our new age of REAL change.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

Some rumblings about an upcoming Housing Strategy:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/homeless-liberals-housing-plan-1.3799638

The fact that there's even rumblings on this is good.  We'll see what comes of it though.

Hopefully this National Housing Strategy will be good. The Conservatives weren't about to implement one. Establishing a price for carbon is another thing the Conservatives were never going to do. And so is looking into electoral reform. I think the Harper Conservatives were so awful that it is impossible for the Liberals not to be an improvement. So I think there is a new era in politics in Canada although it would have been much better if the NDP had won the election, as long as the NDP government didn't keep their idiotic promise of balancing the budget every year. I think as long as the NDP has difficulty differentiating themselves from the Liberals, the majority on the left will continue to be satisfied with "the new Liberal era." It's time for people on the left to portray a much better vision for Canada.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Just what our "democracy" needs. Tax breaks to the elite to run political spin programs.

Elite spin programs?

When I think of talk shows I think of celebrity chefs and a chimpanzee showing everyone an easy recipe for eggs benedict.  When did talk shows go all Goebbels?

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Not sure what I think of this one:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/talk-shows-tax-credit-trudeau-joly-1.379...

A tax credit for Canadian TV talk-shows.  A positive sign in this new era?  An investment in culture, I suppose.

I don't know if this is new money -- looks like more a chance to take money that could have gone to some things and direct it to talk shows.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

start a thread about it Sean, or post about it in one of the many many threads on the NDP and Mulcair.

people derailing every thread about the Liberals with juxpositions about the bad NDP or Mulcair and then compounding it by fighting with us who take exception.......is getting over the top.

 

 

And I wasn't.

What I said was relevant to this thread and about this thread topic.

I stated that notwithstanding the issues of leadership the NDP must respond to this AND it should not wait for leadership to be settled AND this is an opportunity for Mulcair if he wants one. I am not even a supporter of his yet I stated he has an opening -- you are not even correct in saying this was a negative statement about Mulcair. It was an acknowledgement of his situation and how it is relevant to this topic.

Explain Why this opinion is a problem and who decides to censor people for linking these things together and why you think that you have a right to decide the perametres of a conversation and what is allowed here. Did you buy out rabble whan I was not looking? Are you the arbiter of what can be said here?

And after all that explain what kind of future a party with such spineless supporters who think they have to censor people who are already mostly on their side.

On a discussion about a problem with the government why is it not relevant to say the NDP must respond and not wait for leadership issues to be settled further. This is about your fantasy that you have the right to shut me up becuase your opinion differs  from mine or I am saying something that makes you uncomfortable.

Thread drift happens all the time -- to the extreme --  but my statement was not drift or derailing. It was addressing the urgency of the NDP, even in its current challenges, replying and that this is an opportunity for a damaged leader to make a mark.

You do not have to like what I said but it was on the topic.

Once you figure out on what grounds you want to censor opinion here, please follow up with at least one reason why I should respect your opinion after this becuase I think I will need that.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

This is hopeless. I never knew there were so many people here who thought they had the answer to everything. Must be nice. OK, let me run with it I hate Mulcair, He has a beard!

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

This is hopeless. I never knew there were so many people here who thought they had the answer to everything. Must be nice. OK, let me run with it I hate Mulcair, He has a beard!

What you didn't think the people writing on a political site have opinions?

Here's the thing -- this defense of a non-attack on Mulcair is what derailed this thread.

So rather than answering if you think that the NDP should or should not concentrate on answering what the Liberals are doing we are discussing what right I had to share an opinion that they should regardless of the leadership circumstances.

Well done.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

This is hopeless. I never knew there were so many people here who thought they had the answer to everything. Must be nice. OK, let me run with it I hate Mulcair, He has a beard!

What you didn't think the people writing on a political site have opinions?

Here's the thing -- this defense of a non-attack on Mulcair is what derailed this thread.

So rather than answering if you think that the NDP should or should not concentrate on answering what the Liberals are doing we are discussing what right I had to share an opinion that they should regardless of the leadership circumstances.

Well done.

OK Sean. I get your point. My point stands. I am truly TIRED of the non-stop Navel gazzing that every thread on here is becoming. We are doing the Libs dirty work for them and they don't haviq to stir the pot. We're doing it for them. That is all I am saying. You ought to try and be a little less self-righteous. As for your scarcasm, thanks. I appreciate it, Nice of you to step up like that.

mark_alfred

Some "Sunny Ways" this is:

Quote:

José Bové, European politician who opposes trade deal, says he was held at Montreal airport

An anti-globalization activist and European Parliament MP who opposes a trade deal between Canada and the European Union says he missed a speaking engagement in Montreal last night after he was held up by customs at Trudeau airport, and was told he'll have to leave the country today.

The Council of Canadians, a social action organization, had invited Bové to speak about his opposition to the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) on Tuesday night.

But Bové tweeted in the evening that he had been held up for several hours at Trudeau airport and he believes opponents of the trade treaty are not welcome in Canada.

[..]

NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice, who was scheduled to meet with Bové on Thursday, says the situation is "totally unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada." 

He said he will instruct his team to ask Goodale to intervene and let Bové speak tonight.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jose-bove-canada-denied-entry-1.3...

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

This is hopeless. I never knew there were so many people here who thought they had the answer to everything. Must be nice. OK, let me run with it I hate Mulcair, He has a beard!

What you didn't think the people writing on a political site have opinions?

Here's the thing -- this defense of a non-attack on Mulcair is what derailed this thread.

So rather than answering if you think that the NDP should or should not concentrate on answering what the Liberals are doing we are discussing what right I had to share an opinion that they should regardless of the leadership circumstances.

Well done.

OK Sean. I get your point. My point stands. I am truly TIRED of the non-stop Navel gazzing that every thread on here is becoming. We are doing the Libs dirty work for them and they don't haviq to stir the pot. We're doing it for them. That is all I am saying. You ought to try and be a little less self-righteous. As for your scarcasm, thanks. I appreciate it, Nice of you to step up like that.

I am truly of the hypocritical anything-goes-with-drift in every thread (which I think is normal and natural) but then a puritanical reaction when a comment that is a legitimate opinion with the bounds of commenting policy but is not to someone's liking. A little trigger happy on the protectionism. I think that is the way to turn a political party into a private club. This site was never meant to be about one party anyway.

And no we are not doing dirty work for the Liberals here, they don't care and the handful of people here are mostly non-Liberals. This back-biting for expressing opinions that someone does not like, is a problem. The idea that the leadership situation is unrelated to anything regarding the NDP is also fantasy. Expect it to come into most threads that address the NDP. The leadership is the background to everything within the party no matter how much some people would like to have it different. This means that on many topics a thoughtful post may well link that context to the thread topic. I did this -- I did not make the leadership the topic but explained how this thread topic fit into the leadership situation.

I was not being self rightious. Try rereading this thread and thinking about what I was saying -- I was constructive and acknowledged the context and ranked dealing with the Liberals as the priority -- then the gates of shit opened up followed by a pile on. To add insult my post was actually positve to Mulcair acknowledging an opportunity for him here but also saying he is obliged to act to counter some of the Liberal changes in direction/broken promises. Exactly how would you react?

For the record-- I think "navel gazing" is what you need to do after failure -- to figure out what you need to change from your side. And this site is about navel gazing for the left. What else do you think it is for? The issue is those who want to control the type of introspection others engage in a place that is all about thought and expression. I am less interested in the view that the bad other parties did it to us and we should just blame them for any failures. We do not control the other parties and barely influence the NDP.

Now this is the absolute biggie: Perhaps we disagree about what this site is for. It is a place of exploration for the left. I want to explore ideas, engage with people who are thinking about what we want to do. I guess I have little respect for those here who want to engage only in campaigning. Once you get to the point of sanitizing what you say about the NDP or the left this is what you are doing -- campaigning rather than discussing. Let me be blunt: if this is what this site is supposed to be I would never want to participate. I can read talking points off party websites. I will not engage in parroting them in order to avoid controversy or to protect the image of the NDP from uncomfortable discussion. That, to me, is a colossal waste of time. So I ask you -- again bluntly -- why are you here? Are you here to engage in ideas to make the movement (and at times the party) better? In which case do not make the case that we should sanitize discussion for the miniscule audience of non left/liberals here.

Or are you here to boost the NDP and campaign perpetually, promoting where possible and ignoring where promotion cannot be done?

If it is the second and I am wrong about what this place is for, I just don't belong here. If it is the first -- you need to think about the meanings and motivations of what you and Quizzical have said in this thread.

Anyway I have something better to do with my day than to have to fight about what opinions I am allowed to share on a discussion site. I suggest the left has something better to do than campaign 3 years out from an election as well.

mark_alfred

The thread drift that will not die.

Quote:

I too agree that the NDP should not wait for Mulcair's replacement to challenge the drift to the right and broken promises of the Liberals.

Yes, I agree with this statement, though I take issue with the presumption that the NDP is in fact waiting.  It's not.  They've been quite outspoken on many issues.  Just quickly peruse their news section to see.

http://www.ndp.ca/news

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:

Some "Sunny Ways" this is:

Quote:

José Bové, European politician who opposes trade deal, says he was held at Montreal airport

An anti-globalization activist and European Parliament MP who opposes a trade deal between Canada and the European Union says he missed a speaking engagement in Montreal last night after he was held up by customs at Trudeau airport, and was told he'll have to leave the country today.

The Council of Canadians, a social action organization, had invited Bové to speak about his opposition to the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) on Tuesday night.

But Bové tweeted in the evening that he had been held up for several hours at Trudeau airport and he believes opponents of the trade treaty are not welcome in Canada.

[..]

NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice, who was scheduled to meet with Bové on Thursday, says the situation is "totally unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada." 

He said he will instruct his team to ask Goodale to intervene and let Bové speak tonight.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jose-bove-canada-denied-entry-1.3...

unfkn believable.

 

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

The thread drift that will not die.

Quote:

I too agree that the NDP should not wait for Mulcair's replacement to challenge the drift to the right and broken promises of the Liberals.

Yes, I agree with this statement, though I take issue with the presumption that the NDP is in fact waiting.  It's not.  They've been quite outspoken on many issues.  Just quickly peruse their news section to see.

http://www.ndp.ca/news

What presumption? You mean the one that is in your head and Arthur's and Quizzical's? That little fantasy you have been trying to impose on my words throughout most of this thread?

Must I get into an explanation of the difference between saying the "NDP must not wait" and saying "they are actually waiting"?

I never said they were waiting. I joined others here calling for them to make it a major issue -- saying that it was also an opportunity for the leader.

This is a shit show. It would be great if people would read what is said instead of what they think is most convenient in order to put the cute retort they would like to make.

What I said: "It is early days yet and we may yet see Mulcair put up a spirited opposition in this parliament." Nothing there suggests that the NDP is waiting -- in fact this is a presumption that we are about to see something.I followed up with why I also thought it would be good for the leader to go there. I am convinced he actually will. While not a Mulcair supporter I actually expect him to do well over the next few months.

I am tired of people pleasuring themselves by filling in both sides of the conversation in order to get their digs in and sanitize (to their personal desire) the conversation. Guess what -- this is about one person saying an opinion and another responding -- not so much about a thread-long debate over what opinions are okay to have, to share etc.

Yes I am pissed off becuase I think we are touching on exactly what is horribly wrong with the community here. People compose their retorts and then place them regardless of whether the conversation actually fits it. This is not engagement.

Also it would be really, really fantastic if the go-to reaction when someone expresses an opinion that does not match perfectly the respondent's opinion not imediately be a discussion about whether the person had a right to express it. This is why I said upthread we are even more fucked than I thought. and no worries for the Liebrals and those who think we are doing their work -- it is this tendency that has the left frequently ineffective.

Nobody addressed what I was saying even though it is apparently controversial -- instead a lively discussion followed about my right to say it.

So instead of billing this place as where people discuss -- we should bill it as a never ending debate over who is allowed to speak and what they are allowed to say. Anything more intersting would be beyond us as we would have to conclude the first debate as a priority.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Those involved in this shit show debate about my bringing up the leadership seem to have selectively forgotten that I was responding to this:

Ken: "One of the big problems has been that much of the Canadian Left(not all, but a significant sector of it) seems to have accepted the idea that the fightback against the felineocracy can't go forward until the NDP chooses a new leader."

My reply had everything to do with that statement.

I did not bring up Mulcair in this thread nor the issue of the NDP waiting -- I merely said that I did not think the party should and there was an opportunity for the leader here. I did not create a freakin drift.

 

mark_alfred

My apologies Sean.  Clearly I've misread your posts.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Some "Sunny Ways" this is:

Quote:

José Bové, European politician who opposes trade deal, says he was held at Montreal airport

An anti-globalization activist and European Parliament MP who opposes a trade deal between Canada and the European Union says he missed a speaking engagement in Montreal last night after he was held up by customs at Trudeau airport, and was told he'll have to leave the country today.

The Council of Canadians, a social action organization, had invited Bové to speak about his opposition to the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) on Tuesday night.

But Bové tweeted in the evening that he had been held up for several hours at Trudeau airport and he believes opponents of the trade treaty are not welcome in Canada.

[..]

NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice, who was scheduled to meet with Bové on Thursday, says the situation is "totally unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada." 

He said he will instruct his team to ask Goodale to intervene and let Bové speak tonight.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jose-bove-canada-denied-entry-1.3...

unfkn believable.

 

Wait a minute -- should we not have some context here? Is there any indication that the federal government intervened? I have not seen any. What we have are some reasons Customs could do this on their own. I am not defending the Liberal government but let's not tie ourselves in knots over what is a relatively siple explanation: his past would cause him difficulty at a border without any reference to politics.

You can debate his actions all you like but his claim to fame began with acts that support them or not were criminal. To say Canada was merely blocking free speech here is a lie.

Boulerice actually made a fool of himself when you consider the actual situation. There are reasons, legitimately, why a democratic country might not allow a person -- even whose political purpose we might agree with -- to enter after multiple property criminal convictions. Boulerice is frankly slandering Canada here.

We can debate if there should have been an exception, we can debate many things but we should not pretend or have supposedly competent MPs pretend that this was about keeping out those who just use words to oppose. there is a reasonable concern (the value of which is up for debate) that he could be a threat.

Perhaps this was a mistake we can discuss that but ignoring the potential for grounds based on criminal convictions and screaming censorship is not an appropriate response from the NDP. This is the type of thing that makes people quesiton the NDP at times. Engage on the real issue and oppose but playing with facts like this is not going to convince the undecided.

 

 

Here is the history:

 

In 1976, Bové was sentenced and served three weeks of imprisonment for having destroyed documents belonging to the military, as a way to oppose the extension of Larzac military camp.[9]

In 2002, Bové was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for his role in the destruction of a McDonald's franchise in Millau, Aveyron, in 1999. He was imprisoned for 44 days and released on 1 August 2002.

On 22 June 2003 Bové began serving a sentence of ten months for the destruction of transgenic crops. ATTAC protested and called for him to be freed. A general pardon for Bastille Day, plus an individual action by President Jacques Chirac, reduced the sentence to seven months. Supporters and opponents expressed dissatisfaction with the Presidential pardon on the grounds that it was entirely inadequate and wholly unjustified, respectively. On 15 November 2005 the Toulouse court of appeals sentenced Bové to 4 months in jail for having destroyed genetically engineered corn from a field. Other defendants, such as Noël Mamère, got suspended sentences.[10]

In February 2006, Bové was stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents at New York's JFK Airport as he arrived en route to Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations for events sponsored by Cornell's Global Labor Institute. According to Bové, the Customs agents told him he was "ineligible" to enter the U.S. due to his past prosecutions for "moral crimes". After being detained for several hours, Bové was placed on an Air France flight to Paris.[2]

On 11 October 2016, Bové was denied entry to Canada because of his past actions, notably against McDonald's.[11]

quizzical

and what's your context other than the Liberals are following corporatism otherwise known as fascism the same as the Conservatives did?

 

mark_alfred

Quote:
Wait a minute -- should we not have some context here?

Oh great.  Long quotes from Wikipedia.  Note this from the article:

Quote:

Jean-Marc Desfilhes, his press attaché, said he and Bové had the same visa and Desfilhes got through customs without any issues.

"He isn't a criminal. He is an elected member of the European Parliament. This is simply an extremely embarrassing situation," Desfilhes said.

Now note this from the government website on travelling:

Quote:

After you receive a visa

A valid visitor visa and travel document does not guarantee that you can enter Canada. A border services officer may find that you are no longer admissible because:

  • your case has changed, or
  • there is new information about you. For instance, you gave false or incomplete information on your visa application.

So what was the "change" or "new information" in his case that prompted the denial of his visa?  And citing the McDonalds thing from 1999 does not count as "new information" in my opinion. 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

and what's your context other than the Liberals are following corporatism otherwise known as fascism the same as the Conservatives did?

 

The fact that customs officials may have denied him without any political or censorship direction is extremely relevant.

Given this information -- do we have any indication whatsoever of political interference in the customs process? If not, how do we make this a political issue?

We have had this discussion before -- I have a bias and this is what it is: I hate the Liberal-Conservative history in Canada but I want the attacks on them to be reasonable and well founded -- and not becuase I wish to defend them -- but becuase I wish the many well-founded attacks to not be devalued or debased by poor quality unsupportable efforts that lead to discrediting the opposition to the Liberals and Conservatives.

When the opposition is incompetent the government wins. Choose your battles and make sure they are winnable.

There is no foundation here -- or at least none exposed -- that this had anything to do with censorship of speech or politics.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:
Wait a minute -- should we not have some context here?

Oh great.  Long quotes from Wikipedia.  Note this from the article:

Quote:

Jean-Marc Desfilhes, his press attaché, said he and Bové had the same visa and Desfilhes got through customs without any issues.

"He isn't a criminal. He is an elected member of the European Parliament. This is simply an extremely embarrassing situation," Desfilhes said.

Now note this from the government website on travelling:

Quote:

After you receive a visa

A valid visitor visa and travel document does not guarantee that you can enter Canada. A border services officer may find that you are no longer admissible because:

  • your case has changed, or
  • there is new information about you. For instance, you gave false or incomplete information on your visa application.

So what was the "change" or "new information" in his case that prompted the denial of his visa?  And citing the McDonalds thing from 1999 does not count as "new information" in my opinion. 

Did you forget to include this from the article you cited?

"Earlier, a spokesperson for Public Security Minister Ralph Goodale said decisions on who is allowed into Canada are left to the discretion of border services agents.

"Scott Bardsley said there are a "number of reasons someone may be refused entry under immigration law, including past criminality, posing a threat to the safety of Canadians, and lying in an interview."

"A spokesperson for the CBSA said the agency does not comment on individual cases, but that admissibility is determined on a case by case basis, and a person may be deemed inadmissible to Canada if they have committed a crime, or for security and financial reasons, among other reasons."

If this is not true we need some evidence.

The wiki was the easiest to quote and it had sources -- google him -- this is not just wikipedia.

If you have convictions entering the country is a crapshoot -- each officer is charged with making their own decision. Konwing this perhaps he shoudl have come earlier -- made some kind of pre-arrangment (this is done).

It is not up to the party of the day to be responsible in a democratic country because in a democratic country the cabinet is a source of appeal (and it seems his appeals were heard) but the cabinet does not make the first line decision.

Boulerice is suggesting that the political arm of the government made this decision. Some evidence for that is required since there is every reason to expect that sometimes on entry to Canada he might have difficulty given his past with the front line non-political officers.

swallow swallow's picture

If Bove' had an electronic travel authorization, then there should have been no problem with entry. That's the whole point of the advance eTA. 

Of course, EU citizens get the eTA usually on the nod, few questions asked. It's travellers from the Third World who are required to fly to Canadian embassies, take medical exams, etc, who are the real victims of Canada's racist entry visa system. 

In any case, Bove' has now been allowed to stay and Ralph Goodale says it was not a political decision but a call by the custims officer - see the updated CBC story that mark linked. 

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

If Bove' had an electronic travel authorization, then there should have been no problem with entry. That's the whole point of the advance eTA. 

Of course, EU citizens get the eTA usually on the nod, few questions asked. It's travellers from the Third World who are required to fly to Canadian embassies, take medical exams, etc, who are the real victims of Canada's racist entry visa system. 

In any case, Bove' has now been allowed to stay and Ralph Goodale says it was not a political decision but a call by the custims officer - see the updated CBC story that mark linked. 

Exactly. Which makes me wonder if he actually miscalculated and did not make arrangments that in his case he knew was necessary or if he was happy to get the publicity. Boulerice should make sure he has a complete set of facts before saying things that can hurt him. This is not the first time for politicians from all parties but this is a lesson in not being used by someone who either did not do what they should ahve or is claiming political interference where there is none.

The government is doing many very seriously bad things. the NDP caucus is small. It should not waste time on things that are not supported or plain wrong becuase then it will fail to address the things it actually could make a good point on.

This was a complaint of mine for years with the NDP -- undisciplined running off into things such that the party's limited national attention is scattered among many issues that the party is either misinformed or simply are not good points rather than a focus on the central issues.

I want to hear the NDP on the Liberals catastrophic failures to keep promises to First Nations and to the environment. These are well founded.

They need to be held to account on a number of issues related to social justice and trade.

They cannot afford to be used by people who did not manage themselves properl and are are trying to buy attention that the NDP must spend more wisely.

The MSM will cover the NDP from time to time to look fair even if they are not. The NDP must understand this and not provide fodder for poor quality stories and embarassments. If you make sure that everything you say is well founded and important -- some of those messages will get through. If you load up on poorly researched, poorly founded accusations the media will prefer those and ignore anything of substance. I have watched the NDP screw this up for much of 30 years.

Any comms person who thinks that you go for any story at all just to get a story does not understand political reporting. MPs should be educated about the importance of being well prepared before saying something that will be reported.

mark_alfred

Quote:

If Bove' had an electronic travel authorization, then there should have been no problem with entry. That's the whole point of the advance eTA.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/visit/visas.asp

Quote:

France

You need an eTA to visit or transit through Canada by air.

So he would have had the eTA.

swallow swallow's picture

Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude BarlowJosé Bové[/url]

mark_alfred

swallow wrote:

Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude BarlowJosé Bové[/url]

Good he's been allowed to stay.  And good for Boulerice and Barlow speaking up too.  As Barlow said, it was an outrageous action to detain him and order him to leave.

The ISDS provision (now termed investment court system) sounds quite ominous.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

This is hopeless. I never knew there were so many people here who thought they had the answer to everything. Must be nice. OK, let me run with it I hate Mulcair, He has a beard!

What you didn't think the people writing on a political site have opinions?

Here's the thing -- this defense of a non-attack on Mulcair is what derailed this thread.

So rather than answering if you think that the NDP should or should not concentrate on answering what the Liberals are doing we are discussing what right I had to share an opinion that they should regardless of the leadership circumstances.

Well done.

OK Sean. I get your point. My point stands. I am truly TIRED of the non-stop Navel gazzing that every thread on here is becoming. We are doing the Libs dirty work for them and they don't haviq to stir the pot. We're doing it for them. That is all I am saying. You ought to try and be a little less self-righteous. As for your scarcasm, thanks. I appreciate it, Nice of you to step up like that.

I am truly of the hypocritical anything-goes-with-drift in every thread (which I think is normal and natural) but then a puritanical reaction when a comment that is a legitimate opinion with the bounds of commenting policy but is not to someone's liking. A little trigger happy on the protectionism. I think that is the way to turn a political party into a private club. This site was never meant to be about one party anyway.

And no we are not doing dirty work for the Liberals here, they don't care and the handful of people here are mostly non-Liberals. This back-biting for expressing opinions that someone does not like, is a problem. The idea that the leadership situation is unrelated to anything regarding the NDP is also fantasy. Expect it to come into most threads that address the NDP. The leadership is the background to everything within the party no matter how much some people would like to have it different. This means that on many topics a thoughtful post may well link that context to the thread topic. I did this -- I did not make the leadership the topic but explained how this thread topic fit into the leadership situation.

I was not being self rightious. Try rereading this thread and thinking about what I was saying -- I was constructive and acknowledged the context and ranked dealing with the Liberals as the priority -- then the gates of shit opened up followed by a pile on. To add insult my post was actually positve to Mulcair acknowledging an opportunity for him here but also saying he is obliged to act to counter some of the Liberal changes in direction/broken promises. Exactly how would you react?

For the record-- I think "navel gazing" is what you need to do after failure -- to figure out what you need to change from your side. And this site is about navel gazing for the left. What else do you think it is for? The issue is those who want to control the type of introspection others engage in a place that is all about thought and expression. I am less interested in the view that the bad other parties did it to us and we should just blame them for any failures. We do not control the other parties and barely influence the NDP.

Now this is the absolute biggie: Perhaps we disagree about what this site is for. It is a place of exploration for the left. I want to explore ideas, engage with people who are thinking about what we want to do. I guess I have little respect for those here who want to engage only in campaigning. Once you get to the point of sanitizing what you say about the NDP or the left this is what you are doing -- campaigning rather than discussing. Let me be blunt: if this is what this site is supposed to be I would never want to participate. I can read talking points off party websites. I will not engage in parroting them in order to avoid controversy or to protect the image of the NDP from uncomfortable discussion. That, to me, is a colossal waste of time. So I ask you -- again bluntly -- why are you here? Are you here to engage in ideas to make the movement (and at times the party) better? In which case do not make the case that we should sanitize discussion for the miniscule audience of non left/liberals here.

Or are you here to boost the NDP and campaign perpetually, promoting where possible and ignoring where promotion cannot be done?

If it is the second and I am wrong about what this place is for, I just don't belong here. If it is the first -- you need to think about the meanings and motivations of what you and Quizzical have said in this thread.

Anyway I have something better to do with my day than to have to fight about what opinions I am allowed to share on a discussion site. I suggest the left has something better to do than campaign 3 years out from an election as well.

I never siad you couldn't say whatever you wanted. All I said is I am tired of every thread turinging into a NDP slag fest. What's so hard to understand about  that? OK, you're smarter than me. OK, most people on here think I don't have the intelelctuall guns to go toe to toe with you. OK. I wasn't trying to. All I said is I don't want to spend my time in every G-d damn thread arguing about Mulcair and the NDP's many failures.

I'm not campaigin. But I guess if I don't agree with you you I must be. OK.

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur -- the point I have been making is that I was not slaging Mulcair here -- I mentioned the context becuase it was raised. Look at Ken's post which I was answering saying that notwithstanding this the NDP should respond now and not wait.

I did not raise the issue of the leadership being in the way of the NDP responding. I answered a post on it.

I said I thought Mulcair was likely to step up.

I said it was an opportunity for him.

What the hell is all this crap for???

I do not have to be for Mulcair --

I was on topic in a direct response to a previous comment. What is the point of all this? Both you and quizzical went after me on this -- neither of you mentionned Ken who raised the topic (which was his right).

I think this kind of reaction suggest a real problem in the NDP's community and this place in particular.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
swallow wrote:
Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude BarlowJosé Bové[/url]

Good he's been allowed to stay.  And good for Boulerice and Barlow speaking up too.  As Barlow said, it was an outrageous action to detain him and order him to leave.

The ISDS provision (now termed investment court system) sounds quite ominous.

if people believe the bs about it being border services who tried to stop him then they're being too naive. at best.

just like it "border services" who stopped the British MP, forget his name, back in Harper's day....not!

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
swallow wrote:
Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude BarlowJosé Bové[/url]

Good he's been allowed to stay.  And good for Boulerice and Barlow speaking up too.  As Barlow said, it was an outrageous action to detain him and order him to leave.

The ISDS provision (now termed investment court system) sounds quite ominous.

if people believe the bs about it being border services who tried to stop him then they're being too naive. at best.

just like it "border services" who stopped the British MP, forget his name, back in Harper's day....not!

 

 

Insulting those who disagree with you by calling them naive is not going to help people get along here. I could easily respond saying what is naive is believing something without reasonable evidence. So please by all means provide SOME evidence that in this case -- or most cases -- that politicians interfere. Provide evidence that all the reports that border agents have authority is wrong. Please provide evidence that criminal convictions of this type are normally not a risk of difficulty entering. Evidence that one person can get through does means that it is not a crap shoot for those with convictions -- regardless of politics.

I am not into faith-based accusations. Of course with multiple prison terms you would expect that you could have problems getting in. Why wouldn't you?

So just stop and think for a minute -- look at the prison terms he has had. If he were a nobody -- with no political views -- do you think he would have difficulty?

If you know anything about border services -- the thousands of people who try to manage crossings when they have had a problem with their country's legal systems --then it would be hard to say if it were not for politics all would be well.

Answer this question -- why do people seek pardons for lesser crimes in order to make border crossings easier. Really ponder this for a moment before you call me naive.

If you know anything about how border services work -- it is based on individual biases and impressions of border agents and quite unpredictable. This is why convictions are a problem for those who want to travel.

 

https://www.ezbordercrossing.com/the-inspection-experience/prior-crimina...

 

http://immigrationcanada.pro/criminal-issues/

 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/information/inadmissibility/conviction.asp

http://ccresourcecenter.org/2015/06/18/traveling-to-canada-with-a-crimin...

"If you were convicted of a crime in the United States or abroad, this will likely make you “criminally inadmissible.”  Even if you were charged with an offence but never convicted, it is a good idea to travel with all your court documents demonstrating that there is no conviction on your record. Carrying all these documents, though not required, is highly recommended to avoid any confusion or refusals at the border as the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible."

"Border officers have the option to deny admission on grounds that it is reasonable to believe a person committed an act that would be an offence in Canada, so that pending charges may be grounds for a finding of inadmissibility.  A guilty plea followed by dismissal of charges pursuant to a deferred adjudication scheme may also be considered proof of commission of an act."

Look closely at this website http://ccresourcecenter.org/2015/06/18/traveling-to-canada-with-a-crimin... as it details additional steps that we have no evidence were taken. Read this:

"The decision to admit a foreign national to Canada is entirely at the discretion of the Canadian immigration officer at the border.  Though you can be denied entry for any level of criminal activity, your likelihood of being able to enter Canada declines the more offences you have and the gravity of the offences. Individuals are assessed at the border on a case-by-case basis based on the information provided to the Canadian Border Services Agency. As such, sometimes individuals with lesser offences get turned away at the border if they are not carrying any kind of a permit with them."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/what-makes-a-person-ineligible-to-enter-ca...

"Admissibility of all travellers seeking to enter Canada is considered on a case-by-case basis based on the specific facts presented to the border services officer, by the applicant, at the time of entry,"

 

Now considering the last link -- there are questions we do not know -- what were the results of his eTA and what exactly happened.

Here we are without a full set of information blaming the government based on our biases.

This reduces the credibility of accusations against the government. I think we are better off making fewer accusations and having them more solid. The reports we have had do not include any detail and that makes me suspicious. After all if this detail is available and supports the argument why is it not made available?

Nothing about the timing or success of the eTA has been provided -- just presumptions.

quizzical

good grief Sean.

i want to have nothing to do with you or your continued support of the Liberal Party.

 

mark_alfred

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
swallow wrote:
Yes, he would have to have acquired one before entering Canada. Therefore, over-reaction at customs. 

But more to the point - what does Bove' have to say to Canadians? It's an imporant message. 

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1458/ceta-would-be-a-setback-for-food-jobs-pub... would be a setback for food, jobs, public services, and the climate: Opinion byMaude BarlowJosé Bové[/url]

Good he's been allowed to stay.  And good for Boulerice and Barlow speaking up too.  As Barlow said, it was an outrageous action to detain him and order him to leave.

The ISDS provision (now termed investment court system) sounds quite ominous.

if people believe the bs about it being border services who tried to stop him then they're being too naive. at best.

just like it "border services" who stopped the British MP, forget his name, back in Harper's day....not!

I think it was George Galloway.  And yeah, that was bullshit too.  Liberal Tory same old story.

Pages