Canadian leaders debates - 2015

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Green Party lawyers up over Munk debate

IANAL, but it would seem to me that if the law were to rule in favour of the Greens, they'd also be ruling in favour of ANY party, and indeed even any person.  If it's "partisan" to exclude the Greens, how would it not be partisan to exclude anyone who'd like some microphone time?

I don't know about individuals, but it would seem to me that if this legal theory is correct, it would certainly apply to all registered federal political parties. As far as I can see, there is no legal difference in this context between the Green Party, the Communist Party, the Christian Heritage Party and all the others.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Agreed -- with you, not the Greens specifically.

But the Munk debate seems to have drawn their line at official party status.  If that's ruled to be too arbitrary then I wonder how "being a party" wouldn't be just as arbitrary.  If participation cannot require 12 seats in the HOC, then why exactly would it require being a registered party?  What if I feel I have words to share?  Wisdom to pass on?  I know it's kind of silly, but I think this whole thing is kind of silly.

It's a charity. They can't show political favoritism. The law suit may force them to put the debate on hold awaiting resolution or they may allow her to participate based on fear of losing their charitable status if the lawsuit isn't withdrawn.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

or they may allow her to participate based on fear of losing their charitable status if the lawsuit isn't withdrawn.

Or they may be getting out the chipboard and nails and building 17 more podiums, to accomodate the fact that if it's partisan to exclude the Greens just because they're not an official party, it would be just as partisan to exclude the Christian Heritage Party because they're not an official party.

If this debate gets shitcanned then I suppose we could all live with that.  But I kind of hope that some court doesn't rule that the Christian Heritage Party has just as much a right to a sponsored podium to tell us all about abortion and homosexuals and such based on their 13 one hundredths of a percent of the popular vote in the last election.

They probably don't have as much money to launch a lawsuit. I have no idea what will come of this lawsuit but given the proximity of the debate I would not be surprised if Munk decided it would be cheaper and easier to just let May participate. Would you?

I think if I was reporting on this I would ask Elizabeth May if the Green Party would drop their legal action if the Green Party were allowed to participate in the debate. The answer to that question would give us an idea of the level of intregity of the Green Party, and whether they are serious about their complaint.

Judging by the reaction I am seeing this is a bad move for the Greens. People seem to be mocking this.

Pondering wrote:

It's a charity. They can't show political favoritism. The law suit may force them to put the debate on hold awaiting resolution or they may allow her to participate based on fear of losing their charitable status if the lawsuit isn't withdrawn.

are you seriously saying the Green Party are threatening a charity's charitable status if they don't get their way?

i this why Justin caved after making himself look like an idiot? did the Liberals decide to go long and oblique to trash a charity more than they've already?

no one in the real world watched. so no commentary....

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's a charity. They can't show political favoritism. The law suit may force them to put the debate on hold awaiting resolution or they may allow her to participate based on fear of losing their charitable status if the lawsuit isn't withdrawn.

are you seriously saying the Green Party are threatening a charity's charitable status if they don't get their way?

Yes.

Aurea Foundation

Aurea was established in 2006 with a $25 million endowment from the Peter and Melanie Munk Charitable Foundation. Aurea supports qualified institutions and affiliated individuals involved in the study and development of public policy. The Aurea Foundation gives special attention to the investigation of issues related to the political and economic foundations of freedom, the strengthening of the free market system, the protection and enhancement of democratic values, human rights and human dignity, and the role of responsible citizenship.

http://munkfoundation.com/aurea/

 

Rev Pesky wrote:

quizzical wrote:

...are you seriously saying the Green Party are threatening a charity's charitable status if they don't get their way?...

Certainly the way it looks to me.

Quote:

"Not inviting Elizabeth May, in the view of our counsel, is breaking the law, and the CRA should step in an enforce it", said Jim Harris, party spokesman in Toronto. "The right thing to do is obey the law and invite Elizabeth May."

No mention of inviting other party leaders, although if the Greens interpretation of the law is correct, I can't see how Munk could prevent anyone from joining the debate.

I should say, that's fine by me. The more the merrier is what I say.

There are 20 registered parties that could take part in the debate. In addition to the 5 better-known parties, there are another 15 slightly lesser-knowns:

Forces et Democratie

Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada

The Bridge Party of Canada

Canadian Action Party

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Communist Party of Canada

Democratic Advancement Party of Canada

Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada

Libertarian Party of Canada

Marijuana Party

Party for Accountability, Competency and Transparency

Pirate Party of Canada

Progressive Canadian Party

Rhinoceros Party (II)

United Party of Canada.

Having representatives from each of those parties would certainly lively up the debate. I'm also a bit curious about that Animal Alliance party. I mean, straight, but curious, as they say...

Here is a way out. Do like the Republicans have done. Have a main stage debate and a secondary debate with all these parties plus May.

Quote:

Since 75 per cent of the world’s mining and exploration companies are based in Canada and 40 per cent of global mining capital is raised on the Toronto Stock Exchange, it’s easy to argue that Canada is the world leader in this industry. Mining interests influence international aid, dictate the activities of our foreign diplomats and prescribe the conditions of our multilateral investment and “free  trade” agreements.

When it comes to abuse by mining companies, Canada also reigns supreme. Killings and sexual abuse by security forces and unchecked environmental devastation are regularly reported occurrences at Canadian mining sites around the world. Barrick Gold, the company founded by Peter Munk, does not escape this seeming industry norm.

[url=https://nowtoronto.com/news/election-2015/mining-injustice/]Will human rights crimes by Canadian resource companies abroad feature in Munk-hosted ­foreign policy debate?[/url]

Notice How the 'Leaders Debates' Frequently Miss the Important Stuff? (Notice how the rest of us do too?)

 

Canada-EU Trade Deal That Allows US Firms To Sue British Govt Sparks Outrage

http://www.rt.com/uk/316484-ceta-corporations-sue-government/

"...Social justice groups on both sides of the Atlantic are vigorously rejecting CETA, which was signed 12 months ago in Ottawa, following secret talks between Canada and the European Commission (EC)

'Just like TTIP, CETA is by and for big business. It will lead to the irreversible privatization of our public services and allow thousands of US corporations with offices in Canada to sue us in secret courts.'

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The debates are not working well now -- few people watch them all when they would have watched one held by the consortium. This means that we have this rewriting of history after the debate for the next newscast. This has not helped Mulcair becuase while he has performed well in the debates, he has had fewer post-debate cheerleaders.

Adam Radwanski the Globe & Mail

The shift to having more leaders’ debates in this campaign than in previous ones, initiated primarily by the Conservatives, was clearly aimed in large part at exposing Mr. Trudeau. In events most Canadians don’t watch live, a few clips of him saying something stupid would do the trick. But his performances in the first three, including a Globe and Mail debate dedicated entirely to the economy, were at a minimum competent.

And in the best remaining chance to commit some horrific gaffe as he navigated his way through nearly two hours of discussing Canada’s place in the world, he looked perhaps the farthest he ever has from the caricature of him that his opponents painted.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-disproving-conserva...

I also suspect during QP Trudeau & his handlers were happy to let Mulcair take the lead, and have Trudeau act as stiff and awkward as possible when asking questions in QP. That way he was saving his best performances for when they mattered. The debates. That way he could take people by surprise.

Any coincidence that Harper refused to meet with reporters afterwards. This was suppose to be Harpers night. The night where he hits the final nail in the Liberals coffin. Instead Trudeau defied expectations. Which is exactly what the Liberal strategists wanted.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Nobody actually "saves" better performances for later. That phrase is meaningless and so is your analysis.

You never heard of the saying "Saving the best for last?"

josh wrote:

Those claiming that Trudeau would fall flat on his face in the debates simply allowed him to exceed low expectations merely by appearing to be competent.

Exactly