May as well let this go to Kenney to make a move, or not. Kenney's polling at like 10% approval so I am sure dithering with a guy like Chu would cost the UCP minimal support
His answer to the question about the lawsuits was....interesting. "All cops face lawsuits; I've done a good job as a police officer, but sure I've had a few complaints. Like all police officers..."
Reading the comments on herald article, there sure are a lot of people ok with predatory police officers holding public office. Makes me wonder if the majority aren't astroturfed nonsense from the CEC covering for another conservative in jeopardy.
So where did the alternate stories come from? They sounded credentialed enoguh. Was there another 16 year old? It really sounded like a totally different event.
So let me get this straight. He doesn't drink, but has no problem returning to a Bar at 2:30 in the morning to pick up a girl that is probably wasted, and takes her to his home? Yeah, that's totally normal, non-predatorial, behavior.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RogerWilco For This Useful Post:
My understanding is that it’s the old tradition from when the Speaker would actually go to the Queen/King and get royal ascent and then come back to the House of Commons to proclaim it as law.
So I don’t believe laws become laws until proclamation. I’m unsure though if you can just indefinitely delay proclamation or if unproclaimed laws die when parliament or legislatures are dissolved.
Edit: I am wrong. A law is law on Royal ascent however it’s not enforce until proclamation.
1) (I have this same issue with every statement that uses language like this) "This type of behavior is abhorrent to me as a father of three daughters"
This should be abhorrent to you as someone who cares about other human beings. If you need to have a personal connection, to someone similar to a victim to have empathy for that person or to think it shouldn't have happened to them, then you don't really have empathy at all, you're just worried that something similar could happen that would affect you.
Yes, a million times this!! If something is wrong, it's wrong. It's not just wrong if you know someone similar to the victim.
My understanding is that it’s the old tradition from when the Speaker would actually go to the Queen/King and get royal ascent and then come back to the House of Commons to proclaim it as law.
So I don’t believe laws become laws until proclamation. I’m unsure though if you can just indefinitely delay proclamation or if unproclaimed laws die when parliament or legislatures are dissolved.
Edit: I am wrong. A law is law on Royal ascent however it’s not enforce until proclamation.
Moronic convention. I understand even when in force, can petition recall until 18 no after election. Legislation didn’t foresee a circumstance like this….
I'm not sure I'm on board with Gondeks stance here, I'm fine with calling for is resignation. But refusing to take part in official proceedings, I'd rather not see. Anyone with a passing interest in US politics has had a 6 year lesson, has received a stark lesson in the value of maintaining norms, even if it's something you don't like.
First the left refuses to swear in a rapey wife beater, and 4 years from now you'll have one of these faux conservative sociopaths to swear in anyone they like. Blackball him, charge him, marginalize him, whatever but down take politics into your own hands.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure I'm on board with Gondeks stance here, I'm fine with calling for is resignation. But refusing to take part in official proceedings, I'd rather not see. Anyone with a passing interest in US politics has had a 6 year lesson, has received a stark lesson in the value of maintaining norms, even if it's something you don't like.
First the left refuses to swear in a rapey wife beater, and 4 years from now you'll have one of these faux conservative sociopaths to swear in anyone they like. Blackball him, charge him, marginalize him, whatever but down take politics into your own hands.
That’s on the faux conservative. Not on Gondek.
We can’t avoid doing what’s right for fear that the zealots will abuse it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
I think we need to discuss the problem in abstract terms.
Perpetrator does something to victim. Publication ban is put in place to protect victim's identity. In the court's view, perp has been punished fairly.
Perpetrator runs for public office. It's now a matter of public interest that the ban be lifted, but that has to be weighed against the consequences for the victim.
One could avoid the scenario entirely by disallowing perpetrators who are subject to a publication ban from running for office, but that's anti-democratic.
I don't see a clean solution here, but I'd suggest that we may need a procedure where publication bans are automatically re-assessed on an expedited and case-by-case basis if they involve a perpetrator who is running for office.
