Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GGG

This went exactly how the conservatives wanted. They got the desired outcome.

Conservatives got what they 'wanted' because the Liberals and NDP are more petty. All the committee had to do was to get this matter deal with, chastise the Conservatives and deal with the committee proceedings separately. Instead they chose to hijack the committee for their own political motivations.

What did the Liberals and NDP want by bringing forth a vote on an abortion motion to silence the witnesses and topic?

They could have come out of this without smelling like cow dung or it making the news.

The conservatives set up the victims knowing that there not following the procedure would lead to this outcome. If you are concerned for the victims what the conservatives did, especially if they were not informed of exactly what was going to happen is pretty disgusting.

You are a victim of violent abuse and feel the system has failed you. In the case of Walker you have sent a letter to the PM advocating for the government to add femicide to the criminal code only to be ignored. You see all premiers sign a letter for bail reform a few days prior. You are invited by a Conservative MP to provide testimony the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women to speak in an impromptu meeting to discuss violence against women and bail reform.

Who would you be disgusted with here? The ones who called you as a witness to speak of an important topic, or the ones who hijacked the topic and gaslighting you about being revictimized and saying how cruel it is to be brought to a committee to relive your trauma?

To claim the victims were setup by the Conservatives is quite an odd take. There was no setup to be had if Liberals and NDP just acted normal and professional (even if you feel that the Conservatives were rotten for calling this meeting).

[GGG]

Assuming I am a person who does not understand how a committee worked I would be angry with the people that invited me for not explaining what was likely to happen and angry at the entire committee process. I would leave having no faith in the system to drive change be disgusted at everyone for being used as a pawn. The people who invited me and the people who used committee process to silence me. It’s tough to say who I would be more angry with. Probably the liberals and NDP initially but as I learned more about what happened I would become deeply discusted at being used. Primarily because at least the government wouldn’t have pretended to be advocating for me like the opposition was.

If I was informed of what was likely to happen in advance and knew how this would play out then I would be disgusted at no one as I would have accomplished my goal and it would be inappropriate to characterize me as being revictimized by the process.

So depends. But probably the first one as you can see the naked partazinship and you realize the conservatives are trying to score points rather than enact real change.

There would also have been no issue if the conservatives acted professionally. This is a #### up by everyone involved

[timun]

Has anybody here been defending the actions of the Liberal and NDP members of the committee? I don't recall reading comments wherein anyone was defending them...

[Firebot]

Well you would be right. Only the Liberals and NDP can enact real change as the current government since the Conservatives are not in power. The current government would rather grandstand on top of victims instead just to show how partisan the Conservatives are. They gracefully grandstand about political points and the committee being misused...and proceed to use the committee for their own political points as revenge on the Conservatives and punishing the victims to dare be fooled by naked Conservative partisanship. Victims were duped for not knowing that the Liberals and NDP have no intention of enacting real change, and believing Conservatives could bring it to attention while not in power. They should be mad at the Conservatives for even trying.

Real change can certainly occur, we just need an election if the current Liberal / NDP government willfully chooses to ignore the majority Canadian voice and all our premiers' request for real change.

Glad we agree.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

Has anybody here been defending the actions of the Liberal and NDP members of the committee? I don't recall reading comments wherein anyone was defending them...

The "all sides are bad" and "we can all do better" isn't really an argument to be had here when certain party transgressions were far worse than others (even perceived ones if we want to entertain them). It's the typical cop out.

Pointing to the Conservatives as the causer of this issue because they should know how the Liberals and NDP would act is one of those.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The "all sides are bad" and "we can all do better" isn't really an argument to be had here when certain party transgressions were far worse than others (even perceived ones if we want to entertain them). It's the typical cop out.

Pointing to the Conservatives as the causer of this issue because they should know how the Liberals and NDP would act is one of those.

Why are you defending the conservatives here?

It seems like you are okay with using victims of violence for political points.

Or

You believe the victims were in the loop on what was about to happen in which case you shouldn’t crying about the victims.

So based on your posting it seems that you care more about assigning political blame than the experience these people went through. I think you should reflect on the question you asked me.

How would you feel when you figured out this was going to be the likely outcome and the people who invited you knew and didn’t warn you?

I’m not both sidesing this. I’m against one thing here. Political grandstanding at the expense of people to score political points.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Jesus Christ. So Cait Alexander who is a Canadian but has to live in the US because of the threat of violence against her (guy is free and clear with the failure in Crown prosecution), travels back to testify at this committee only to face this gongshow.

You've got Anita Vandenbeld the Liberal MP (11:47) thanking the witness and then immediately throwing her under the bus, complaining about other theoretical witnesses and diverting over to the abortion rhetoric instead for political points.

You've got Leah Gazan the NDP MP grandstanding on and on about crazy #### like JD Vance, complaining not getting to talk first how it's an act of violence against her, and literally not stopping when being told that the witnesses had turned their backs (12:09) and then walked out (12:15). Keeps right on trucking with her personal complaints. Does not give any ####s about the witnesses or their personal testimony about violence against women.

Anna Roberts the Conservative MP having to apologize to the witnesses for what they are enduring.

No wonder the advocates were so frustrated. And my god, these people are our tax funded representatives?


https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...Invalid%20date

Originally Posted by Firebot

She claimed the act of having her voice being silenced after not having the chance to bring a witness of is "deeply violent offensive, deeply violent and deeply troubling". 12:00:00 in the meeting

https://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en...Invalid%20date

12:09:00 the victims facing away from the committee in tears says it all while Leah Gazan rants about abortion

Fixed the quote (just pedantic). She never said it was an act of violence against her. Probably a sub-optimal word choice in unprepared and rambling* remarks, but the context was speaking about the indigenous community in general. And it is reasonable to say that this stunt was deeply offensive, deeply troubling, and deeply insulting to that community.

'violent' may or may not be an appropriate word to use, but it's not totally crazy. Gazan indicated that she herself has been the victim of violence. It's not even much of a stretch to say that the way this stunt was pulled was indeed an act of violence against her in the recent context of the word. But she didn't say that.

*its not unreasonable to call the remarks rambling, but there is also a cultural issue here. If you've ever sat in a talking circle, you'll understand that the pace of discussion is antithetical to this kind of committee meeting, whereweliketofillallthespacewwithwordsanditsnotsom uchwhatyousaybuthowmanypointsyoucangetacross. It's ridiculous to hold one word against her used in the least charitable context.

[Firebot]

Speaking of petty

https://twitter.com/user/status/1819067439256424587

See that's how one side is worse than the other. Poilievre looking stupid here. It's totally fine to admit one side looks worse at times.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Point of order.

I don't think she actually said the bolded.


The dumbest thing I heard was several committee members talking paternalistically about how the witnesses were re-traumatizing themselves or whatever.

The whole thing was pretty gross. If the witness had to fly up from California, this was obviously a coordinated stunt. Handled poorly by everyone involved.

Point of Order! MY HAND WAS UP FIRST! This is an act of violence!!

11:57:55 "Point of Order Chair! Point of Order Chair! I had my hand up before, you know in the history of this committee we have done things in fairness . . . this is a very very harmful meeting for everybody."

Her hand is acknowledged and the chair says she'll be next up. But she continues to complain that her hand was up and that she wants to speak now regardless.

12:01:15 "Now that fact that my voice is being silenced in the committee (after complaining over and over again how her hand was up and she isn't being allowed to interject first) is deeply offensive, deeply violent and deeply troubling. I had my hand up."

Nevermind she basically grandstands for the most time out of all the committee members.



The "coordinated stunt witness" you called is Cait Alexander. A Canadian citizen who was beaten with a rolling pin for four and half hours and left to die in her Toronto apartment by her boyfriend. He was charged and then released on $500 bail. She wanted her day in court but prosecutors dropped the ball and took nearly 3 years and the case was dropped. This lines up with the recent concern and Provincal letters to the federal government about bail reform in a committee about violence against women.

Her attacker got off free and she moved away from Toronto and out of the country as a result. She seems well spoken and vocal about violence against women and runs an advocacy group called End Violence Everywhere.

Interesting you think her experience and being called as a witness is a stunt.

Would it be better if she had walked back to Canada?

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GGG

Why are you defending the conservatives here?

It seems like you are okay with using victims of violence for political points.

Or

You believe the victims were in the loop on what was about to happen in which case you shouldn’t crying about the victims.

Talk about projecting. These 2 options exist only if you genuinely believe that the Conservatives are so deeply rooted in populism that they have no convictions to speak of.

How about option 3. Conservatives want to bring this topic ahead as they see it as a pressing issue much as the did here on bail reform? and here by Poilievre that the Liberal proposed bail reform if not enough?, much like how all premiers signed a letter.

No one talking about the premiers letter at all? Are those political points as well, or is it a legitimate concern?

Not defending Conservatives here. This would have been a nothingburger without Liberal NDP transgressions and proceeding to excuse it with "See what you made us do shame shame"

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If the witness had to fly up from California, this was obviously a coordinated stunt. Handled poorly by everyone involved.

Absolutely unreal.

https://www.cp24.com/news/attempted-...ding-1.6826067

https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/ontari...e-bill-8749498

She was in Canada. She lived in Toronto. She was almost killed in Toronto. Her attacker's court case was dismissed and a flimsy restraining order is all that stands between her and her assailant who brags about the attack. She ran to the US out of fear of her life as Canada is not protecting her.

She flies in regularly to advocate for women's rights. Many of those statements berate the Ford government (a conservative government) for inaction at the provincial level. There is nothing to show she is a partisan, quite the opposite. She spoke out against the provincial government in her testimony (again a conservative government). There was nothing in her testimony that could be seen as partisan.

She chose to not become a Tori Dunn as best as she can, as our legal systems protects attackers and vilifies victims. Tori Dunn stayed in Canada and was killed but at least she wouldn't be considered a coordinated stunt if she had fled or spoke out am I right?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10594393/...n-man-charged/

To the partisan left, since this recent committee meeting put the Liberals and NDP in a bad light, she is now considered a Conservative partisan and shill and 'a coordinated Conservative stunt' on social media because she chose to not stick in Canada to be killed by her free assailant and flew back in to speak to a committee that should theoretically be dealing with women issues. She's being forced to defend herself against leftists on social media just for attempting to speak out about violence against women, solely because it was a Conservative MP that asked her if she would like to testify.

"Wow how can the conservatives do this" and "the victims should have known how these committees go"

No responsibility whatsoever. And posters here are totally fine with attacking a witness because she doesn't live in Canada anymore.

[PepsiFree]

If I’m to understand this, criticizing the Liberals, NDP, AND Conservatives is a mark of the partisan left but dismissing and downplaying any criticism of the Conservatives and while making over-the-top criticisms of the Liberals and NDP is non-partisan?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Talk about projecting. These 2 options exist only if you genuinely believe that the Conservatives are so deeply rooted in populism that they have no convictions to speak of.

How about option 3. Conservatives want to bring this topic ahead as they see it as a pressing issue much as the did here on bail reform? and here by Poilievre that the Liberal proposed bail reform if not enough?, much like how all premiers signed a letter.

No one talking about the premiers letter at all? Are those political points as well, or is it a legitimate concern?

Not defending Conservatives here. This would have been a nothingburger without Liberal NDP transgressions and proceeding to excuse it with "See what you made us do shame shame"

Do you believe the conservatives were aware of the likely out come of the committee?

Do you believe they informed the person in advance that this would probably happen based on the dubious nature of how the committee was called?

Do you believe the conservatives have a meaningful constitutionally compliant proposal to fix bail? If so what is it? Note your link referencing mandatory minimums was changed because courts found it unconstitutional

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Absolutely unreal.

https://www.cp24.com/news/attempted-...ding-1.6826067

https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/ontari...e-bill-8749498

She was in Canada. She lived in Toronto. She was almost killed in Toronto. Her attacker's court case was dismissed and a flimsy restraining order is all that stands between her and her assailant who brags about the attack. She ran to the US out of fear of her life as Canada is not protecting her.

She flies in regularly to advocate for women's rights. Many of those statements berate the Ford government (a conservative government) for inaction at the provincial level. There is nothing to show she is a partisan, quite the opposite. She spoke out against the provincial government in her testimony (again a conservative government). There was nothing in her testimony that could be seen as partisan.

She chose to not become a Tori Dunn as best as she can, as our legal systems protects attackers and vilifies victims. Tori Dunn stayed in Canada and was killed but at least she wouldn't be considered a coordinated stunt if she had fled or spoke out am I right?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10594393/...n-man-charged/

To the partisan left, since this recent committee meeting put the Liberals and NDP in a bad light, she is now considered a Conservative partisan and shill and 'a coordinated Conservative stunt' on social media because she chose to not stick in Canada to be killed by her free assailant and flew back in to speak to a committee that should theoretically be dealing with women issues. She's being forced to defend herself against leftists on social media just for attempting to speak out about violence against women, solely because it was a Conservative MP that asked her if she would like to testify.

"Wow how can the conservatives do this" and "the victims should have known how these committees go"

No responsibility whatsoever. And posters here are totally fine with attacking a witness because she doesn't live in Canada anymore.

The impression I got was that she was flown up specifically for the meeting (which would involve lead time). But I didn't look into it and I'm probably wrong so I'll gladly retract that statement.

It still appears it was a stunt. Either side could provide receipts of the timeline for how it came to be, but it doesn't really matter at this point. Gross all around.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe the conservatives were aware of the likely out come of the committee?

Do you believe they informed the person in advance that this would probably happen based on the dubious nature of how the committee was called?

Do you believe the conservatives have a meaningful constitutionally compliant proposal to fix bail? If so what is it?

The first two are fallacies. This could not have gone any better for the Conservatives if they dreamed, if their goal was solely to score political points and do not actually care about violence against women. This also assumes that the Liberal and NDP's behavior is so consistently toxic, partisan and petty that this was expected to happen and Conservatives are at fault for knowing it would happen. This line of argument is not exactly helping.

"constitutionally compliant proposal " is the crux of the problem. Bail exists as a policy where an offender, even a repeat offender is deemed innocent until proven guilty and a person's right. The constitution does not account for the victim's constitutional right or safety in these instances. With women being disproportionally impacted as victims, this becomes a discrimination issue, and why Walker wants femicide defined in the Criminal Code. It may be necessary for a constitutional amendment, and considering that all premiers have signed a letter to revisit bail reform, this may be what is necessary to get a proposal on the ground and may be feasible. It appears that this will not occur with the current government, and may need to wait until we have a government in power willing to enact real change.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The first two are fallacies. This could not have gone any better for the Conservatives if they dreamed, if their goal was solely to score political points and do not actually care about violence against women. This also assumes that the Liberal and NDP's behavior is so consistently toxic, partisan and petty that this was expected to happen and Conservatives are at fault for knowing it would happen. This line of argument is not exactly helping.

"constitutionally compliant proposal " is the crux of the problem. Bail exists as a policy where an offender, even a repeat offender is deemed innocent until proven guilty and a person's right. The constitution does not account for the victim's constitutional right or safety in these instances. With women being disproportionally impacted as victims, this becomes a discrimination issue, and why Walker wants femicide defined in the Criminal Code. It may be necessary for a constitutional amendment, and considering that all premiers have signed a letter to revisit bail reform, this may be what is necessary to get a proposal on the ground and may be feasible. It appears that this will not occur with the current government, and may need to wait until we have a government in power willing to enact real change.

You didn’t answer the question.

Do you think the conservatives anticipated this would be the outcome of the committee?

Yes I think that all the current parliamentaries committees are consistently toxic. They are political tools now devoid of trying to accomplish anything.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The impression I got was that she was flown up specifically for the meeting (which would involve lead time). But I didn't look into it and I'm probably wrong so I'll gladly retract that statement.

It still appears it was a stunt. Either side could provide receipts of the timeline for how it came to be, but it doesn't really matter at this point. Gross all around.

The premier letter came in on July 22, and the Jamie Dunn killing that brought charges occurred June 28. This is a very new development on a heated topic.

Debate on if this was initiated after July 22, or June 28. I would think it would be after the July 22 letter came about. She was flown specifically for the meeting at the request of this emergency meeting, being a very well known, very prominent and outspoken advocate and critic of government in regards to violence against women and legal injustice. She is a fantastic witness to have.

There's very valid reasons for this meeting to take place after either dates, and there's very valid reasons for this to be an emergency or impromptu committee meeting that cannot wait until September or October to discuss. Taking away all partisanship and political aspects out of the equation, this is an extremely serious and pressing topic with a current worst case scenario occurring just a month ago that have all premiers unanimously asking for change right now.

This isn't like Conservatives just took a random topic old to discuss, unlike the Liberals choosing this is the right moment to silence the victims of violence and change the subject to a 2022 motion.

That even after you are shown the story behind this witness, and still think it's a stunt and now resorting to timelines to fall back on go with the 'gross all around'...

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GGG

You didn’t answer the question.

Do you think the conservatives anticipated this would be the outcome of the committee?

Yes I think that all the current parliamentaries committees are consistently toxic. They are political tools now devoid of trying to accomplish anything.

Why the heck would it matter if they anticipated this would be the outcome?

The outcome of how the witnesses were treated was fully in control of the Liberals and NDP. Note how the Bloc came out the best out of this whole exchange? That's because they didn't resort to the petty level the Liberals and NDP did.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes I think that all the current parliamentaries committees are consistently toxic. They are political tools now devoid of trying to accomplish anything.

Sadly, it sounds like this one of the last committees to devolve to that level, as the Bloc MP quite elegantly stated near the end of the meeting.

It's really hard to understand how the Liberals managed to #### this up so badly. They may not have had enough time to prepare and make it a productive meeting, but they certainly had enough time to come up with a better strategy for how to respond. Vandenbeld's remarks were actually quite poignant until she went ahead with her motion nonsense. Should have left it at that and let the conservatives get whatever clips they wanted

[timun]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If I’m to understand this, criticizing the Liberals, NDP, AND Conservatives is a mark of the partisan left but dismissing and downplaying any criticism of the Conservatives and while making over-the-top criticisms of the Liberals and NDP is non-partisan?

Right? Like, I don't really know what else to say to, e.g.:

Originally Posted by Firebot

Liberals and the federal NDP [...] could have made their point across about Conservatives being opportunistic, while simultaneously not throwing the victims under their partisan bus, and they would have looked a lot better without this ever making the news like it did.

Uh, yeah, that's what I've been saying all along... Seems that's everybody's opinion on the matter. Has anyone been arguing otherwise and I just missed it?