Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because I don't see that as a criticism unique to Israel. For example, Ovechkin gets criticized for his loyalty to Russia. So how is it anti-Semitic? Is this example counter to the intent of IHRA?

To actually answer your question, there is a trope about the Jews that there is some sort of secret global cabal run by them that controls either the world at large, or some industry (banking, hollywood, etc.), or some power base, and that they are secretly all beholden to this nefarious world order. So the suggestion that "the Jews are all in it for themselves" has somewhat different implications than you get when talking about a Russian being overly loyal to their homeland.

Where there's a legacy of bigotry aimed at a particular group there are always idiosyncracies, in the same way that calling black people "thugs" has a different connotation than it does for any other racial group.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Looch City

He's not outsider enough. Nice shoes though.

Sneakers of the House: Canada's MPs embrace comfort, style in office footwear trend

Some credit transport minister with starting trend of casual footwear in the Commons

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sne...fort-1.6894932

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To actually answer your question, there is a trope about the Jews that there is some sort of secret global cabal run by them that controls either the world at large, or some industry (banking, hollywood, etc.), or some power base, and that they are secretly all beholden to this nefarious world order. So the suggestion that "the Jews are all in it for themselves" has somewhat different implications than you get when talking about a Russian being overly loyal to their homeland.

Where there's a legacy of bigotry aimed at a particular group there are always idiosyncracies, in the same way that calling black people "thugs" has a different connotation than it does for any other racial group.

Ya, aware of those things. I guess it just reads like special treatment and kids gloves, when we should be able top validly criticize any countries actions without fear of it crossing into being shut down as anti-semitic. But intent and subtext are also valid.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, aware of those things. I guess it just reads like special treatment and kids gloves, when we should be able top validly criticize any countries actions without fear of it crossing into being shut down as anti-semitic. But intent and subtext are also valid.

That’s the NDP’s stance on the subject, wanting to actually broaden and clarify the definition to ensure the term can’t be weaponized by people in bad faith to shut down critique of state or government policy.

Since the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism by the Liberal government, New Democrats and progressive Jewish organizations, including the Progressive Israel Network, New Israel Fund of Canada, Independent Jewish Voices Canada and human rights groups, have raised concerns about its capacity to silence legitimate criticism of state institutions and their actions. Notably, Kenneth Stern, the original drafter of the IHRA definition, raised similar concerns, arguing that the weaponization of the definition had threatened free expression and the open exchange of constructive ideas.

In light of these concerns, New Democrats reiterate their position that the federal government should not adopt the IHRA definition and should provide a broader range of guidelines, including alternative definitions, to identify and take action to stop antisemitism. While it is not the place of the NDP to pick one definition over another, progressive Jewish organizations have suggested the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document as internationally recognized alternative definitions, since both documents have explicit language that protects the right to criticize state or government policies, without being labelled antisemitic. This comprehensive approach will help ensure that all sectors of society avoid conflating legitimate criticism of government policies with antisemitism, fostering a climate where nuanced discussions are possible and diverse perspectives are respected.

New Democrats believe that such guidance is essential to ensure that the federal government’s working definition is not weaponized to silence legitimate criticisms of state institutions and their actions or to deny the experiences of others. Furthermore, New Democrats emphasize that the definition should remain non-binding and that no specific approach be imposed on other institutions, including with federal funding decisions and university campus policies.

Antisemitism is an evil that must be confronted head-on. In doing so, we must ensure that in our fight against racism and hate, we do not inadvertently undermine the values of freedom of expression and efforts to counter other forms of hate, including anti-Palestinian racism. By adopting a more balanced approach that safeguards democratic freedoms, we can build a Canada that is free of antisemitism and protect the rights of all its citizens.

https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statemen...-ihra-handbook

So, they (along with prominent Jewish and Israel advocacy groups, the original drafter of the IHRA definition, and the founder of the Nexus Project) correctly identified that the term could be weaponized by bad actors to shut down criticism or play politics. The irony of a poster here doing exactly that in response, who otherwise has never mentioned nor cared about antisemitism except to accuse the NDP of it (and inadvertently accusing Jewish groups and the children of holocaust survivors of the same), is probably lost on them.

[Fuzz]

I guess that I was able to clue in, find that "example" and quickly realize exactly what they were getting at either indicates I'm some sort of super genius, or this is a pretty obvious issue that should be addressed.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That’s the NDP’s stance on the subject, wanting to actually broaden and clarify the definition to ensure the term can’t be weaponized by people in bad faith to shut down critique of state or government policy.



https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statemen...-ihra-handbook

So, they (along with prominent Jewish and Israel advocacy groups, the original drafter of the IHRA definition, and the founder of the Nexus Project) correctly identified that the term could be weaponized by bad actors to shut down criticism or play politics. The irony of a poster here doing exactly that in response, who otherwise has never mentioned nor cared about antisemitism except to accuse the NDP of it (and inadvertently accusing Jewish groups and the children of holocaust survivors of the same), is probably lost on them.

Show me a quote where I say I don’t otherwise care about antisemitism.

You think I am weaponizing a term by posting what someone within the NDP government has personally experienced?

It has been a most difficult year for Selina Robinson, who was ousted from B.C.’s NDP cabinet for her comments during a forum on Israel. She says she had long known the NDP had an antisemitism problem but has become estranged from her progressive peers since Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.

Maybe listen to what someone with first hand knowledge is saying, rather than trying to taint me for posting it.

I understand that by trying to make me look bad, it makes the issue look less bad in your eyes, but this isn’t about Doctorfever.

There is so much smoke around the antisemitism within the NDP it is impossible to ignore it. Stick to the topic rather than attacking the poster.

More hate isn’t what is needed to help fix this issue.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Nice deflection you two!

I understand, you have no answer for it. But clearly it exists.

Blame me for bringing this to you attention if you want I guess? Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable with the party you support.

For you to say “I’m using Jews” is wrong and pretty disgusting. There are people experiencing antisemitism, and it’s not Doctofevers fault.

I think it’s kinda disgusting what you’re trying to do here.

Anti-semitism and/or any other form of bigotry should be denounced in all forms full stop. But based on the sources you’ve shared in this case there doesn’t really seem to be any evidence of anti-semitism.

Is your argument that anyone who disagrees with anything a Jewish person says or does is being anti-Semitic?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I think it’s kinda disgusting what you’re trying to do here.

Anti-semitism and/or any other form of bigotry should be denounced in all forms full stop. But based on the sources you’ve shared in this case there doesn’t really seem to be any evidence of anti-semitism.

Is your argument that anyone who disagrees with anything a Jewish person says or does is being anti-Semitic?

Attack the poster. Wish I would have seen that coming.

I think the first hand experience from someone writhing the NDP government is enough evidence. If you choose not to believe her, that’s your choice.

[calgarygeologist]

A lot of discussion has occurred over recent years about the fentanyl crisis in Canada. Mark Carney doesn't view the issue as a crisis in Canada but rather just a challenge. He made a speech in Kelowna where he seemingly tried to downplay the issue in Canada by saying that fentanyl is a crisis in the US but only a challenge here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Attack the poster. Wish I would have seen that coming.

I think the first hand experience from someone writhing the NDP government is enough evidence. If you choose not to believe her, that’s your choice.

Do you want to acknowledge why people called for her resignation or are you going to pretend that didn’t happen?

Would you like us to compare your position using blanket categorizations on the NDP with your position doing the same of on the trucker convoy? Because we can.

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

A lot of discussion has occurred over recent years about the fentanyl crisis in Canada. Mark Carney doesn't view the issue as a crisis in Canada but rather just a challenge. He made a speech in Kelowna where he seemingly tried to downplay the issue in Canada by saying that fentanyl is a crisis in the US but only a challenge here.

"Part of it we got to respect is that fentanyl is an absolute crisis in the United States— It's a challenge here, but it's a crisis there and us doing what we can to help them with that is absolutely appropriate," he said. "And of course, securing our borders is in our interest as much as it is in their interest."

Conservatives are trying to spin it as downplaying the issue here, but it was extremely clear from his comments that he was highlighting the severity of the issue in the US.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Attack the poster. Wish I would have seen that coming.

If you don’t believe you should be held accountable for what you post that’s your business, but I’m not gonna let that stop me from calling out something I consider to be nonsense.

I think the first hand experience from someone writhing the NDP government is enough evidence. If you choose not to believe her, that’s your choice.

She said she made a comment that was considered distasteful by a number of her peers and that she feels that because they don’t support what she said and she happens to be Jewish she is interpreting their lack of support for her as antisemitism. I believe she said every word of that but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with her assessment of the situation. Try again.

If people started calling her names or directing other comments towards her attacking her specifically for being Jewish I would definitely consider that to be antisemitic. If that were the case I would say those individuals should absolutely be condemned for their actions and if the party wouldn’t take that position then I myself would be accusing the party of antisemitism.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Part of it we got to respect is that fentanyl is an absolute crisis in the United States— It's a challenge here, but it's a crisis there and us doing what we can to help them with that is absolutely appropriate," he said. "And of course, securing our borders is in our interest as much as it is in their interest."

Conservatives are trying to spin it as downplaying the issue here, but it was extremely clear from his comments that he was highlighting the severity of the issue in the US.

The Canadian government calls it a crisis, public health authorities call it a crisis and the vast majority identifies it as a crisis. He could have clearly stated it is a crisis in Canada and is worse in the US. Saying it is a crisis in the US and a challenge in Canada is downplaying the situation. Maybe he does believe it is a crisis in Canada and he is just a poor message boy when it comes to speaking with the general public.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Do you want to acknowledge why people called for her resignation or are you going to pretend that didn’t happen?

Would you like us to compare your position using blanket categorizations on the NDP with your position doing the same of on the trucker convoy? Because we can.



"Part of it we got to respect is that fentanyl is an absolute crisis in the United States— It's a challenge here, but it's a crisis there and us doing what we can to help them with that is absolutely appropriate," he said. "And of course, securing our borders is in our interest as much as it is in their interest."

Conservatives are trying to spin it as downplaying the issue here, but it was extremely clear from his comments that he was highlighting the severity of the issue in the US.

It’s not me making the blanket statement. It’s Selena Robinson. Again, if you don’t want to believe her, that’s your choice.

I suspect discrediting her is next…

[FlameyMcFlameFace]

So what ended up happening with our Premiers going down to Washington? I haven't seen much coverage on it. I heard it took them an hour to get through security and they were treated like normal tourists almost. Not to mention we couldn't even have a conversation with Trump himself?

If true, what are we doing? The Americans clearly dont give a flying #### about us.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by FlameyMcFlameFace

So what ended up happening with our Premiers going down to Washington? I haven't seen much coverage on it. I heard it took them an hour to get through security and they were treated like normal tourists almost. Not to mention we couldn't even have a conversation with Trump himself?

If true, what are we doing? The Americans clearly dont give a flying #### about us.

I don't think anything. I did see the interview with the Manitoba Premier yesterday hahaha. The dweeb looked and sounded like a used car salesman. He was gushing how he met some mid level Trump lackey and how he knew where Manitoba was on a map.... jesus hhahahaha

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

It’s not me making the blanket statement. It’s Selena Robinson. Again, if you don’t want to believe her, that’s your choice.

I suspect discrediting her is next…

She discredits herself

From the article

And then four days later, he was telling me that I had to resign. I am pretty confident it was because I’m a Jew, and not because I was a bad minister. I think I was a damn good minister in every file that I’ve had. I was fired because I was creating a bit of a #### storm, I think, for the premier, and he didn’t like that.

From her wiki page

Robinson apologised for the comments later that week, calling them "disrespectful," continuing to clarify "I was referring to the fact that the land has limited natural resources". In a statement, Eby said that Robinson's claim was "wrong and unacceptable... I thank her for withdrawing the comments and apologizing unreservedly", though Robinson did not publicly withdraw the comment

On October 28, 2023, Dr. Natalie Knight, an instructor at Langara College made remarks that were interpreted as praising the October 7 attacks. She was initially put on leave, but then reinstated in January 2024 after Langara College conducted an investigation and found that Knight did not violate the college's policies. Her remarks had been deemed offensive to some, but ultimately protected under academic freedom. However, after the reinstatement, Selena Robinson met with the college administration and called for Knight's termination – and on January 26, the college terminated Knight. Michael Conlon of FPSE said it was unprecendented for a politician to intervene directly into a college's internal matters and Robinson was "abusing her ministerial powers to silence political views that don’t agree with her own".[32]

On February 1, 2024, the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of BC (FPSE) alongside the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) released a statement calling on David Eby to call for the immediate resignation of Robinson. FPSE also describe Robinson as undermining "the democratic principles of freedom of expression, academic freedom, and a college and university system free of direct manipulation by the provincial government"

She's got some sour groups and she is claiming that she was fired from her position due to being a Jew. But it seems like she was being divisive in her comments on Palestine, apologized but did not retract them, then used her political position to unduly influence Langara College's decision based on her personal feelings.

So I can understand why she feels the way she does, but I also think her attempt to frame her treatment as related to her heritage is unfounded. I would be upset to if my colleagues and friends didn't back me up like I hoped they would. But part of that is in her words and her actions, not because of her background.

Using one person's story as a way to demonstrate that the NDP is "the party of antisemitism" doesn't really hold up.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

It’s not me making the blanket statement. It’s Selena Robinson. Again, if you don’t want to believe her, that’s your choice.

I suspect discrediting her is next…

Except you have made the blanket statement, in your own words, several times.

Are you suggesting you believe and agree with everything she says?

If not, why not?

[FlameyMcFlameFace]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I don't think anything. I did see the interview with the Manitoba Premier yesterday hahaha. The dweeb looked and sounded like a used car salesman. He was gushing how he met some mid level Trump lackey and how he knew where Manitoba was on a map.... jesus hhahahaha

I applaud the effort of our Premiers finally having some unity and doing something together. Looked great seeing them all together. We need more of that.

But.... The way they were treated (if the rumours are correct) and the fact we were, well lets say it, we were disrespected. It looks borderline pathetic for us. I'm surprised there isn't that much coverage on this. That was a real slap in the face. I have so many questions, was this a planned trip? If so, how did we not have a chance to speak with Trump himself?

Thats really, really eye opening for me.

[Johnny Makarov]

hahaha. the Cdn Republican Party just released their new attack ad! haha in blood red! Carney is here to kill and eat your kids!!

They are still calling him Carbon Tax Carney. They should have just called him Serial Killer Carney!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Canadian government calls it a crisis, public health authorities call it a crisis and the vast majority identifies it as a crisis. He could have clearly stated it is a crisis in Canada and is worse in the US. Saying it is a crisis in the US and a challenge in Canada is downplaying the situation. Maybe he does believe it is a crisis in Canada and he is just a poor message boy when it comes to speaking with the general public.

It’s poor wording, which is why Cons are like a dog on a bone over it, but is anyone going to say with a straight face that they disagree with the message or intent?

Like, are you suggesting Carney is wrong and we should not do everything we can to address and it secure our mutual border with the US?