Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Whether Syria is a failed state or not, I don't think conducting military operations on foreign/sovereign soil, while gleefully circumventing the U.N. and the country's recognized leadership, sets a very good precedent.

The military operations on sovereign soil are occurring against a rebel group that is trying to overthrow the government of that sovereign soil. They're not bombing the legitimately elected government of Syria. I think most people are perfectly comfortable with setting the precedent of bombing groups like ISIS. And "gleefully" ?? Come on man.

You're reaching and there's enough things that they do that you don't need to reach for.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

The military operations on sovereign soil are occurring against a rebel group that is trying to overthrow the government of that sovereign soil. They're not bombing the legitimately elected government of Syria. I think most people are perfectly comfortable with setting the precedent of bombing groups like ISIS. And "gleefully" ?? Come on man.

You're reaching and there's enough things that they do that you don't need to reach for.

When you're asked to defend why you circumvented the U.N. during the process and you make a joke about how ISIS probably won't sue you in international court, I'd say that's not exactly expressing concern about the matter. If most people are comfortable with setting the precedent, then there should be no problem with consulting the U.N. first.

[Resolute 14]

Other than the fact that the UN is a joke?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Other than the fact that the UN is a joke?

In terms of effectively enforcing international law, sure the U.N.'s record is pretty abysmal. That said, if you're a country and government that maintains that there should be adherence to international law, and gets on your high-horse when other countries don't adhere to it, mocking its conventions makes you look like a bit of a jackass.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

In terms of effectively enforcing international law, sure the U.N.'s record is pretty abysmal. That said, if you're a country and government that maintains that there should be adherence to international law, and gets on your high-horse when other countries don't adhere to it, mocking its conventions makes you look like a bit of a jackass.

UN conventions don't prevent deaths and as such, the UN is irrelevant. The UN is a place where a bunch of diplomats can get together and do nothing but write strongly worded letters. I'd rather not sit behind international law and the UN while people are being slaughtered. The international community has done it at least twice in the last 20 years. Lets not do it further because of "conventions".

Act. Now. Worry about if Syria is going to get pissy about it later.

Honestly, of all the things to harp about, the fact that this is what you're picking is just odd.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

They're not bombing the legitimately elected government of Syria. I think most people are perfectly comfortable with setting the precedent of bombing groups like ISIS.

Forgot to add, you don't see how there's a dangerous precedent of saying we're going to conduct military operations against locations in a sovereign country without consulting with that country first? Even from a logistical standpoint?

[nik-]

Absolutely it's a dangerous precedent. I don't think I suggested anywhere that this should be blanket policy. In this situation, against this group, I'm glad we're involved. The international community does too much standing around watching genocide to be judgemental in this.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

Absolutely it's a dangerous precedent. I don't think I suggested anywhere that this should be blanket policy. In this situation, against this group, I'm glad we're involved. The international community does too much standing around watching genocide to be judgemental in this.

I'm not saying they had to wait for U.N. approval, but at least pay lip service to the concept instead of openly mocking it. Hell, Obama at least made a speech to the U.N. before conducting the American strikes. The optics of it on our end are pretty bad and completely undermines the legal criticisms of what Putin is doing in the Ukraine.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm not saying they had to wait for U.N. approval, but at least pay lip service to the concept instead of openly mocking it. Hell, Obama at least made a speech to the U.N. before conducting the American strikes. The optics of it on our end are pretty bad and completely undermines the legal criticisms of what Putin is doing in the Ukraine.

lol.

Let me know when we annex part of Syria. Judging from the past, I agree with you on most things rube, but honestly, this is just fluff. Don't waste your time worrying about what the "international community" thinks while we bomb a group who sells slaves and marches mile long columns of men into slaughter pits.

I'm pretty sure everyone behind this decision is sleeping fine at night.

[worth]

I agree with Rube on this. Over the past 15 years we've been sliding down a slippery slope of technically illegal wars all over the planet. Whether defeating ISIS is morally right is not the point, western countries that are undertaking these operations have the duty and responsibility to make sure their actions are legal in the eyes of the world community. We ask and expect other countries to follow international law, and then don't follow it ourselves.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with Rube on this. Over the past 15 years we've been sliding down a slippery slope of technically illegal wars all over the planet. Whether defeating ISIS is morally right is not the point, western countries that are undertaking these operations have the duty and responsibility to make sure their actions are legal in the eyes of the world community. We ask and expect other countries to follow international law, and then don't follow it ourselves.

I can agree with that. There is value in the process and with ISIS that process should be an automatic express lane situation.

[rubecube]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle23971424/

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said Wednesday that he was “unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition” with the NDP. That makes perfect sense. It would be far more logical for the Liberals to make common cause with the Conservatives.

Wednesday, the Liberal Leader declared once and for all that he was categorically opposed to a coalition with the NDP, in part because “there’s too many big issues on which the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada have deep disagreements.”

He’s right. Under Mr. Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals on most major files have become virtually indistinguishable from Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

On the question of taxes, for example, the Liberals would retain all the Conservative measures, save for a minor income-splitting tax cut. The NDP, on the other hand, would raise corporate taxes.

On the environment, Mr. Trudeau appears content to allow the provinces to lead the fight against global warming, as does Mr. Harper. Mr. Mulcair is committed to compulsory national standards to reduce carbon emissions.

On natural resources, Mr. Trudeau backs the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and supports oil sands development, while Mr. Mulcair opposes Keystone and talks of a “Dutch disease” of oil dependency.

On national security, the Liberals support Bill C-51, the Conservative anti-terrorism legislation that the NDP opposes. The Liberals are also behind the Canadian military training mission in Ukraine, which the NDP insists must first be approved by Parliament.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives support the proposed $8-billion NDP child care program. The Conservatives prefer direct payments to parents. The Liberals are silent on the issue.

And on Quebec separation, both the Conservatives and the Liberals back the restrictive Clarity Act, while the NDP endorses the Sherbrooke Declaration, which would make it much easier for Quebec to separate.

Ideologically, then, it would make far more sense for a minority Conservative government to seek the support of the Liberals on a case-by-case basis, than for the NDP and Liberals to seek common cause.

I kind of agree with the author. Obviously the Conservative and Liberals aren't going to form a coalition, but I think Trudeau is walking a fine line in trying to appeal to centrist voters without pushing away the left, and I think he's doing a poor job of it. He's done nothing recently to distinguish himself from Harper in any notable way, other than his stances on ISIS and Northern Gateway.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Hahaha. "Of course we can't form a coalition! They oppose all of our worst ideas!"

[Resolute 14]

Wonder if he pulls a Dion and changes his mind afterward if Harper wins a minority?

In other news, the SCOC struck down the minimum sentencing laws, but much of the criticism I have seen has been aimed at the court for using bad logic rather than the government. That's a new one.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Wonder if he pulls a Dion and changes his mind afterward if Harper wins a minority?

In other news, the SCOC struck down the minimum sentencing laws, but much of the criticism I have seen has been aimed at the court for using bad logic rather than the government. That's a new one.

I think it's 50/50. My constitutional politics prof was pretty certain it would be struck down, but I can see why there's some criticism of the court because some of the explanations given for the decision sound a little ridiculous. That said, that entire bill was/is an absolute mess and is going to end up costing taxpayers a whole lot more in the long run.

[rubecube]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04...n_7086096.html

A cabinet minister's tweet about "hundreds of millions" of Canadian families has sparked both mockery and calls for the speedy return of the long-form census.

Though Employment and Social Development Minister Pierre Poilievre (or a staffer) removed the tweet shortly after it was posted Thursday, at least some of Canada's 35 million people screengrabbed the gaffe.

Some of the tweets are pretty good.



@bfaparsons
Follow
With no long form census data to refer to, @PierrePoilievre takes a wild guess at the number of households in Canada.

@InfoAlerteBot
Follow
PIERRE POILIEVRE WON'T APOLOGIZE FOR EXAGGERATED NUMBERS IN TWEETS, UNLESS THE LIBERALS PAY BACK THE $78 BILLION THEY STOLE THROUGH ADSCAM.

[rubecube]

http://montrealgazette.com/news/nati...s-and-freedoms

Written by Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, but he brings up a number of good points related to the Harper government's disregard for the Charter.

On its own, this case might be viewed as a simple difference of opinion on a question of constitutional interpretation. However, the Conservative government’s approach in this matter is, by now, part of a regrettable pattern: enact constitutionally suspect legislation or policy, smear those who raise charter concerns, and spend taxpayer dollars fighting a losing legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.

Such was the case last year when the court ruled unanimously against the government’s attempt to retroactively eliminate the possibility of early parole for offenders who had already been sentenced. Justice Richard Wagner wrote that this was “one of the clearest cases of retrospective double punishment,” and thus a blatant charter violation.

Likewise, in 2011, the court unanimously ruled that, by refusing to renew the permit of a safe injection site in Vancouver, the government was violating charter guarantees to life, liberty and security of the person. According to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the refusal threatened the health and lives of Canadians with drug addictions, and “contravened the principles of fundamental justice.”

Indeed, the courts have found that Conservative law and policy have violated charter rights in matters as varied as the refusal to repatriate a Canadian wrongfully imprisoned in Sudan; the mandatory imposition of the victim surcharge — a supplementary fee paid at sentencing — on impoverished offenders; and the denial of health care to refugee claimants.

In the latter case, Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish made particular reference to the impact of that denial on claimants’ children, saying that it could “potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages Canadian standards of decency.”

Moreover, many other government measures are currently being challenged on charter grounds in lower courts. For example, in a case in B.C., the government stands accused of using solitary confinement in federal prisons in a way that discriminates against aboriginal inmates and the mentally ill, and that violates international standards prohibiting prolonged isolation.

While solitary confinement is supposed to be used as a last resort, figures I obtained from the government in response to written questions indicate that over 20 per cent of prisoners spend time in solitary, and Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers has found that solitary confinement is now “a default population management strategy.”

The government declined to answer my questions about the length of isolation periods, or about the physical and mental health impacts of solitary confinement. It did, however, respond with an unqualified “no” to questions from my colleague, Liberal Public Safety Critic Wayne Easter, about whether it had received any analysis or advice on the constitutionality of its approach.

[rubecube]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joe-...hand-1.3043145

Mind you, none of those things stopped this government from employing a little fiscal sleight of hand.

To get to balance, Ottawa sold its remaining shares in General Motors.

The $3-billion contingency fund was cut to $1 billion. EI premiums will continue to take in more than the fund pays out to the unemployed. All together, those decisions gave Oliver billions in additional revenue.

And then there's the spending.

Topping the list, a new Public Transit Fund. The investment of $1 billion seems small, but the news isn't the amount, it is how the money will be spent.

Ottawa will no longer cover its usual one-third share of construction costs; instead it will cover the loan payments taken out by cities to improve public transit, with a goal of helping finance more projects, over a longer period of time.

The government also announced it will spend nearly $300 million more on national security.

But the catch in both initiatives is in the fine print.

Spending on security starts out small, and grows over time. The Public Transit Fund, and new spending on defence, don't kick in until 2017, leaving the government wiggle room to backtrack if the economy stalls.

He might be right, but I don't think it really matters to the average voter, who just sees that the budget has been balanced. I think this is a big win for the Conservatives.

[rubecube]

This actually did grind my gears a bit, mostly because I loathe excessive and expensive displays of nationalism.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fede...dict-1.3043056

"The Harper administration is set to spend more money on the celebrations of Canada's 150th birthday than on the crisis of First Nations education. It is remarkable that in a budget tabled seven months before the negotiation deadline for a comprehensive climate treaty, the words 'climate change' are nowhere even mentioned. " — Green Party Leader Elizabeth May

"It's a status-quo budget, and the status quo is not acceptable. We don't see any investments in housing to deal with the 130,000 units we need. . We don't see investments in education on reserves. There's still a huge fiscal imbalance there. We don't see any investments even in access to potable water. There are still 93 communities with boil-water advisories." — Perry Bellegarde, national chief for the Assembly of First Nations

[neo45]

The new TFSA maximum is going to help me out an insane amount over the next 5 or so years so I am happy for that

Apparently selling shares in GM to use the money elsewhere is sleight of hand. Short sighted maybe, as this country really didn't need a balanced budget, but there is nothing shady about it. Of course the conservatives are going to be short sighted this close to an election