2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Camicon]

75% of the vote doesn't scream "divisive" to me.

It was delegate based and there were a lot of irregularities in letting PC members know about the delegate selection process. And he only had one actual opponent.

However messy the system was, it was equally messy for both candidates.

[Napkiraly]

I'm seeing more media outlets flaunt Chong as the best candidate for the Conservatives, which is nice. I question their ability to change the minds of Conservative Party members however.

[Oneracon]

I'm seeing more media outlets flaunt Chong as the best candidate for the Conservatives, which is nice. I question their ability to change the minds of Conservative Party members however.

Chong is the most sensible and balanced candidate, and that's exactly why he won't win. The Conservatives haver never had any leader besides the smooth machinations of Stephen Harper... and they're willing to elect either: an elitist anti-elitist, the Conservative Ignatieff, or the guy whose connection to reality is tenuous at best because they think it will save their party.

[Major-Tom]

I'm seeing more media outlets flaunt Chong as the best candidate for the Conservatives, which is nice. I question their ability to change the minds of Conservative Party members however.

Seeing as Chong voted for M-103, a lot of Tories are now changing their minds...

[Collatis]

I'm seeing more media outlets flaunt Chong as the best candidate for the Conservatives, which is nice. I question their ability to change the minds of Conservative Party members however.

Seeing as Chong voted for M-103, a lot of Tories are now changing their minds...

I must say that the opposition to M-103 baffles me. Similar motions have previously been passed, with Tory support, condemning antisemitism, discrimination against Coptic Christians, etc.

[Oneracon]

Seeing as Chong voted for M-103, a lot of Tories are now changing their minds...

I must say that the opposition to M-103 baffles me. Similar motions have previously been passed, with Tory support, condemning antisemitism, discrimination against Coptic Christians, etc.

Tories have realized that fearmongering is fun and easy, it seems.

It's funny that they had no problem unanimously passing a motion (It's under Routine proceedings > Multiculturalism) from Tom Mulcair in October 2016 that moved "That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition e-411 in condemning all forms of Islamophobia."

[Collatis]

I must say that the opposition to M-103 baffles me. Similar motions have previously been passed, with Tory support, condemning antisemitism, discrimination against Coptic Christians, etc.

Tories have realized that fearmongering is fun and easy, it seems.

It's funny that they had no problem unanimously passing a motion (It's under Routine proceedings > Multiculturalism) from Tom Mulcair in October 2016 that moved "That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition e-411 in condemning all forms of Islamophobia."

Well that's even more embarrassing and hypocritical.

[Major-Tom]

Seeing as Chong voted for M-103, a lot of Tories are now changing their minds...

I must say that the opposition to M-103 baffles me. Similar motions have previously been passed, with Tory support, condemning antisemitism, discrimination against Coptic Christians, etc.

I can see how it might be an issue. After all, it condemns Islamophobia without defining it, and seems to only serve as a symbolic gesture. Its just kinda a display of the arrogance of the Trudeau government, how they'll act all "positive" and "fresh" without really doing anything else.

Not that I want it to be more than a symbolic gesture, otherwise actual issues would arise.

Regardless, I like Chong.

[Oneracon]

I must say that the opposition to M-103 baffles me. Similar motions have previously been passed, with Tory support, condemning antisemitism, discrimination against Coptic Christians, etc.

I can see how it might be an issue. After all, it condemns Islamophobia without defining it, and seems to only serve as a symbolic gesture. Its just kinda a display of the arrogance of the Trudeau government, how they'll act all "positive" and "fresh" without really doing anything else.

Not that I want it to be more than a symbolic gesture, otherwise actual issues would arise.

Regardless, I like Chong.

The last motion about it, which they all voted for (see my post above), didn't define the term either.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

This woman is an absolute disgrace.

[Camicon]

This woman is an absolute disgrace.

An unequivocal moron.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

This woman is an absolute disgrace.

An unequivocal moron.

She should resign, and talk to some survivors from those schools.

[Oneracon]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

Meanwhile, Boston man does not understand how the Canadian constitution works.

[Camicon]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

Meanwhile, Boston man does not understand how the Canadian constitution works.

While I have no doubt that O'Leary doesn't understand what the notwithstanding clause is, he is correct in saying that it's usage could be used to send asylum seekers en masse back into the US. As the CBC article explains:

"O'Leary's campaign later confirmed the proposed use of the notwithstanding clause referred to overriding obligations to refugees established by the Supreme Court in a 1985 ruling called the Singh decision.

That ruling recognized that asylum seekers are entitled, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to a refugee-status hearing before facing potential removal from the country."

Of course, using the notwithstanding clause in this situation would be such a gross overreaction that I would be incredibly surprised if the Governor General signed off on whatever piece of drek was trying to fuck with the CoRaF.

[Union of Despotistan]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

Meanwhile, Boston man does not understand how the Canadian constitution works.

I really like what I read abou Bernier lately. He seems well poised to compete for the top spot on the Conservative party. I hope he'll beat O'Leary and win this.
Using the military to repel illegals is a good start. But more will need to be done as we start to have repercussions from the US policy toward illegal immigrants.
We must not stand by and let the Liberals tell us that it's our duty or some kind of other phony reason to let them stay.

[Camicon]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

Meanwhile, Boston man does not understand how the Canadian constitution works.

I really like what I read abou Bernier lately. He seems well poised to compete for the top spot on the Conservative party. I hope he'll beat O'Leary and win this.
Using the military to repel illegals is a good start. But more will need to be done as we start to have repercussions from the US policy toward illegal immigrants.
We must not stand by and let the Liberals tell us that it's our duty or some kind of other phony reason to let them stay.

I have no interest in our military violating the Charter rights of the most vulnerable sectors of our society, just because some folks are afraid of brown people.

[Nocturnalis]

I have no interest in our military violating the Charter rights of the most vulnerable sectors of our society, just because some folks are afraid of brown people.

Illegals are not part of our society.

[Camicon]

I have no interest in our military violating the Charter rights of the most vulnerable sectors of our society, just because some folks are afraid of brown people.

Illegals are not part of our society.

They are, whether you like it or not. But we aren't talking about illegal immigrants, we're talking about refugees.

[Nocturnalis]

Illegals are not part of our society.

They are, whether you like it or not. But we aren't talking about illegal immigrants, we're talking about refugees.

1 - No, they are not. They are a parasitic underclass that could not be bothered to obey our laws yet expect the same respect we afford legal immigrants and citizens. Our society is more than justified in removing them, as one would remove a parasite from their body.

2 - You mean the "refugees" running across the border illegally? Nah, they are essentially the same as illegals. Both show utter contempt for our laws and society, and should be treated accordingly,

If people want to come here, then they should do so legally. If they want us to accept and respect them, then they should show us and our country respect first - and that starts by following our laws.

[Oneracon]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

Meanwhile, Boston man does not understand how the Canadian constitution works.

I really like what I read abou Bernier lately. He seems well poised to compete for the top spot on the Conservative party. I hope he'll beat O'Leary and win this.
Using the military to repel illegals is a good start. But more will need to be done as we start to have repercussions from the US policy toward illegal immigrants.

Funny, I thought the deployment of military forces for civilian law enforcement was something the Quebecois weren't fans of?

We must not stand by and let the Liberals tell us that it's our duty or some kind of other phony reason to let them stay.

The 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, which Canada is a party to and are reflected in our immigration laws, require us to provide refugee claimants with a fair hearing to present their case to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

---

They are, whether you like it or not. But we aren't talking about illegal immigrants, we're talking about refugees.

1 - No, they are not. They are a parasitic underclass that could not be bothered to obey our laws yet expect the same respect we afford legal immigrants and citizens. Our society is more than justified in removing them, as one would remove a parasite from their body.

2 - You mean the "refugees" running across the border illegally? Nah, they are essentially the same as illegals. Both show utter contempt for our laws and society, and should be treated accordingly,

If people want to come here, then they should do so legally. If they want us to accept and respect them, then they should show us and our country respect first - and that starts by following our laws.

They would be coming here legally and presenting themselves for asylum claims at border checkpoints, but under the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement they are automatically refused if they do so. The issue here is that the government is refusing to suspend the STCA, despite 3/4 of the Opposition parties supporting a suspension, because they're apparently afraid of offending the new US administration.

[Camicon]

They are, whether you like it or not. But we aren't talking about illegal immigrants, we're talking about refugees.

1 - No, they are not. They are a parasitic underclass that could not be bothered to obey our laws yet expect the same respect we afford legal immigrants and citizens. Our society is more than justified in removing them, as one would remove a parasite from their body.

2 - You mean the "refugees" running across the border illegally? Nah, they are essentially the same as illegals. Both show utter contempt for our laws and society, and should be treated accordingly,

If people want to come here, then they should do so legally. If they want us to accept and respect them, then they should show us and our country respect first - and that starts by following our laws.

Illegal immigrants, not having legal status in the country, are unable to access social services that legal immigrants and citizens are able to access. Yet, most of them still pay into these services through taxes. Illegal immigrants give more to the system than they take, they are not "parasites" by any measure.

Studies have also shown that they are less prone to criminal behaviour than citizens are, as far as obeying laws goes.

In any case, you know the grandest thing about human rights? They're human rights, not "citizen" rights. Being an illegal immigrant does not invalidate protections you are afforded under the law as a person.

[Nation of Quebec]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

The more I hear about Bernier, the less I like him.

If I were Conservative I'd still go for Chong, who is the only respectable one left in the race.

This woman is an absolute disgrace.

Agreed, and she needs to resign.

Don Meredith needs to go as well.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

So apparently Bernier wants to deploy the military along our borders as an "additional temporary measure".

The more I hear about Bernier, the less I like him.

If I were Conservative I'd still go for Chong, who is the only respectable one left in the race.

Raitt and O'Toole are not terrible either.

[MERIZoC]

Raitt is hilarious and I hope she wins because her french is so atrocious.

[Oneracon]

The more I hear about Bernier, the less I like him.

If I were Conservative I'd still go for Chong, who is the only respectable one left in the race.

Raitt and O'Toole are not terrible either.

I've read some interesting takes that classify Raitt (and Chong) as second-tier candidates who are basically trying to play kingmaker, since they likely won't win.

---

Also, The Beaverton has announced its bid for the Conservative leadership.

Highlights of their campaign platform include reinstating the Justinian Code to prevent Sharia and lowering the age of consent for senators.