2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[Oneracon]

Given how explicitly anti-gay FRC is I'd caution you on using them as a source, however the bigger issue with that source is that it deals with American law rather than Canadian. Legislative authority over marriage and divorce in Canada is held solely by the federal government as per section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, while the provinces and territories have legislative authority over the solemnization/procedures of marriages. In the United States, legislative authority is solely held by the states.

First of all, religious institutions (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples) are not businesses; they will be the first to tell you that, so to discuss them in terms of the CHRA is moot. It's important to remember that marriage in Canada is a secular and civil matter, explicitly so after 2005, that happens to overlap with religious ceremonies. The right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriages that do not align with their religious beliefs (such as a Catholic priest) is explicitly clarified in section 3 of the federal Civil Marriage Act, because marriages are also performed civilly by justices of the peace or other officiants.

I believe I said the source was questionable, but still worth looking into; seeing how both sides think, an alt-right source in this case, is a good strategy to forming a solid and educated opinion.
err, yes, it's the priest's choice

Yes, if you read what I said that was a minor comment compared to the larger issue that it had to do with American laws rather than Canadian laws. The balance of power between federal and sub-federal (state, province, territory) governments is different in Canada than the US.

To reiterate my main point: churches and other places of worship are not businesses so discussing religious marriage services in terms of CHRA are moot.

---

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... anada.html

Also... apparently there are rumours that Sarah Palin may be appointed the new US Ambassador to Canada

[AsReil]

Buckle up, kids, this is a long one.

I'd like to say thank you for a polite debate instead of just calling me a cuck or nazi- props. You also seem to be very experienced in the post formats and shortcuts, I'm finding it difficult to not be overwhelmed by the amount of detail in this- props 2x.

​​


1.) As aforementioned: "...extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief."(taken directly from the CHRA).
The appeal for an extended act [c-16] is to also include "gender identity or expression" under the prohibited grounds of discrimination... Last I checked, sex and sexual orientation are both already on that list. Why don't we add specific genders and sexualities as well? Easy, It's unnecessary, and would be for the sole purpose of being inclusive.

Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing as gender and gender identity.

Gender and sex are defined as the same thing, therefore sex = gender/identity, and thus makes the bill seem inclusive.
If this bill were about racial or special identity, would you still defend it? There are plenty of people who identify as something completely physically different from what they are (and I'm not talking about gender). This just proves my point- there's no need to be this inclusive, as everyone [which means everyone] is already legally equal.

​​2.) I meant that people 100% can discriminate, that's free speech, but it's against the law in production/service terms. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with this little gem:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This is why the CoRaF can guarantee "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" while also placing upon that freedom the restriction of "you can't refuse service to someone because they are X". Contrary to what you seem to believe, being a bigot is illegal in some circumstances.

Okay? I thought I already agreed with this...
You have the right to say what you want, that's freedom of speech, it's when,what,where, and to whom you say it that matters

​​Oh, but they are. Under my given scenario: refusing service isn't discrimination. I was giving an example of how that term is used loosely.

Discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." which has nothing to do with services, but social treatment.
Of course workplace or PS discrimination is not only illegal, but abhorred. No one thinks it's acceptable,except the few loons...

Nobody is required to serve anyone if they are being disrespectful. They are required to serve someone even if they claim exemption on religious grounds, because religious freedom does not include the freedom to be a discriminatory dickwagon. Refusing service can be, but is not necessarily, discrimination.

Language, sir [or miss]
No one is required to serve anyone, it's entirely their choice. It might cost them their job, but it's still up to them- freedom blah blah, [it's obvious I'm American]
Which also proves my second point that you're allowed to be discriminatory, but you will have consequences if used unwisely.... have we lost track of our points?
For example, I'm allowed to be racist and preach the rhetoric, just not in the workplace.

Nobody is required to serve anyone if they are being disrespectful

err, that's muddy water, because it has to deal with feelings and what the worker constitutes as disrespectful. I'm kind of iffy on this.

They are required to serve someone even if they claim exemption on religious grounds,

so if my religion says that I can't touch an asian person, but my line of work is physical therapy, I'm required to help them? I feel it'd be easier to just get a colleague to take that patient. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb righty

​​
Not my best wording, i'll clarify.
The hate crimes aren't because transgenderism is illegal or immoral or should be shunned, it's because that single attacker is intolerant of them- more often than not, it's based on religious beliefs. This entire issue is painting the false portrait that these people aren't normal and are incessantly harassed because they are different- coincidentally, in today's liberal society, they're praised and put on a higher pedestal than the 1%, the president, or even friggin Ghandi and alike.
You can see for yourself, go into twitter or your handy dandy social media and look under the tag 'trans', see how many hateful remarks are spewed in comparison to the love and even admiration.
In all, that's just hate, and yes, ultimately discrimination.

I think you've forgotten my point here: discrimination isn't legal and is entirely the attacker's fault, therefore, no extra laws need to be set specifically for them -as this this is already outlawed.
Perhaps I've gotten ahead of myself...

You seem to have absolutely no clue as to what transgender people face on a daily basis. And your personal opinion on how the transgender community is treated online in no way translates to how they are treated in reality.

Then... yours in invalid as well...
I interact with millennials on a daily basis, and from what I've seen, there are about 40-50 underage 'trans' kids in a 5k person facility. kids- and that's just from what I see, who knows how many have actually undergone surgery or taken hormones.( yes, these are millennials not adults, blah blah I'm not a part of the real world blah blah you got me) My point is that I do know what they face, or at least what these ones do. I live in a red former confederate state, and I have never once heard of or seen discrimination towards them. They're even allowed to use their preferred bathroom. That is just my view, however, I'm sure there are places where they're mistreated; my opinion was formed from these experiences, making it true to me. That does not mean my views are incapable of being swayed.

What you don't seem to grasp is that for "discrimination" to be illegal, we need to specify what it is illegal to discriminate against. For instance, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because you think they are an asshole, because being an asshole is not protected under the law. I can't discriminate against someone because they are a man or woman, because a person's sex is protected under the law. Bill C-16 will make a person's gender and gender identity protected under the law, because it currently is not and it is as intrinsic to a person as every other protected status on the books.

Yeah you can, technically. No policeman is gonna arrest me because I wouldn't let my wife drive the car 'cause she's a girl, that's just being rude, which isn't illegal. However, if I didn't hire a woman because of her sex, yes, I could be in legal trouble. Discrimination is only a problem when in relation to services and work. It's not legal to deny a job to someone because they're trans, because that would be discrimination of their sex/gender, sexual orientation, and could probably be twisted with creed as well. See what I'm getting at? This excessive bill would do literally nothing.
​​

again, error on my part, I was rushing.
I meant I feel they feel they're entitled to special treatment because they go against 'social norms'. And again, equal rights are not extra rights- they shouldn't have laws pertaining to just them; they fall under the 'all persons' category in said human rights.

This isn't "special treatment", this is "preventing assholes from discriminating against people because of gender or gender identity". This change protects cisgender people as much as it does transgender people, because everyone has a gender and gender identity.

which is already protected under the CHRA. See my first response.

[AsReil]

I believe I said the source was questionable, but still worth looking into; seeing how both sides think, an alt-right source in this case, is a good strategy to forming a solid and educated opinion.
err, yes, it's the priest's choice

Yes, if you read what I said that was a minor comment compared to the larger issue that it had to do with American laws rather than Canadian laws. The balance of power between federal and sub-federal (state, province, territory) governments is different in Canada than the US.

To reiterate my main point: churches and other places of worship are not businesses so discussing religious marriage services in terms of CHRA are moot.

---

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... anada.html

Also... apparently there are rumours that Sarah Palin may be appointed the new US Ambassador to Canada

haha, moot

That just shows how progressive the Big Red is

[Oneracon]

Yes, if you read what I said that was a minor comment compared to the larger issue that it had to do with American laws rather than Canadian laws. The balance of power between federal and sub-federal (state, province, territory) governments is different in Canada than the US.

To reiterate my main point: churches and other places of worship are not businesses so discussing religious marriage services in terms of CHRA are moot.

---

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... anada.html

Also... apparently there are rumours that Sarah Palin may be appointed the new US Ambassador to Canada

haha, moot

That just shows how progressive the Big Red is

Yes, moot: "of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance" (at least that's the North American context of the word). Under applicable Canadian law (i.e. the Civil Marriage Act) the right of religious groups to not perform marriages that are against their beliefs is explicitly protected.

CHRA only applies to "the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public". Even ignoring the explicit protections given under the Civil Marriage Act, religious ceremonies are not customarily available to the general public since they are typically only held for people who are members of that religious community.

[AsReil]

haha, moot

That just shows how progressive the Big Red is

Yes, moot: "of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance" (at least that's the North American context of the word). Under applicable Canadian law (i.e. the Civil Marriage Act) the right of religious groups to not perform marriages that are against their beliefs is explicitly protected.

CHRA only applies to "the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public". Even ignoring the explicit protections given under the Civil Marriage Act, religious ceremonies are not customarily available to the general public since they are typically only held for people who are members of that religious community.

It's a funny word that i correlate with 'debatable', wasn't questioning you

It's different here, I suppose I wasn't educated on Canadian marriage laws.

[Oneracon]

Yes, moot: "of little or no practical value, meaning, or relevance" (at least that's the North American context of the word). Under applicable Canadian law (i.e. the Civil Marriage Act) the right of religious groups to not perform marriages that are against their beliefs is explicitly protected.

CHRA only applies to "the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public". Even ignoring the explicit protections given under the Civil Marriage Act, religious ceremonies are not customarily available to the general public since they are typically only held for people who are members of that religious community.

It's a funny word that i correlate with 'debatable', wasn't questioning you

It's different here, I suppose I wasn't educated on Canadian marriage laws.

I can't fault you on the correlation, since that's the original meaning of the word. North American dialects of English messed around with it.

Also it isn't different in the US. From the FRC source that you linked on the last page, even they explicitly state: "Because the Supreme Court in Obergefell held that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, states now must license same-sex marriages and recognize those from out-of-state on the same terms as natural marriage. However, the ruling does not interfere with state laws permitting pastors to solemnize marriages as they wish" (emphasis mine).

[AsReil]

It's a funny word that i correlate with 'debatable', wasn't questioning you

It's different here, I suppose I wasn't educated on Canadian marriage laws.

I can't fault you on the correlation, since that's the original meaning of the word. North American dialects of English messed around with it.

Also it isn't different in the US. From the FRC source that you linked on the last page, even they explicitly state: "Because the Supreme Court in Obergefell held that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, states now must license same-sex marriages and recognize those from out-of-state on the same terms as natural marriage. However, the ruling does not interfere with state laws permitting pastors to solemnize marriages as they wish" (emphasis mine).

Marriage is predominantly a religious practice; outside of that, it's just a contract that essentially counts two people as one (with some sweet tax benefits). I don't see why it would be a right, since separation of church and state is a thing

[Oneracon]

I can't fault you on the correlation, since that's the original meaning of the word. North American dialects of English messed around with it.

Also it isn't different in the US. From the FRC source that you linked on the last page, even they explicitly state: "Because the Supreme Court in Obergefell held that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, states now must license same-sex marriages and recognize those from out-of-state on the same terms as natural marriage. However, the ruling does not interfere with state laws permitting pastors to solemnize marriages as they wish" (emphasis mine).

Marriage is predominantly a religious practice; outside of that, it's just a contract that essentially counts two people as one (with some sweet tax benefits). I don't see why it would be a right, since separation of church and state is a thing

I really don't think you'd find consensus among anthropologists, historians, theologians, etc. that marriage is a predominantly religious practice... especially since it's hard to pin down when "religion" as we know it emerged in humans. You could just as much argue that marriage began as a business transaction between families that happened to gain religious trappings to legitimize itself. And the concept of civil marriage (i.e. having marriages registered by the state for the purposes of enforcing inheritance, joint property and such) first emerged in England... a country that doesn't have separation of church and state.

To turn your argument around, since civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage (and has been in modern law for centuries)... what justification is there to deny access of consenting adults to the contract?

[AsReil]

Marriage is predominantly a religious practice; outside of that, it's just a contract that essentially counts two people as one (with some sweet tax benefits). I don't see why it would be a right, since separation of church and state is a thing

I really don't think you'd find consensus among anthropologists, historians, theologians, etc. that marriage is a predominantly religious practice... especially since it's hard to pin down when "religion" as we know it emerged in humans. You could just as much argue that marriage began as a business transaction between families that happened to gain religious trappings to legitimize itself. And the concept of civil marriage (i.e. having marriages registered by the state for the purposes of enforcing inheritance, joint property and such) first emerged in England... a country that doesn't have separation of church and state.

To turn your argument around, since civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage (and has been in modern law for centuries)... what justification is there to deny access of consenting adults to the contract?

I feel it has just as much belonging as a constitutional right as breathing or owning a pet does.

[Oneracon]

I really don't think you'd find consensus among anthropologists, historians, theologians, etc. that marriage is a predominantly religious practice... especially since it's hard to pin down when "religion" as we know it emerged in humans. You could just as much argue that marriage began as a business transaction between families that happened to gain religious trappings to legitimize itself. And the concept of civil marriage (i.e. having marriages registered by the state for the purposes of enforcing inheritance, joint property and such) first emerged in England... a country that doesn't have separation of church and state.

To turn your argument around, since civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage (and has been in modern law for centuries)... what justification is there to deny access of consenting adults to the contract?

I feel it has just as much belonging as a constitutional right as breathing or owning a pet does.

You're shifting goalposts and ignoring the question, As. Though I suppose that's for the best since this has become a bit of a threadjack.

[Geilinor]

I really don't think you'd find consensus among anthropologists, historians, theologians, etc. that marriage is a predominantly religious practice... especially since it's hard to pin down when "religion" as we know it emerged in humans. You could just as much argue that marriage began as a business transaction between families that happened to gain religious trappings to legitimize itself. And the concept of civil marriage (i.e. having marriages registered by the state for the purposes of enforcing inheritance, joint property and such) first emerged in England... a country that doesn't have separation of church and state.

To turn your argument around, since civil marriage is distinct from religious marriage (and has been in modern law for centuries)... what justification is there to deny access of consenting adults to the contract?

I feel it has just as much belonging as a constitutional right as breathing or owning a pet does.

I would consider breathing a right, as the opposite of breathing is death.

[Camicon]

Buckle up, kids, this is a long one.

I'd like to say thank you for a polite debate instead of just calling me a cuck or nazi- props. You also seem to be very experienced in the post formats and shortcuts, I'm finding it difficult to not be overwhelmed by the amount of detail in this- props 2x.

Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing as gender and gender identity.

Gender and sex are defined as the same thing, therefore sex = gender/identity, and thus makes the bill seem inclusive.
If this bill were about racial or special identity, would you still defend it? There are plenty of people who identify as something completely physically different from what they are (and I'm not talking about gender). This just proves my point- there's no need to be this inclusive, as everyone [which means everyone] is already legally equal.

Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct. They are not the same thing.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with this little gem:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This is why the CoRaF can guarantee "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" while also placing upon that freedom the restriction of "you can't refuse service to someone because they are X". Contrary to what you seem to believe, being a bigot is illegal in some circumstances.

Okay? I thought I already agreed with this...
You have the right to say what you want, that's freedom of speech, it's when,what,where, and to whom you say it that matters

That's not what "freedom of speech" is. Freedom of speech refers specifically to what kind of laws the government can make regarding our right to freely express ourselves, which is why I brought up the first clause of the CoRaF. You do not have the right to say whatever you want in Canada, there are certain things that are illegal to say thanks to that clause.

Regardless. Someone's gender and gender identity are as intrinsic to their personhood as their sex or sexual orientation is. Discriminating against someone because of the former is as wrong as discriminating against someone because of the latter.

Nobody is required to serve anyone if they are being disrespectful. They are required to serve someone even if they claim exemption on religious grounds, because religious freedom does not include the freedom to be a discriminatory dickwagon. Refusing service can be, but is not necessarily, discrimination.

Language, sir [or miss]
No one is required to serve anyone, it's entirely their choice. It might cost them their job, but it's still up to them- freedom blah blah, [it's obvious I'm American]
Which also proves my second point that you're allowed to be discriminatory, but you will have consequences if used unwisely.... have we lost track of our points?
For example, I'm allowed to be racist and preach the rhetoric, just not in the workplace.

Fuck that, I'll swear if I want to.

But you seem to be confused. There is a difference between "discrimination" in common parlance and "discrimination" in legal parlance. I'm using the latter.

Your business cannot refuse service to someone because of [protected class]. If there are multiple employees you do not personally need to serve someone, another employee can, and you'll be fine. This has nothing to do with whether or not the company that employs you will fire you for refusing to serve certain people.

Nobody is required to serve anyone if they are being disrespectful

err, that's muddy water, because it has to deal with feelings and what the worker constitutes as disrespectful. I'm kind of iffy on this.

They are required to serve someone even if they claim exemption on religious grounds,

so if my religion says that I can't touch an asian person, but my line of work is physical therapy, I'm required to help them? I feel it'd be easier to just get a colleague to take that patient. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb righty

You, personally? Not necessarily, but your business can't refuse them service. You can have someone that isn't racist work with asian people, but if you were the only employee of the business then you would have to serve them.

You seem to have absolutely no clue as to what transgender people face on a daily basis. And your personal opinion on how the transgender community is treated online in no way translates to how they are treated in reality.

Then... yours in invalid as well...
I interact with millennials on a daily basis, and from what I've seen, there are about 40-50 underage 'trans' kids in a 5k person facility. kids- and that's just from what I see, who knows how many have actually undergone surgery or taken hormones.( yes, these are millennials not adults, blah blah I'm not a part of the real world blah blah you got me) My point is that I do know what they face, or at least what these ones do. I live in a red former confederate state, and I have never once heard of or seen discrimination towards them. They're even allowed to use their preferred bathroom. That is just my view, however, I'm sure there are places where they're mistreated; my opinion was formed from these experiences, making it true to me. That does not mean my views are incapable of being swayed.

Except that I'm not including anecdotes in my argument. Just go look at the stats, and you'll see how wildly they vary from how you think transgender people are treated. Transgender people are much more likely to commit suicide, to suffer from depression and anxiety, to be homeless. The list is quite extensive.

And, even if these transgender kids you see are somehow avoiding all of that, their one experience does not invalidate the tens of thousands of others across the country. Reality doesn't give a damn about your opinion.

What you don't seem to grasp is that for "discrimination" to be illegal, we need to specify what it is illegal to discriminate against. For instance, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because you think they are an asshole, because being an asshole is not protected under the law. I can't discriminate against someone because they are a man or woman, because a person's sex is protected under the law. Bill C-16 will make a person's gender and gender identity protected under the law, because it currently is not and it is as intrinsic to a person as every other protected status on the books.

Yeah you can, technically. No policeman is gonna arrest me because I wouldn't let my wife drive the car 'cause she's a girl, that's just being rude, which isn't illegal. However, if I didn't hire a woman because of her sex, yes, I could be in legal trouble. Discrimination is only a problem when in relation to services and work. It's not legal to deny a job to someone because they're trans, because that would be discrimination of their sex/gender, sexual orientation, and could probably be twisted with creed as well. See what I'm getting at? This excessive bill would do literally nothing.

Again, there is a difference between "discrimination" in common parlance and "discrimination" in legal parlance. And sex and gender are not the same thing.

​​

This isn't "special treatment", this is "preventing assholes from discriminating against people because of gender or gender identity". This change protects cisgender people as much as it does transgender people, because everyone has a gender and gender identity.

which is already protected under the CHRA. See my first response.

The one where you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between sex and gender?

I can't fault you on the correlation, since that's the original meaning of the word. North American dialects of English messed around with it.

Also it isn't different in the US. From the FRC source that you linked on the last page, even they explicitly state: "Because the Supreme Court in Obergefell held that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, states now must license same-sex marriages and recognize those from out-of-state on the same terms as natural marriage. However, the ruling does not interfere with state laws permitting pastors to solemnize marriages as they wish" (emphasis mine).

Marriage is predominantly a religious practice; outside of that, it's just a contract that essentially counts two people as one (with some sweet tax benefits). I don't see why it would be a right, since separation of church and state is a thing

This is Canada, not the US. Marriage is explicitly a secular, civil ceremony, regardless of how many people have it performed by a priest.

We also don't have a separation of church and state. We have no clause in our constitution or the CoRaF about the matter, which leaves our government able to make religious accommodations, or set restrictions, that would never be constitutional down south.

[Nation of Quebec]

With all the focus on the Conservative leadership race, people seem to forget that the NDP has one going on. To be honest I forgot about it as well.

Speaking of, MP Peter Julian is expected to announce his candidacy. I don't know too much about him, but he seems to be the only serious contender right now.

Considering that at the moment the Liberals have courted both soft Conservative and NDP voters, I don't think the NDP will be that strong of a contender in 2019 as they were in 2015 and 2011. They won't do as well as they did under Layton, and I'm predicting that until people get sick of the Liberals and Conservatives, they'll be stuck as the third party for the next few election cycles.

[Camicon]

With all the focus on the Conservative leadership race, people seem to forget that the NDP has one going on. To be honest I forgot about it as well.

Speaking of, MP Peter Julian is expected to announce his candidacy. I don't know too much about him, but he seems to be the only serious contender right now.

Considering that at the moment the Liberals have courted both soft Conservative and NDP voters, I don't think the NDP will be that strong of a contender in 2019 as they were in 2015 and 2011. They won't do as well as they did under Layton, and I'm predicting that until people get sick of the Liberals and Conservatives, they'll be stuck as the third party for the next few election cycles.

Depends on what the Liberals do, and if the NDP go back to their "slightly left of Liberal" roots. If the Liberals continue to break promises that they made to court soft NDP voters, and the NDP get a charismatic leader that doesn't try to out-flank the Liberals on the centre-right, 2019 could be a showdown between the NDP and Tories. And if the Tories choose someone that is as polarizing and unacceptable as Harper was to lead the party, you could see soft Liberal voters strategically vote for the NDP, a reverse of what happened in 2015.

Probably won't happen, but there's a fair bit of time left until 2019.

[Sanctissima]

With all the focus on the Conservative leadership race, people seem to forget that the NDP has one going on. To be honest I forgot about it as well.

Speaking of, MP Peter Julian is expected to announce his candidacy. I don't know too much about him, but he seems to be the only serious contender right now.

Considering that at the moment the Liberals have courted both soft Conservative and NDP voters, I don't think the NDP will be that strong of a contender in 2019 as they were in 2015 and 2011. They won't do as well as they did under Layton, and I'm predicting that until people get sick of the Liberals and Conservatives, they'll be stuck as the third party for the next few election cycles.

That's pretty much my view on the situation as well.

They seem to be going back to their Socialist roots, and are gradually becoming more of a niche party than anything. It's a shame, really. Layton's NDP was looking quite promising.

[Sanctissima]

With all the focus on the Conservative leadership race, people seem to forget that the NDP has one going on. To be honest I forgot about it as well.

Speaking of, MP Peter Julian is expected to announce his candidacy. I don't know too much about him, but he seems to be the only serious contender right now.

Considering that at the moment the Liberals have courted both soft Conservative and NDP voters, I don't think the NDP will be that strong of a contender in 2019 as they were in 2015 and 2011. They won't do as well as they did under Layton, and I'm predicting that until people get sick of the Liberals and Conservatives, they'll be stuck as the third party for the next few election cycles.

Depends on what the Liberals do, and if the NDP go back to their "slightly left of Liberal" roots. If the Liberals continue to break promises that they made to court soft NDP voters, and the NDP get a charismatic leader that doesn't try to out-flank the Liberals on the centre-right, 2019 could be a showdown between the NDP and Tories. And if the Tories choose someone that is as polarizing and unacceptable as Harper was to lead the party, you could see soft Liberal voters strategically vote for the NDP, a reverse of what happened in 2015.

Probably won't happen, but there's a fair bit of time left until 2019.

Eh, my guess is that unless the PC and NDP churn out some very charismatic candidates, the Liberals will be getting another term in office. Even with the broken promises, my guess is they can still pull off a victory with a minority government.

[Saiwania]

Kevin O'Leary is the one. He needs to be put in charge of Canada. What an honor it must be for Canada to have the possibility of a Shark being at the helm. He knows how to make money and will turn Canada profitable again.

[Camicon]

Kevin O'Leary is the one. He needs to be put in charge of Canada. What an honor it must be for Canada to have the possibility of a Shark being at the helm. He knows how to make money and will turn Canada profitable again.

Kevin O'Leary is the epitome of a heartless, profit-before-all-else capitalist. Fuck him. We don't need that shit in our government.

Government is not, and never should be, a business.

[Oneracon]

With all the focus on the Conservative leadership race, people seem to forget that the NDP has one going on. To be honest I forgot about it as well.

Speaking of, MP Peter Julian is expected to announce his candidacy. I don't know too much about him, but he seems to be the only serious contender right now.

Considering that at the moment the Liberals have courted both soft Conservative and NDP voters, I don't think the NDP will be that strong of a contender in 2019 as they were in 2015 and 2011. They won't do as well as they did under Layton, and I'm predicting that until people get sick of the Liberals and Conservatives, they'll be stuck as the third party for the next few election cycles.

So Peter Julian is officially in and maybe the race can start! Honestly had my fingers crossed for Cheri DiNovo (before she ended her run) but at this point the race getting started is better than nothing.

[San Lumen]

Kevin O'Leary is the one. He needs to be put in charge of Canada. What an honor it must be for Canada to have the possibility of a Shark being at the helm. He knows how to make money and will turn Canada profitable again.

Kevin O'Leary is the epitome of a heartless, profit-before-all-else capitalist. Fuck him. We don't need that shit in our government.

Government is not, and never should be, a business.

running the government like business never works. a county doesn't exist to make profit and sadly America will have to learn that lesson the hard way. I hope Canada doesn't make the same mistake.

[Oneracon]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

[Camicon]

So after a meeting with avowed "anti-SJW" crusader Jordan Peterson, Maxime Bernier announced that he will repeal Bill C-16 (which extends federal hate crime protections to include gender identity and expression) if he leads the Conservatives to victory in the next election.

He attributed the origin of the bill to the "proliferation of groups that claim various sexual identities in recent years", he goes to say that Bill C-16 is an attack on freedom of speech and attributes it to these groups which are "radical left-wing activists trying to deconstruct traditional social norms and impose their marginal perspective on everyone, including by forcing us to change the way we talk."

This despite the fact that he voted for Bill C-16 in October at the division vote when the bill was at second reading. There isn't a record of how he voted at third reading since it was passed on a voice vote. (Voting on division, where each individual member's vote is counted and recorded, is only done in the House of Commons if 5 MPs request that the Speaker do so)

Public statement on Bernier's page: https://www.facebook.com/notes/maxime-b ... 3654082420
PressProgress story (blah-dee-bloo it's whinging leftie bias, sue me): https://www.pressprogress.ca/conservati ... egislation

Isn't Bernier supposed to be one of the sane ones?

[Saint Fedski]

Isn't Bernier supposed to be one of the sane ones?

It's almost like you're inferring that Conservatives are insane.

[Camicon]

Isn't Bernier supposed to be one of the sane ones?

It's almost like you're inferring that Conservatives are insane.

Given that was referring to Bernier as a Tory leadership candidate, no, I am not.

Is there anything else you'd like to misinterpret?

[Saint Fedski]

My apologies, that should've been 'imply' not 'infer'