Tag Archives: Abortion

QP: More childish passport drama

Posted on by

The prime minister was in town, but meeting the president of Moldova, while his deputy was at G7 meetings in Japan. Most of the other leaders were also present, for what it’s worth. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, decrying the “wokeist” ideology of the prime minster taking photos of Terry Fox and Vimy Ridge out of the passport in lieu of “colouring book” pages and a supposed picture of the prime minster swimming at Herrington Lake (which is not true). Sean Fraser said that people don’t learn history from passport photos, but actual books, and talking to veterans. Poilievre went again in English, voting to “bring home” the old images and what they represent if he forms government. Fraser took a swipe that the Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on heroes like Terry Fox. Poilievre then pretended that the PM was present and too afraid to answer, before decrying a “second carbon tax.” Steven Guilbeault noted that the premier of New Brunswick just adopted the federal system at the urging of one of the Conservative MPs. Poilievre repeated his antics again, and Guilbeault tried to quote from the Conservative platform before he was shouted down, and after the Speaker demanded silence, Guilbeault went on a tear about if Poilievre considers him “woke,” then he provided his own wrong definition. Poilievre turned this around with a stream of bullshit about what he thinks “woke” means, and doesn’t. Karina Gould stood up this time to decry the Conservatives opposing government help to people who need it.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc and yet again decried the “century initiative” and demanded the government not increase immigration levels. Fraser said that the initiative is not a government policy and they are bringing in needed workers while still protecting French. Alain Therrien started screaming about nobody wanting this kind of immigration, and Dominic LeBlanc spoke about seeing all kinds of signs in Quebec about people needing workers and not finding them.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and in French, lamented that the Liberals  were all talk about protecting abortion but not doing anything to increase access (which is provincial jurisdiction). Jenna Sudds stood up to recite that the usual lines about Conservatives attacking abortion rights. Singh repeated the question in English, and this time, Mélanie Joly stood up to give a more vociferous denunciation of Conservatives and insisting that this a government was doing more to protect abortion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Chief Justice is not happy about mounting judicial vacancies

Posted on by

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Wagner, wrote to the prime minister about the state of judicial vacancies, of which there are currently 88, and that this is causing problems with the criminal justice system. Of course, the problems in the system are multi-faceted—provinces aren’t resourcing courts, and they have provincial judicial vacancies of their own, but this was the Chief Justice, on behalf of the Canadian Judicial Council, pointing out that this is a problem that the federal government has created for itself, and needs to address.

This has been a problem this government has had since the very start—they insist on self-nominations rather than in doing the work of going out and identifying people who are suited for particular vacancies, and tapping them to fill them. It’s not just judicial vacancies either—it’s senators, heads of tribunals, Officers of Parliament, you name it. And because they insist on diversifying their appointments (which is a good thing!) this makes self-nominations even more difficult because the people they want to apply don’t, because they have been conditioned by society not to see themselves in those roles (i.e. they think judges are all old white men, so they don’t apply if they’re not). And the government knows this is a problem. It has been pointed out to them time and again, for years now.

But what do they do? Pat themselves on the back for all of the great appointments they’ve made so far. I wish I were kidding, but that’s their response, and it’s continually their response because a) they don’t like to admit that they’re going about these appointments in the wrong way; and b) they’re justifying their failure to do something about the mess they made for themselves. And it’s not like the previous guys were much better, with decidedly male-heavy appointments, and doing things like appointing Peter MacKay’s wedding party to the bench, because that also was not great. But this inability to learn from their failures is one of this government’s big problems as they get increasingly fatigued, and if they don’t do something about it, it’s going to cost them.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces fired 25 cruise missiles at Kyiv overnight on Tuesday, in advance of their Victory Day, of which 23 were shot down, claiming they hit ammunition stores. Their Victory Day parade was pretty spare, given how badly they have depleted their forces in the war. Meanwhile European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen visited Kyiv for Europe Day, which is in part a further signal that Ukraine continues in its intentions to turn westward away from Russia.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A couple of not-that-scathing reports

Posted on by

The Auditor General released two reports yesterday on pandemic befits programmes and vaccine procurement, and they were…not explosive. Really. There were weak spots from the government, in large part because of the haste in which these programmes were designed because of the pandemic, and some inefficiency, but on the report about vaccines, part of the problem with wastage is because of a lack of provincial data, because the federal government hasn’t been able to sign agreements with the provinces. And as we’ve seen all too often, this is the fault of the provinces.

Nevertheless, the Conservatives were salivating over this release and put on a whole dog and pony show to decry that this was a sign that this government’s “wasteful spending” is what is fuelling inflation, which isn’t true, but this is the narrative they have been trying to push, and these numbers were ripe for the plucking. And as they do with every other officer of Parliament, they misconstrued the report, cherry-picked figures, and cranked up the hyperbole, and lo, this was scandalous. But that’s not what the report found. And it also ignores that they voted unanimously to design the benefit programmes this way because it was more important to get the money out the door.

Anyway, here’s Jennifer Robson’s read of the report, and it’s worth your time.

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 287:

Another drone strike within Russia set a third airfield ablaze, though the Ukrainians have not claimed responsibility for the attack. (Video here) More Russian missiles did strike civilian targets in Ukraine, but they were said to be less severe than other attacks in recent weeks. The strikes against Russian airfields have Russian bloggers questioning the competence of their government’s defences.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1600135762179018752

Continue reading →

QP: More outrage clips about the carbon price

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in the Magdalen Islands to survey Hurricane Fiona damage there, his deputy was once again in the House of Commons for yet another round of the same talking points, back and forth. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and worried that the federal government was somehow hindering Quebec’s ability to build new hydroelectric dams to produce green electricity to power electric cars. Chrystia Freeland dismissed this as the Conservatives not having a plan for the environment. Poilievre shot back that the government doesn’t have an environment plan, but only a tax plan and that they have not met any reduction target (as though his government didn’t sabotage those efforts at every turn), and then complained about the carbon price in places like BC. Freeland reiterated that the Conservatives don’t have an environmental plan, but only a plan to plunder pensions and hurt Canadians. Poilievre tried his “JustInflation” line again and accused the government of raising taxes on paycheques, which are not taxes. Freeland said the Conservatives are only good for strutting but only want to drain pensions and keep kids from going to the dentist. Poilievre cited a poll that says that 51 percent of people are struggling to eat, and accused the government of being out of tough. Freeland said that the Conservatives were out of touch for a plan to raid pensions and slash EI, or to not have a plan for the climate as our customers—the US and the EU—will only buy our products if we have a climate plan. Poilievre tried again, trying to feign a tone of unctuous concern for people who can’t eat or find a home, but Freeland listed the actions they have taken which have reduced poverty, and finished off with a Bitcoin dig.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he worried about Roxham Road, saying the quiet part out loud in worrying about “cultural integration,” and wanted an Ethics Committee investigation on the CBSA contracts at the crossing. Freeland responded with a paean about the importance of immigration to our economy and in the strength of the refugee system. Blanchet chided her that Roxham Road is not about labour but humanitarian efforts—which is true—and demanded the contracts all be tabled publicly. Freeland said that as a border issue, they are working with the Americans, including on the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and said that he would be meeting with Autumn Pelletier about her petition about clean water for Indigenous communities. Freeland very slowly noted that as wonderful as Canada is, it has an original sin of our treatment of Indigenous people, and the government was working to rectify that. Singh repeated the question in French, and Freeland reminded him that they have invested heavily and there is still more work to do.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Threats only matter when it’s your family

Posted on by

The chatter yesterday morning was that the Diagolon crew talked on their online show about raping Pierre Poilievre’s wife just to prove that they could, and lo, Poilievre got angry, referred this to the RCMP, and called the Diagolon crew dirt bags and insisted he had never heard of this group before, even though he very clearly had, and had been playing footsie with them like he has with a bunch of other far-right extremists. And yes, it’s horrifying that they would make these kinds of comments—which they insist were just “a joke” and that they meant no harm (far-right extremists are always “just joking” until they’re not), but Poilievre only seemed to care about rape threats when they were directed as his family, and not, say, the female journalists who reported on his connections with Diagolon, for whom Poilievre decried as a “smear” and sent his flying monkeys after them, who were again subjected to all manner of graphic rape and death threats, which he has never denounced. You see where this is going?

https://twitter.com/TedFriendlyGuy/status/1574412812574769152

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 215:

It is apparently the last day of Russia’s sham referendum in occupied regions of Ukraine, while their forces have conducted drone airstrikes on the port of Odessa.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brown tries to defend himself

Posted on by

It’s day one-hundred-and-thirty-four of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it sounds like Ukrainian forces have held off any Russian advances in the north of Donetsk province, as Russians shell the city of Sloviansk and other nearby populated areas. Russians are also trying to seize control of the highway linking the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. Meanwhile, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev is warning against trying to punish Russia for the invasion, with thinly-veiled threats about nuclear conflict, so that’s some nightmare fuel for you.

Closer to home, the day was largely consumed with Patrick Brown trying to refute the allegations against him, insisting that he wasn’t given any details he could substantively repudiate to the party brass, and that this was all the work of Poilievre loyalists on the leadership committee who were afraid that he wanted to take the party in a different direction with the help of members signed up from ethno-cultural communities (with some unspoken allegations of racism there). But beyond this, he was also contending with allegations from mismanagement from his own city council, and the memories of questionable conduct when he was Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader around certain loans (and this is without even bringing up the even older sexual assault allegations that ended said leadership). Brown, incidentally, dismissed those city council allegations as well, citing that they are from the faction of council that opposes him, and that everything has already been cleared up.

For the party’s part, they didn’t do themselves any favours by rushing the meeting and then putting out the disqualification release close to midnight, and it really just gave ammunition to Brown to claim that this was all a conspiracy of Poilievre-loyalists against him, and the fact that it was a reputed 11-6 decision also gave him fodder to work with. But the party president was doing media rounds as well, and insisted that the allegations didn’t come from the Poilievre camp, but from inside Brown’s own tent—the call is coming from inside the house. And while the party president also said there was no route to appeal, Brown has hired a very good law firm to try and overturn this decision, so we’ll see where this goes. Nevertheless, if he remains disqualified, this could have the effect of unmotivating the members Brown signed up, and giving Poilievre a better chance of taking the race on the first ballot, which he would need, otherwise the ranked ballot starts doing unexpected things (and no, they aren’t reprinting the ballots, so Brown will still be on it, but his votes not counted and the down ballot support redistributed).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Reverberations north of the border

Posted on by

We’re now in day one-hundred-and-twenty-two of Russia’s invasion of Ukriane, and it looks like the battle for Severodonestk is ending as Ukrainian forces are withdrawing before they are completely encircled. That means Russians are now advancing on its twin city of Lysychansk, across the river, which will secure hold on the Luhansk province. More heavy American weaponry is arriving, but we’ll see if it’s enough to change the balance.

Closer to home, there was a lot of reaction in Canada to the US Supreme Court overturning the Roe v Wade decision, which essentially re-criminalises abortions in many states. Conservative leadership candidate Leslyn Lewis was quick to jump on it to encourage an “adult conversation” about it in Canada, which apparently involves abortion doctors being mind-readers and taking away these rights from women in other countries. (Other Conservative leadership candidates, including Pierre Poilievre, have reiterated that they are pro-choice). There are also a bunch of voices, some of whom are concern trolling, others of whom are genuinely clueless, who point out that Justin Trudeau hasn’t done anything to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution, which is a) dumb, and b) counter-productive as it actually plays into the hands of anti-abortionists who would use the opportunity to introduce limits. Yes, Trudeau has promised more about access, and he has tasked both ministers Duclos and Ien with consultations on adding regulations to the Canada Health Act around abortion access, but that’s not something that can happen overnight, as there is a process for regulation, and as we have long established, putting strings on healthcare funding for provinces is touchy business. But provinces are where the fight is in Canada, because they control access.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1540380879519875073

There was also a number of news programmes yesterday which ran interviews with anti-abortionists in a completely uncritical fashion, allowing them to frame the conversation in their usual bullshit terms, and getting only the most minor pushback to some of their claims of popular support for their cause. These kinds of uncritical interviews are key to how misinformation and disinformation is spread through the media, because they have no capacity to do anything other than both-sides the issue, which again, allows misinformation and disinformation to spread because it isn’t challenged. We are fully in the age of disinformation, and our media outlets have learned absolutely nothing about how to deal with it, and yesterday was case in point about that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Brown’s poor choice of words

Posted on by

It is approximately day ninety-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia has stormed the city of Sievierodonetsk after trying unsuccessfully to encircle it. Some 90 percent of the cities buildings are damaged, and Russian forces have not cared about civilian casualties. At the same time, president Volodymyr Zelensky ventured out of Kyiv and visited the city of Kharkiv, and thanked the Ukrainian defenders in that city who pushed the Russian invasion back on that front.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is getting new shore-to-ship missiles from Denmark while howitzers from the US are arriving, and it is hoped that these missiles can help better defend their coast line (and possibly sink the Russian Black Sea fleet in the process). Also, here is a look at those evacuating from cities like Lysychansk in eastern Ukraine.

Closer to home, Patrick Brown is trying to walk back on his calling social conservatives “dinosaurs” in his book, saying it was a “poor choice of words.” But he was trying to make a point in the statement that those dinosaurs are becoming less relevant to the party, which in Ontario especially, tends to mean that you need to go on bended knee to Charles McVety and his particular ilk so that you can get their endorsement, which Doug Ford was certainly willing to do, and Brown was not, instead trying to expand the party membership through other ethno-cultural communities that could go around that traditional social conservative membership bloc. And I’ve heard certain Conservative organisers say that they want “open memberships” like the Liberals have in order to grow the party away from being beholden to the social conservatives—erm, but maybe you should just adopt more centrist or mainstream policies that will attract more people to the party if you want to move away from that particular base. Mind you, there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in that those members will keep fighting to keep the policy book in their favour, but there is also no guarantee that “open memberships” will help you organise around these social conservatives any differently either. Suffice to say, if the party wants to grow away from this base, it requires a lot more organisational ability than they seem to be demonstrating to date.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “debate” spectacle sans substance

Posted on by

It is now around day seventy-eight of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it looks like the Ukrainians have made some gains in the eastern part of the country, pushing Russian forces out of four villages near Kharkiv. Meanwhile, a team of Ukrainian soldiers has been tasked with revisiting recent battlefields around Kyiv to gather the dead, and have recovered the remains of around 200 Russian soldiers thus far. It sounds like they may try to return these bodies to Russia in exchange for prisoners, but we’ll see if those kinds of deals hold.

Closer to home, it was the first official English debate of the Conservative leadership race, and it was…an experience. While it was not the hostile snipe-fest that was the Conference Formerly Known As the Manning Conference debate, it was a strange format where they tried to have limited engagements between candidates, to control the temptation to talk over one another, and then insisted that the audience not clap or boo, which…defeats the whole point of a live audience, and it was a real choice to try and control their reactions. And it had a sad trombone sound. No, seriously. Not every segment was on policy—some of it were personal, asking candidates what they’re reading, or the kinds of music they like, which is fine and humanizes them a little. (But seriously, Roman Baber choosing Amy Winehouse? Has he ever listened to what she has to say in her lyrics?)

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1524548247456559104

Some observation on each candidate, in the drawn order of their opening statements:

  • Scott Aitchison: While he is aiming to be the reasonable, middle-of-the-road candidates, there are plenty of places where he displays the intellectual heft of the truck commercial he launched his campaign with. A lot of what he offered is not really credible, particularly on environmental or resource development files.
  • Roman Baber: I’m not going to mince words. Honestly, this guy is a moron. He says a lot of things that he’s picked up in the online discourse, but none of it makes any sense, most of it is contradictory, and he’s utterly vacuous—but nobody would call him on that.
  • Patrick Brown: While he kept insisting that he’s the only one who can deliver the suburbs like in the GTA, Brown also made some particular missteps, like insisting he would advance a no-fly zone over Ukraine (essentially committing Canada to a shooting war with a nuclear power), or that the point of reconciliation with Indigenous people is so that we can build more pipelines.
  • Pierre Poilievre: Aside from just using “freedom!” in as many answers as possible, he opened by outright attacking the Bank of Canada and saying he would replace the governor if he were to form government, which is a pretty big bomb to drop. He lied and prevaricated about his previous statements and positions, particularly during the Bitcoin portion of the evening. But the longer the evening went on, the more it became clear that he was just going down the right-wing populist checklist and name-checking every item on it, whether it was saying he’s reading Jordan Peterson’s book, or that he wants to fight “government censorship.” He displayed no principles, just virtue-signalling to the crowd he is courting.
  • Leslyn Lewis: Mostly said a lot of hyperbolic things about how “divided” the country is because of COVID, and that she is somehow going to heal the divides between people who believe in science and evidence, and anti-vaxxers who don’t care how many people they infect because they refuse to wear a mask or stay home. How does plan to heal those divides? Who knows?
  • Jean Charest: Charest was more pugnacious and was willing to break debate rules in order to how do you do, fellow kids?, and insist that he’s the only one who can unite east and west…but he too made a bunch of fairly questionable pronouncements. Like private healthcare delivery could have avoided lockdowns (erm, you saw the States, right?) or that he would cut income taxes to fight inflation (which is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline).

It was an event that begged for booze (which I did not imbibe in, because I had this post to write). But I will leave you with Paul Wells’ suitably acerbic take on the event, which sums the lunacy of it up nicely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Soon there will be two Victory Days

Posted on by

It is now approximately day seventy-six of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and there was an expectation of some kind of declaration by Russia of general war or similar given that it was Victory Day in that country, but it did not come. Instead, Vladimir Putin framed the invasion as a necessary move to ward off potential aggression by the west and NATO (which, erm, is a defensive alliance). In Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy used the occasion to reframe Victory Day for Ukrainians, as having defeated Nazism in their country once and they are moving to do so again, and that soon they will have two Victory Days.

Closer to home, we had yet another incident of an MP being on Zoom while in the bathroom, and I just can’t, you guys. This situation was pretty intolerable to begin with, and was only supposed to be for a short duration, but MPs keep extending it, never mind the fact that there can be no moral justification to do so when it endangers the health and safety of the interpretation staff (seriously, they are subjecting themselves to strain that could result in permanent hearing loss), because MPs can’t be arsed to create safe conditions to meet in person, and the government is too busy patting themselves on the back for being good role models for working from home rather than being an example of an institution that created the safe conditions to return to work. And two years later, we still have MPs who can’t be bothered to use their microphones properly, who can’t mute and unmute themselves properly, and who keep bringing their gods damned computers with them to the bathroom.

Enough is enough. It’s time to end hybrid sittings once and for all. There is no justification for it, particularly if you insist that MPs be masked in the Chamber at all times except for when they’re speaking (looking at you, Conservative caucus), and that they can organise themselves to minimise travel or public exposure. Their choice to be selfish and lazy is just that—a choice. And it’s one we should be holding them to account for.

Continue reading →