|
Dolash posted:It's nice to be reminded, from time to time, that among one's political opponents are examples of actual evil and not just misguided ignorance or good intentions paired with poor judgement. History's got some real head scratchers on this theme. One of Tommy Douglas' political staffers was an ex Ku Klux Klan organiser: http://members.shaw.ca/prairiegiant/public_html/Hist_KKK.html  On the other hand, with over 100 chapters in Saskatchewan there probably wasn't much choice if you were hiring local. Whatever one thinks of the Harper government's laws there seems to be a serious systemic problem with its members respecting democratic principles. edit: 100 is bad enough, no need to typo it higher. Hexigrammus fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Nov 14, 2013 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
JoelJoel posted:e: okay, poor jokes aside, is there an end? Like is there a theoretical point where conservatives will he happy with the harm they've done? When our infrastructure begins to collapse and our government pension cease to exist? When the prisons are so over-filled that we have to defund healthcare to prop up incarcerating a quarter of the population? When we can't loving breath the air anymore? When 95% of Canadians are living in abject poverty? When there are no corporate taxes in any way and the majority of government revenue is directly funneled into these corps? Is this like the rich man that has enough money for his offspring to live in luxury and never work a day for generations and continues to amass wealth? Anything bad that happens will be blamed on liberals and poor people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
I knew a guy who took political science classes with Sona, and apparently he's exactly as much as a loving rear end in a top hat as one would expect. One of the few joys I receive from local politics is the knowledge that his people cannot take Guelph. It's been a little red riding in a sea of blue for over a decade. And seeing how far they're willing to go to try and take it, how completely desperate they were in the last election, I just know it infuriates them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Infiltrated by CSIS and it's founders dissapeared. A Day in the Life of Mr. Wyand
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Infiltrated by CSIS and it's founders dissapeared. As failed goon projects go this would at least be uniquely horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:
You mean Fightback? http://www.marxist.ca/canada/ontario.html There's also Socialist Action http://socialistaction.ca/ Edit: didn't realize you meant a goon thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Communocracy posted:You mean Fightback? http://www.marxist.ca/canada/ontario.html I would be interested in a further discussion of such groups. Do you recommend participation in these specific groups? I've heard the NDP socialist caucus is not the best, but I would like to participate in some political movement outside the electoral sphere (and beyond the environmental movement).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I would be interested in a further discussion of such groups. Do you recommend participation in these specific groups? I've heard the NDP socialist caucus is not the best, but I would like to participate in some political movement outside the electoral sphere (and beyond the environmental movement). Yes. Without endorsing any particular group get out there and get involved in what interests you. You won't regret it. Even if you don't fit in the first group you will meet people who share your interests and views. I've never regretted meeting anyone engaged in the left, even if they are a complete dogmatic douche. Your animosity towards one person in the group can be a signal to others who share it. It's all part of letting your inner political animal roam free. ps I know some socialist action folks (one of the founders was my best man). A good bunch even if they aren't my particular cup of tea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
 Yeah, wow, who could have possibly seen that coming. I know I'm surprised. Are you kidding me? So surprised. I mean wow. How surprised are you guys?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
I became interested in Socialist Action after I went to a few cheap documentary screenings they had. I've been meaning to see what they're about more and maybe participate but it's the hectic season for school work. I went to a Fightback thing with Helsing once where they had a pretty coherent and on point talk, that group's members are a lot younger on average than socialist action's. Again though I haven't really had time to investigate their policies thoroughly but both want to push the NDP from within, as opposed to organizations like the Young Communist League http://www.ycl-ljc.ca/ who want to vote for the actual Communist party. I was talking to some of them at the recent protest against the flow reversal of Line 9 in Toronto a few weeks back and they apparently have issues with Fightback because they said that Fightback wants the Palestinians to just wait patiently until Israel has a Socialist revolution. I don't know if that is their policy or not, that's just what the YCL kid told me. Also one of the YCL girls was telling me Gaddafi was the best option for Libya because they didn't have a proper secular left alternative and that the revolution was a western backed puppet regime. Then a YCL dude standing next to her was like "yeah I don't really agree with that." So there you go, some of them believe dubious things but evidently allow their members to hold dissenting views. It was nice to be at the Line 9 thing on a rainy rear end cold day and see hundreds of people from these groups that seem bitterly divided about some topics be so passionately agreeing about something. I conversed with various people there all day and argued my points of view and it never got hostile. Food not bombs was there handing out bread and snacks http://www.foodnotbombs.net/. Hope this is somewhat informative, I'll try to see more what these groups are about once I pass this winter gauntlet of uni work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Oh also Tl:dr: Ford's office announced he wouldn't march ahead of the Santa Claus parade. Then, presumably in one of his drunken stupors, Ford said he will march after all. Now the board of the Santa Claus parade are pleading with him to stay away. I hope he shows up. I hope he shows up, and he ruins Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's overly simplistic to see it as "Yanks taking our oil," because in the end, it's Canadians doing the trucking, drilling, disposal, completion, and everything else. The oil itself is only part of the equation, and frankly, as long as the services market chugs along, it's the part I care the least about. Not what I meant. New technologies mean that there's a lot more economically recoverable oil inside the States. Same as the vast amounts of natural gas they're starting to dredge up. But if the Americans have lots of domestic oil, that means our lovely tar sands oil sells for even less, compared to whatever carefully selected and ultimately arbitrary benchmark the oil lobby chooses that day. Hence need pipelines everywhere to sell to not Americans. Or so their story has been going for the last few days anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:33
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Tighclops posted:Infiltrated by CSIS and it's founders dissapeared. It's still there. Just, you know, felt weird mostly talking to myself. I was/am going to give it one more effort-post before killing it off, involving some very concrete steps and some actual work on my part, but, well my now former employer just had what one might call a very bad past couple of days. My new job actually has me doing actual work, so I probably won't get to it for a bit, but I'm not giving up on it just yet. But basically I think the reason it started out with a  is was too much asking for input and getting everyone's feedback, so next iteration is going to be more of a Stalinist approach.Failing that I can always try selling to CSIS as a honeypot or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Potentially stupid question, but just making sure: you realise we were talking about warships right? I'll be the first to admit I am really quite ignorant about what our armed forces actually have to deal with day to day, but I didn't think warship-related injuries were really "up there", and certainly $100B sounds like a touch more beyond a safety retrofit. Look, I realize programs like the F-35 are given military procurement an awful awful run (and rightly so), that doesn't mean though despite the lovely and awful backwards system that is procurement these days, that the Canadian Armed Forces doesn't have substantial and legitimate needs for equipment and resources to do its operations. Rolling your eyes at every refitting or program in CAF as "support are troops" is really childish and pathetic. People in this and other threads made great arguments against the F-35, and came ot a logical conclusion that it sucked. So, if you think this Naval procurement sucks, okay great how about telling us instead of coming off as completely ignorant about national defense issues. This reminds me of that stupid Liberal Ad about the Conservatives wanting to put soldiers with SCARY GUNS in our cities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
THC posted:I hope he shows up. I hope he shows up, and he ruins Christmas. You're a mean one, Mr Ford.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:It's still there. Just, you know, felt weird mostly talking to myself. I was/am going to give it one more effort-post before killing it off, involving some very concrete steps and some actual work on my part, but, well my now former employer just had what one might call a very bad past couple of days. My new job actually has me doing actual work, so I probably won't get to it for a bit, but I'm not giving up on it just yet. But basically I think the reason it started out with a He seems pretty chill about that $110 million fine. I assume he has family in some other part of the world he'll be visiting soon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:So, if you think this Naval procurement sucks, okay great how about telling us instead of coming off as completely ignorant about national defense issues. Why don't you tell us why we need warships for national defence then? The burden of proof is on you here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 12:49
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:You're a mean one, Mr Ford. Now now, I'm sure his heart has already grown ten sizes. Just too bad that it's in the medical sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:Just another prong of the death from 1000 cuts strategy. You take the union ability away to attract top talent then efficiency go down then they attach the unions for not being productive, privatize that poo poo and run laughing to the bank. Yep. Alberta's public-sector pension plans, which were pretty loving reasonable in there first place, are looking at massive cuts that will seriously gently caress over anyone who's not already able to retire. Suffice it to say that someone who has less than ten years of current service will see about 1/4 of their retirement obliterated by these changes. As in, they'll have to work 5-7 more years to get the exact same benefits they would have had before. But hey, there's no competitive work options in Alberta, right? This definitely won't result in all the good young talent loving off to work for oil companies. Nope. Not at all. I'm sure fresh university graduates will line right up to take their opportunity to get paid less, be hosed around with whenever the government gets embarrassed, and generally be presumed to be unproductive layabouts. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Rob Ford posted:Oh and the last thing was Olivia Gondek, it says it says that I wanted to eat her pussy. Olivia Gondek. I've never said that in my life to her. I would never do that. I'm And then he said he did drink and drive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
MagicCube posted:Why don't you tell us why we need warships for national defence then? The burden of proof is on you here. Because our military is one of the primary means of legitimating ourselves as a nation on the international stage. Listen, I'm very anti military and seeing the numbers we (and other nations) pump into military spending is loving disgusting, but while we exist in the present international system a military is necessary, especially for a territory like Canada. Best we can do is spend our money wisely and efficiently to ensure the maximum benefit (which is why things like fighter planes that can't patrol our arctic lands are a terrible idea regardless of the cost). I'm getting a  feeling
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
MagicCube posted:Why don't you tell us why we need warships for national defence then? The burden of proof is on you here. The HMCS Queenston and the HMCS Chateauguay are both support ships. I'm not a military expert but it seems like these ships are meant to improve logistical support the coast guard and navy. Unlike the F-35, they would have an actual role in that they could resupply patrolling ships along our coast. IT's kind of crazy that I'm saying this because I was totally on your side until I actually read what these ships will do. The costs are probably highly inflated but these ships seem to serve a purpose beyond geopolitical dick lengthening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:And then he said he did drink and drive. Holy poo poo, I didn't realize this was said on live television. And gotta love the comment about beating the Ti-Cats sandwiched in between threats of litigation and talking about eating his wife's pussy on live television. Can any legal experts clear this up for me. He wants to sue someone because they made a statement to the police which was release as a result of a court case. Is that even possible? Something doesn't seem to add up (unless I'm misreading this and these statements were made somewhere else). Also, as if the Argos have a chance against the Ti-Cats  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Holy poo poo, I didn't realize this was said on live television. I think Ford is proceeding without any actual lawyers or anyone who has any idea what the law entails. I kinda doubt he'd actually be dumb enough to file litigation-- or smart enough to fill out the paperwork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Can any legal experts clear this up for me. He wants to sue someone because they made a statement to the police which was release as a result of a court case. Is that even possible? Something doesn't seem to add up (unless I'm misreading this and these statements were made somewhere else). If the statements are statements of fact (some are [I got out of the car because he was drinking and driving] some are mere speculation [I think they were snorting cocaine.]) which are false (probably not) and would make the mayor look less esteemed in the minds of ordinary members of the public (they would) then he could mount a defamation suit against them. Keep in mind that such a trial would inherently focus on whether the statements were true or not. Ford is highly unlikely to want to get into highly public civil proceedings focused on forensically examining the accuracy of the staffers statements. It shouldn't matter that they were said to police. Anti-Derivative fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:If the statements are statements of fact (some are [I got out of the car because he was drinking and driving] some are mere speculation [I think they were snorting cocaine.]) which are false (probably not) and would make the mayor look less esteemed in the minds of ordinary members of the public (they would) then he could mount a defamation suit against them. Well that's what I mean, can he really sue for slander for something someone said to the police? Like if I smell pot and call the cops and say I smell pot coming from my neighbour and think they may be smoking pot can they later sue me for slander if it turns out that my neighbour simply had pot scented cologne or something? Cocaine Bear fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Ford has threatened litigation numerous times before and he's said he'll debate anyone anytime and anywhere. I would be incredibly shocked if he were not bullshitting again about these latest legal threats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
I believe you have to show you've actually been damaged by slander/libel, which is defacto false accusations, correct? So, like, since Rob admits to being a user of crack and a drunk, it's not really a falsehood for people to say he is one, and if that leads to him losing his mayorship, that's still not slander/libel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Well that's what I mean, can he really sue for slander for something someone said to the police? Like if I smell pot and call the cops and say I smell pot coming from my neighbour and think they may be smoking pot can they later sue me for slander if it turns out that my neighbour simply had pot scented cologne or something? That isn't slander. "I think they may be smoking pot" is an inference made on the basis of the smell. Defamation (the general word for slander and libel) requires it to be a statement of fact. So, if you had said you saw him smoking pot, and that is a lie then sure why wouldn't you be open to a lawsuit. You shouldn't lie to the police anyways so that wouldn't afford you additional protection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
You have to show you've been damaged by defamatory statements, but a statement doesn't have to be false to be damaging (as we are seeing) - truth is a defense to defamation, but in Canada a defendant has to prove the statements are "substantially true", rather than the plaintiff proving they are false. That said I don't really believe he'll sue either, even on the statements he hasn't admitted to yet, because opening himself up to cross-examination under oath on this mess would be stupid even by his standards. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I believe you have to show you've actually been damaged by slander/libel, which is defacto false accusations, correct? So, like, since Rob admits to being a user of crack and a drunk, it's not really a falsehood for people to say he is one, and if that leads to him losing his mayorship, that's still not slander/libel. His admission of crack use and illicit drug purchases should cut the legs out from any litigation. A lawyer would have to comment but I would imagine that statements to the police would be protected as well, otherwise every witness to a crime could be sued.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:His admission of crack use and illicit drug purchases should cut the legs out from any litigation. A lawyer would have to comment but I would imagine that statements to the police would be protected as well, otherwise every witness to a crime could be sued. These people would almost certainly be protected by the latter two in the context of talking to the police, unless Ford could show they said the things they said primarily out of malice. Ford's alleged intoxication(s), intimidation(s), and (sexual) assault(s) are prima facie matters of public interest if they are done in the context of his public service/work. The leading SCC case on defamation is 1995's Hill v. Church of Scientology which covers this stuff for the most part. As mentioned above, the trick with defenses is that the defendant must positively establish them, to which legal costs usually attach. On the other hand, the burden of proof would be on Ford to show he was actually harmed by any of these statements being made. Kenny Logins fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Kenny Logins posted:These people would almost certainly be protected by the latter two in the context of talking to the police, unless Ford could show they said the things they said primarily out of malice. Ford's alleged intoxication(s), intimidation(s), and (sexual) assault(s) are prima facie matters of public interest if they are done in the context of his public service/work. It depends on what statements you are referring to. The staffer who said she vacated Ford's car because he was drinking while driving made a clear statement of fact. Her only defence here is going to be truth (and to be honest I would be surprised if that would be a problem.) That is because if it isn't true, there's no way she could claim privilege for a lie, and a statement of fact is not comment (as opposed to the dude who said he heard snorting and thought Ford was snorting coke, that's an inference which is a mere comment and plausibly fair comment).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Rob Ford is apologizing, again. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/11/13/rob_ford_council_debates_what_action_to_take_against_the_mayor.html Not much to it- he's under stress, wants privacy for his family, and has "support" from health care professionals for his drinking. Again, did not take questions afterward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Kwik posted:Rob Ford is apologizing, again. He basically just attacked some of the media while shoving through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:He basically just attacked some of the media while shoving through. Watch what you say, you might get sued.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:It depends on what statements you are referring to. The staffer who said she vacated Ford's car because he was drinking while driving made a clear statement of fact. Her only defence here is going to be truth (and to be honest I would be surprised if that would be a problem.) That is because if it isn't true, there's no way she could claim privilege for a lie, and a statement of fact is not comment (as opposed to the dude who said he heard snorting and thought Ford was snorting coke, that's an inference which is a mere comment and plausibly fair comment). Whether the girl who left the car of what she thought was a drunk driver is mistaken as to whether the driver was drinking or not, if she was being asked by the police for situations where she honestly believed Ford was drinking and driving and she answered them, that would be enough to protect her. The fact that it was true is the better defence, of course. Thing is, it's either true or it's not, so it either protects you 100% or not at all. Other defences have some middle ground there. Basically, the policy here is that we want citizens to be able to express their beliefs and be able to cooperate with the police in a lawful investigation without opening themselves up to legal attacks, and for these people who were previously protected by "blackouts" this will probably be the policy that abides to protect them. While the average D&D poster will say they are not a legal expert, Ford is even less so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Kwik posted:Rob Ford is apologizing, again. "Please have respect for the privacy of my family. That includes my wife, who has avoided any and all media in the last three years until I decided she should be up here next to me today because I thought you should all see the pussy I was talking about earlier. Don't take pictures of her and DO NOT THINK ABOUT HER PUSSY."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
There's a good analysis of the law surrounding defamation and the courts here. It's written by Christopher Bird, who has some knowledge of these things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
infernal machines posted:There's a good analysis of the law surrounding defamation and the courts here. I kinda feel for Him. Bird not Ford. He's the resident law expert for Torontoist (And tv critic) and despite stating he's sick of writing about Rob Ford, they keep getting him to analyze his legal standings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:40
|
|
