CanPol 2020 - Programmable Hydraulic Guillotines

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2020 - Programmable Hydraulic Guillotines

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Update for extreme latecomers: Trudeau won

Welcome, friends, to the thread for discussing Canada�s upcoming federal election (and also general CanPol discussion during election time). This is it, it�s here, the four-year reign of terror of our selfie-taking, wedding-jogging, boob-elbowing, attorney-general-firing charismatic neoliberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is finally coming to an end�� or is it???

The federal election is scheduled to take place on 21 October 2019, or 57 days from the creation of this thread. That�s soon!

Meet the party leaders:
_{(I wanted funny photoshops here, but I guess we�re all too depressed to make them these days)}

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada since 2015 and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who led the country from 1969-1984 with a brief sabbatical from 1979-80. He won the leadership of the Liberal Party in 2013 with the party at a historic low following Michael Ignatieff�s embarrassing 2011 loss, and despite a series of gaffes that made him appear Just Not Ready^TM he led the party back to a resounding majority win in 2015. Now, four years later, the question is: will the country trust him with another term? The answer is: probably, yes. The last time a prime minister won a majority in their first term and did not win reelection was the 1930s, when R. B. Bennett managed to not get reelected thanks to the Great Depression.

The Honourable Andrew Scheer, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. A career politician first elected in 2004 at age 25, Scheer served as speaker of the House of Commons during the last conservative government, from 2011 to 2015, and was at the time the youngest speaker in Canadian history (aged 32 when selected). He won the party leadership in 2017, just barely squeaking by against the initial frontrunner Maxime Bernier (we�ll get to him later) by a margin of 50.95% to 49.05% in the 13th round of voting, after every other candidate had been eliminated. He�s since been unremarkable and not very inspiring, but has benefited from a series of Trudeau scandals and slip-ups to put his party back in striking distance of the top, despite an internal party split that for a little while seemed to threaten the unity of the Canadian right. He is a Roman Catholic and social conservative who opposes same-sex marriage and abortion and pretty much everything else. Living proof that boomer is a state of mind.

Jagmeet Singh, leader of the New Democratic Party. Previously a criminal defence lawyer, he started in politics in 2011 when he lost a federal election and then won a provincial election in the same year. He left provincial politics in 2017 to run for the leadership of the federal NDP, and was elected as party leader on the first ballot with 53.8% of the vote against some long-time federal NDP opponents. Without a spot in the federal House of Commons, Singh had trouble getting a lot of press until winning a by-election earlier this year in Burnaby, BC. As federal leader he�s had a lot of problems, including several on-camera appearances where he�s seemed unprepared or repeatedly recited talking points verbatim instead of answering questions. He also appears to be not good at fundraising and not very popular among people other than the members who voted him leader, which may have something to do with the fact that he�s the first person of colour to lead a federal political party, but may also have something to do with the fact that he kinda sucks.

Yves-Fran�ois Blanchet, leader of the Bloc Qu�b�cois I guess. As a member of the Parti Qu�b�cois he served in the National Assembly of Quebec from 2008-2014, and won the leadership of the Bloc earlier this year when no one else decided to run. The Bloc still has ten seats in the House of Commons so could theoretically matter, but they won under 5% of the vote last time around so they probably won�t make a big impact this time around either.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. A lawyer and environmental activist since the 70s, May has led the Green Party since 2006 and finally won a seat in Parliament in 2011, where she�s sat ever since. For a long time she was the GPC�s only MP, but recently another Green won a seat in a by-election and NDP MP Pierre Nantel resigned and joined the Greens, bringing them up to a record high three seats in the House. May seems to be tired of her job as party leader because she keeps trying to resign and offer the job to anyone who might want it, only to be repeatedly rebuffed. Once got extremely drunk at a dinner and told the truth about Omar Khadr on live television, which made everyone extremely uncomfortable.

The Honourable Maxime �Mad Max� Bernier, leader of the People�s Party of Canada. First elected in 2006, he has represented the whitest riding in Canada ever since. Under Stephen Harper he served as Minister of Industry, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, then he was demoted because he left a classified briefing book at his girlfriend�s house, then he was Minister for Small Business, Tourism and Agriculture. He ran for the Conservative leadership in 2017 and was the frontrunner, but just barely lost to Andrew Scheer in the final round of voting. Bernier seems to have thought that should make him a major player in the party, but he was instead sidelined by Scheer and repeatedly muzzled when he tried to speak his mind on twitter or in books. Eventually got fed up and quit the party to found his own, which has so far been defined pretty much exclusively by overt racism, a desire to end immigration, and a libertarian desire to destroy the state. Unfortunately for Bernier, it seems Canada may not be quite ready for an overt racist as prime minister yet: the PPC is polling in single digits and Bernier may even lose his own seat this time around. Never count the racists out until they�re actually out, though, because rampant racism is an extremely potent mobilizing force.

What the gently caress who gives a poo poo shut up what have you done for me lately?
Sure okay. Trudeau has been in power for four years. Here are some of the things he has done and not done:

He repeatedly promised to get rid of our First Past the Post voting system, then reneged when his own electoral commission recommended adopting a system of Proportional Representation, which would favour small parties, over a system of Instant-Runoff Voting, which would favour big centrist parties like the LPC. Told the country that people only wanted electoral reform because they hated Stephen Harper so much, and now that Popular Guy Mr. Trudeau was in charge no one cared anymore. His electoral reform minister then justified the U-turn by claiming that math is hard and Canadians don�t want math involved in their voting system. The 2019 election will be conducted as a First Past the Post election.
He legalized marijuana, which he had promised to do, but left it up to the provinces how to legalize it. I�m not a weed expert, but the general consensus seems to be that legalization has been a massive bungle, the gray market dispensaries that were selling high-quality products before legalization were closed, legalization was farmed out to large corporations as a way to make them money, and the end result has usually been lower-quality products at higher prices, which means the black market for marijuana has not actually gone away.
He sold tanks to noted genocidal dictatorship Saudi Arabia, claiming that the contract was already signed under the previous government and that the sanctity of contract law overrides any human rights concerns. That turned out to be a complete lie because the export permit had not yet been granted and so the Liberals could have canceled the deal had they wanted to. Subsequently caught trying to also sell weapons to the Thai military junta, which got Stephane Dion fired as foreign minister.
He implemented a �middle-class tax cut� by decreasing taxes on the $45,000-90,000 tax bracket and increasing them on the $200,000+ tax bracket. The results, as seen in this graph by our own Ikantski/Postess with the Mostest, heavily favoured upper-middle-class people making between $100,000 and $200,000, which disappointed a lot of middle-income people who thought of themselves as middle-class but saw next to no benefit because their incomes were more like $50,000 than $150,000.
He implemented a carbon tax, starting at $20/tonne in 2019 and rising to $50/tonne by 2022, which anyone paying attention to climate change may recognize as laughably tiny compared to the scale of the problem, especially since (unsurprisingly) he also carved out exemptions for the largest business polluters. He gave leeway to the provinces to implement their own carbon tax if they want, but set a federal backstop that would kick in in any provinces that did not do so. Most of our provinces are run by conservatives who refused and also sued the government to try and stop the carbon tax, which failed. The tax is set up so that most of the revenue is distributed back to individual Canadians as rebates, which were set to start arriving this summer, just in time for the election. This is the big issue the Conservatives want to fight the election on, painting it as a Liberal cash grab and a tax on everything. In Ontario, the provincial conservative government even forced gas stations to stick stickers on their pumps talking about the cost of the carbon tax, which, just, gently caress, man, we�re all going to die.
He has repeatedly tried to expedite the construction of pipelines to carry Alberta�s incredibly carbon-intensive and dirty oil to overseas markets. In 2018 he nationalized the Trans Mountain Pipeline, paying $4.5 billion to Texan oil company Kinder Morgan to purchase their pipeline, in hopes that it being government-owned would help them push through a pipeline expansion that has been repeatedly criticized for environmental concerns ranging from expanding carbon infrastructure to the potential for spills at the oil terminal in the Juan de Fuca Strait to the potential for leaks on First Nations territory, and also economic concerns that the pipeline proponents� math doesn�t add up. So far any further construction is stalled by court orders and vigorous anti-pipeline protests, so as yet all we�ve done is hand billions of dollars to a Texan oil company for nothing.
He pressured his then-attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to drop a planned prosecution of major Canadian engineering and construction firm SNC-Lavalin, over corruption concerns that SNC-Lavalin had spent tens of millions of dollars bribing Libyan officials to get the contracts to build torture prisons in the Libyan desert. If convicted, SNC-Lavalin would have been banned from bidding on government contracts for ten years, and they threatened to move their headquarters out of Canada (specifically, out of Montreal, where Trudeau�s own riding is located) if prosecuted. SNC-Lavalin and its executives are also longtime large donors to the Liberal Party of Canada (even to the point of violating election finance laws to donate corporate funds to the LPC), and spent years aggressively lobbying for the law to change so they could get a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) to avoid this whole issue. When Wilson-Raybould refused to enter a DPA with SNC-Lavalin, Trudeau fired her from her post as attorney general and eventually also ejected her and another former minister, Jane Philpott (who resigned over the scandal), from the Liberal Party. Recently the Ethics Commissioner found Trudeau violated federal ethics rules by doing all this. A full writeup of the various twists and turns, put together by our own poster Leofish, is available here, and I recommend you read it for a comprehensive understanding of the scandal. Expect this to come up a lot in other parties� attacks on Trudeau, and Trudeau to defend himself by saying he was standing up for Canadian jobs.
He passed back-to-work legislation to force striking Canada Post workers back on the job, continuing the previous Conservative government�s hostility to unions and strikes. The previous government�s back-to-work legislation was eventually ruled unconstitutional five years later, so I�m sure that was very comforting to the workers forced back on the job with a bad contract.
He introduced the Canada Child Benefit, a means-tested benefit to give money to poor parents, which StatsCan has estimated led to hundreds of thousands of children being lifted out of poverty and contributed to an overall noticeable drop in poverty since its introduction. A legitimately good thing done by the Trudeau government.
He passed a trans rights bill that added gender identity and expression to the list of protected human rights categories, therefore banning discrimination against trans people. This bill also made anti-trans sentiment a valid reason for prosecution on hate speech or hate crimes charges. This bill was what made University of Toronto professor Jordan B. Peterson famous, as he falsely claimed he could now be charged with a hate crime for refusing to acknowledge a trans person�s gender identity, and refusing to use their preferred pronouns. Notably, despite this positive step for trans rights in Canada, Trudeau and the Liberals have refused to pass a bill banning conversion therapy, despite calls to do so.
He admitted tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and made a large display of welcoming them to Canada instead of treating them as a burden or a population of intentional economic migrants. Although much of this was done through facilitating private sponsorship rather than direct government investment, it�s still a positive step. This was also not a one-time thing after the 2015 election but has continued, with Canada overtaking the United States as the world�s top country for resettling refugees in 2018 (due mostly to the United States significantly decreasing its refugee resettlement numbers while ours remained constant). This is a positive thing but has been seized on by the far-right as evidence that Trudeau is a terrorist supporter of the Great Replacement who wants Muslims to colonize Canada and make white people extinct. I wish that were a joke.
Like all Canadian politicians, Trudeau is abominably bad on indigenous rights, even though he has taken a couple of baby steps forward from the previous government. Our own Stickarts has put together a fantastic post on the Trudeau government and indigenous affairs, which you can read here or find in the Good Post Zone immediately following this OP.

There�s more that Trudeau has done, but that�s hopefully given of some of his major accomplishments and bungles.

Major issues:

The most major of major issues is that the world is ending from climate change. The Amazon is on fire, the Arctic is on fire, BC is on fire. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. The weather patterns over the North Pole that regulate temperatures and weather in the northern hemisphere are collapsing. Canadian permafrost is melting at rates predicted for 2090 in the IPCC�s worst-case scenario. Greenland�s ice is melting at rates predicted for 2070 in the IPCC�s worst-case scenario. Glaciers are melting 100 times faster than predicted. Scientists and international reports have been systematically underestimating how fast climate change will occur. The news is all bad. Climate change is happening faster than we realize, it is already here, and it is already unleashing feedback loops that are accelerating its progress. We are all hosed and we are all going to die. Here�s what the parties want to do about it:

The Liberals: gradually increase the carbon tax, ban straws, offer incentives and small grants to help people and institutions make green choices, give carbon tax breaks to big industry, spend billions on pipelines, we all die.

The Conservatives: cancel the carbon tax, magically wave a wand labeled �innovation�, massively ramp up oil production, we all die.

The NDP: spend a little bit of money on green infrastructure, retrofit buildings to be more energy-efficient, give money to rich people to buy electric cars, stop building pipelines but don�t stop extracting oil, we all die.

The Green Party: an electric vehicle in every driveway, a solar panel on every roof, a mangrove forest in every backyard, we all die.

The PPC: climate change isn�t real you loving liberal moron, set the forest on fire, drill baby drill, hug and kiss Jair Bolsonaro, Ford F-150s for everyone, we all die but even faster.

It is a hopeful time in politics.

(All credit to our own poster Leofish for helpfully making those fake tweet images for my dumb dril-inspired jokes)

What about other issues?

The election campaign has not officially started yet so the parties have not yet released their election platforms. However, based on public statements, websites, and some pre-election releases, we can figure what some of their major planks will probably be.

The Liberals will claim that Canada has been doing great for the last four years, that we�re respected in the world again thanks to Trudeau�s shining boy scout image, and that the economy is humming. They will downplay SNC-Lavalin as Trudeau standing up for Canadian workers, and they will argue that they�re simultaneously caring about the environment and the economy by instituting a carbon tax with rebates to help the higher costs and by supporting oil sands developments. Expect a lot of talk about how we need moderation and compromise to get ahead, and you can�t have a healthy environment without a healthy economy, and vice versa (this is exactly the language he uses to support pipeline expansion), and also matches their focus on �protecting Canadian jobs� in other controversial issues like SNC-Lavalin and arms sales to Saudi Arabia. A few boutique environmental things will be pledged, like banning single-use plastics and most likely subsidies on things like solar panels and electric vehicles, continuing the neoliberal fallacy that climate change is something individuals are responsible for and individuals can solve, without any systemic changes needed. They will promote a lot of feel-good social justice projects like encouraging gender equity in the workforce, using abortion as a stick to beat the social conservatives with, promising to continue appointing diverse cabinets, and pledging support for LGBTQ+ Canadians, especially given that they continue returning to Scheer�s opposition to same-sex marriage as an attack. They will pledge to reduce the deficit but not eliminate it, and see the debt-to-GDP ratio decline over time. Expect to hear the words �middle class� more times than you�ve ever heard them in your entire life. The general message, which they�re repeating in nearly every media release, seems to be this:

quote:

In this fall�s important election, Canadians will have a clear choice. While Conservatives want to go backward with austerity and cuts to vital services that families rely on, Liberals are focused on moving forward with our positive plan to invest in the middle class.

The major promise the Liberals are likely to run on is pharmacare. Don�t hold your breath if they�re elected though, because multiple times in the past the LPC have promised a new major federal program if elected, only to never get around to it once elected, most notably in 1993 with the promise of a national childcare program.

The Conservatives will claim that Trudeau is ruining Canadians with high taxes and spending on useless projects. They will pledge to abolish the carbon tax, to cut personal taxes, and to offer a wide range of boutique tax credits to benefit rich people. They will pledge to balance the budget by cutting spending. On climate change policy, expect a lot more boutique tax credits and claims to invest (or magically provoke the private sector into investing) in �innovation� rather than actually mandating emissions cuts. They will almost certainly make it easier to do resource extraction by reducing regulations on environmental protection. They have promised to end cross-border asylum seekers from the United States. They have promised to buy the F-35 fighter jet. They have promised to move Canada�s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, join an American ballistic missile defence program, and be hostile towards Iran. They have promised to get tough on crime by aggressively prosecuting �gangs� by accelerating court processes for �gang members�, imprisoning them for longer periods, creating new gang-related offences, getting rid of bail for �gang members�, and so on. In other words, now that marijuana is legal, they are promising to give police a new means for persecuting people of colour.

The NDP have pledged a series of tax changes, including increasing capital gains tax thresholds, closing tax loopholes, and cracking down on tax avoidance and tax havens. They have also promised a national pharmacare program, as well as declaring a national emergency over the opioid epidemic. They have promised to abandon the Trans Mountain pipeline altogether, and end all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. On climate change, they want to slowly retrofit all buildings in Canada to be more energy-efficient, invest in public transit and zero-emissions transportation (electric vehicles), ban single-use plastics, and reach zero-net-carbon electricity by 2030 and zero-carbon electricity by 2050. These are okay but those timeframes are far, far too slow. They have promised to suspend the Safe Third-Party Agreement with the United States, which would allow refugees arriving in the United States to continue on to Canada to make refugee claims there. They have promised to create 500,000 new units of affordable housing over 10 years, and increase support for first-time home-buyers, which would likely fuel Canada�s housing bubble. They have promised to immediately stop all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Expect the NDP to also promise a national $15 minimum wage and increased investment in social programs like healthcare and education. They have promised to fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which the Liberals also promised last time around.

The Green Party has made few concrete proposals and are usually slower than other parties in getting them out because they have fewer full-time staff and a lot less money. They have pledged to double Canada�s climate change goals to a 60% emissions reduction by 2030, to put a moratorium on all new fossil fuel developments, to retrofit all Canadian buildings by 2030, to try and achieve a 100% transition to non-nuclear renewable energy over the same period, and to create a �war cabinet� of all parties to try and make climate change a non-partisan issue (good luck with that!). Other than that, they have expressed significant support for electric vehicles and public transit, and investment in restoring carbon sinks like the infamous mangrove forests. It�s an ambitious plan but heavily dependent on market-based solutions and very light on details of how they would achieve this, likely because they know they won�t win the election so the details are pretty irrelevant. Other than environmental issues, the Greens tend to lean very centrist and neoliberal, so expect promises to fight deficits, cut spending on non-environmental issues, work with business to try and achieve climate targets, and not really worry about social issues much beyond how they directly relate to the environment.

The People�s Party will promise to abolish the state, abolish taxation, end non-white immigration, murder all people of colour except Rocky Dong, set the forests on fire, and abolish the monarchy in favour of naming Max Bernier Emperor-for-Life of Canada. Then they will pretend to be very surprised that all the racists support them. Who the gently caress knows what their policies are, they�re lunatic far-right extremists, just fill in the �lunatic far-right extremist� policies from any other country and you�ve got a good idea of their policies. The one thing Max Bernier will for sure accomplish in this election is putting a damper on climate change discussion during this critical moment for climate change discussion, because Elections Canada has decided that since he doesn�t believe climate change is real, therefore climate science is a partisan political issue and any organization wanting to discuss it during the election campaign will have to register as an interested third party and be subject to spending limits.

Macleans is helpfully keeping a running list of party promises here that you can check to see what the parties have said they will do before the official platforms launch.

What else is important?

Canada�s media tends to skew very right-wing. Newspaper endorsements, one measure of that skew, tend to overwhelmingly favour the Conservative Party. This was somewhat less the case in 2015, but has been far more evident in recent elections before 2015: see 2011, 2008, and 2006 for examples. This is likely to be even more the case in 2019, as Postmedia, the parent company for most Canadian newspapers, has recently centralized a lot of political writing with the intention of being even more conservative than before and becoming a larger player in politics. Television news also tends quite conservative. Even the CBC, our national broadcaster and therefore theoretically not beholden to capital, has made waves recently for some really shocking right-wing things, like celebrating Jair Bolsonaro�s victory in Brazil as a triumph for Canadian mining interests.

Canada�s major news outlets are the National Post (reliably conservative), the Globe and Mail (reliable centrist status-quo, often Liberal-leaning but with edicts from on high to endorse the Conservatives), and the Toronto Star (somewhat centre-left, usually endorses either the Liberals or NDP if the Liberals are doing really badly). The CBC is also a fairly reliable source of news even though their analysis is often complete dogshit. Canadaland covers the intersection of Canadian media, politics, and power, and I like some of what they produce. I particularly like The Tyee, a BC-based independent paper that has done some really excellent analysis of environmental and energy issues. Most importantly, Walking Eagle News and The Beaverton bring us the news that really matters and are often more accurate in their reporting than �real� news.

Social media could play a huge role in this election. Anecdotal evidence suggests that third-party social media campaigning played a major role in Doug Ford�s conservative victory in Ontario last year thanks to the efforts of some conservative operatives running a social media network called �Ontario Proud� spamming voters with non-stop memes and social media ads about how Kathleen Wynne was literally the devil and Doug Ford would Make Ontario Great Again. Some people I know are already predicting a conservative victory because the right is far better than the left or the centre at weaponizing social media as a tool to stoke outrage and mobilize it into votes.

There are currently two official leaders� debates scheduled, an English-language debate scheduled for October 7 and a French-language debate scheduled for October 10. Currently Trudeau, Scheer, Singh, May, and Blanchet are invited to these two debates, but Bernier is not, because the PPC has not met the debates� requirements. If the PPC can nominate candidates in 90% of ridings and demonstrate through opinion polling by September 16 that their candidates have a legitimate chance to be elected, then Bernier may be invited to the debates after all. There is also an unofficial Maclean's/CityTV debate taking place on September 12, to which Bernier has not been invited and Trudeau has not yet confirmed his attendance. Protesters have called for an additional debate focused solely on climate change, to reflect the magnitude of the climate crisis, but have so far been refused. It is possible an additional debate will be organized by the Munk Debates focused on foreign policy. An additional French-language debate hosted by TVA/LCN featuring Trudeau, Scheer, Singh, and Blanchet is scheduled for 2 October.

Polling as of 24 August 2019:

The Conservatives and Liberals have been neck-and-neck for the last 18 months or so, after the shine wore off the Trudeau government. Singh has failed to make a splash as NDP leader, and recently has been losing support to the Greens, mostly assumed to be young people for whom climate change is their overwhelming issue. The Bloc and PPC are languishing in the low single-digits. But anything can change in an election campaign, as 2015�s campaign showed us.

Happy posting, idiot hell fuckers. I will edit this post to include more things if people post good stuff, or I will put them in the Good Post Zone below this one and reference them above.

vyelkin fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 22, 2019

# ? Aug 24, 2019 17:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 10:45

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

GOOD POST ZONE FOR GOOD POSTS

Good posts will go here for easy reference

Helsing posted:

Wendell posted:
Does anyone know what Ontario Strong is? They called me with an automated survey asking if I support the carbon tax. Their name, and that topic, make me assume they are evil. Their website gives no clear information about who they are or what they want, but does contain this dog whistle: �Ontario Strong won't forget about or apologize for our roots.�

The NDP and most of the big public sector unions (plus the autworkers) had a large falling out during the Bob Rae years (90-95), causing a lot of labour unions to sit out the 1995 election. To most people's surpise Mike Harris won and enacted massive changes to the government and labour market, policies that hurt the unions badly. Because they were still unhappy with the NDP, and with the NDP not really in a position to form government, some of the major public sector unions and the CAW started spending money on their own media campaigns during the run up to the 1999 election. They advocated strategic voting and tried to identify about two dozen "winnable" ridings where voting for either an NDP or Liberal candidate could beat a vulnerable Conservative. Around this time the building trades unions, who had previously not been very involved in Ontario politics, launched their own initiative designed to pushback against the Conservatives. These initiatives enjoyed some limited success but Harris was re-elected.

By the time the 2003 election came around the CAW, teachers, nurses and now the Building Trades councils all came together to form the Working Families Coalition. It bundled millions of dollars from constituent unions and made huge media buys advocating voting against the conservatives, using the same pollster and advertising shop that the OLP uses. By the 2007 election they were raising and spending as much or more money than the NDP. They were big enough to be able to run advertisements during major events like the Academy Awards. In 2014 their attacks on Tim Hudak were upsetting the Conservatives so much that the Tories literally ran an attack ad during the election attacking not a political party but the Working Families Coalition itself (I can't think of another example of a third party advertiser being the subject of a major political party's attack ad during an election).

Working Families' role in Ontario elections has fluctuated a bit since then. Under huge pressure from the media the Ontario Liberals finally introduced some legislation on third party advertisers who were more or less completely unregulated a few years ago. The WFC also ramped down its operations a bit after Hudak but has continued to run big advertisement campaigns. It was thought that the new legislation might have removed them as a major force but they did end up running a few ads during the last election even though some of their major constituent unions seemed to have a falling out with the Liberals halfway through the campaign.

The Conservatives were pissed about all this but for a long time seemed to lack any kind of answer. Finally in early 2016 a former Sun News Network executive named Jeff Ballingall established Ontario Proud, seemingly as a sort of counter part for the WFC. Unlike the WFC which traditionally ran television and radio advertisements Ontario Proud focuses on social media and uses extensive microtargetting to deliver its messages. The text you received from them was likely part of an attempt to develop a more sophisticated database of information on the voting public. Probably this kind of thing was inevitable anyway because of how social media and political mobilization has been perfected in other jurisdictions but I think the immediate context of the WFC is important for understanding the emergence of Ontario Proud.

Also note that unions are reproducing the WFC strategy at the federal level now and that third party advertisers are probably going to be a lot more prominent going forward. The legal restrictions on their behavior are tightening but I doubt that will slow their growth much.

As an interesting side note, the major backers of the WFC were construction workers (despite the fact they always used teachers or nurses as their public face). A lot of the WFC's money came from the trades councils. So perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Ontario Proud's largest source of funding turns out to be construction companies:

Wikipedia posted:
According to Ontario Proud, it is financed by donations from approximately 1,300 Canadian donors.[10] In June 2017, founder Jeff Ballingall stated that Ontario Proud had cost $5,000 to that point.[17] By April 2018 Ontario Proud was appealing for funding from various business groups including members of the Ontario General Contractors Association (OCGA).[18] A cached copy of the fundraising appeal that was posted on the OCGA website showed that Ontario Proud was looking for up to $700,000 to fully fund its election strategy.[18] While the OCGA encourages its members to be politically active, a spokesperson for the organization stated that OCGA itself has never donated to Ontario Proud.[18] On December 11, 2018 financial disclosures showed that, of the over half million dollars of funding that Ontario Proud received, the majority ($460,000) had come from corporate donations.[19][20][21] Out of the corporate donations over 89 percent of them came from companies involved in the development and construction industries.[19] The five largest donations were from: Mattamy Homes ($100,000), Merit Ontario ($50,000), Nashville Developments ($50,000),[19][20][21] Opportunities Asia Ltd. ($30,000),and Shiplake Properties Limited ($25,000).[19][21] Seventeen other companies, mostly related to housing development, also donated $10,000 each.[19][21]

How incredibly appropriate that the two biggest third party advertisers of the last few decades in Ontario were effectively front groups for organized labour and capital in the construction industry.

Stickarts posted:

Indigenous Issues, or, The Big Problem We Have All Agreed Will Just Go Away On Its Own If We Keep Ignoring It.

10 second summary:

quote:
NDP MP Romeo Saganash said that Trudeau �doesn�t give a gently caress� about the rights of indigenous people, amid mounting tensions between the country�s First Nations and at the federal government.

..........

Above: Trudeau in a Steven Seagal jacket, an old man who looks like Patrick Stewart, and some fresh batches of Adrenochrome.

2 minute summary:
Simply put, Trudeau came into office with massive expectations surrounding his engagement with Indigenous people and Indigenous issues. And it wasn�t for no reason � he used some pretty heavy-duty rhetoric during the 2015 campaign. He significantly described Canadian-FN relations as �Nation-to-Nation�, and stated that constitutional obligations to FNs were �a sacred obligation�. Indeed, renewed Canadian-FN relations were a major part of the �sunny ways� the LPC had built their platform around. Many promises were made: to increase educational funding to be on-par with provincial systems, to consult with FN before land is developed for resource extraction, to enact the TRCs Calls to Action, to fund language education and preservation, among other things.
The results? In a bid to give a little credit, I�d optimistically call it a mixed bag . There has been definite progress in some areas of funding (specifics later). However, there remains unquestionable disappointment and a sense of broken promises (�again) at this point in many Indigenous communities. Honestly, it might currently be easier to feel positive about areas of improvement if Trudeau hadn�t couched his campaign in such frankly radical language wrt to Indig-Can relations. Certainly, Trudeau has pushed more money towards Indigenous issues than the previous 20 years of Federal governments have. However, that is an astonishingly low bar to clear, and part of the �1 step forward after 2 steps back� dance that is such a hallmark of neoliberal social services funding. Needful reminder that it was Paul Martin as Minister of Finance who placed the notorious 2% cap on on-reserve funding back in 1996. This cap has existed ever since and has resulted in an ever-widening funding gap. (Note that there were some years under Harper where funding did moderately reach beyond 2%).

Basic tldr conclusions after 4 years of Trudeau: 1. Funding has increased, but importantly remains at inadequate levels. Napkin math puts the funding increase at roughly 4%, compared to the previous 2% cap. Note here that the AFN figures FN on-reserve funding needs increase roughly 6% annually, not counting the 20 year compounding deficit created by the 2% gap (which obviously casts a certain pallor over present funding, regardless of increases). 2. Typical government fiscal shell games have continued - delivered dollars have not quite matched promised ones, as well as, 3. Something like roughly 2/3 of all promised funds remain slated for after the 2019 election. 3. The LPC this past year reduced restrictions on how FN communities spend their money, providing slightly more fiscal autonomy. 4. The LPC have not, however, significantly altered government procedure. The government continues to dictate terms of resource extraction regardless of Indigenous input. As is said, it isn�t consent if you can�t say no. Power dynamics remain what they were and frankly always have been � that is colonial/patriarchal/corporate.

..........

The Gory Details:

Previously-Mentioned 2% Funding Cap: Cumulative Deficit:

This is critical information to frame the discussion:

quote:

�During pre-budget submissions to the Commons finance committee, Dale LeClair of the Assembly of First Nations estimated that about $25.5-billion in federal money has failed to flow to communities since funding was capped in 1996.�

..........

Funding

This quote from APTN I believes demonstrates the issues nicely:

quote:
The biggest piece of money in the Indigenous envelope�$1.15 billion over five years�targeted on-reserve infrastructure like housing, water treatment systems, health facilities and other similar projects. The money is part of a $4 billion package the Liberal budget said will be spread over 10 years. None of the new infrastructure money will be invested this year. A first instalment of $275 million will flow next year, with a matching amount to follow in 2019-2020, the next election year. The budget says a total of $600 million is slated to roll out in 2021 and 2022.

Liberals promise $1.15 billion (over 5 years) in additional funding for on-reserve infrastructure. However, only $275 million will actually be delivered prior this this current election. The remaining ~$800-850 million are slated post 2019.

Conclusion? More money, but not as much as promised, and most of it is still in the �IOU� pile. It is important to note that national Indigenous leaders such as Cindy Blackstock have continued to call out the LPC funding BS.

Trudeau Score: 3 canoes out of 5*

*2/3 canoes slated for release post-2019

Further Reading:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/trudeau-not-honouring-2-6b-education-promise-first-nations-leaders-say-1.4822749

https://aptnnews.ca/2017/03/22/liberals-budget-2017-promises-additional-billions-to-indigenous-communities/

https://aptnnews.ca/2016/03/11/government-emails-contradict-liberal-claims-on-fate-of-first-nation-education-dollars/

(This last one is an interesting look into political bamboozling in terms of fudged promises.)

One example of critical infrastructure being delivered by Trudeau to our neediest communities:

..........

Education Funding

Same story here as elsewhere. More funding than before, but still not nearly enough, and most hasn�t shown up yet. The Liberals have promised an additional $1,500/student,which would cut the per-student deficit by half. Which is to say, on-reserve schools would still be underfunded by 15+% of public school funding levels. How much credit do you give the LPC for this? I�ll leave that to you. Worth noting that FN leaders claim, as recently as September of last year, that promised funds still weren't being delivered.

This graph shows this nicely:

And here�s the ongoing funding deficit:

Trudeau Rating: 2.5 Canoes out of 5

More Reading:

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/01/21/liberals-taking-new-approach-for-billions-in-first-nations-education-funding.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/trudeau-not-honouring-2-6b-education-promise-first-nations-leaders-say-1.4822749

https://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/education/fact_sheet_-_fn_education_funding_final.pdf

Breaking News: Foster Care Human Rights Case:

Big news came out just a couple days ago that Indigenous people who were removed from their parents will be awarded the maximum $40,000 payout each. With some 56,000 surviving Indigenous peoples who match this category, the payout will be some $2 billion. Not as good as just 1. Keeping kids with their family to begin with and 2. Proactively funding social services with that money in the first place but better than nothing I guess.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5865011/indigenous-children-separated-parents-payout/

..........

Language Funding

This is where the Trudeau gov�t can claim some real success. They have poured about a billion dollars into Indigenous language studies and it seems the money has made it where it is suppose to. Cultural preservation is obviously a big part of any real reconciliation. Granted, so is, you know, education and potable water, but let's take the win here, folks.

Trudeau Score: 4 canoes out of 5

..........

Jordan�s Principle

Briefly:
1. H of C in 2007 voted unanimously to pay for health care costs and let the feds and provinces bicker in the courts over who owes what later (this because a FN 5 year lived their entire life in the hospital � 100s of KM from home � eventually dying there � while MB and CA fought over who had to pay for homecare.
2. 10+ years later, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that nothing had substantially changed and that Jordan�s Principle was not being honoured.
3. Still nothing had changed till this year when, perhaps aware of an upcoming election, Trudeau and the LPC started making noise about healthcare funding. Unsurprisingly, most of this funding and promises are slated to take up after the upcoming election.

Trudeau Score:
0/5. We had promised a drowning Trudeau to send him a canoe right away but we�re presently waiting for them to come on sale at Sport Chek. Give us a sec.

..........

Boil Water Advisories
A good example of how the bullshit way the LPC campaigned poisons potential goodwill. I think most people would be willing to accept that delivering and upgrading infrastructure can take time. With that perspective, the Liberals have been successful in their game of whack-a-mole attempting to overcome decades of underfunding. There is no question there are substantially fewer reserves with water advisories.

quote:
The government's most recent projection is that by the middle of 2018 there will be 66 advisories left to lift, dropping to 51 in 2019.

The problem of course, is that the LPC didn�t campaign on �substantially fewer� advisories, they promised to have them eliminated by the next election.
And of course I feel obliged to again provide the perspective that �drinkable water� is a laughably low bar we are struggling so mighty to clear wrt FN communities, and that any political perspective not coloured by this reality is pretty uncomfortably revisionist.

Further Reading
https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/as-pm-trudeau-restates-drinking-water-pledge-many-communities-still-waiting-1.3912497

Trudeau Score:
This section promises to provide Trudeau with a fully 5/5 safe-to-use canoes. However, only 3 such canoes actually exist, the other 2 still make you poo poo your pants uncontrollably while paddling, but he surely has the patience to wait another few years for that to be solved.

The face of a man mad prairie-dogging on a hard wooden bench:

..........

�Nation-to-Nation�

Respecting/Defining/Asserting Indigenous sovereignty has been� bad. Trudeau talks about sacred obligations, but continues to 1. Not consult FN communities, 2. Fight FNs in court, 3. Not publish court documents and opinions, 4. Push forward on resource development/extraction deals even while Indigenous court cases play themselves out. All of these were TRC Calls to Action, all were promised by Trudeau to be implemented. None have. This has played out both the ongoing Site-C Dam and Trans Mountain debacles, among others. Libs gonna lib.

Here it is said another way that I found fairly compelling:

quote:
But some delegates weren�t happy with the minister�s platitudes.

�She talks about nation to nation, and so does Trudeau. He says the same thing: nation to nation and reconciliation,� said Hart Perley, proxy for Tobique First Nation Chief Ross Perley.

�Well, you know what? Canada is not a nation. It never was and it never will be. Canada is a corporate state. And as soon as you look at that and recognize that and admit it, then maybe the Indigenous peoples across this land will start believing what comes out of your mouth,�

Note on Trans Mountain: My research for this bore some unexpected fruit. Someone has compiled the info on FN communities and who does/doesn�t agree with the pipeline. Roughly 1/3 of FN communities (~40/~130) along the way have signed agreements with the feds. About 20 have formally rejected any interest in coming to an agreement. Apparently the large majority of the rest have refused to even enter into negotiations over the pipeline.

Trudeau Score:

0 Canoes out of 5. This, uh, is, ah, dismal.

Further Reading:

https://pull-together.ca/which-nations-support-kinder-morgan-turns-out-its-a-minority/

https://www.thediscourse.ca/environment/database-tracking-how-indigenous-communities-are-affected-by-kinder-morgan-pipeline

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/07/30/analysis/trudeau-just-broke-his-promise-canadas-first-nations

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/01/18/news/trudeau-government-retreats-key-promise-first-nations

https://aptnnews.ca/2019/07/23/first-nations-leaders-assess-liberal-track-record-ahead-of-federal-election/

..........

UNDRP

Specifically, bringing Canadian laws into alignment with UNDRP ("UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons")

I don't really know what credit to give to who. Yes, the Libs passed a law that promises to bring Canadian law into alignment with UNDRP. However, it was a private member's bill brought forth by Romeo "fuckin" Saganash of the NDP. So how much credit to you get for not blocking it? As well,

quote:
While the bill cannot compel changes in the Canadian system, it would create obligations for the Canadian government to concern themselves the right to self-government for First Nations that they have ignored.

So yes, a law was passed, but it has no real teeth as the gov't is under no obligation to change existing laws because of it. Trudeau promised not to open up the constitution, and it is unclear how to make such a change �stick� without doing so.

Trudeau Score: 4 canoes out of 5 but 2 of those canoes were built and provided by the opposition and the other 2 are actually just crudely drawn pictures of canoes shoved in front of a camera.

Pictured below, Trudeau opening up the Indian Act:

..........

Bill S-3 � Amending the Indian Act

This might be the most impactful, long-reaching decision of the Trudeau government, regardless of the upcoming election. Forced into changing the law to remove sex-based discrimination (previously "Indian" women families lost status if they married non-status men). This removes some level of federal control over Indigenous identity (though Canada is still embarrassingly pretty much the only "developed" nation to have blood quantum written into its law books. This will return status to up to almost 500,000 people. That big problem mentioned before sure doesn't seem to be going away on its own. Rather, it just keeps getting bigger. Best not to look.

This is really cool and very important. But is it really a notch in Trudeau's belt if he was forced into doing it?

Trudeau Score: 3 canoes out of 5 stolen out of LPC HQ.

Further Reading:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/bill-s-3-indian-act-sex-discrimination-1.5249008

..........

(Botched?) MMIW

Kind of just embarrassing. Mismanaged by the gov't, loads of resignations and missed deadlines, etc. The MMIW inquiry did begin and end its inquiry. The conclusions were predictably harrowing with some awful statistics crunched and the term "genocide" bluntly applied, and I don't mean to skate past this, but "mere bungling" is kinda small potatoes when it comes to government controversies. Honestly I'm running out of steam here.

..........

Hasty Conclusion

So yeah... that's it. I'm sure I've missed loads, but this should be much of the basics. Trudeau is the best PM in 20+ years for Indigenous Canadians, but that should be read fully as an indictment of the entire Canadian political establishment, rather than any glowing endorsement of Trudeau. Things remain very much "business as usual". Funding is still stuck firmly in "sustained poverty" levels and sovereignty is still just ten dollar word. In other words, business as usual. Saganash was right.

I will give the last word to Cindy Blackstock, who speaks to underfunding on the video on the other side of this link:

https://aptnnews.ca/2018/02/22/lack-funding-piling-dreams-first-nations-children-blackstock/

A Haida-tattooed Liberal PM beating the poo poo out of a FN dude seems a little too on the nose as a metaphor for his government to be believable. This episode needs better writers. Jerry Seinfeld Theatre dot gif

vyelkin fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 8, 2019

# ? Aug 24, 2019 17:33

RuBisCO: May 1, 2009; This is definitely not a lie

Thanks for the great writeup. Looking forward to the incoming spiral of crippling ennui and depression.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 18:01

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Great work vyelkin, thanks for getting the new thread up and running.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 18:56

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

canada sucks, imo

# ? Aug 24, 2019 18:58

sitchensis: Mar 4, 2009

The Liberal in my riding has represented it for the last 26 years.

Which party should I throw away my vote for? Is the per-vote subsidy dealy back?

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:02

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

That is a great OP.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:12

Toalpaz: Mar 20, 2012; Peace through overwhelming determination

I'm not above posting 'Ground Floor"

That's a wonderful OP and even though there were no photoshops I really appreciate the photos that were chosen.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:12

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

It's all so loving depressing.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:18

yellowcar: Feb 14, 2010

JawKnee posted:

canada sucks, imo

https://twitter.com/edolinsky/status/1164491262139015169

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:27

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

Impressive op, op!

sitchensis posted:

Which party should I throw away my vote for? Is the per-vote subsidy dealy back?

Marxist-Leninist. No.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:30

DariusLikewise: Oct 4, 2008; You wore that on Halloween?

Following the Ontario Teachers discussion from the last thread. I don�t know how much control they have over their own pension fund, but they were a large shareholder in a company I worked for and help vote in a management team put forward by an American Hedge Fund that resulted in myself and half of the companies workforce in being laid off. But hey their pension fund got a nice boost.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:51

Falstaff: Apr 27, 2008; I have a kind of alacrity in sinking.

Great op, op.

quote:

Once got extremely drunk at a dinner and told the truth about Omar Khadr on live television, which made everyone extremely uncomfortable.

Somehow this completely slipped under my radar when it happened, so I only learned about it right now.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:54

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

yellowcar posted:

https://twitter.com/edolinsky/status/1164491262139015169

What the Christ?

# ? Aug 24, 2019 19:55

littleorv: Jan 29, 2011

I am (not) ready for this bullshit 4.0

# ? Aug 24, 2019 20:07

RealityWarCriminal: Aug 10, 2016

It's hard to understate how much Justin trudeau is a piece of poo poo

# ? Aug 24, 2019 20:12

TrueChaos: Nov 14, 2006

I think the thing with the teachers union is that people have experience with one, maybe two truly bad teachers (who might have deserved to be fired) and saw the union protect them to the ends of the earth. I had one in grade 4 who made my life a living hell for reasons I'll never understand. I was screamed at for reading a book once I'd completed all the work I had to do, eventually sent to the principals office for it. This teacher was simply awful, and did eventually get fired, but it apparently took about 5 years worth of valid complaints to make it happen. My brother had one who finally got fired for chasing a kid around screaming that the kid was a loving bitch.

I'm still a supporter of teachers unions, because I think on the macro level they do make teaching better. Occasionally on the micro level things can be poor is all. I'm not sure what the answer is to fix it.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 22:05

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

JawKnee posted:

canada sucks

canada is one of the 10 or so best countries in the world and we are incredibly privileged that we live here, even with all of our lovely governments of the past 40 years. at any given moment there are about 1+ billion people that would literally kill their neighbour for a chance to immigrate to canada.

vincentpricesboner fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Aug 24, 2019

# ? Aug 24, 2019 22:20

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

Hi I have a suggestion replace the OP's goofy Bernier military photo op with this goofy Bernier military photo op

# ? Aug 24, 2019 22:30

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

infernal machines posted:

What the Christ?

Oh that's nothing. We literally have monuments to men who fought for the SS scattered across Canada and when called out on them the Canadian government tried to claim the extensively documented participation of Ukrainian units in the holocaust was "disinformation".

quote:

Canadian government comes to the defence of Nazi SS and Nazi collaborators but why?

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Updated: May 17, 2018

In late April more than 50 members of the U.S. Congress condemned the government of Ukraine�s ongoing efforts to glorify �Nazi collaborators.�

The letter, signed by both Republicans and Democrats, outlined concerns about ongoing ceremonies to glorify leaders of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well as 14th SS Galizien Division (aka 1stGalician/Galizien or the 1st Ukrainian Division). �It�s particularly troubling that much of the Nazi glorification in Ukraine is government-supported,� noted the letter to U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan. The letter was initiated by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California and David Cicilline of Rhode Island.

Contrast that to how the Canadian government handled a related issue last year when the Russian Embassy in Ottawa tweeted out that, �There are monumets (sic) to Nazi collaborators in Canada and nobody is doing anything about it.�

A monument in Oakville commemorates those who served with the 14th SS Galizien Division. Another monument in Edmonton honors Roman Shukhevych, the leader of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

As my Postmedia colleague Marie-Danielle Smith discovered, the Russian tweet sent bureaucrats at Global Affairs Canada into overdrive as they tried to defend the SS unit and Ukrainian Nazi collaborators. Documents she received through the Access to Information law show government officials were under a lot of pressure from the �Centre� (the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister�s Office) to counter the news about the monuments to Nazi collaborators. The bureaucrats came up with a strategy. The would label the tweet as �disinformation� and they came up with a plan to spread the word to the news media as part of their efforts to defend Ukraine�s Nazi collaborators.

Now as I have written before, the Russians are more than happy to try to embarrass the Canadian government, which has steadfastly stood behind the Ukrainian government in the ongoing conflict in the region. Suggesting that Canada allows monuments to Nazi collaborators seems to fit that bill.

But in this case the Russian tweets aren�t �fake news� or �disinformation.� They are accurate.

As those members of the U.S. Congress have pointed out, the Ukrainians who served in the SS Galizien Division were indeed Nazi collaborators.

So too was Roman Shukhevych.

Before going to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Shukhevych was commander of the Ukrainian battalion called Nachtigall. The men of Nachtigall rounded up Jews in Lviv in June 1941, massacring men, women and children. The Simon Wiesenthal Center estimates that the Nachtigall Battalion, along with their German military counterparts, managed to murder around 4,000 Jews in Lviv. Other historians put the estimate at around 6,000.

Shukhevych was later assigned to a new unit whose role in Germany�s war, according to one Holocaust expert, was �fighting partisans and killing Jews.� Shukhevych later turned against the Nazis.

Then there is the SS Galizien Division. They were eager Nazi collaborators. Some 80,000 Ukrainians volunteered to join the SS but only those who could meet the strict requirements were selected.

The SS used some of its most seasoned killers to oversee the development of its new division. SS Gen. Jurgen Stroop, who would later be executed as a war criminal for his brutal destruction of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, was brought on as an advisor.

Other commanders of the division were all versed in the murder of Jews throughout occupied territories in eastern Europe. �Many of the Ukrainian officers, like SS- Haupsturmfuhrer Michael Brygidryr, had previously served in SS Schuma battalions, routinely used to kill partisans, burn down villages and, when the opportunity arose, murder Jews,� wrote award-winning author Christopher Hale in his 2011 ground-breaking book, Hitler�s Foreign Executioners.

Photo above: In this July 21, 2013 photo, Yevhen Kutsik, 86, a former member of SS Galizien Division, is shown laying a wreath at a monument to SS Galizien. He is accompanied (left) by a young Ukrainian nationalist wearing a white pride T-Shirt. Associated Press photo.

SS Galizien Division was used by the Nazis in a variety of operations, one of the most controversial being the 1944 destruction of the village of Huta Pieniacka. Huta Pieniacka was considered a �Polish� village that just months before had been the shelter for several hundred Jews, Hale noted. The SS units surrounded the village. Men, women and children, who had taken refuge in the village church, were taken outside in groups and murdered. Kids were executed in front of their parents, their heads smashed against tree trunks, one witness testified. Others were burned alive in houses. Around 850 people were murdered.

Some Ukrainians dispute that the SS Galizien Division took part in the killings or they argue that only small elements from the unit � and under Nazi command � were involved.

A Ukrainian military board heard testimony in 1944 that members of the Galizien Division did take part in the attack. But that action was justified, the board was told since the inhabitants of Huta Pieniacka had been killing Ukrainian peasants. �By the way, the Jews were hiding in the village,� a Ukrainian officer added in his testimony describing the destruction of the village inhabitants.

Some Ukrainians see Shukhevych and SS Galizien Division members as heroes. They argue that those individuals served the Nazis because they saw them as liberators from the Russians. Their ultimate goal was an independent Ukraine.

But to claim that these individuals were not Nazi collaborators is something else. They served Hitler.

In May 1944, SS leader Heinrich Himmler addressed the Ukrainian SS recruits in a speech. �Your homeland has become more beautiful since you have lost � on our initiative, I must say � the residents who were so often a dirty blemish on Galicia�s good name � namely the Jews,� said Himmler. �I know that if I ordered you to liquidate the Poles, I would be giving you permission to do what you are eager to do anyway.�

Himmler speech was greeted with cheers from the Ukrainian recruits.

Equally disturbing are the details contained in the book, The Holocaust Chronicle, published in 2003 and written by 7 top scholars in the field of Holocaust studies. They noted that Ukrainian SS were also sent to help kill Jews during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The Chronicle published a photo of two of Ukrainian SS members standing over the bodies of Jews murdered during that uprising. See the photo below:

But this issue of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis is not new. Since 1986 the Nazi-hunters with The Simon Wiesenthal Center have warned about efforts from those in Ukraine and in the Ukrainian community in Canada who want to deny involvement of the SS Galizien Division with the Nazis.

The Latvian government is also trying to use the �fake news� label to whitewash the reality of Latvian collaboration with the Nazis.

My colleague Scott Taylor has recently written several articles about the Latvian Legion (15th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Latvian) et al) and Latvian killers like war criminal Herberts Cukurs as well as the members of the Arajs Kommando, who murdered an estimated 26,000 Jews.

According to Karlis Eihenbaums, Latvia�s Ambassador to Canada, Taylor is spreading �fake news� and �disinformation.� Eihenbaums has also tried to smear Taylor by suggesting that he is under the �influence� of the Russian government.

Taylor�s research into the Latvian SS Legion and the Latvian murderers of Jewish men, women and children is solid. It is a well-documented historical fact that many of the killers from the Arajs Kommando went to the Latvian Legion. These Latvians served Hitler. No number of claims of �fake news� can change that fact.

Photo below shows Latvian SS:

The controversy over the Latvian Legion and the annual parade held in Riga to celebrate these Nazi collaborators is well known and has been going on for two decades, long before the term �fake news� was even coined. In 1998 the parade caused a storm of protests around the world, particularly in Israel, where Holocaust survivors couldn�t understand Latvia�s desire to celebrate such ruthless killers. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and French President Jacques Chirac were among those that year to protest the Latvian parade. The Times of Israel reported on this year�s Latvian SS parade in Riga, which took place mid-March.

So much for �fake news.� Did Helmut Kohl and Jacques Chirac spread �disinformation� when they denounced the SS parade in Latvia? Of course not.

This whole issue isn�t about �fake news� or Russian �disinformation.� It is about nations trying to whitewash their Nazi collaboration and rewrite history, while attacking journalists who don�t want to let that happen.

It is a positive development that members of the U.S. Congress could see through these efforts to glorify members of the SS. They are speaking out.

But in Canada, the federal government is more than happy to play along with defending Himmler�s SS divisions and Nazi collaborators.

What would our soldiers who fought during the Second World War to help rid the world of this scourge think about that?

Photos below show members of SS Galizien Division.

Photo below shows parade organized to send the newly-formed Waffen SS Galizien Division off for training (Photo courtesy U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum).

Of course this all makes more sense in the context of our own foreign minister actively lying about her grandfathers enthusiastic participation in the holocaust or the fact that the Canadian government is currently providing military aid to a government that has literal Nazi military formations fighting for it.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 22:32

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

zapplez posted:

canada is one of the 10 or so best countries in the world and we are incredibly privileged that we live here, even with all of our lovely governments of the past 40 years. at any given moment there are about 1+ billion people that would literally kill their neighbour for a chance to immigrate to canada.

canada still sucks

# ? Aug 24, 2019 22:34

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

zapplez posted:

canada is one of the 10 or so best countries in the world and we are incredibly privileged that we live here, even with all of our lovely governments of the past 40 years. at any given moment there are about 1+ billion people that would literally kill their neighbour for a chance to immigrate to canada.

This is like some filthy rich failson boasting that they must be a great person because everyone envies how rich they are. Canada's wealth isn't exactly self made.

# ? Aug 24, 2019 22:42

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

we can do better (great OP vyelkin, one of the best)

# ? Aug 24, 2019 23:07

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Pinterest Mom posted:

Hi I have a suggestion replace the OP's goofy Bernier military photo op with this goofy Bernier military photo op

Where's the Pepsi?

Helsing posted:

Oh that's nothing. We literally have monuments to men who fought for the SS scattered across Canada and when called out on them the Canadian government tried to claim the extensively documented participation of Ukrainian units in the holocaust was "disinformation".

Of course this all makes more sense in the context of our own foreign minister actively lying about her grandfathers enthusiastic participation in the holocaust or the fact that the Canadian government is currently providing military aid to a government that has literal Nazi military formations fighting for it.

Welp. I was vaguely aware of some of that, but not the outright denial. Freedland of course is news to no one, but our ongoing support of Nationalist military units in Europe is definitely something you'd expect to hear more about.

infernal machines fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Aug 24, 2019

# ? Aug 24, 2019 23:08

vincentpricesboner: Sep 3, 2006; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

Helsing posted:

This is like some filthy rich failson boasting that they must be a great person because everyone envies how rich they are. Canada's wealth isn't exactly self made.

I wasn't talking about Canada being one of the richest countries, because it aint on the map that way. I was talking more healthcare,safety,diversity, etc etc. In pretty much every measurable metric we are in the top 10% or even 5%+ of livability globally. Its a big loving deal. Try to name 25 other countries you'd rather live in than Canada.

Its possible (and accurate) to hold the view "We should be thankful we are so privileged to live in Canada, one of the top countries in the world" and "Canada could be so much better and do so much more for disadvantaged people in its own country, and across the world"

# ? Aug 24, 2019 23:09

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

zapplez posted:

I wasn't talking about Canada being one of the richest countries, because it aint on the map that way. I was talking more healthcare,safety,diversity, etc etc. In pretty much every measurable metric we are in the top 10% or even 5%+ of livability globally. Its a big loving deal. Try to name 25 other countries you'd rather live in than Canada.

Its possible (and accurate) to hold the view "We should be thankful we are so privileged to live in Canada, one of the top countries in the world" and "Canada could be so much better and do so much more for disadvantaged people in its own country, and across the world"

oh cool, glad you also realize that it doesn't matter how much better canada is than other places

# ? Aug 24, 2019 23:27

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Our standard of living is exceptional and brutal repression isn't even our #1 export!

# ? Aug 25, 2019 00:33

Cerepol: Dec 2, 2011

zapplez posted:

I wasn't talking about Canada being one of the richest countries, because it aint on the map that way. I was talking more healthcare,safety,diversity, etc etc. In pretty much every measurable metric we are in the top 10% or even 5%+ of livability globally. Its a big loving deal. Try to name 25 other countries you'd rather live in than Canada.

Its possible (and accurate) to hold the view "We should be thankful we are so privileged to live in Canada, one of the top countries in the world" and "Canada could be so much better and do so much more for disadvantaged people in its own country, and across the world"

I'm glad someone here is willing to stick up for all privileges of Canada which no one in here can clearly comprehend. Still saying Canada sux guys. It's clearly great cause we have our own hard earned standard of living here miles above other countries.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 00:50

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

vyelkin posted:

There are currently two official leaders� debates scheduled, an English-language debate scheduled for October 7 and a French-language debate scheduled for October 10. Currently Trudeau, Scheer, Singh, May, and Blanchet are invited to these two debates, but Bernier is not, because the PPC has not met the debates� requirements. If the PPC can nominate candidates in 90% of ridings or consistently poll at 4% or higher by September 16, then Bernier may be invited to the debates after all. Protesters have called for an additional debate focused solely on climate change, to reflect the magnitude of the climate crisis, but have so far been refused. It is possible an additional debate will be organized by the Munk Debates focused on foreign policy.

Macleans/Citytv�are also organising an additional debate hosted by Paul Wells on September 12th. Scheer/Singh/May have confirmed attendance and they say it'll go ahead even if JT is a no-show.

(And the PPC need to both nominate in 90% of ridings and show they're likely to elect more than one MP in order to be invited, not "or".)

# ? Aug 25, 2019 01:15

Hexigrammus: May 22, 2006; Cheech Wizard stories are clean, wholesome, reflective truths that go great with the marijuana munchies and a blow job.

Helsing posted:

Of course this all makes more sense in the context of our own foreign minister actively lying about her grandfathers enthusiastic participation in the holocaust or the fact that the Canadian government is currently providing military aid to a government that has literal Nazi military formations fighting for it.

I'm trying to remember who wrote it immediately after his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell maybe? - "The capitalists hate the communists so much they will gladly sell us out to the fascists. War's coming."

How times have changed.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 01:31

Ardent Communist: Oct 17, 2010; ALLAH! MU'AMMAR! LIBYA WA BAS!

Imagine if we had the foreign policy of Cuba?

# ? Aug 25, 2019 01:32

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

Thanks for the credits. Sorry I couldn't get dystopian leader photoshops done in time. Your op, vyelkin, is a thorough examination of what fresh hell we're going to face this October.

I'll try to work on some more effortposts about some of the issues if I have the time. I'm glad my post about SNC-Lavalin was so well received.

Today's controversy is an op-ed by venerable opinionator/curly-hired dinosaur Rex Murphy about the panel selected to moderate the English-language televised leaders' debate (one of just two official debates, the other being in French, naturellement).

Rex Murphy: Who else would have the empathy to interrogate our feminist PM? posted:

A stellar cast of central Canadian journalists, all of them eminently female, has been selected to moderate the first federal election leaders� debate. They are three news anchors � Lisa LaFlamme, Rosemary Barton and Dawna Friesen � and two columnists, Susan Delacourt and Althia Raj.

There is no way of precisely knowing this, but I am confident that choosing all five exclusively from the XX chromosome class was a matter of some exultation, perhaps reaching to self-congratulation. Somewhere, in whatever closet these mysterious deliberations were conducted, surely at their conclusion there was a whoop of �You go girls!,� and surely, too, much high-fiving over the shards of another broken �glass ceiling.�

In the higher regions of Canadian journalism, soft �L� liberalism predominates, and a progressive attitude toward upper-middle-class feminism, the feminism of professionals, is as much standard equipment (for both males and females) as a laptop, an iPhone, and an envious glare to aim at Robert Fife (a male) as he goes off to bury another politician.

So the declaration of a �No Males Zone� around the moderation of the first debate has to be a �good thing,� achieving heights of fashionable correctness that would stir a gulp of envy even in the puritan confessionals (sound booths) of the third-wave sisterhood down south at National Public Radio (home of the hushed voice, where even the news is organic and �shade-grown.�) A high standard indeed.

And so I mix my �huzzahs� with millions of other Canadians at this milestone, the passing of the journalistic patriarchy, wrenching the control of our public media out of the unmoisturized grip of the Craig Olivers, the Evan Solomons, the Don Martins, that whole cabal of the testosterone-soaked boys-on-the-hill gotcha brigade. Primates, the lot of �em.

Canada has not had such a moment of civic uplift since the Raptors� victory or the promise of a ban on single-use plastics.

It is also proper that all five moderators of this particular election spectacular are female. How else could be pooled the necessary discretion and tact � how should I put this � the requisite �empathy� to interrogate Canada�s self-declared first male-feminist prime minister?

I cannot imagine how some Neanderthal journalists of the male persuasion � I�m just picking names from a chapeau here � like Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun, or Lorrie Goldstein of Toronto�s counterpart journal, in all their disquieting malehood (I�m not saying they�re �toxic,� but I�d keep my eye on that Goldstein fellow) could ever achieve a mind-meld with a male-feminist PM. A bridge over the chromosome Y, is one too far.

Just as a by-note, since they went to five moderators, could they not have gone for � seven? Kim Campbell is certainly female and she is as free as a grasshopper. Her twitter bulletins clearly indicate idle hours. Sheila Copps, a feminist of unimpeachable Liberal pedigree, is also obviously yearning for a forum.

Could they not have incorporated these stalwarts as well, to supply top-grain feminist fibre to the occasion, to demonstrate beyond all question that the golden age of the journalistic matriarchy is upon us? And to add that one extra fillip of buzz, separate the segments with instructive scenes from The Handmaid�s Tale or readings from The Female Eunuch.

However, while congratulating the feminist sages who constitute this once-in-a-lifetime enlightenment, there are other ways that might have been considered to people (or person) a panel.

Feminism is one of the predominant ideologies of the already fairly well-off. It does not reach to the lower end of female experience. The sales clerks, the housekeepers at hotels, the immigrant women in corner stores and fast-food chains, nannies for the upper middle class supporting their own children back home by taking care of children in this First-World country � there�s a rich, ripe source for a panel.

I have nothing derogatory to say about the individuals who have been picked, but three national anchors and two national columnists, all female, is a severely selective, almost exclusive, cohort. And, perhaps ironically, because of their status and their membership in the press gallery, they are more familiar with the people they will be questioning than the audience for whom, presumably, those questions are being asked. They�re inside the world they are interrogating.

The media is its own universe. It is not exactly homogeneous but it operates within a shared and actually quite narrow mentality. It resides in its own award-giving world and has an unhealthy appreciation of its own centrality to politics and to life. It would be a fine thing to wander outside that gated, privileged community.

There are all sorts of ways to constitute a panel that have nothing to do with the modish and now quite tiresome fascination of putting �women� as a qualifier. And to avoid as well this horrible detour into dead-end identity politics.

It would be fun to have a farmer of either sex (or even of the multiple gender options that are now available) to talk about canola. Someone from Prince George or Port aux Choix to speak of rural concerns, a logger, trucker, sales clerk, maybe even a hotel chambermaid to pass on to leadership candidates what life is like where real life is lived. Accountants, oil workers, women from the fish plants, immigrant taxi drivers, Aboriginals from the high north, a teacher, some people from an old age home. The press talks diversity but there are days its seems it really doesn�t know what it is.
In fact, to take hotel housekeepers as a modern example, here�s an �interest� that all the people � politicians � who stay in so many hotels, never seem to mention.

They are almost all women, almost all immigrants, and almost all some of the most pleasant and cheerful people one could hope to meet. It would be a wonderful thing to hear one of these workers tell the prime-ministers-to-be what their concerns are, what their lives are like on the lower ledges of society with no champions, even among the most overtly feminist and progressive. But like the sales clerks, the nannies, the women at the corner-store counters � these are all possibly a couple of glass ceilings too low.

I�ll end here. This is a great moment for feminism in journalism. And it is good to see it starts at the very top, where it is almost certainly least needed.

Near the bottom of this 1100-word column is something resembling a point suggesting that five top-tier Canadian broadcasters and columnists might be seen by the hoi polloi as too much a part of the machine they're presently raging against. Obviously, right-wing social media response to the panel is that Barton, LaFlamme, Friesen, Raj, and Delacourt are all "far too liberal" to effectively moderate a debate that includes a Liberal incumbent Prime Minister (Barton, especially gets a lot of ire for her role not only as a CBC anchor but for taking a selfie with Trudeau during a one-on-one interview). Naturally, the people on the extreme are going to think everything is far too much "the other side" for their tastes, and social media crowing is not an inherent indicator of the opinions of the entire electorate but the issue is out there and Murphy has brought it into the forefront of the current political conversation.

Whether the average farmer, sales clerk, room cleaner, or what-have-you, would have been a better moderator of a national leaders' debate is a debate of its own one could have. Typically, debates such as these take questions from "the average voter" to which the candidates must respond.

Personally speaking, I think having a panel of distinguished journalists may help generate some actual news from what is usually a pretty mild affair. They may be able to squeeze an answer out of the leaders that they perhaps were not willing to give. I don't have immediate stats on how, or how often, debate performances move the needle so it may all just be a moot point that will be pored over by nerds like us while your everyday voter focuses on something entirely different.

The above ties into something I'd also like to tackle in this thread, not only as an election thing but as a general CanPol thing: the newspaper bailout and the drama that has unfolded there. For anyone not in the know, the Liberals have pledged subsidies to major newspapers and tax credits to subscribers in a vain attempt to be the saviours of journalism from the business managers who are killing it and who will then take the money and continue killing it. There are some misconceptions from a lot of the public about this issue (such as the belief that the money has a) already been distributed and b) is going to anyone tangentially connected with "news") but it's going to take a bit of time to compile a good post.

The bailout has created or amplified an atmosphere of distrust in certain segments of the news consuming public that is troublesome, especially heading into an election. If anyone else has thoughts to add, feel free.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 01:57

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

I wonder how much ink dearest Rex spilled over analyzing the all-male debate moderator panels of old?

None at all you say? Goodness me.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 02:00

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

Rex Murphy has always been a garbage person.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 02:20

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Pinterest Mom posted:

Macleans/Citytv�are also organising an additional debate hosted by Paul Wells on September 12th. Scheer/Singh/May have confirmed attendance and they say it'll go ahead even if JT is a no-show.

(And the PPC need to both nominate in 90% of ridings and show they're likely to elect more than one MP in order to be invited, not "or".)

Thanks, I'll edit this in. And here are the specific debate criteria:

quote:

The government established rules in 2018 to determine which party leaders are invited to the official debates.[24][25] To be invited a party must satisfy two of the following:

Have at least one member elected under the party's banner;
Nominate candidates to run in at least 90% of all ridings; and
Have captured at least 4% of the votes in the previous election or be considered by the commissioner to have a legitimate chance to win seats in the current election, based on public opinion polls.[24][25]

My reading of that is that Bernier may or may not satisfy the first, depending if they mean a sitting MP under the banner or an MP who has won an election under the banner. If it's the former, then they only need one of the second two. If it's the latter, then they need both.

And thanks everyone for the compliments on the OP. It was depressing to write.

# ? Aug 25, 2019 03:02

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

They mean won an election under the banner.

From the letter David Johnston sent Max:

quote:

According to the Order in Council that sets the mandate of the Commission, for a political party to qualify for participation in the debates, it must satisfy two of the following participation criteria:

Criterion (i): the party is represented in the House of Commons by a Member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party;

Criterion (ii): the Commissioner considers that the party intends to endorse candidates in at least 90% of electoral districts in the general election in question;

Criterion (iii):
a) the party�s candidates for the most recent general election received at that election at least 4% of the number of valid votes cast; or,
b) based on the recent political context, public opinion polls and previous general election results, the Commissioner considers that candidates endorsed by the party have a legitimate chance to be elected in the general election in question.

[...]

With respect to criterion (i), even though you are a sitting Member of Parliament, your party was not in existence during the last federal election. This precludes the People�s Party of Canada from qualifying under this first participation criteria.

[...]

With respect to criterion (ii), based on your nomination process and the number of candidates you have designated, I conclude that your party satisfies the condition that requires fielding candidates in 90% of the ridings.

With respect to criterion (iii)(b), at this time in the electoral cycle, we do not consider that the People�s Party of Canada has a legitimate chance of electing more than one candidate in the next federal election.

[...]

This is a preliminary assessment. The Commission will continue to evaluate the People�s Party of Canada�s qualification under the participation criteria.