Freedom of opinion under threat in Canada

[floppi]

Cute try with the old ploy of accusing the other person of getting worked up or upset. I don't invest emotions in politicians like you apparently do. Despising Harper....really? That explains why you will bend over backwards to excuse the current PM. Personally I don't do that, but clearly you have hatred that allows you to ignore other hatred, I personally don't find it logical or smart to allow hate especially for emotional reasons.

Chretien, though his party was robbing people behind the scenes did well for Canada, Paul Martin was a prudent financial manager and did quite well I felt, Mulroney was terrible, but no where near PET damage to the country, and Justin is just a rich kid playing at Prime Minister. Harper should have stepped down and didn't but did an ok job during a global meltdown never seen before, but hatred like yours this is why we have an individual who continually shows how spoiled his life has been and how rude he is and that bigotry is fine as long as you do it to the right people......which is awful.

You are free to defend and excuse him, I am free to call his BS for what it is like others before him. But I won't lie for them and you shouldn't either, you will, and accuse others of being upset to shield your delusion, but I agree you are allowed to be like that in this great country. I just can't agree with such hateful ideals, even if you do.

Coulda fooled me. You seemed worked up in your posts, especially describing JT. Politics will do that, tho. Isn't there a saying that goes, " never discuss politics or religion at an office party because you might not have a job the next day". Isn't that politics tho? Your either or......never in between.

See we can agree on something. Chretien was corrupt and so was Mulroney. I would rate from the most corrupt and abuser of power, Harper, Mulroney and Chretien in that order. Harper tho in my opinion was in the lead by a country mile. Didn't he say, "I'm not here to be liked"? So there you go, he got his wish. I'm not the only person that think that too. Here look at all his abuses in this link and tell me if JT has abused his power like Harper did in his time in office. Imo, so far, not even close.

When investigative journalist Stevie Cameron – who wrote two books about the Mulroney era – compares Harper and Mulroney on their corruption track records, she says: “Mulroney was a crook and corrupt [but] I don’t think Harper is corrupt financially. I think he’s corrupt in so many other ways… I don’t think he’s interested in money. I think he’s much more interested in power and secrecy.”

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/0 ... y-part-two

You're right we do live in a great country and that's why we can have this dicussion but who's lying for JT? Please point out the lies I've been spreading for JT? In this thread I've praised him for calling out a racist a racist because that is what I would expect my leaders to do. I dont want to hear none of that TrumpIan both sides are at fault here logic in my leaders but that's just me. You obviously have a different take on that so I'm thinking we will have to agree to disagree.

[floppi]

When even loopy Rempel has to backtrack, Houston, you have a problem.

What makes her "loopy"? Because she isnt an SJW bonehead like our airhead of a PM?

Thank goodness that we have MP's like Michele Rempel standing up to free speech-hating losers like JT and our actual PM Gerald Butts. Thank goodness indeed.

Ummm....no she didn't in this case. She admitted she didn't have all her facts, didnt know the term "Québécois de souche" and basically backed down from her position like all the PCs seemed to have done.

[Merry]

I'm sick and tired of people using the fact this woman has right wing political views as an excuse for Justin's bad behaviour. Because REGARDLESS of her political affiliations (which although distasteful to many ARE perfectly legal) she's a Canadian Citizen, who pays taxes, and who has a right to an answer from our PM to a legitimate question.

Wanting to know whether or not the Feds intend to reimburse the Provinces for the added expenses of paying for the influx of illegal immigrants (many of whom were encouraged to come by our Prime Minister's foolish tweet) is a perfectly legitimate question no matter WHO is asking it.

If the PM wants to call out folks for racist behaviour, that's one thing. But telling someone their racist because they asked a question the PM doesn't want to answer is entirely another.

There is no evidence the PM had any knowledge about this woman's background but, even if he did, simply holding far right views does not warrant insults from our PM. This lady did nothing illegal at that rally, and she did NOT say anything racist or intolerant about any particular ethnic group. So, no matter what we may think of her personally, she did NOT deserve the treatment Trudeau meted out to her.

[Verum]

I'm sick and tired of people using the fact this woman has right wing political views as an excuse for Justin's bad behaviour. Because REGARDLESS of her political affiliations (which although distasteful to many ARE perfectly legal) she's a Canadian Citizen, who pays taxes, and who has a right to an answer from our PM to a legitimate question.

She has no entitlement to such an answer. None of us do. The PM is not forced to answer questions we ask. And even if he was forced to give an answer, he doesn't have to provide the information she has requested.

Wanting to know whether or not the Feds intend to reimburse the Provinces for the added expenses of paying for the influx of illegal immigrants (many of whom were encouraged to come by our Prime Minister's foolish tweet) is a perfectly legitimate question no matter WHO is asking it.

It's a legitimate question, but it's also part of the dog whistle politics which has taken over and in which she was certainly engaging. She was intentionally disrupting and preventing the continuation of his speech.

If the PM wants to call out folks for racist behaviour, that's one thing. But telling someone their racist because they asked a question the PM doesn't want to answer is entirely another.

I seriously doubt that's why he called her a racist. Even assuming he didn't know that she was, which is a big assumption, he could somewhat infer from her dog whistle tactics that she possibly and maybe even probably was a racist. Beyond that, I have little doubt that if she had asked a question around farm subsidies or auto manufacturing, I doubt that he would have called her a racist. It's not because she asked a question he didn't want to answer, but more because of the particular line of question that he called her racism out. He just so happened to be correct, whether by accident or because he knew beforehand. Assuming either way is just that, an assumption.

There is no evidence the PM had any knowledge about this woman's background but, even if he did, simply holding far right views does not warrant insults from our PM.

Actually, if those views are racist, calling such out isn't an insult, it's a simple statement of fact. It might be somewhat crass, but it's being overly sensitive/PC to insist that he can't call out racists for being so. She is and he called her on it. No insult, just fact.

This lady did nothing illegal at that rally, and she did NOT say anything racist or intolerant about any particular ethnic group. So, no matter what we may think of her personally, she did NOT deserve the treatment Trudeau meted out to her.

Maybe, though I wouldn't be so sure. I certainly don't think it was the wisest thing for Trudeau to do, but also wasn't unreasonable. He was there to deliver a speech and there were many there to hear it. She was there simply to disrupt it. She basically did the equivalent of de-platforming, yet worse, because she did it from inside the event rather than by just protesting the event. Go to basically any political part convention and start heckling and see how long before you get ejected and it really won't matter what you are saying.

[Glacier]

In my view, accusing others of dog whistle politics is itself dog whistling (not that there's anything wrong with dog whistling or virtue signally or whatever-you-want-to-call-it).

[Walking Wounded]

I'm sick and tired of people using the fact this woman has right wing political views as an excuse for Justin's bad behaviour. Because REGARDLESS of her political affiliations (which although distasteful to many ARE perfectly legal) she's a Canadian Citizen, who pays taxes, and who has a right to an answer from our PM to a legitimate question.

She has no entitlement to such an answer. None of us do. The PM is not forced to answer questions we ask. And even if he was forced to give an answer, he doesn't have to provide the information she has requested.

Wanting to know whether or not the Feds intend to reimburse the Provinces for the added expenses of paying for the influx of illegal immigrants (many of whom were encouraged to come by our Prime Minister's foolish tweet) is a perfectly legitimate question no matter WHO is asking it.

It's a legitimate question, but it's also part of the dog whistle politics which has taken over and in which she was certainly engaging. She was intentionally disrupting and preventing the continuation of his speech.

If the PM wants to call out folks for racist behaviour, that's one thing. But telling someone their racist because they asked a question the PM doesn't want to answer is entirely another.

I seriously doubt that's why he called her a racist. Even assuming he didn't know that she was, which is a big assumption, he could somewhat infer from her dog whistle tactics that she possibly and maybe even probably was a racist. Beyond that, I have little doubt that if she had asked a question around farm subsidies or auto manufacturing, I doubt that he would have called her a racist. It's not because she asked a question he didn't want to answer, but more because of the particular line of question that he called her racism out. He just so happened to be correct, whether by accident or because he knew beforehand. Assuming either way is just that, an assumption.

There is no evidence the PM had any knowledge about this woman's background but, even if he did, simply holding far right views does not warrant insults from our PM.

Actually, if those views are racist, calling such out isn't an insult, it's a simple statement of fact. It might be somewhat crass, but it's being overly sensitive/PC to insist that he can't call out racists for being so. She is and he called her on it. No insult, just fact.

This lady did nothing illegal at that rally, and she did NOT say anything racist or intolerant about any particular ethnic group. So, no matter what we may think of her personally, she did NOT deserve the treatment Trudeau meted out to her.

Maybe, though I wouldn't be so sure. I certainly don't think it was the wisest thing for Trudeau to do, but also wasn't unreasonable. He was there to deliver a speech and there were many there to hear it. She was there simply to disrupt it. She basically did the equivalent of de-platforming, yet worse, because she did it from inside the event rather than by just protesting the event. Go to basically any political part convention and start heckling and see how long before you get ejected and it really won't matter what you are saying.

Nothing but a bunch of weak excuses for a weak minded PM.

[crookedmember]

If the PM wants to call out folks for racist behaviour, that's one thing. But telling someone their racist because they asked a question the PM doesn't want to answer is entirely another.

You should read the transcript. Trudeau didn't refer to racism until she brought up the Quebec KKK.

Perhaps you would have preferred that he say, "there are fine people on both sides?"

[Omnitheo]

It took repeated heckling with rhetorical questions from this woman before Trudeau called her intolerant. It then took several more minutes of heckling from her and her announcing she was part of a racist whit supremacy movement before he called her racist.

This lady played all the cards too. She made the “I’m a senior” comment, then rudely and belligerently “exercised her free speech” by repeatedly asking a rhetorical question that had been answered 4 months ago. She claimed when approached by security that she was simply practicing free speech. She pulled the “intolerance of intolerance is intolerance tho!” Nonesense. She then played the victim card, claiming the police officers were hurting her, and then exaggerated that they were trying to arrest her. And then after all that she went home, with a sense of accomplishment at doing exactly what she set out to do, and bragged to her racist friends and the media that she got Trudeau to blow a gasket.

[Verum]

In my view, accusing others of dog whistle politics is itself dog whistling (not that there's anything wrong with dog whistling or virtue signally or whatever-you-want-to-call-it).

No, I was simply using the term "dog whistle politics" in its generally and widely understood sense. I wasn't suggesting anything beyond what I directly and openly said. No hidden meanings intended.

[The Green Barbarian]

I'm sick and tired of people using the fact this woman has right wing political views as an excuse for Justin's bad behaviour.

It"s all these JT loving losers have Merry, so they will keep beating the dead horse. The airhead PM can do no wrong. That's it that's all.

[Glacier]

No, I was simply using the term "dog whistle politics" in its generally and widely understood sense. I wasn't suggesting anything beyond what I directly and openly said. No hidden meanings intended.

Like this guy here, I don't understand hidden meanings. I can only see what someone says. It's the way I'm wired. I often wonder if hidden meanings even exist half the time, but again, that's just how I'm wired, so very well could be wrong.

Sorry for interjecting... moving on, freedom of opinion isn't under threat on Castanet so long as you don't post porn, personal attacks, or dick pics.

[The Green Barbarian]

Ummm....no she didn't in this case. She admitted she didn't have all her facts, didnt know the term "Québécois de souche" and basically backed down from her position like all the PCs seemed to have done.

Is this really true though? I noticed that you ignored me when I said that I doubted that a reporter was dumb enough to ask Michelle Rempel if she supported racists. Did that actually happen? If so, what idiot reporter asked her that? Merry's point stands tall and all the excuses given by JT zombies won't wash it away- Trudeau looks awful here and really exposed why he is just a figure head and puppet for the Laurentian Elite.

[rustled]

Hm. Well, from Omnitheo's transcript:

BLAIN: Answer me, I want to know when you will give us back the $146 million that we paid for your illegal immigrants.

TRUDEAU: OK, madam.

BLAIN: It's us who paid for that.

TRUDEAU: This intolerance regarding immigrants does not have a place in Canada. This intolerance of diversity, you do not have a place here.

Excuses don't cut it, folks. JT engaged with Blain. First he tried to put her off with non-answers, and when that didn't work he accused her of intolerance and roused the crowd against her.

Fact is, he could have handled this without making accusations and without turning the crowd against her. Just as any one of us can post here without making it personal.

For example, JT could have told her he understood the question and would be happy to discuss the issue further after his speech.

JT chose the low road, and people here are proud to praise him for doing it.

Go on and spin it however you like. Some of us won't buy what you're selling, because we believe praising someone for doing a poor job is not the way we get the best results.

[Omnitheo]

You keep repeating this line about Trudeau “rousing the crowd”. Care to explain where you are getting this from? I see a crowd of Trudeau Supporters who showed up to listen to him speak cheering when the leader reaffirms the values of our nation in the face of a belligerent protester.

Honestly the crowd would have cheered just for her to shut up, regardless of if Trudeau spoke or not.

[rustled]

Watching the video, noting his tone and his body language as he accuses her of intolerance, plus gleeful JT-praising commentary elsewhere. I'll see if I can track down a couple of examples before the end of my coffee break.

Yes, they may indeed have cheered for her to shut up. I probably would have. I'm no fan of heckling. It's rude and obnoxious.

I didn't vote for Blain, and she's not accountable to me. I voted for JT, and he is the one I'll hold to account for his part in this exchange.