Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[TacticalTea]

View attachment 84628

Uh-huh.

This was great and made sense when there was an actual country bound by a single history that its citizens could take pride in yet also learn from.

Nowadays, the past is seen as something disgusting the legacy of which we must rid ourselves off, as we burn down churches and topple statues.

Woke more correct than mainstream on this point: politics is about power, and the State is never neutral. I'd rather the State favour the civilization that birth it, not whatever violent, chaotic monstrosity appears to be replacing it.

 

[brihard]

With great power comes great responsibility. That same province having already shown to be severely derelict in this duty, it has no grounds to protest. That said, my criticism is directed at all levels of government. As you said, the police could just decide to do their job, but they won't. It has lasted for 6 months, why would it change now?

And we know they could, because Quebec did it in 2012 against a much less radical ideology.

So basically the feds should ‘do something’ but you have nothing specific or workable to propose.

None of the rest of your reply has anything to do with the right now public order and policing issues, so there’s nowhere for me to go with any of that.

 

[McG]

If the options available to government are to do nothing up until the moment of declaring an emergency, then we are going to see that path chosen more often than we would like.

It was the same with the convoy. Too little was done for too long, and then the heavy hammer was wielded.

The weekend polling reveal was that Canadians would rather turn to Poilievre than to Trudeau for resolving a kitchen counter fire. So he probably wants to show that he can do better than scold the fire. And that could even start with just identifying that mayors and premiers hold the fire extinguishers. Explicitly call on those levels of government to act.

There is also the recourse of court orders. It should not have fallen to citizens subjected to unrest to get injunctions during the convoy. This time around with citizens being targeted it should be done better.

 

[Lumber]

There must be something possible and of more substantive than a strongly worded tweets from ever cabinet minister.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782054083827753069

Sounds like a job for Captain Emergencies Act!

 

[dimsum]

History shouldn't make anyone feel anything other than educated. History can also be corrupted. Be careful what history you ingest, and try to learn from multiple positions.

No body living today has any guilt for things they weren't alive for.

I agree with you to a point.

History isn’t just dates and places - they are (quite literally) stories of people. A good history book should make you feel some emotion reading it, and learning from it. That emotion may be pride, or disgust, or something else.

Uh-huh.

This was great and made sense when there was an actual country bound by a single history that its citizens could take pride in yet also learn from.

Nowadays, the past is seen as something disgusting the legacy of which we must rid ourselves off, as we burn down churches and topple statues.

Woke more correct than mainstream on this point: politics is about power, and the State is never neutral. I'd rather the State favour the civilization that birth it, not whatever violent, chaotic monstrosity appears to be replacing it.

Rant:

When I was growing up, my high school history curricula glossed over mentions of things that made Canada look bad. Aside from “this happened”, there wasn’t much talk of residential schools, the Chinese Exclusion Act, or the Jewish immigration policy during WWII. If you just took it at face value, Canada would have been a paragon of virtue from 1867 until the 1990s (when I was in school).

One of my high school history teachers was an older guy from Ukrainian descent. He (hilariously, frequently, and loudly) said “fuck this” and taught us the other stuff that didn’t necessarily show Canada in a good light, with context during that time. He didn’t say the quote I posted above, but he would have been 100% behind it.

He also absolutely loved Canada - his father was in the CAF in WWII and from what I remember, he tried to join but was medically disqualified. But, his love of the country didn’t meant that he passed a fault.

 

[Remius]

Uh-huh.

This was great and made sense when there was an actual country bound by a single history that its citizens could take pride in yet also learn from.

This country was never bound by a single history. I can assure you that what I learned in school as a Franco ontarien differed somewhat from what you learned.

Nowadays, the past is seen as something disgusting the legacy of which we must rid ourselves off, as we burn down churches and topple statues.

Like what? Or is it a bit of a course correction? Acknowledging some uncomfortable truths about our history is actually better than pretending it isn’t real

Woke more correct than mainstream on this point: politics is about power, and the State is never neutral. I'd rather the State favour the civilization that birth it, not whatever violent, chaotic monstrosity appears to be replacing it.

Can you define this monstrosity a bit more? Hard to comment unless one knows how you define it.

 

[Lumber]

Seriously though, the mental gymnastics on Twitter right now is insane (and hilariously entertaining). There are tons of "pro-convoy" Canadians who originally objected the EA "on principle" who are now trying to justify why the EA is warranted here. Like, you didn't say you disagreed with teh EA "against the convoy", you spoke out again the EA in general. But now that there's an opportunity to use it against group who you don't like it's suddenly an acceptable option? Just, chef's kiss. Beautiful.

 

[TacticalTea]

Seriously though, the mental gymnastics on Twitter right now is insane (and hilariously entertaining). There are tons of "pro-convoy" Canadians who originally objected the EA "on principle" who are now trying to justify why the EA is warranted here. Like, you didn't say you disagreed with teh EA "against the convoy", you spoke out again the EA in general. But now that there's an opportunity to use it against group who you don't like it's suddenly an acceptable option? Just, chef's kiss. Beautiful.

True.

But, didn't you defend the EA? Why speak out against it now?

The logic goes both ways, dunnit?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I agree with you to a point.

History isn’t just dates and places - they are (quite literally) stories of people. A good history book should make you feel some emotion reading it, and learning from it. That emotion may be pride, or disgust, or something else.


Rant:

When I was growing up, my high school history curricula glossed over mentions of things that made Canada look bad. Aside from “this happened”, there wasn’t much talk of residential schools, the Chinese Exclusion Act, or the Jewish immigration policy during WWII. If you just took it at face value, Canada would have been a paragon of virtue from 1867 until the 1990s (when I was in school).

One of my high school history teachers was an older guy from Ukrainian descent. He (hilariously, frequently, and loudly) said “fuck this” and taught us the other stuff that didn’t necessarily show Canada in a good light, with context during that time. He didn’t say the quote I posted above, but he would have been 100% behind it.

He also absolutely loved Canada - his father was in the CAF in WWII and from what I remember, he tried to join but was medically disqualified. But, his love of the country didn’t meant that he passed a fault.

I am fine with teaching warts and all. but in context. They don't teach the kids that the FN here were happily fighting each other, wiping out different tribes and taking territory. They also don't teach that they took slaves. If you taught that , then it adds context to why there was support for the residential schools and the Indian Act only a decade after the last slave raid here.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, like I said, it’s tricky.

Do you want the PM / government in power to specifically direct certain law enforcement action? Because that would be a massive upheaval in how our executive branch of government interacts with police. In other contexts, that would have many members of this page (myself included) in an uproar.

As the PM he can attempt to legislate new offences, but lack of applicable offences isn’t the issue here.

He can specifically earmark some of the budget for particular law enforcement initiatives- say, increased police funding to combat hate speech and other hate motivated offences. But while that can pay for some new police positions to be established, it doesn’t knit cops to fill them. And, local policing is a provincial jurisdiction, delegated in the case of most cities to the local municipality. Do you propose the government try to tell Ottawa Police or Toronto Police what to do? That pulls us right back to the first problematic COA.

So back to you I guess. What do you want our Prime Minister/cabinet to have the power to do as it pertains to specific actions of law enforcement? Think carefully, because the power you want them to have today, they will have next month and next year.

To Govern:

conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
"he was incapable of governing the country"

Government:

the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

Governor:

a person in charge of a particular political unit:


We elect people to govern.


Insurrection:

a violent uprising against an authority or government.


In the event of insurrection against the government I would expect that the Governor-General, in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief, would act to suppress that insurrection by directing the forces available, civil and military. In the absence of the GG then number 2 is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Both of whom are expected to act on the advice of the Government of the Day.

Of course politicians have the right to direct the actions of the police. If we don't like the actions of the politicians we get to chuck them out. If the police are not performing as expected they, like any other employee, should expect to be reprimanded or fired.

 

[Lumber]

True.

But, didn't you defend the EA? Why speak out against it now?

The logic goes both ways, dunnit?

I'm not speaking against the EA. My position is unchanged. Let the provinces handle it. If they once again prove unable to handle it (and the definition of unable includes unwilling, because the effect is the same), then go ahead, enact the EA.

 

[RangerRay]

Let's be honest, here. If you wanted to fix the issue durably, you'd end the DEI cult, cut down 95% on migration, end federal and provincial funding for universities that propagate racist, anti-West "decolonial" ideologies, fire and prosecute teachers that indoctrinate minors with the idea that anti-White racism doesn't exist, and teach a positive vision of the country and its history in schools and media.

That’s some Orwellian shit right there. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of this DEI, “de-colonization” identity politics has gone too far, but what you’re proposing is a serious breach of freedom of expression and academic freedom, even if we don’t like that expression.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree with you to a point.

History isn’t just dates and places - they are (quite literally) stories of people. A good history book should make you feel some emotion reading it, and learning from it. That emotion may be pride, or disgust, or something else.

The problem with those stories is they are all biased, heavily influenced by perception and sometimes patently false. It really depends on what history you read.

Again, no one living today is guilty of anything done before they were alive.

 

[Remius]

I am fine with teaching warts and all. but in context. They don't teach the kids that the FN here were happily fighting each other, wiping out different tribes and taking territory.

Except I was taught that. In particular in the context of the French Indian wars.

They also don't teach that they took slaves. If you taught that , then it adds context to why there was support for the residential schools and the Indian Act only a decade after the last slave raid here.

Sure but I would argue it has more to do with ignoring indigenous history as a whole in the first place and not a concerted effort to rewrite their history.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The problem with those stories is they are all biased, heavily influenced by perception and sometimes patently false. It really depends on what history you read.

Again, no one living today is guilty of anything done before they were alive.

Meanwhile, History grads be like...

 

[brihard]

To Govern:

conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people).
"he was incapable of governing the country"

Government:

the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

Governor:

a person in charge of a particular political unit:


We elect people to govern.


Insurrection:

a violent uprising against an authority or government.


In the event of insurrection against the government I would expect that the Governor-General, in the capacity of Commander-in-Chief, would act to suppress that insurrection by directing the forces available, civil and military. In the absence of the GG then number 2 is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Both of whom are expected to act on the advice of the Government of the Day.

How and where are you getting “insurrection” in any of this? That’s literally a violent existential threat to the continuity and lawful authority of the state entirely.

Of course politicians have the right to direct the actions of the police.

No they don’t. There’s a strongly firewalled operational independence of police, for a lot of good reasons. If you want to understand why, start looking at countries where that’s not the case.

If we don't like the actions of the politicians we get to chuck them out. If the police are not performing as expected they, like any other employee, should expect to be reprimanded or fired.

In a certain way they can be, but again that would be through the Police Service Boards that protect that independence. Same question to you that I’ve posed to others: do you want our elected federal government to be able to tell police forces specifically what to do to enforce particular laws in particular cases?

Remember also that there‘a a big difference between forcibly dispersing a crowd, many of whom may be engaged in nothing more than Charter-protected (if reprehensible) expression, and investigating and charging individuals within said crowd who cross a criminal line. We have a well-enshrined right to march around for a few hours and be loud and annoying to express views on a cause. The courts accept some inconvenience to others as part of this. You need more discrete criminal behaviour to start using coercive force and prosecute.

I know I’m just a cop who gears up and does public order work sometimes, so my opinion on society writ large carries little weight. I just urge you to step back from the specific cause of these specific protests for a moment and remember that everything we’re discussing has massive ramifications for how we express ourselves and exercise our rights on any other subject.

 

[dimsum]

Seriously though, the mental gymnastics on Twitter right now is insane (and hilariously entertaining). There are tons of "pro-convoy" Canadians who originally objected the EA "on principle" who are now trying to justify why the EA is warranted here. Like, you didn't say you disagreed with teh EA "against the convoy", you spoke out again the EA in general. But now that there's an opportunity to use it against group who you don't like it's suddenly an acceptable option? Just, chef's kiss. Beautiful.

Called it.

Meanwhile, History grads be like...

View attachment 84629

Hey, I just posted that earlier this morning…

 

[QV]

Seriously though, the mental gymnastics on Twitter right now is insane (and hilariously entertaining). There are tons of "pro-convoy" Canadians who originally objected the EA "on principle" who are now trying to justify why the EA is warranted here. Like, you didn't say you disagreed with teh EA "against the convoy", you spoke out again the EA in general. But now that there's an opportunity to use it against group who you don't like it's suddenly an acceptable option? Just, chef's kiss. Beautiful.

This cuts in both directions.

It seems to me they are pointing out the hypocrisy of using the EA on the convoy and not now.

Chefs kiss. Well done.

 

[brihard]

This cuts in both directions.

It seems to me they are pointing out the hypocrisy of using the EA on the convoy and not now.

Chefs kiss. Well done.

Which is completely fair. However the EA didn’t have anything to do with creating lawful authority for police to act in the public order capacity to clear the blockade of downtown. All the necessary law for that aspect existed already.

The EA would come into discussion here if, say, outside of the context of money laundering or terrorist financing, the federal government were to decide to use emergencies powers to try to inhibit protest financing. Given that the conversation thus far has focused on the physical protests and certain probable hate crimes carried out within them, it’s not a comparison that gets us anywhere useful. We also haven’t seen any of these protests last for more than a few hours or try to sustain an encampment or blockade of an urban centre. So, we’re a long way away from there being meaningful comparables.

Speaking for myself I would like to see the police worked with applicable jurisdiction investigate and, appropriate, charge those who are inciting hate and promoting violence. I suspect they’re struggling with resources to do that given that all the same municipal policing demands continue while a protest is ongoing.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am fine with teaching warts and all. but in context. They don't teach the kids that the FN here were happily fighting each other, wiping out different tribes and taking territory. They also don't teach that they took slaves. If you taught that , then it adds context to why there was support for the residential schools and the Indian Act only a decade after the last slave raid here.

Perhaps some explanations of why so many people chose to leave their homelands to live in Canada and other Common Law jurisdictions might also be in order.