Appreciate your balanced perspective. Any inkling of light in these dark times is welcome. Thank you.
There is some evidence that Poilievre holds racist views towards First Nations. In 2019 when protesters blocked rail lines in support of BC land protectors, Poilievre was all about shutting the protests down but when the Freedom Convoy rolled into Ottawa, he actively supported them. His comments on residential school survivor compensation is telling, "Canada wasn't getting value for all this money" he continued, "the values of hard work and self reliance, more money will not solve it". As with his views on addiction treatment, he illustrates a very limited understanding of a complex issue and also a negative view of First Nations people.
Every word of this article is important. I hope many take the time to read it and to understand the importance of safeguards against those who would undermine democracy and the rule of law. A country is not fated to move in the direction of fairness and compassion. We have to continuously work at these qualities. Moreover, it is important to keep a watchful eye on those unscrupulous charlatans whose only interest in politics is self-interest.
"But Pierre Poilievre, who is likely to become prime minister within the next 10 months, is no Donald Trump. He’s not a criminal, or a rapist, or a racist," But he hangs out with racists, so what does that make him?
I'm interested in how you explain how a man's actions of shaking the hand of Jeremy Mackenzie and Diagolon, who are alleged to be designated as violent extremists by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, somehow make him not racist. Or do you think racism and racist actions are just nooses and cross-burnings?
Thank you for drawing attention to the threat posed by the increasingly casual attraction to the use of the notwithstanding clause. Frankly I was stunned to see a gaggle of centrist and conservative mayors call for its use against homeless people. And one party’s supporters in particular seem to be chomping on the bit to deploy it on a whim.
With respect to the idea that cultural forces are pushing people to be “increasingly willing to deal in misinformation, and explicitly anti-expert and anti-science” I think we have to be careful not to over-correct to the point that we don’t recognize many legitimate disputes within the sciences that get short-shrift. Was the lab leak hypothesis misinformation and anti-expert or a legitimate scientific question? What about the supposed threats of nuclear power and GMOs? Dan Williams writes persuasively and powerfully in this area and I recommend him to all https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/
Canada's partisanship is not a key issue in #SCC as of this date. I am concerned about a partisan Senate. Trudeau has appointed 82 percent of the unelected Senate. Allegedly many appointed as "Independent" voices and yet many do not sustain independence as Senators. This is what has the potential in the future of Canada to keep me awake at night.
As someone who has published a whole book on the 'renewed' Senate, I don't share your concern. The independents have been a great boon to the Senate, its work, and its reputation. The real problem will be that PM Poilievre will return to the patronage, partisan way of doing appointments.
I haven't seen them acting in a partisan manner. Just because they don't argue with the government 90% of the time does not mean they're partisan - it could just be that the government is doing its job properly.
Appreciate your balanced perspective. Any inkling of light in these dark times is welcome. Thank you.
There is some evidence that Poilievre holds racist views towards First Nations. In 2019 when protesters blocked rail lines in support of BC land protectors, Poilievre was all about shutting the protests down but when the Freedom Convoy rolled into Ottawa, he actively supported them. His comments on residential school survivor compensation is telling, "Canada wasn't getting value for all this money" he continued, "the values of hard work and self reliance, more money will not solve it". As with his views on addiction treatment, he illustrates a very limited understanding of a complex issue and also a negative view of First Nations people.
Every word of this article is important. I hope many take the time to read it and to understand the importance of safeguards against those who would undermine democracy and the rule of law. A country is not fated to move in the direction of fairness and compassion. We have to continuously work at these qualities. Moreover, it is important to keep a watchful eye on those unscrupulous charlatans whose only interest in politics is self-interest.
I've been thinking about how to see the glass as half full, and appreciate this post for putting things in perspective.
Thank you for this important piece, Emmett.
Much appreciate these illuminating words on this very dark morning. Thank you.
Thanks, Emmett, for a bit of optimism this morning: a nicely balanced treatise.
"But Pierre Poilievre, who is likely to become prime minister within the next 10 months, is no Donald Trump. He’s not a criminal, or a rapist, or a racist," But he hangs out with racists, so what does that make him?
I'm interested in how you explain how a man's actions of shaking the hand of Jeremy Mackenzie and Diagolon, who are alleged to be designated as violent extremists by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, somehow make him not racist. Or do you think racism and racist actions are just nooses and cross-burnings?
Thank you for drawing attention to the threat posed by the increasingly casual attraction to the use of the notwithstanding clause. Frankly I was stunned to see a gaggle of centrist and conservative mayors call for its use against homeless people. And one party’s supporters in particular seem to be chomping on the bit to deploy it on a whim.
Hot off the press https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-ready-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-to-force-doctors-to/
With respect to the idea that cultural forces are pushing people to be “increasingly willing to deal in misinformation, and explicitly anti-expert and anti-science” I think we have to be careful not to over-correct to the point that we don’t recognize many legitimate disputes within the sciences that get short-shrift. Was the lab leak hypothesis misinformation and anti-expert or a legitimate scientific question? What about the supposed threats of nuclear power and GMOs? Dan Williams writes persuasively and powerfully in this area and I recommend him to all https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/
This is another thoughtful post on this topic…
https://smallpotatoes.paulbloom.net/p/progressives-should-worry-more-about?utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
Canada's partisanship is not a key issue in #SCC as of this date. I am concerned about a partisan Senate. Trudeau has appointed 82 percent of the unelected Senate. Allegedly many appointed as "Independent" voices and yet many do not sustain independence as Senators. This is what has the potential in the future of Canada to keep me awake at night.
As someone who has published a whole book on the 'renewed' Senate, I don't share your concern. The independents have been a great boon to the Senate, its work, and its reputation. The real problem will be that PM Poilievre will return to the patronage, partisan way of doing appointments.
I haven't seen them acting in a partisan manner. Just because they don't argue with the government 90% of the time does not mean they're partisan - it could just be that the government is doing its job properly.