Conservative party leadership race

[GuitarStv]

We spend billions of dollars on indigenous communities every year, what would you change?

Through the residential school systems, Canada (with the backing of the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, and United churches) systematically destroyed the connection between a generation of native children and their communities.  Children were forcibly taken from their families (often at the threat of jail time for parents) and put in the care of people who raped, beat, and killed them.  They were prohibited from speaking their native languages, wearing the clothes that their parents wanted them to wear, passing on the oral traditions of their culture.  They were forcibly converted to Christianity.  Then they graduated from a decade or more of this 'schooling', and many of them returned to their communities as broken people.  Ties with the community were irrevocably severed - as many no longer knew the customs and language of their own people.  Drug abuse and alcoholism became the rule for a whole generation dealing with the PTSD of what was done to them.  This carried forward into serious distrust of government figures and schools . . . which was then passed on to the next generation of native kids.

We are spending a lot of money on native communities to try to repair the damage that we perpetrated. There's no easy path to overcome meticulously planned cultural genocide.

[Metalcat]

ETA...nope, decided not to get into it

[scottish]

We spend billions of dollars on indigenous communities every year, what would you change?

Through the residential school systems, Canada (with the backing of the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, and United churches) systematically destroyed the connection between a generation of native children and their communities.  Children were forcibly taken from their families (often at the threat of jail time for parents) and put in the care of people who raped, beat, and killed them.  They were prohibited from speaking their native languages, wearing the clothes that their parents wanted them to wear, passing on the oral traditions of their culture.  They were forcibly converted to Christianity.  Then they graduated from a decade or more of this 'schooling', and many of them returned to their communities as broken people.  Ties with the community were irrevocably severed - as many no longer knew the customs and language of their own people.  Drug abuse and alcoholism became the rule for a whole generation dealing with the PTSD of what was done to them.  This carried forward into serious distrust of government figures and schools . . . which was then passed on to the next generation of native kids.

We are spending a lot of money on native communities to try to repair the damage that we perpetrated. There's no easy path to overcome meticulously planned cultural genocide.

I wasn't trying to imply there was an easy path.     Progress seems very slow sometimes.    I hate to read about problems like Neskantaga where the water treatment plant seems systemically broken, and I wonder why these conditions persist despite all the aid that's available.    The CBC has an article on it here:   https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/neskantaga-plans-return-home-water-crisis-1.5840308    This stuff isn't rocket science & it seems hard to fathom that that the federal government can't manage to install a reliable water treatment plant.   So I wonder...   what should we do differently?

Anyway, we diverged from the difference between equality and equity a while back.    Next time I'll try harder to find a less controversial example.

[FrugalToque]

Hmmph, my context was probably influenced by an article I read about this, I didn't mean that the way it sounded.   You're approach is much better than just locking them up.    We spend billions of dollars on indigenous communities every year, what would you change?

Though I mostly agree with Malcat about consulting experts, there are a couple of things I would change.

1.  Clean drinking water.  After enduring days of power outages that hurt our ability to clean our water, that just has to suck and take up so much of your time and energy that could be better spent on other parts of life.  It's also about feeling respected enough by the nation you live in that the government makes sure you can drink the water coming out of your tap

2.  Focus on education.  There are a lot of experts who will tell you exactly how to fix the issues.  I wouldn't imagine I'm qualified to address them personally.  If you want a *bad* example, the Ontario government just decided to de-stream grade nine (all kids of all educational levels get the same grade 9 math curriculum) in order to supposedly combat racism.  This is a stupid course of action, almost designed to fail.  We already know, from experts, from experience, that this doesn't work. Kids who are years behind won't feel any better and won't catch up if you just throw them into a grade 9 advanced class.

3.  A really good move was shutting down residential schools, apologizing for how awful a thing they were and now honestly trying to figure out how to move forward with the legacy and harm they did.

Yes, I'm aware the former "Indian Affairs" office, now the "Indigenous Affairs" ministry, spends a lot of money.  A lot of it is probably spent poorly, but the motivation of the government has always been to force First Nations people off their land and to destroy their culture.  Maybe if we stopped having that as our goal, we'd achieve better results.

Toque.

[FrugalToque]

Anyway, we diverged from the difference between equality and equity a while back.    Next time I'll try harder to find a less controversial example.

I think you'll find there are no non-controversial examples.

Why are black women more likely to die in childbirth than white women?  Racism in healthcare.
Why are indigenous people 9x more likely to end up in jail in Canada? The racist legacy of colonialism, residential schools, education etc.

It's easy to go on with these examples.  If you see a group of people dying, getting incarcerated, getting lower income levels, having worse educational attainment, you can start blaming their genetics or you can start looking at how our society makes assumptions about that group.

Are girls really worse at math?  Or are teachers planting the idea of girls being bad at math in their heads from an early age, influencing them to be scared of numbers?
Are boys really violent and rambunctious and unable to settle down?  Or are we teaching boys to only have violent emotions and making excuses for their behaviour instead of teaching them to be civilized?

These are tricky questions, in some respect, because it's really, really hard to eliminate all of the bias from a person's entire childhood.
Nonetheless, that's what we strive for, and when we see severe differences in outcomes, we look for those biases and try to compensate for them.

Toque. 

[GuitarStv]

I think @frugalcanuck is pretty much correct in his definition.   For example,   https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/  seems fairly credible and they define equality and equity as

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. 

This is what we've been trying to do (for better or worse remains to be seen) with many of the current civil rights movements.

I don't like the redefinition of the words being used in your article, as they don't seem to match the dictionary definitions that I can find.

equity:  the situation in which everyone is treated fairly according to their needs and no group of people is given special treatment
 - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equity

equity:  fairness or justice in the way people are treated
- https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/equity

equity:  justice according to natural law or right (specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism)
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity


As far as I can understand, both of these pictures (titled 'equity' and 'justice' respectively in the article) match the definition of equity:
   


equality: the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment
- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/equality

equality:
    the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.
- https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/equality

equality: the quality or state of being equal
    equal:
        like in quality, nature, or status
        like for each member of a group, class, or society
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality


This 'equality' image doesn't match the above definition at all:


The guy with access only to the side of the tree with less apples clearly doesn't have the same social status/position and isn't receiving the same treatment.  But the previous two pictures appear to work just fine for the dictionary definition of equality.

Am I crazy?

[scottish]

Well I certainly don't know if you're crazy!    There are lots of links if you search for the difference between equality and equity.   I don't claim to be an expert, the language seems to change all the time.

Dictionary.com has a more nuanced version:   https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

[Metalcat]

Well I certainly don't know if you're crazy!    There are lots of links if you search for the difference between equality and equity.   I don't claim to be an expert, the language seems to change all the time.

Dictionary.com has a more nuanced version:   https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

Actually, Carleton had an *excellent* equity-based admissions program where students who had low highschool grades and needed extra support could register in a special program where they took 80% of a full course load and got one-on-one weekly academic support in place of the 5th class they weren't taking, and then if they maintained a good grade point average, they could apply to graduate out of the program and just continue as regular students.

This program has existed at Carleton for decades.

Your experience was particular to the engineering department, which has always had a "sink or swim" kind of mentality that the institution itself did not share. Carleton also has world-class, standard setting disability accommodations. It's the pinnacle of equitable student policy in North America.

[GuitarStv]

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

I wouldn't support "equity" in your definition above.  If someone is partying and not trying, then providing them extra support wouldn't really be equity . . . it would be preferential treatment for people who don't work hard.

But I see that as distinct and different from the treatment that people typically advocate for - to make up for the inequality caused to those who have been negatively impacted by racism and sexism.  You brought up the example of native people earlier.  After the way that Canada treated a whole generation of people with the residential school system, it sowed a lot of distrust of educational facilities.  That led to worse grades and less value being put on education for native kids by their parents, which led to worse grades in school, fewer native applicants to university, lower average wages for the group as a whole.

Would it really an example of equality to provide the same educational opportunities to these kids as suburban white kids get?  If so, then equality seems really dumb .  .  . and like it's a tool that is used to enforce the status quo rather than a fair way of approaching education.

[RetiredAt63]

There are some useful things for education for First Nations.  They paid for textbooks - I signed the forms a few times when I taught CEGEP (some of our technical textbooks were quite expensive).  Of course you had to get into CEGEP in the first place . . .

And info for non-Quebecers, there is no tuition for CEGEP for Quebec residents.  There are some fees, but the cost is a few $100 a year.  Or was when I was teaching, I am sure it has gone up now like everything else.

[scottish]

Well I certainly don't know if you're crazy!    There are lots of links if you search for the difference between equality and equity.   I don't claim to be an expert, the language seems to change all the time.

Dictionary.com has a more nuanced version:   https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

Actually, Carleton had an *excellent* equity-based admissions program where students who had low highschool grades and needed extra support could register in a special program where they took 80% of a full course load and got one-on-one weekly academic support in place of the 5th class they weren't taking, and then if they maintained a good grade point average, they could apply to graduate out of the program and just continue as regular students.

This program has existed at Carleton for decades.

Your experience was particular to the engineering department, which has always had a "sink or swim" kind of mentality that the institution itself did not share. Carleton also has world-class, standard setting disability accommodations. It's the pinnacle of equitable student policy in North America.

I didn't know that.   Engineering students tend to be pretty focused on their own faculty.   We did see a bit of it in the looser admission standards to the program though.

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

I wouldn't support "equity" in your definition above.  If someone is partying and not trying, then providing them extra support wouldn't really be equity . . . it would be preferential treatment for people who don't work hard.

But I see that as distinct and different from the treatment that people typically advocate for - to make up for the inequality caused to those who have been negatively impacted by racism and sexism.  You brought up the example of native people earlier.  After the way that Canada treated a whole generation of people with the residential school system, it sowed a lot of distrust of educational facilities.  That led to worse grades and less value being put on education for native kids by their parents, which led to worse grades in school, fewer native applicants to university, lower average wages for the group as a whole.

Would it really an example of equality to provide the same educational opportunities to these kids as suburban white kids get?  If so, then equality seems really dumb .  .  . and like it's a tool that is used to enforce the status quo rather than a fair way of approaching education.

Providing equal educational opportunities seems alot better than providing fewer educational opportunities...

If equity is a poor term, then what would you call this treatment where you provide extra support for people because they're in a minority group that has been negatively impacted by society over the years?    And how would you tell if they needed extra support because of some inequity, versus preferential support because they're not trying?

[RetiredAt63]

Well I certainly don't know if you're crazy!    There are lots of links if you search for the difference between equality and equity.   I don't claim to be an expert, the language seems to change all the time.

Dictionary.com has a more nuanced version:   https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

Actually, Carleton had an *excellent* equity-based admissions program where students who had low highschool grades and needed extra support could register in a special program where they took 80% of a full course load and got one-on-one weekly academic support in place of the 5th class they weren't taking, and then if they maintained a good grade point average, they could apply to graduate out of the program and just continue as regular students.

This program has existed at Carleton for decades.

Your experience was particular to the engineering department, which has always had a "sink or swim" kind of mentality that the institution itself did not share. Carleton also has world-class, standard setting disability accommodations. It's the pinnacle of equitable student policy in North America.

I always thought of Carleton as Ontario's Concordia.  Both had similar histories of origins of being accessible to people who were not "traditional" students - i.e. wealthy enough to go straight from high school to university without a part-tme job.  Both competing, or at least sharing a city, with an old "name" University - McGill and U of Ottawa.

Engineering may have always been like that.  One of my Dad's professors, in his first class in engineering (U of M, M = Manitoba not Montreal) told them to look to their left and to their right - by the end of the year one of the 3 of them would be gone.  That was in the early 30s.

[Metalcat]

Well I certainly don't know if you're crazy!    There are lots of links if you search for the difference between equality and equity.   I don't claim to be an expert, the language seems to change all the time.

Dictionary.com has a more nuanced version:   https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

Actually, Carleton had an *excellent* equity-based admissions program where students who had low highschool grades and needed extra support could register in a special program where they took 80% of a full course load and got one-on-one weekly academic support in place of the 5th class they weren't taking, and then if they maintained a good grade point average, they could apply to graduate out of the program and just continue as regular students.

This program has existed at Carleton for decades.

Your experience was particular to the engineering department, which has always had a "sink or swim" kind of mentality that the institution itself did not share. Carleton also has world-class, standard setting disability accommodations. It's the pinnacle of equitable student policy in North America.

I didn't know that.   Engineering students tend to be pretty focused on their own faculty.   We did see a bit of it in the looser admission standards to the program though.

Toque is right, it's hard to find a non-controversial example.     How about this one?    Way back in the 80's I went to Carleton to study engineering.    One of the things I liked about Carleton is that they didn't seem to be elitist - the entrance requirements were much easier than other schools like U of Toronto and Queen's.     They gave lots of students a chance.    But in the end about 75% dropped out of the program.    In my mind, this is an example of "equality" - everybody got a chance, but it was up to them to succeed.

If it was an example of "equity" then the school would go out of it's way to provide extra support for people who were having trouble, and the number of people who succeeded could have been much higher.
 
I'll admit to mixed feelings.    Those students in my engineering class who could have made it if they had a little help - well it would have been great to give them that help.    I personally helped a couple of them.    But there were also students who were just there to party.    If they weren't going to even try, why would anyone go out of their way to help them?   And do we really want to graduate engineering students who aren't willing to work hard?    They can have a significant impact on public safety if they screw up.

I wouldn't support "equity" in your definition above.  If someone is partying and not trying, then providing them extra support wouldn't really be equity . . . it would be preferential treatment for people who don't work hard.

But I see that as distinct and different from the treatment that people typically advocate for - to make up for the inequality caused to those who have been negatively impacted by racism and sexism.  You brought up the example of native people earlier.  After the way that Canada treated a whole generation of people with the residential school system, it sowed a lot of distrust of educational facilities.  That led to worse grades and less value being put on education for native kids by their parents, which led to worse grades in school, fewer native applicants to university, lower average wages for the group as a whole.

Would it really an example of equality to provide the same educational opportunities to these kids as suburban white kids get?  If so, then equality seems really dumb .  .  . and like it's a tool that is used to enforce the status quo rather than a fair way of approaching education.

Providing equal educational opportunities seems alot better than providing fewer educational opportunities...

If equity is a poor term, then what would you call this treatment where you provide extra support for people because they're in a minority group that has been negatively impacted by society over the years?    And how would you tell if they needed extra support because of some inequity, versus preferential support because they're not trying?

It's really not hard. Many education experts have been doing exactly this for many, many years.  I *just* gave you the example of Carleton did it.

You know your program works when students do better with support. Not all of them, but a substantial amount. This is exactly how disability accommodations work. Students who need accommodation tend to do really well with accommodation.

I come back to my original statement that there are highly qualified experts who know exactly how to do these things, or how to figure out how to do them.

[scottish]

I see, it's the grade point average.   If they maintained a good grade point average with supports there were incentives, ie joining the regular program.    I guess it's not an exact science, so if it works for a substantial fraction of the participants that will justify the program right there and then.

[Metalcat]

I see, it's the grade point average.   If they maintained a good grade point average with supports there were incentives, ie joining the regular program.    I guess it's not an exact science, so if it works for a substantial fraction of the participants that will justify the program right there and then.

The grade point average allows them to graduate out of the program, but their one-on-one support staff are also trained to assess how they are doing/coping/thriving/etc.

So some students might need to stay in the program all through school and manage to graduate with decent grades as long as they maintain support. Students that would never get a university education otherwise.

As I said, experts put these programs together. They have all sorts of systems for assessing their own programs. This is the kind of thing that people with doctorates in education work on.

[RetiredAt63]

I see, it's the grade point average.   If they maintained a good grade point average with supports there were incentives, ie joining the regular program.    I guess it's not an exact science, so if it works for a substantial fraction of the participants that will justify the program right there and then.

The grade point average allows them to graduate out of the program, but their one-on-one support staff are also trained to assess how they are doing/coping/thriving/etc.

So some students might need to stay in the program all through school and manage to graduate with decent grades as long as they maintain support. Students that would never get a university education otherwise.

As I said, experts put these programs together. They have all sorts of systems for assessing their own programs. This is the kind of thing that people with doctorates in education work on.

My CEGEP had several people doing this.  Direct support, plus indirect support by advising faculty on which students needed which accommodations.  This worked well for everyone - the student didn't need to approach each teacher directly (since many of them wouldn't do that), the teachers knew it was legitimate, and we could work with the support people - i.e. if a student needed to write an exam there instead of with the rest of the class.

The thing is, bright students can often find work-arounds, but think of the extra effort that takes.  They probably did work-arounds all through high school as well.  It's so much better if they can put that energy and time into actually learning something instead of just coping.  And the students who have not been able to manage work-arounds are now supported, and also channelling their efforts more productively.

[GuitarStv]

Providing equal educational opportunities seems alot better than providing fewer educational opportunities...

If equity is a poor term, then what would you call this treatment where you provide extra support for people because they're in a minority group that has been negatively impacted by society over the years?

Fairness?  A righting of historical and ongoing wrongs?

And how would you tell if they needed extra support because of some inequity, versus preferential support because they're not trying?

I guess that you would have to determine what the goal of the support is, and then regularly measure progress towards that goal, attempting to account for any confounding factors.

[techwiz]

According to the Globe and Mail Pierre Poilievre has the most support followed by Jean Charest, and Patrick Brown.  I have no idea how they are coming up with this information my understanding is ballots will be mailed out in July or August and it will be September 10 before a new leader will be named. 

[RetiredAt63]

According to the Globe and Mail Pierre Poilievre has the most support followed by Jean Charest, and Patrick Brown.  I have no idea how they are coming up with this information my understanding is ballots will be mailed out in July or August and it will be September 10 before a new leader will be named.

I'm guessing they are looking at new memberships sold by each candidate.

[Missy B]

According to the Globe and Mail Pierre Poilievre has the most support followed by Jean Charest, and Patrick Brown.  I have no idea how they are coming up with this information my understanding is ballots will be mailed out in July or August and it will be September 10 before a new leader will be named.

I'm guessing they are looking at new memberships sold by each candidate.

Yes. Poilievre has some freakish number of new memberships. I joined the party to support Charest, but it doesn't look good. Probably the pendulum has to swing farther right first.
I'd be surprised if the Conservatives get a majority under P. Which is what it will take to form government.
Never thought I'd miss Harper so much.

[scottish]

According to the Globe and Mail Pierre Poilievre has the most support followed by Jean Charest, and Patrick Brown.  I have no idea how they are coming up with this information my understanding is ballots will be mailed out in July or August and it will be September 10 before a new leader will be named.

I'm guessing they are looking at new memberships sold by each candidate.

Yes. Poilievre has some freakish number of new memberships. I joined the party to support Charest, but it doesn't look good. Probably the pendulum has to swing farther right first.
I'd be surprised if the Conservatives get a majority under P. Which is what it will take to form government.
Never thought I'd miss Harper so much.

Hey, we're supporting Charest too.    Make sure you vote!

If PP manages to win, he's got a couple of years to start acting rational before the federal election.     In the meantime, he isn't very electable.

[frugalcanuck]

Anyway, we diverged from the difference between equality and equity a while back.    Next time I'll try harder to find a less controversial example.

I think you'll find there are no non-controversial examples.

Why are black women more likely to die in childbirth than white women?  Racism in healthcare.
Why are indigenous people 9x more likely to end up in jail in Canada? The racist legacy of colonialism, residential schools, education etc.

It's easy to go on with these examples.  If you see a group of people dying, getting incarcerated, getting lower income levels, having worse educational attainment, you can start blaming their genetics or you can start looking at how our society makes assumptions about that group.

Are girls really worse at math?  Or are teachers planting the idea of girls being bad at math in their heads from an early age, influencing them to be scared of numbers?
Are boys really violent and rambunctious and unable to settle down?  Or are we teaching boys to only have violent emotions and making excuses for their behaviour instead of teaching them to be civilized?

These are tricky questions, in some respect, because it's really, really hard to eliminate all of the bias from a person's entire childhood.
Nonetheless, that's what we strive for, and when we see severe differences in outcomes, we look for those biases and try to compensate for them.

Toque.

Racism is not the answer for everything that is wrong.  Though I am not a betting man, I would make a wager that wealthy black women have a higher survival rate than a poor white women who did not graduate high school.
There are multiple factors in everything.  The problem with where the "left" has gone, is they have they have turned this topic into a religion.  A topic where everything is racist and you cannot question it. 

Boys are, on average, way more violent and rambunctious than girls.  That's a fact.  That doesn't mean there are no violent and rambunctious girls and no calm and collective boys.  It is the parents job as a parent to civilize that out of them. 
Stop getting your definitions from Google and read a child developmental psychology book that is from before 2013 (The year social sciences stopped).   There is so much out there.  Every single one of your examples can be refuted with statistics and reason.  I don't have the time do that.  Maybe when I retire.

We are allowed to have differences of outcome.  The whole Mustache community has a desire for a different outcome.

[Metalcat]

Anyway, we diverged from the difference between equality and equity a while back.    Next time I'll try harder to find a less controversial example.

I think you'll find there are no non-controversial examples.

Why are black women more likely to die in childbirth than white women?  Racism in healthcare.
Why are indigenous people 9x more likely to end up in jail in Canada? The racist legacy of colonialism, residential schools, education etc.

It's easy to go on with these examples.  If you see a group of people dying, getting incarcerated, getting lower income levels, having worse educational attainment, you can start blaming their genetics or you can start looking at how our society makes assumptions about that group.

Are girls really worse at math?  Or are teachers planting the idea of girls being bad at math in their heads from an early age, influencing them to be scared of numbers?
Are boys really violent and rambunctious and unable to settle down?  Or are we teaching boys to only have violent emotions and making excuses for their behaviour instead of teaching them to be civilized?

These are tricky questions, in some respect, because it's really, really hard to eliminate all of the bias from a person's entire childhood.
Nonetheless, that's what we strive for, and when we see severe differences in outcomes, we look for those biases and try to compensate for them.

Toque.

Racism is not the answer for everything that is wrong.  Though I am not a betting man, I would make a wager that wealthy black women have a higher survival rate than a poor white women who did not graduate high school.
There are multiple factors in everything.  The problem with where the "left" has gone, is they have they have turned this topic into a religion.  A topic where everything is racist and you cannot question it. 

Boys are, on average, way more violent and rambunctious than girls.  That's a fact.  That doesn't mean there are no violent and rambunctious girls and no calm and collective boys.  It is the parents job as a parent to civilize that out of them. 
Stop getting your definitions from Google and read a child developmental psychology book that is from before 2013 (The year social sciences stopped).   There is so much out there.  Every single one of your examples can be refuted with statistics and reason.  I don't have the time do that.  Maybe when I retire.

We are allowed to have differences of outcome.  The whole Mustache community has a desire for a different outcome.

IDK, I studied developmental psychology back in 2002 and I don't get your point.

I also don't see this thing that "the left" is doing that you claim.

[frugalcanuck]

Anyway, we diverged from the difference between equality and equity a while back.    Next time I'll try harder to find a less controversial example.

I think you'll find there are no non-controversial examples.

Why are black women more likely to die in childbirth than white women?  Racism in healthcare.
Why are indigenous people 9x more likely to end up in jail in Canada? The racist legacy of colonialism, residential schools, education etc.

It's easy to go on with these examples.  If you see a group of people dying, getting incarcerated, getting lower income levels, having worse educational attainment, you can start blaming their genetics or you can start looking at how our society makes assumptions about that group.

Are girls really worse at math?  Or are teachers planting the idea of girls being bad at math in their heads from an early age, influencing them to be scared of numbers?
Are boys really violent and rambunctious and unable to settle down?  Or are we teaching boys to only have violent emotions and making excuses for their behaviour instead of teaching them to be civilized?

These are tricky questions, in some respect, because it's really, really hard to eliminate all of the bias from a person's entire childhood.
Nonetheless, that's what we strive for, and when we see severe differences in outcomes, we look for those biases and try to compensate for them.

Toque.

Racism is not the answer for everything that is wrong.  Though I am not a betting man, I would make a wager that wealthy black women have a higher survival rate than a poor white women who did not graduate high school.
There are multiple factors in everything.  The problem with where the "left" has gone, is they have they have turned this topic into a religion.  A topic where everything is racist and you cannot question it. 

Boys are, on average, way more violent and rambunctious than girls.  That's a fact.  That doesn't mean there are no violent and rambunctious girls and no calm and collective boys.  It is the parents job as a parent to civilize that out of them. 
Stop getting your definitions from Google and read a child developmental psychology book that is from before 2013 (The year social sciences stopped).   There is so much out there.  Every single one of your examples can be refuted with statistics and reason.  I don't have the time do that.  Maybe when I retire.

We are allowed to have differences of outcome.  The whole Mustache community has a desire for a different outcome.

IDK, I studied developmental psychology back in 2002 and I don't get your point.

I also don't see this thing that "the left" is doing that you claim.

Cool.  I also studied  in that area in the early 2000's.  My point was that boys are different than girls in many behaviours.

The thing that I'm referring to that the "left" is doing is blaming nearly every problem on racism or sexism.  The Critical Race Theory lens has swallowed the left.  It is entirely black or white.  The is no allowance for other variables that may or may not have higher contributing factors.  If you point out other variables or fallacies in their logic then you get labeled by them and they get mad.  That's how I liken it to a religion.

[Metalcat]

Anyway, we diverged from the difference between equality and equity a while back.    Next time I'll try harder to find a less controversial example.

I think you'll find there are no non-controversial examples.

Why are black women more likely to die in childbirth than white women?  Racism in healthcare.
Why are indigenous people 9x more likely to end up in jail in Canada? The racist legacy of colonialism, residential schools, education etc.

It's easy to go on with these examples.  If you see a group of people dying, getting incarcerated, getting lower income levels, having worse educational attainment, you can start blaming their genetics or you can start looking at how our society makes assumptions about that group.

Are girls really worse at math?  Or are teachers planting the idea of girls being bad at math in their heads from an early age, influencing them to be scared of numbers?
Are boys really violent and rambunctious and unable to settle down?  Or are we teaching boys to only have violent emotions and making excuses for their behaviour instead of teaching them to be civilized?

These are tricky questions, in some respect, because it's really, really hard to eliminate all of the bias from a person's entire childhood.
Nonetheless, that's what we strive for, and when we see severe differences in outcomes, we look for those biases and try to compensate for them.

Toque.

Racism is not the answer for everything that is wrong.  Though I am not a betting man, I would make a wager that wealthy black women have a higher survival rate than a poor white women who did not graduate high school.
There are multiple factors in everything.  The problem with where the "left" has gone, is they have they have turned this topic into a religion.  A topic where everything is racist and you cannot question it. 

Boys are, on average, way more violent and rambunctious than girls.  That's a fact.  That doesn't mean there are no violent and rambunctious girls and no calm and collective boys.  It is the parents job as a parent to civilize that out of them. 
Stop getting your definitions from Google and read a child developmental psychology book that is from before 2013 (The year social sciences stopped).   There is so much out there.  Every single one of your examples can be refuted with statistics and reason.  I don't have the time do that.  Maybe when I retire.

We are allowed to have differences of outcome.  The whole Mustache community has a desire for a different outcome.

IDK, I studied developmental psychology back in 2002 and I don't get your point.

I also don't see this thing that "the left" is doing that you claim.

Cool.  I also studied  in that area in the early 2000's.  My point was that boys are different than girls in many behaviours.

The thing that I'm referring to that the "left" is doing is blaming nearly every problem on racism or sexism.  The Critical Race Theory lens has swallowed the left.  It is entirely black or white.  The is no allowance for other variables that may or may not have higher contributing factors.  If you point out other variables or fallacies in their logic then you get labeled by them and they get mad.  That's how I liken it to a religion.

That's not my experience being extremely leftist, having an entire family of extremely leftist folks, having a ton of extremely leftist friends, being *currently* in a VERY progressive academic environment that aggressively teaches issues of social justice, I'm part of a group of ultra progressive religious leaders across the country who are trying to reform organized religion to promote social justice, and basically having these kinds of conversations every single day of my life.

I don't doubt that some people react the way you say, but as someone who lives, eats, and breathes leftist culture, that's not at all my experience.

Oh, I'm also a former neuroscientist who used to actually teach the biological differences between males and females (in the early 2000s!), and none of the science is incompatible with the challenges that toque presented.

Lastly, almost all of my professional friends* are staunch right wing folks, and because we're all from a science/medical background, none of us disagree about this science. We disagree intensely about monetary policy, but not about the basics of biology.

ETA: not the academic folks, the medical professional folks, I've had careers in multiple industries, so spend a lot of time with people with wildly divergent political views from my own.

[jambongris]

I don’t understand @frugalcanuck’s point about wealthy, educated, black women having better childbirth outcomes than poor, undereducated, white women.

My understanding of the “left’s” view here is that if you control for all variables other than race (e.g. education, income, etc.) that black women have worse outcomes than white women. If you’ve controlled for every variable you can think of, other than skin colour, how do you explain the difference in outcomes if not racism?

[daverobev]

I don't understand how you're supposed to argue against a group of people being outraged over trying to make things better for people.

I don't understand how you're supposed to improve education when all the right/conservative people on stage/in power seem to want to reduce education.

I don't understand why we aren't going forwards on all this stuff when it's by and large so bloody obvious. Try and give people options, awareness, critical thinking so they can make good choices -> better society for everyone. Blame division hatred -> worse for everyone.

[RetiredAt63]

I don't understand how you're supposed to argue against a group of people being outraged over trying to make things better for people.

I don't understand how you're supposed to improve education when all the right/conservative people on stage/in power seem to want to reduce education.

I don't understand why we aren't going forwards on all this stuff when it's by and large so bloody obvious. Try and give people options, awareness, critical thinking so they can make good choices -> better society for everyone. Blame division hatred -> worse for everyone.

You are obviously not a conservative and don't understand the conservative mindset. 

Neither am I and I don't understand it either.  The closest I can come to it is thinking it is zero-sum strategy instead of win-win strategy.  And it's not an age thing either, I was told in my 20s that I would get more conservative as I got older, and if anything I am more radical.  Or maybe everything has shifted right and I haven't changed, so I just feel more to the left.

[FrugalToque]

I don't understand how you're supposed to argue against a group of people being outraged over trying to make things better for people.

I don't understand how you're supposed to improve education when all the right/conservative people on stage/in power seem to want to reduce education.

I don't understand why we aren't going forwards on all this stuff when it's by and large so bloody obvious. Try and give people options, awareness, critical thinking so they can make good choices -> better society for everyone. Blame division hatred -> worse for everyone.

The nearest I can tell, there's this fear that if you make things nicer, the lesser/lazier people of the world (which you get to decide, it might be waiters at restaurants or your last favourite race) will have no motivation to work.  Like, "I need my food delivered promptly and if Cheryl over there gets a living wage and benefits, she won't be desperately scrabbling for every 1% of tip I might giver her".  This is a real belief, ever since Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" myth of the 1980s.  Somehow, once we start making public education good, the poors will just get lazy.

You are obviously not a conservative and don't understand the conservative mindset. 

Neither am I and I don't understand it either.  The closest I can come to it is thinking it is zero-sum strategy instead of win-win strategy.  And it's not an age thing either, I was told in my 20s that I would get more conservative as I got older, and if anything I am more radical.  Or maybe everything has shifted right and I haven't changed, so I just feel more to the left.

I don't think individual people get more conservative.  I believe there was a study, which I can't now find, which shows either the opposite or no tendency to change.  What happens is that rich people tend to be conservative and rich people tend to live longer, so the *population* shifts to a higher concentration of conservatives, but that's just because the progressives die younger.

[Metalcat]

I don't understand how you're supposed to argue against a group of people being outraged over trying to make things better for people.

I don't understand how you're supposed to improve education when all the right/conservative people on stage/in power seem to want to reduce education.

I don't understand why we aren't going forwards on all this stuff when it's by and large so bloody obvious. Try and give people options, awareness, critical thinking so they can make good choices -> better society for everyone. Blame division hatred -> worse for everyone.

The nearest I can tell, there's this fear that if you make things nicer, the lesser/lazier people of the world (which you get to decide, it might be waiters at restaurants or your last favourite race) will have no motivation to work.  Like, "I need my food delivered promptly and if Cheryl over there gets a living wage and benefits, she won't be desperately scrabbling for every 1% of tip I might giver her".  This is a real belief, ever since Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" myth of the 1980s.  Somehow, once we start making public education good, the poors will just get lazy.

You are obviously not a conservative and don't understand the conservative mindset. 

Neither am I and I don't understand it either.  The closest I can come to it is thinking it is zero-sum strategy instead of win-win strategy.  And it's not an age thing either, I was told in my 20s that I would get more conservative as I got older, and if anything I am more radical.  Or maybe everything has shifted right and I haven't changed, so I just feel more to the left.

I don't think individual people get more conservative.  I believe there was a study, which I can't now find, which shows either the opposite or no tendency to change.  What happens is that rich people tend to be conservative and rich people tend to live longer, so the *population* shifts to a higher concentration of conservatives, but that's just because the progressives die younger.

Well there's that and there's the fact that what's considered progressive shifts over time and not everyone adjust to it.

My great uncles say horrifically offensive things and hold views that would be considered atrocious by many progressives, yet they were incredibly progressive in their youth, and because of that believe that they are somehow exempt. They are the classic "racist uncle Bob" trope, but they couldn't possibly fathom themselves that way.

I had this conversation with a new friend the other day. He fancies himself rather progressive, but now in his late 40s, finds that certain things are "going a bit far" and we had a whole conversation how it's a pretty easy slide from thinking that things are "going a bit far" to becoming "racist uncle Bob" at the family BBQ.

And I have a lot of compassion for this experience. It's really hard to feel like your beliefs and values, which have always been "acceptable" suddenly become offensive.

I was reading Rowan Atkinson's recent lamenting that comedians should be allowed to offend anyone and laughed to DH "of course the rich, old, white, influential British man thinks the thing that made him successful should be considered sacrosanct."

But really, it's hard for someone to look back on a lifetime that they are proud of and have young people shit all over it and say it's now offensive.

That's a tough change to accept for a lot of people who have been taught to perceive their own beliefs as "right" or "wrong."

So I don't necessarily think that people become more conservative as they age, but I do think they increasingly start to resist how progressiveness evolves over time.

Staying progressive takes commitment and a willingness to accept that what you think, say, and believe at this very moment may become totally unacceptable.

A lot of people just don't want to do that, and I really do understand why they don't. It's not my choice, but I do get it.

[GuitarStv]

I don't think individual people get more conservative.  I believe there was a study, which I can't now find, which shows either the opposite or no tendency to change.  What happens is that rich people tend to be conservative and rich people tend to live longer, so the *population* shifts to a higher concentration of conservatives, but that's just because the progressives die younger.

It was true for me.

I grew up in a poor community in Northern Ontario, which initially made my politics far, far, far left wing.  Basically everyone is a communist up there . . . because it's really easy to want to share when you don't have anything.  I later moved much more center left as the problems with the far left communism and socialist approaches became more clear to me.

[RetiredAt63]

I don't understand how you're supposed to argue against a group of people being outraged over trying to make things better for people.

I don't understand how you're supposed to improve education when all the right/conservative people on stage/in power seem to want to reduce education.

I don't understand why we aren't going forwards on all this stuff when it's by and large so bloody obvious. Try and give people options, awareness, critical thinking so they can make good choices -> better society for everyone. Blame division hatred -> worse for everyone.

The nearest I can tell, there's this fear that if you make things nicer, the lesser/lazier people of the world (which you get to decide, it might be waiters at restaurants or your last favourite race) will have no motivation to work.  Like, "I need my food delivered promptly and if Cheryl over there gets a living wage and benefits, she won't be desperately scrabbling for every 1% of tip I might giver her".  This is a real belief, ever since Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" myth of the 1980s.  Somehow, once we start making public education good, the poors will just get lazy.

You are obviously not a conservative and don't understand the conservative mindset. 

Neither am I and I don't understand it either.  The closest I can come to it is thinking it is zero-sum strategy instead of win-win strategy.  And it's not an age thing either, I was told in my 20s that I would get more conservative as I got older, and if anything I am more radical.  Or maybe everything has shifted right and I haven't changed, so I just feel more to the left.

I don't think individual people get more conservative.  I believe there was a study, which I can't now find, which shows either the opposite or no tendency to change.  What happens is that rich people tend to be conservative and rich people tend to live longer, so the *population* shifts to a higher concentration of conservatives, but that's just because the progressives die younger.

You got the quotes mixed up but that's OK.    ;-)  I agreed with it anyway.

[RetiredAt63]

Well there's that and there's the fact that what's considered progressive shifts over time and not everyone adjust to it.

Staying progressive takes commitment and a willingness to accept that what you think, say, and believe at this very moment may become totally unacceptable.

A lot of people just don't want to do that, and I really do understand why they don't. It's not my choice, but I do get it.

It's hard work and it takes time and effort and energy, which all become scarce resources as we get older.  Plus in retirement (traditional retirement at retirement age) there is less contact with the general world.

I know it was much easier to keep up with general trends and changes when I was teaching.  Plus vocabulary - DD just freaked out the first time she was complaining about something and I told her it was a first world problem - she did not expect me to know that term.   ;-)

It is easier when things are a continuation of things that were already in motion earlier, but harder when totally new things arise - not that they didn't exist before, but that they were not in society's radar. So racial and economic inequity are the same old same old with new variations and vocabulary shifts, but all the gender stuff has been made more public relatively recently.  Relatively by my standards that is.  I had no concept of gay/straight when I was a kid, and I don't think it really sank in until I was in my 20s, and then it was very binary.  The last 20 years have seen huge changes in social awareness.   And there are probably other issues that are still totally off my radar and I just hope that I don't blunder due to ignorance. 

[daverobev]

Isn't it, basically, though: it isn't anyone's business what consenting adults do with each other - emphasis on 'consenting' so no grooming/mental bullying etc to achieve 'consent' - so leave 'em be?

I felt so sorry for a guy in the UK known as 'the naked rambler'. He wasn't a pervert or anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough - he wasn't hurting anyone.

I'll admit I don't 'get' the gender stuff. But still - it is absolutely none of my business. Same with abortion - one quote really made sense to me, that pretty much no woman gets to the third trimester and just on a whim decides it isn't for her. It should be between her and a non-bigoted doctor. Not a court imposing arbitrary cut-off dates.

Same with euthanasia.

If you want to put a noisy nightclub next to my house that'll disturb my sleep, that's different. If the nightclub was there before I moved in, that's on me. I just don't get how this isn't all 'obvious'.

Just... 'be nice'?? Heh.

[RetiredAt63]

Isn't it, basically, though: it isn't anyone's business what consenting adults do with each other - emphasis on 'consenting' so no grooming/mental bullying etc to achieve 'consent' - so leave 'em be?

I felt so sorry for a guy in the UK known as 'the naked rambler'. He wasn't a pervert or anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough - he wasn't hurting anyone.

I'll admit I don't 'get' the gender stuff. But still - it is absolutely none of my business. Same with abortion - one quote really made sense to me, that pretty much no woman gets to the third trimester and just on a whim decides it isn't for her. It should be between her and a non-bigoted doctor. Not a court imposing arbitrary cut-off dates.

Same with euthanasia.

If you want to put a noisy nightclub next to my house that'll disturb my sleep, that's different. If the nightclub was there before I moved in, that's on me. I just don't get how this isn't all 'obvious'.

Just... 'be nice'?? Heh.

That is a lot of it - as Trudeau pere said, the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

And a lot more came from "fairness" - is it fair that 2 people are each in a committed relationship, but only one partner has the rights of a spouse because they are the opposite sex, the other has no rights because they are the same sex - this was for pensions, and being on the family health plan at work, and so on.   I remember the discussions, a lot of people who were morally opposed agreed that it still wasn't fair - and at that point fairness mattered to a lot of Canadians.  Fairness means people get treated fairly -i.e. the same - irregardless of whether some people think something is "wrong". 

[Missy B]

According to the Globe and Mail Pierre Poilievre has the most support followed by Jean Charest, and Patrick Brown.  I have no idea how they are coming up with this information my understanding is ballots will be mailed out in July or August and it will be September 10 before a new leader will be named.

I'm guessing they are looking at new memberships sold by each candidate.

Yes. Poilievre has some freakish number of new memberships. I joined the party to support Charest, but it doesn't look good. Probably the pendulum has to swing farther right first.
I'd be surprised if the Conservatives get a majority under P. Which is what it will take to form government.
Never thought I'd miss Harper so much.

Hey, we're supporting Charest too.    Make sure you vote!

If PP manages to win, he's got a couple of years to start acting rational before the federal election.     In the meantime, he isn't very electable.

Damn straight I'm voting. That's why I paid me money. Bonus: daily email entertainment from CPC candidates. PP taking a leaf straight out of  Trump-style campaigning. Simple sentences, big lies.

The interesting part is, cause i live in a Red Bastion on which Hedy Fry has a death grip, and the way the vote is structured by riding, my vote carries more weight than it would if I were in, say, my birth riding of Calgary North (and Harper's old riding).
Hedy Fry does sweet tootle for this riding, but boy can she show up for Pride parades.

[scottish]

Yeah some of the campaign emails are outright entertaining.

Today, Roman Baber says:

My Economic plan will limit spending, end Equalization payments and cut the personal income tax in the amount saved from Equalization. I will also repeal the Carbon tax and phase out Supply Management. I will have more to say on my economic plan in the near future.

End equalization payments?   Really?   So you're going to abandon all the have not provinces?

But I find their emails are getting better overall.   They're starting to realize that if they want to form a government, they need voters from the center, not just the "Covid convoy" people

At least I hope they're getting better.    Otherwise it means I'm starting to think the same way...

[Missy B]

Yeah some of the campaign emails are outright entertaining.

Today, Roman Baber says:

My Economic plan will limit spending, end Equalization payments and cut the personal income tax in the amount saved from Equalization. I will also repeal the Carbon tax and phase out Supply Management. I will have more to say on my economic plan in the near future.

End equalization payments?   Really?   So you're going to abandon all the have not provinces?

Well, that's a great strategy if Alberta were the only province that mattered in a Federal election.

[jambongris]

A bit of drama this morning in the leadership race.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/patrick-brown-disqualified-conservative-leadership-1.6511407

[daverobev]

Jesus wept, I remember him getting into trouble last time. I always thought he was treated poorly by the system at the time - innocent until proven guilty should apply, particularly in stuff like this... but of course if any misconduct found the penalties should be huge (ie not allowed to run for anything... or whatever would be reasonable).

What a shitshow.

[scottish]

The power structure of the conservative party is a bit murky to me.    The party constitution can be found online, and it cedes alot of power to something called the "Conservative Fund".   The board of directors of the Conservative Fund includes Stephen Harper and several high level businessmen in Canada.

It makes one wonder if Brown's ineligibity is actually the Conservative Fund trying to put the fix in to ensure that PP is elected party leader.    The news reports that:

Ian Brodie said in a statement following the vote that the allegations are related to an apparent breach of the financing rules in the Canada Elections Act, and has so far declined to provide more details.

but it's not very clear which of the financing rules would be violated in a party leadership selection.    Anyway, there's no guarantee that Brown's supporters would all jump to support PP, so maybe everything's fine.

Conservative party constitution:
https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/03155337/KXBCNkWf-X3IDtR.pdf

Artical about the Conservative Fund:
https://pressprogress.ca/meet-the-powerful-elites-who-control-the-conservative-partys-money/

[frugalcanuck]

Isn't it, basically, though: it isn't anyone's business what consenting adults do with each other - emphasis on 'consenting' so no grooming/mental bullying etc to achieve 'consent' - so leave 'em be?

I felt so sorry for a guy in the UK known as 'the naked rambler'. He wasn't a pervert or anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough - he wasn't hurting anyone.

I'll admit I don't 'get' the gender stuff. But still - it is absolutely none of my business. Same with abortion - one quote really made sense to me, that pretty much no woman gets to the third trimester and just on a whim decides it isn't for her. It should be between her and a non-bigoted doctor. Not a court imposing arbitrary cut-off dates.

Same with euthanasia.

If you want to put a noisy nightclub next to my house that'll disturb my sleep, that's different. If the nightclub was there before I moved in, that's on me. I just don't get how this isn't all 'obvious'.

Just... 'be nice'?? Heh.

I completely agree with the idea of letting consenting adults do what they please.  (So long as they cause no harm).  Justins' "father" agreed back in the day and even Justin himself agreed before he became prime minister.  It used to be the left that wanted these freedoms and responsibilities.  Now it seems to me to be the right that wants them more.  Justin tried to make experimental medical procedures mandatory.

[scottish]

It's funny how parties will do a 180 on their positions from time to time...

[FrugalToque]

I completely agree with the idea of letting consenting adults do what they please.  (So long as they cause no harm).  Justins' "father" agreed back in the day and even Justin himself agreed before he became prime minister.  It used to be the left that wanted these freedoms and responsibilities.  Now it seems to me to be the right that wants them more.  Justin tried to make experimental medical procedures mandatory.

The left has consistently voted for collective efforts and cooperation.
It's how we got fire departments, unions, 5 day work weeks, health care, senior drug benefits, CPP and EI, Old Age Pension.
It's how we got laws, in case you're unfamiliar, that require children to have about a dozen vaccines before they start Kindergarten.

But, somehow, this particular round of vaccinations, because it's only been tested on millions of people, and was required by the provincial government of Ontario in FAR more places than the "Justin" made it mandatory, is the end of the  world and somehow constitutes a "mandatory medical procedure" and is the very spectre of fascism which requires a bunch of Freedom Convoy yahoos to make a mess of downtown Ottawa for three weeks.

This is not a rational point of view.

Ford's Conservative gov't did WAY more locking down, shutting down, restricting and "mandating" than Justin's Liberal gov't.  But nobody walked around with "Fuck Ford" signs because most of the Convoy types were right wing and wanted to blame the Liberals for everything.

You live in a society.  To get along, we make a bunch of rules, like wearing seatbelts to keep healthcare costs lower and not smoking in restaurants so other people can breathe better.  Community vaccinations are part of those rules.  If you don't like it, then there were places you couldn't go for a while.  Most Canadians, despite lies spread by the convoy participants, were fine with those rules.

Toque.

[Metalcat]

I completely agree with the idea of letting consenting adults do what they please.  (So long as they cause no harm).  Justins' "father" agreed back in the day and even Justin himself agreed before he became prime minister.  It used to be the left that wanted these freedoms and responsibilities.  Now it seems to me to be the right that wants them more.  Justin tried to make experimental medical procedures mandatory.

The left has consistently voted for collective efforts and cooperation.
It's how we got fire departments, unions, 5 day work weeks, health care, senior drug benefits, CPP and EI, Old Age Pension.
It's how we got laws, in case you're unfamiliar, that require children to have about a dozen vaccines before they start Kindergarten.

But, somehow, this particular round of vaccinations, because it's only been tested on millions of people, and was required by the provincial government of Ontario in FAR more places than the "Justin" made it mandatory, is the end of the  world and somehow constitutes a "mandatory medical procedure" and is the very spectre of fascism which requires a bunch of Freedom Convoy yahoos to make a mess of downtown Ottawa for three weeks.

This is not a rational point of view.

Ford's Conservative gov't did WAY more locking down, shutting down, restricting and "mandating" than Justin's Liberal gov't.  But nobody walked around with "Fuck Ford" signs because most of the Convoy types were right wing and wanted to blame the Liberals for everything.

You live in a society.  To get along, we make a bunch of rules, like wearing seatbelts to keep healthcare costs lower and not smoking in restaurants so other people can breathe better.  Community vaccinations are part of those rules.  If you don't like it, then there were places you couldn't go for a while.  Most Canadians, despite lies spread by the convoy participants, were fine with those rules.

Toque.

Yeah "Justin" seems to get a lot more credit from than he deserves when it comes to pandemic policies.

The convoy was in Ford's province, largely taking issue with Ford's policies, and Ford was the one who played hardball with them at the bridge.

Plus "Fuck Ford" is catchy.

[scottish]

I completely agree with the idea of letting consenting adults do what they please.  (So long as they cause no harm).  Justins' "father" agreed back in the day and even Justin himself agreed before he became prime minister.  It used to be the left that wanted these freedoms and responsibilities.  Now it seems to me to be the right that wants them more.  Justin tried to make experimental medical procedures mandatory.

The left has consistently voted for collective efforts and cooperation.
It's how we got fire departments, unions, 5 day work weeks, health care, senior drug benefits, CPP and EI, Old Age Pension.
It's how we got laws, in case you're unfamiliar, that require children to have about a dozen vaccines before they start Kindergarten.

But, somehow, this particular round of vaccinations, because it's only been tested on millions of people, and was required by the provincial government of Ontario in FAR more places than the "Justin" made it mandatory, is the end of the  world and somehow constitutes a "mandatory medical procedure" and is the very spectre of fascism which requires a bunch of Freedom Convoy yahoos to make a mess of downtown Ottawa for three weeks.

This is not a rational point of view.

Ford's Conservative gov't did WAY more locking down, shutting down, restricting and "mandating" than Justin's Liberal gov't.  But nobody walked around with "Fuck Ford" signs because most of the Convoy types were right wing and wanted to blame the Liberals for everything.

You live in a society.  To get along, we make a bunch of rules, like wearing seatbelts to keep healthcare costs lower and not smoking in restaurants so other people can breathe better.  Community vaccinations are part of those rules.  If you don't like it, then there were places you couldn't go for a while.  Most Canadians, despite lies spread by the convoy participants, were fine with those rules.

Toque.

A Liberal government introduced the Immunization of School Pupils Act in Ontario.   But it was a Conservative government that introduced the Required Immunization of School Children in New Brunswick.   None of the other provinces seem to have such requirements...

I don't really identify with one party or the other.   I always wince when things are categorized as "left" or "right"...     Wait 30 years and it'll change.

[FrugalToque]

I completely agree with the idea of letting consenting adults do what they please.  (So long as they cause no harm).  Justins' "father" agreed back in the day and even Justin himself agreed before he became prime minister.  It used to be the left that wanted these freedoms and responsibilities.  Now it seems to me to be the right that wants them more.  Justin tried to make experimental medical procedures mandatory.

The left has consistently voted for collective efforts and cooperation.
It's how we got fire departments, unions, 5 day work weeks, health care, senior drug benefits, CPP and EI, Old Age Pension.
It's how we got laws, in case you're unfamiliar, that require children to have about a dozen vaccines before they start Kindergarten.

But, somehow, this particular round of vaccinations, because it's only been tested on millions of people, and was required by the provincial government of Ontario in FAR more places than the "Justin" made it mandatory, is the end of the  world and somehow constitutes a "mandatory medical procedure" and is the very spectre of fascism which requires a bunch of Freedom Convoy yahoos to make a mess of downtown Ottawa for three weeks.

This is not a rational point of view.

Ford's Conservative gov't did WAY more locking down, shutting down, restricting and "mandating" than Justin's Liberal gov't.  But nobody walked around with "Fuck Ford" signs because most of the Convoy types were right wing and wanted to blame the Liberals for everything.

You live in a society.  To get along, we make a bunch of rules, like wearing seatbelts to keep healthcare costs lower and not smoking in restaurants so other people can breathe better.  Community vaccinations are part of those rules.  If you don't like it, then there were places you couldn't go for a while.  Most Canadians, despite lies spread by the convoy participants, were fine with those rules.

Toque.

Yeah "Justin" seems to get a lot more credit from than he deserves when it comes to pandemic policies.

The convoy was in Ford's province, largely taking issue with Ford's policies, and Ford was the one who played hardball with them at the bridge.

Plus "Fuck Ford" is catchy.

Yeah, it was the most misplaced, manipulative hate-fest I've personally witnessed.
Ugh.
Ignorance and anger over thinly veiled swastika racism.

As I remember the time table, nobody was doing anything about the assholes in our streets until they blocked commerce at the borders.
Money came to be on the line.
Lots of money.
Then it hit the fan and suddenly we started caring about people suffering in Ottawa.

[scottish]

It was almost like a satire.

A bunch of protesters announce they're driving to Ottawa, in the middle of winter, to protest actions by the provinces and the United States.

Their plan is to blockade Wellington St with their trucks.    However blockading Wellington Street has no impact whatsoever on any government.   It *is* really annoying to the local residents though, so the protesters immediately lose all local support.   

For some reason, the Ottawa police didn't think it was worth intervening.   But at least Ottawa set an example (of what not to do) for Toronto, Quebec City and Edmonton.

Then some confused Americans show up with their red hats and confederate battle flags.

When the protesters refuse to leave, the Ottawa chief of police wrings his hands and mumbles about "a political solution"    Local heavy tow operators decline to cooperate for fear of blacklisting by the trucker community.

Then the mayor, some city councillors and local MPs take to the streets to try and do the job of the police.   A local citizen obtains a court order preventing the use of air horns at the protest so people can get some sleep.   (Any vestige of humour was long gone by this point.)

Eventually the chief of police was forced out and replaced by the deputy chief.   The deputy chief was much more of a "get things done" person and within a week the protesters had been disbursed, leaving small remnants on street corners with signs.

When the federal government realized that something was being done, they decided to invoke the emergencies act, just to show they weren't out of touch with the common person.

The epilogue?   The two main COVID convoy organizers have been remanded to custody pending trial for "mischief".     The deputy chief remains the acting chief of police, and I expect he'll be replaced by a more politically correct candidate by the end of the year.

The only bright light in this story was the competence of the acting chief of police, Steve Bell.

[RetiredAt63]

The only bright light in this story was the competence of the acting chief of police, Steve Bell.

I would add our local citizen, Zexi Li, who got the injunction against the air horns.  She had no bureaucracy behind her, just citizen support.  Also, I suppose, the court, which functioned as it was supposed to.

[scottish]

The only bright light in this story was the competence of the acting chief of police, Steve Bell.

I would add our local citizen, Zexi Li, who got the injunction against the air horns.  She had no bureaucracy behind her, just citizen support.  Also, I suppose, the court, which functioned as it was supposed to.

Yep.  A 21 year old university student, Zexi Li had more resolve than the chief of police.