If we don't trust regular people to vote on ________, why do we trust them to vote for people to represent them?
Its a fundamental problem with democracy. Its kinda terrible, but it also ends up being surprisingly good in a lot of situations. Giving people more say in how their democratic government works shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.
If we don't trust regular people to vote on ________, why do we trust them to vote for people to represent them?
For the same reason you hire a lawyer or a doctor or an architect.
People have neither the time nor the inclination nor the knowledge to vote directly on legislation. Ballot initiatives in the US should be ample evidence of this.
Direct democracy just shifts power into the hands of propagandists and marketers since they are the people best able to secure large numbers of votes from the electorate on specific issues.
I'd say democracy is pretty firmly in the hands of propagandists and marketers now, as we'll see with the upcoming elections in Canada and especially the US.
I'm not opposed to representatives, but they do have their disadvantages. Doctors are bound by law and ethical guidelines to ensure good care; they're also very highly trained. MPs?
I now have an absurd mental image of two doctors competing for my business. Not only do they not agree on the cure, they can't even agree on the disease. They know for sure the other doctor is wrong though!
Direct democracy isn't a solution to this; it clearly isn't viable for a number of reasons. But for the time being my participation in governance is limited to a few boxes to tick on a piece of paper, every few years. I wouldn't mind some middle ground.
+2
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
I think that making the argument that people should have less of a right to decide on the issues because you think the majority of the people out there are uninformed hillbilly dunces is backwards. Personally I think that if people were given the tools and opportunity to make a direct impact on municipal, provincial or federal issues it wouldn't cause the world to come crashing down and would let social change actually happen. If you think that those propagandists and marketers aren't spending boatloads of cash lobbying politicians right now then I don't know what to say.
Plus, there are a bunch of different types of Multi-Member Ridings to explore that Canada could make their own.
Whichever party that makes the proposal in detail of the system they would push for if elected to government that I agree with as a Canadian would be the one I vote for.
All other issues could then be hashed out in a civil represented parliament where basicly all the views of Canadians are represented and coalitions and real politik compromise are the norm. That would be far better than we currently have.
It's not clear to me what's wrong with Israel's government that is a result of proportional representation, and not their own internal issues. I mean, we could look at the US' FPTP system and the treatment of blacks in the US and say the same thing; if only they had PR, they could have small parties representing them that would drastically improve their conditions.
I think that making the argument that people should have less of a right to decide on the issues because you think the majority of the people out there are uninformed hillbilly dunces is backwards.
People aren't "uninformed hillbilly dunces". What they are is busy and specialised in other subjects and a whole host of other things that basically amount to "People don't have the time to be both a politician and a whatever-else-they-are".
Personally I think that if people were given the tools and opportunity to make a direct impact on municipal, provincial or federal issues it wouldn't cause the world to come crashing down and would let social change actually happen. If you think that those propagandists and marketers aren't spending boatloads of cash lobbying politicians right now then I don't know what to say.
No one claimed they weren't powerful now. Direct democracy just makes them much much much more powerful.
It's not clear to me what's wrong with Israel's government that is a result of proportional representation, and not their own internal issues. I mean, we could look at the US' FPTP system and the treatment of blacks in the US and say the same thing; if only they had PR, they could have small parties representing them that would drastically improve their conditions.
Small parties extreme coalitions I guess
I personally like MMP, you still have ridings but you also get the benefits of PR too
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
I mean, you could always do a direct democracy where people can give their votes to people, the same way they do now. (Obviously disallow selling votes...The same way votes cant be bought now). The difference being if my representative screws up and votes for something I'm totally opposed to, I can change who I give my vote to immediately, instead of in 0-4 years
It's not clear to me what's wrong with Israel's government that is a result of proportional representation, and not their own internal issues. I mean, we could look at the US' FPTP system and the treatment of blacks in the US and say the same thing; if only they had PR, they could have small parties representing them that would drastically improve their conditions.
Small parties extreme coalitions I guess
I personally like MMP, you still have ridings but you also get the benefits of PR too
Right. In majority governments, it's much more tyranny of the majority, and minority voices often don't get heard. The opposite is true in minority governments. FPTP lends more to majority governments. PR leads more to minority governments. So if that's the way we're thinking about it, it seems to boil it down to whether you want minority voices to be heard or not and the quality of those voices.
Israel has it particularly bad, because to some extent, it's a single-issue nation, and the way the numbers fall, it gives a lot of power to some extreme right voices. I don't really know that's a PR problem though; the more orthodox sects live together anyways, so location-based FPTP could still give them undue power in government, much like the Scottish National Party are overrepresented in the UK and would have had great power if the numbers had fallen for a minority government.
Plus, there are a bunch of different types of Multi-Member Ridings to explore that Canada could make their own.
Whichever party that makes the proposal in detail of the system they would push for if elected to government that I agree with as a Canadian would be the one I vote for.
All other issues could then be hashed out in a civil represented parliament where basicly all the views of Canadians are represented and coalitions and real politik compromise are the norm. That would be far better than we currently have.
I feel like I've already discussed this in another thread, but anyways:
I believe an election should generally produce a government which is empowered to enact its agenda. PR virtually guarantees that nobody will get a majority, which means your head of government has to stay in the good graces of opposition parties whether they're reasonable or not. I would like a government that functions at its Nash equilibrium and I don't really trust ours to avoid it given how many cues we seem to be taking from our neighbour to the south.
Also, I'm terrified of what the Republican Party of Canada would demand for its support.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
The way a coalition system works though is that, say, the Liberals get the plurality and then team up with the Cons to bring us shitty concessions.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
The way a coalition system works though is that, say, the Liberals get the plurality and then team up with the Cons to bring us shitty concessions.
That COULD be what happens, or they could partner with the NDP and not be terrible.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
The way a coalition system works though is that, say, the Liberals get the plurality and then team up with the Cons to bring us shitty concessions.
That COULD be what happens, or they could partner with the NDP and not be terrible.
Oh certainly. And I'd probably expect that the first time or two. But the way these things go, after awhile the Liberals (or maybe the NDP if they are the dominant partner) start shopping around for a better deal. After all, there's a reason they are separate parties.
Like, I'm not against the idea cause FPTP gets us some right bullshit like Harper's reign, but systems that encourage coalitions also encourage deal making with smaller and often more extremist parties to form stable governments and those deals are not always strictly just with closely related parties.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
The way a coalition system works though is that, say, the Liberals get the plurality and then team up with the Cons to bring us shitty concessions.
That COULD be what happens, or they could partner with the NDP and not be terrible.
Oh certainly. And I'd probably expect that the first time or two. But the way these things go, after awhile the Liberals (or maybe the NDP if they are the dominant partner) start shopping around for a better deal. After all, there's a reason they are separate parties.
Like, I'm not against the idea cause FPTP gets us some right bullshit like Harper's reign, but systems that encourage coalitions also encourage deal making with smaller and often more extremist parties to form stable governments and those deals are not always strictly just with closely related parties.
Unfortunately, with politics, gamesmanship starts getting involved. Hell, quite recently in Ontario, the Liberals had a minority government with NDP support, but Horwath figured that she could wrest more power with an election given high polling results, so she issued some flimflammy excuse and no-confidenced the Liberals. Parties #2 and #3 always want to be party #1, so party #1 figures it should better work with parties #4 and #5 instead, rather than giving its rivals a boost, etc, etc, etc,
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
I don't think 60% of Canadians would continue to vote NDP/Liberal in a PR system, though. While I personally would find it nice if the CPC got shut out of every government I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it would happen.
Plus, there are a bunch of different types of Multi-Member Ridings to explore that Canada could make their own.
Whichever party that makes the proposal in detail of the system they would push for if elected to government that I agree with as a Canadian would be the one I vote for.
All other issues could then be hashed out in a civil represented parliament where basicly all the views of Canadians are represented and coalitions and real politik compromise are the norm. That would be far better than we currently have.
I feel like I've already discussed this in another thread, but anyways:
I believe an election should generally produce a government which is empowered to enact its agenda. PR virtually guarantees that nobody will get a majority, which means your head of government has to stay in the good graces of opposition parties whether they're reasonable or not. I would like a government that functions at its Nash equilibrium and I don't really trust ours to avoid it given how many cues we seem to be taking from our neighbour to the south.
Also, I'm terrified of what the Republican Party of Canada would demand for its support.
You are aware that is basicly what we currently have, right? The Cons and Reform formed a coalition and the "Repub" Harper Cons rule the day and they don't even have to demand anything for their support, they just take it by party whipping like crazy and thumbing their nose at the rest of what 60-70% of Canadians voted for.
I'd say democracy is pretty firmly in the hands of propagandists and marketers now, as we'll see with the upcoming elections in Canada and especially the US.
I'm not opposed to representatives, but they do have their disadvantages. Doctors are bound by law and ethical guidelines to ensure good care; they're also very highly trained. MPs?
I now have an absurd mental image of two doctors competing for my business. Not only do they not agree on the cure, they can't even agree on the disease. They know for sure the other doctor is wrong though!
Direct democracy isn't a solution to this; it clearly isn't viable for a number of reasons. But for the time being my participation in governance is limited to a few boxes to tick on a piece of paper, every few years. I wouldn't mind some middle ground.
In principle MPs are bound by a lot of things. Investigative journalism. Parliamentary watchdogs. The courts. The Senate. And ultimately the electorate they represent.
In practice only one of those things still enforces any control over them. And therein lies the real problem with our democracy.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
I don't think 60% of Canadians would continue to vote NDP/Liberal in a PR system, though. While I personally would find it nice if the CPC got shut out of every government I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it would happen.
Why would you think PR would change people's voting preferences? Like, people who didn't vote Con before are suddenly going to start for some reason?
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
You might see less support for Liberal/NDP, more for Greens or even Communist party under PR, for instance. Not sure how it would impact the Conservatives... are there any fringe parties on that side of the spectrum? (I wouldn't know, because a) I wouldn't vote for them, and b) FPTP makes them irrelevant for the most part.
You might see less support for Liberal/NDP, more for Greens or even Communist party under PR, for instance. Not sure how it would impact the Conservatives... are there any fringe parties on that side of the spectrum? (I wouldn't know, because a) I wouldn't vote for them, and b) FPTP makes them irrelevant for the most part.
Well there's the Christian Heritage party that grabs a headline once in a blue moon, and a Libertarian party that might grow in a PR world.
Considering roughly 60%+ of Canadians are voting NDP / Liberal, I think that is more than enough votes for the policies a majority of Canadians would want, while still be tempered by each other, with the ~40% of CPC being able to play a king maker with concessions should they desire to do so.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
I don't think 60% of Canadians would continue to vote NDP/Liberal in a PR system, though. While I personally would find it nice if the CPC got shut out of every government I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it would happen.
Why would you think PR would change people's voting preferences? Like, people who didn't vote Con before are suddenly going to start for some reason?
People voting strategically won't have any reason to do so anymore. So they'll bleed off support to... probably the Greens, Bloc and whoever ends up as the center-right party. Plus anyone else who wants to take a stab at it.
I will also take it an an axiom that the Liberals are not going to be in every government simply by virtue of being "in the middle".
The people who have the money to accumulate that many points don't carry student debt.
Not true. There are those people who fly 80 economy round-trips between Toronto and Sydney a year, and so can't afford the $10000 tuition for a CS undergrad. It'll help those people a lot!
So since no one brought it up, yes, the NDP have supported some sort of PR since the dawn of time, and more specifically, MMP since as late as the beginning of this year. Even as the official opposition with three times the seats, the poor dippers still can't get people to pay attention to them over the handsome young man in the red tie
"“Our 2015 update confirms the unmistakable connection between homicide and family violence, and that aboriginal women continue to be overrepresented among Canada’s missing and murdered women,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Janice Armstrong told a news conference on Friday. The new report says all female victims, regardless of ethnicity, are most frequently killed by someone they know – and that also holds true for aboriginal women."
"“Our 2015 update confirms the unmistakable connection between homicide and family violence, and that aboriginal women continue to be overrepresented among Canada’s missing and murdered women,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Janice Armstrong told a news conference on Friday. The new report says all female victims, regardless of ethnicity, are most frequently killed by someone they know – and that also holds true for aboriginal women."
So... how much does the "parts of Canada that are policed by the RCMP" part skew things? The RCMP primarily polices rural, low-population areas... so yeah, barring the "serial murderer drifter" and "take advantage of the naive tourists" stereotypes, wouldn't most crimes be committed by people the victims were familiar with? For example, this would expressly ignore Robert Pickton.
From the CBC article:
Offenders were known to their victims in 100 per cent of solved homicide cases of aboriginal women.
Offenders were known to their victims in 93 per cent of solved homicide cases of non-aboriginal women in RCMP jurisdictions in 2013 and 2014.
Which basically seems to put the lie to Valcourt's bullshit: it was a meaningless statistic he threw out that, while technically true, was nothing but a bald-faced attempt to shove blame for these murders back on the women themselves. Victim-blaming, pure and simple.
Hard to say, I'm in Ontario and we don't see much of the RCMP - but they handle a whole lot more out west. "Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador maintain their own provincial police forces: The Ontario Provincial Police, Sûreté du Québec (Quebec Provincial Police) and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary." All other provinces use the RCMP as a provincial force. You'd need to look at how many are killed inside and outside their coverage, and factor in how many are missing/involved in unsolved cases. The updated report says homicides of aboriginal women are solved 81% of the time vs 83% for killings of non-aboriginal women.
I wouldn't say Valcourt was blaming the women, so much as he was blaming the aboriginal community in general.
I don't see any blaming in that statement. It is a known fact that murders, like rapes and many other crimes, are most often perpetrated by friends or relatives of the victim. Acknowledging that that holds true for the aboriginal community isn't victim blaming. It's something that the general population should be reminded of- we have far more to fear than walking down a bad street at night, despite what the media wants us to believe.
I don't see any blaming in that statement. It is a known fact that murders, like rapes and many other crimes, are most often perpetrated by friends or relatives of the victim. Acknowledging that that holds true for the aboriginal community isn't victim blaming. It's something that the general population should be reminded of- we have far more to fear than walking down a bad street at night, despite what the media wants us to believe.
The context was that he said that fact, alone without contextual background for other racial groups or anything about how the statistic was determined, at a meeting with First Nations chiefs to rebuff their request for an inquiry. And then, when you go, "No inquiry. Most aboriginal women are murdered by other aboriginals."
Posts
Its a fundamental problem with democracy. Its kinda terrible, but it also ends up being surprisingly good in a lot of situations. Giving people more say in how their democratic government works shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.
For the same reason you hire a lawyer or a doctor or an architect.
People have neither the time nor the inclination nor the knowledge to vote directly on legislation. Ballot initiatives in the US should be ample evidence of this.
Direct democracy just shifts power into the hands of propagandists and marketers since they are the people best able to secure large numbers of votes from the electorate on specific issues.
I'm not opposed to representatives, but they do have their disadvantages. Doctors are bound by law and ethical guidelines to ensure good care; they're also very highly trained. MPs?
I now have an absurd mental image of two doctors competing for my business. Not only do they not agree on the cure, they can't even agree on the disease. They know for sure the other doctor is wrong though!
Direct democracy isn't a solution to this; it clearly isn't viable for a number of reasons. But for the time being my participation in governance is limited to a few boxes to tick on a piece of paper, every few years. I wouldn't mind some middle ground.
Huh, interesting how you single out one country out of a list of Proportional Representation using countries that is not even remotely that short.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation
Plus, there are a bunch of different types of Multi-Member Ridings to explore that Canada could make their own.
Whichever party that makes the proposal in detail of the system they would push for if elected to government that I agree with as a Canadian would be the one I vote for.
All other issues could then be hashed out in a civil represented parliament where basicly all the views of Canadians are represented and coalitions and real politik compromise are the norm. That would be far better than we currently have.
People aren't "uninformed hillbilly dunces". What they are is busy and specialised in other subjects and a whole host of other things that basically amount to "People don't have the time to be both a politician and a whatever-else-they-are".
No one claimed they weren't powerful now. Direct democracy just makes them much much much more powerful.
Small parties extreme coalitions I guess
I personally like MMP, you still have ridings but you also get the benefits of PR too
Right. In majority governments, it's much more tyranny of the majority, and minority voices often don't get heard. The opposite is true in minority governments. FPTP lends more to majority governments. PR leads more to minority governments. So if that's the way we're thinking about it, it seems to boil it down to whether you want minority voices to be heard or not and the quality of those voices.
Israel has it particularly bad, because to some extent, it's a single-issue nation, and the way the numbers fall, it gives a lot of power to some extreme right voices. I don't really know that's a PR problem though; the more orthodox sects live together anyways, so location-based FPTP could still give them undue power in government, much like the Scottish National Party are overrepresented in the UK and would have had great power if the numbers had fallen for a minority government.
I feel like I've already discussed this in another thread, but anyways:
I believe an election should generally produce a government which is empowered to enact its agenda. PR virtually guarantees that nobody will get a majority, which means your head of government has to stay in the good graces of opposition parties whether they're reasonable or not. I would like a government that functions at its Nash equilibrium and I don't really trust ours to avoid it given how many cues we seem to be taking from our neighbour to the south.
Also, I'm terrified of what the Republican Party of Canada would demand for its support.
The Republican Party of Canada (Reform) would not be able to demand anything for its support, as it wouldn't pull enough of the electorate to do anything. Its when it becomes FPTP in a multi party system with >2 parties that the Reform / Tea Party gains outsized influence because of their ability to drain votes.
MWO: Adamski
The way a coalition system works though is that, say, the Liberals get the plurality and then team up with the Cons to bring us shitty concessions.
That COULD be what happens, or they could partner with the NDP and not be terrible.
Oh certainly. And I'd probably expect that the first time or two. But the way these things go, after awhile the Liberals (or maybe the NDP if they are the dominant partner) start shopping around for a better deal. After all, there's a reason they are separate parties.
Like, I'm not against the idea cause FPTP gets us some right bullshit like Harper's reign, but systems that encourage coalitions also encourage deal making with smaller and often more extremist parties to form stable governments and those deals are not always strictly just with closely related parties.
Unfortunately, with politics, gamesmanship starts getting involved. Hell, quite recently in Ontario, the Liberals had a minority government with NDP support, but Horwath figured that she could wrest more power with an election given high polling results, so she issued some flimflammy excuse and no-confidenced the Liberals. Parties #2 and #3 always want to be party #1, so party #1 figures it should better work with parties #4 and #5 instead, rather than giving its rivals a boost, etc, etc, etc,
I don't think 60% of Canadians would continue to vote NDP/Liberal in a PR system, though. While I personally would find it nice if the CPC got shut out of every government I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea that it would happen.
You are aware that is basicly what we currently have, right? The Cons and Reform formed a coalition and the "Repub" Harper Cons rule the day and they don't even have to demand anything for their support, they just take it by party whipping like crazy and thumbing their nose at the rest of what 60-70% of Canadians voted for.
In principle MPs are bound by a lot of things. Investigative journalism. Parliamentary watchdogs. The courts. The Senate. And ultimately the electorate they represent.
In practice only one of those things still enforces any control over them. And therein lies the real problem with our democracy.
Will be a terribly boring shift if this continues...
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
Why would you think PR would change people's voting preferences? Like, people who didn't vote Con before are suddenly going to start for some reason?
EDIT:
Actually, going by the results of 2011, Christian Heritage seems to be the most popular party not to elect any MPs, with almost twice the support of the Marxist-Leninist party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2011
People voting strategically won't have any reason to do so anymore. So they'll bleed off support to... probably the Greens, Bloc and whoever ends up as the center-right party. Plus anyone else who wants to take a stab at it.
I will also take it an an axiom that the Liberals are not going to be in every government simply by virtue of being "in the middle".
You Can Now Pay Student Debt With Aeroplan Points In Ontario .. But There's A Catch:
For reference, flying economy Toronto to Sydney is ~9500 miles.
The people who have the money to accumulate that many points don't carry student debt.
Not true. There are those people who fly 80 economy round-trips between Toronto and Sydney a year, and so can't afford the $10000 tuition for a CS undergrad. It'll help those people a lot!
Not that you'd want to come over here...
Great job, assholes!
Link?
Also, seriously, these assholes are trying to get fired, right?
"All indigenous women who were murdered over the past two years in the parts of Canada that are policed by the RCMP were acquainted with their killers, says a new report by released by the national force. The statistics were released after Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt angered many indigenous people last year by saying he knows who is killing aboriginal women – and it is aboriginal men."
"“Our 2015 update confirms the unmistakable connection between homicide and family violence, and that aboriginal women continue to be overrepresented among Canada’s missing and murdered women,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Janice Armstrong told a news conference on Friday. The new report says all female victims, regardless of ethnicity, are most frequently killed by someone they know – and that also holds true for aboriginal women."
So... how much does the "parts of Canada that are policed by the RCMP" part skew things? The RCMP primarily polices rural, low-population areas... so yeah, barring the "serial murderer drifter" and "take advantage of the naive tourists" stereotypes, wouldn't most crimes be committed by people the victims were familiar with? For example, this would expressly ignore Robert Pickton.
From the CBC article:
Which basically seems to put the lie to Valcourt's bullshit: it was a meaningless statistic he threw out that, while technically true, was nothing but a bald-faced attempt to shove blame for these murders back on the women themselves. Victim-blaming, pure and simple.
I wouldn't say Valcourt was blaming the women, so much as he was blaming the aboriginal community in general.
So, still the government's move.
Yeah, was this result supposed to be shocking or insulting or something?
Cause it seems pretty straightforward and not that surprising. Domestic violence in poor communities will get you that.
Which means these people need better support from the government to help build better communities and more resources for women in need.
The context was that he said that fact, alone without contextual background for other racial groups or anything about how the statistic was determined, at a meeting with First Nations chiefs to rebuff their request for an inquiry. And then, when you go, "No inquiry. Most aboriginal women are murdered by other aboriginals."
Well... connect the dots.