I’m in Bridgeland here in Calgary and we thought we had it bad, had some gumball sized hail, luckily no damage to our vehicles, our plants got shredded, and had a leak in our ceiling and some of the hail punched holes through the roof of the catio we built (cats were inside the house so they were fine). Got up this AM and looked at various news and realized how “light” we got it here. Just crazy
I’m in Bridgeland here in Calgary and we thought we had it bad, had some gumball sized hail, luckily no damage to our vehicles, our plants got shredded, and had a leak in our ceiling and some of the hail punched holes through the roof of the catio we built (cats were inside the house so they were fine). Got up this AM and looked at various news and realized how “light” we got it here. Just crazy
Yeah I live in Airdrie but have a house in temple that I will be moving back to shortly.
My friend’s brother works for the RCMP, and they do have body cams.
Body cams aren’t just used to keep cops in line, thye can also help catch criminals as well.
In one case there was a woman being abused and the body cam caught it on camera. Later the woman tried to retract that her boyfriend abused her(which happens a lot in domestic abuse cases), but the camera caught the footage.
The woman went as far as to go the privacy commission to get the footage retracted.
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
The prime minister announced on Monday that because so many are still struggling, the government is “working on a solution to extend the benefit for people who can’t return to work yet.”
“If you’re having trouble finding a job, you shouldn’t also be worrying about whether you’ll hit the limit of your CERB benefits,” Trudeau said.
Well this is disappointing, but not completely unexpected. Canada was competing against two EU nations and so was cut out from European votes, and the pro-Israel anti-Palestine position we inherited from the Harper years didn't make us popular with Middle-Eastern nations. We also started oue campaign in 2016, 10 years after our two competitors, at a point in the race where many countries had already committed their votes. And right when our campaign started it immediately got derailed by more urgent international relations crises caused by the orange buffoon to the south.
Singh probably didn't handle this the best way he could have. Things that one would think are no-brainers fail to get unanimous consent all the time. Maybe Therrien's a racist, maybe he had legitimate concerns with the language of the motion, maybe he just did it for giggles. In any case, it's never good to get oneself kicked out of the HoC for name-calling, 'cause sometimes they make you apologize for your language before you can come back and that's never a good look, particularly if it turns out the guy really was a racist.
He’s the leader of the (basically) third place party that hasn’t really ever had any power. It’s his job to basically be loud and vocal about the issues that the people in charge tend to water down anyways.
He’s the leader of the (basically) third place party that hasn’t really ever had any power. It’s his job to basically be loud and vocal about the issues that the people in charge tend to water down anyways.
No beef with his actions
Except he was being loud and vocal at a member of the third place party and not the Government or even the Official Opposition. He gained nothing and maybe even alienated a potential ally
0
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
Singh probably didn't handle this the best way he could have. Things that one would think are no-brainers fail to get unanimous consent all the time. Maybe Therrien's a racist, maybe he had legitimate concerns with the language of the motion, maybe he just did it for giggles. In any case, it's never good to get oneself kicked out of the HoC for name-calling, 'cause sometimes they make you apologize for your language before you can come back and that's never a good look, particularly if it turns out the guy really was a racist.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF that, he handled it perfect. plus the fact that he did it in French made it all the sweeter.
F' the bloc, they should not exist as a national political party and it's beyond gross that they have enough power to move the needle on issues.
Urg. Hansard has not been updated yet.
The motion can be heard in the recording, starting at 14:45:00.
My transcription, based on the close captioning:
That the House recognize that there is systematic racism in the RCMP, as several indigenous people have died at the hand of the RCMP in recent months, and call on the Government to do the following:
Review the 10 millions per day RCMP budget and the RCMP Act;
Increase non-police investments in non-violent interventions, deescalation, and mental health and addiction support;
Ensure that the RCMP is truly accountable to the public;
Release all RCMP incident of use of force reports, and associated settlement costs;
Immediately launch a full review of the use of force by the RCMP, including reviewing the tactics and the training that is given to RCMP officers in dealing with the public.
Nothing shocking, and nothing that should be controversial. This should have passed without any problems.
The only un-parliamentary language here is the "no"; the rules should be updated.
Also, hi, news sources. When talking about what happened around a motion, cite the fucking motion. It's kinda the important part!
For example, the whole pretext used by the BQ to pretend their objection is not racist is that they want a study of the situation first. You know, the thing this motion is asking.
+5
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Well this is disappointing, but not completely unexpected. Canada was competing against two EU nations and so was cut out from European votes, and the pro-Israel anti-Palestine position we inherited from the Harper years didn't make us popular with Middle-Eastern nations. We also started oue campaign in 2016, 10 years after our two competitors, at a point in the race where many countries had already committed their votes. And right when our campaign started it immediately got derailed by more urgent international relations crises caused by the orange buffoon to the south.
So like ... Do you think we actually deserved it? I feel like our position as a global leader isn't exactly compelling.
What's the "election in Boliva" thing? I've never even heard of that before.
And how the hell are we not signatory to the UN nuke ban? O_o
The 2019 Bolivian presidential elections, where there was a bunch of controversy and we ultimately backed a military overthrow of Evo Morales. You can start with this opinion piece and pretty easily search other articles.
What's the "election in Boliva" thing? I've never even heard of that before.
And how the hell are we not signatory to the UN nuke ban? O_o
The 2019 Bolivian presidential elections, where there was a bunch of controversy and we ultimately backed a military overthrow of Evo Morales. You can start with this opinion piece and pretty easily search other articles.
This is absolutely disgusting. It's Stephen-Harper-level bullshit, and worse.
Richy on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Well this is disappointing, but not completely unexpected. Canada was competing against two EU nations and so was cut out from European votes, and the pro-Israel anti-Palestine position we inherited from the Harper years didn't make us popular with Middle-Eastern nations. We also started oue campaign in 2016, 10 years after our two competitors, at a point in the race where many countries had already committed their votes. And right when our campaign started it immediately got derailed by more urgent international relations crises caused by the orange buffoon to the south.
So like ... Do you think we actually deserved it? I feel like our position as a global leader isn't exactly compelling.
Deserved it as much as any of the other temporary members (Belgium, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Germany, Indonesia, Kuwait, Peru, Poland and South Africa) as far as that goes. The setup of the security council is so skewed to the permanent members that I don't think one can really argue that any given country isn't important enough to be a temporary member.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Holy shit! Hey Feargus! You see this shit about Matt Whitman running for mayor? That grinning fuck!
My brother hates Matt Whitman with a righteous fury. He can literally talk for hours about things that Matt Whitman has done that are terrible. I think that every facet of my brother’s life has led him to meet people who have had encounters with Matt Whitman and who have been able to provide examples of how terrible he is.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Well this is disappointing, but not completely unexpected. Canada was competing against two EU nations and so was cut out from European votes, and the pro-Israel anti-Palestine position we inherited from the Harper years didn't make us popular with Middle-Eastern nations. We also started oue campaign in 2016, 10 years after our two competitors, at a point in the race where many countries had already committed their votes. And right when our campaign started it immediately got derailed by more urgent international relations crises caused by the orange buffoon to the south.
So like ... Do you think we actually deserved it? I feel like our position as a global leader isn't exactly compelling.
Yes, as opposed to all the virtuous and ethically pristine members of the Security Council...
+6
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
You can dislike the makeup of the organization and how it gets to that as much as you want - I think you're right to do so, and it's interesting to read about the reforms different countries want out of it. Similarly, criticizing the permanent members is all-too-easy. We're all well-aware of how much they suck. However the question was "Did we deserve it more than Norway and Ireland?" and the answer seems to be a collective frustration that we didn't win what is effectively a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for. That's not exactly compelling.
Singh probably didn't handle this the best way he could have. Things that one would think are no-brainers fail to get unanimous consent all the time. Maybe Therrien's a racist, maybe he had legitimate concerns with the language of the motion, maybe he just did it for giggles. In any case, it's never good to get oneself kicked out of the HoC for name-calling, 'cause sometimes they make you apologize for your language before you can come back and that's never a good look, particularly if it turns out the guy really was a racist.
Leaving aside that accurately describing someone isn't "name-calling," the original purpose of "unparliamentary language" rules wasn't decorum, it was to prevent MPs with touchily fragile senses of personal honour from murdering one another on the outskirts of town whenever they got criticized the wrong way. The current purpose of unparliamentary language rules isn't decorum either, it's a bludgeon used to silence MPs that dare discuss malfeasance by other legislators.
Its only other purpose these days is to give civility-over-all types something to tut-tut over.
Personally, I'm 100% with Singh here, but I'm still in favour of the rules. It's important to avoid a proliferation of insults in the House.
That way, it can remain functional, and it helps if MPs see each others as colleagues working together.
It also helps because, when needed, the rules can be broken in a spectacular way that bring attention to real problems.
Without Singh's expulsion, no one would be talking about his motions and the Bloc's racism.
Normally, I would say the not all members of the BQ are racists, but the BQ is popular with racists (in Québec. Other province use the CPC for that).
The party defended objecting to the motion. They adopted the position of a racist, making the whole party racist.
You can dislike the makeup of the organization and how it gets to that as much as you want - I think you're right to do so, and it's interesting to read about the reforms different countries want out of it. Similarly, criticizing the permanent members is all-too-easy. We're all well-aware of how much they suck. However the question was "Did we deserve it more than Norway and Ireland?" and the answer seems to be a collective frustration that we didn't win what is effectively a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for. That's not exactly compelling.
If nobody in the running met these standards, what relevance are they to getting the position in question? It's trying to shoehorn these complaints into a completely unrelated issue. None of that shit has anything to do with whether Canada got the seat or not or how it would have benefited us. Which was my whole point. These kind of standards ain't got nothing to do with the position.
You can dislike the makeup of the organization and how it gets to that as much as you want - I think you're right to do so, and it's interesting to read about the reforms different countries want out of it. Similarly, criticizing the permanent members is all-too-easy. We're all well-aware of how much they suck. However the question was "Did we deserve it more than Norway and Ireland?" and the answer seems to be a collective frustration that we didn't win what is effectively a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for. That's not exactly compelling.
If nobody in the running met these standards, what relevance are they to getting the position in question? It's trying to shoehorn these complaints into a completely unrelated issue. None of that shit has anything to do with whether Canada got the seat or not or how it would have benefited us. Which was my whole point. These kind of standards ain't got nothing to do with the position.
Ireland isn't a NATO member, neither sells weapons to the Saudis (Norway suspended their sales in 2018, so far as I can tell, the Irish haven't since 2013), and neither took our stance on the Bolivian election? So like, I don't think those were the sole deciding factors, but also our foreign policies aren't the same so I don't see why you would pretend they were.
You can dislike the makeup of the organization and how it gets to that as much as you want - I think you're right to do so, and it's interesting to read about the reforms different countries want out of it. Similarly, criticizing the permanent members is all-too-easy. We're all well-aware of how much they suck. However the question was "Did we deserve it more than Norway and Ireland?" and the answer seems to be a collective frustration that we didn't win what is effectively a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for. That's not exactly compelling.
If nobody in the running met these standards, what relevance are they to getting the position in question? It's trying to shoehorn these complaints into a completely unrelated issue. None of that shit has anything to do with whether Canada got the seat or not or how it would have benefited us. Which was my whole point. These kind of standards ain't got nothing to do with the position.
Ireland isn't a NATO member, neither sells weapons to the Saudis (Norway suspended their sales in 2018, so far as I can tell, the Irish haven't since 2013), and neither took our stance on the Bolivian election? So like, I don't think those were the sole deciding factors, but also our foreign policies aren't the same so I don't see why you would pretend they were.
What are you talking about? ArcticLancer is the one that said it was "a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for". I'm going by the standard they put forward here.
The tweet is dumb because the criteria it's using have nothing to do with the position. Even the list of non-permanent members isn't full of sterling moral character.
You can dislike the makeup of the organization and how it gets to that as much as you want - I think you're right to do so, and it's interesting to read about the reforms different countries want out of it. Similarly, criticizing the permanent members is all-too-easy. We're all well-aware of how much they suck. However the question was "Did we deserve it more than Norway and Ireland?" and the answer seems to be a collective frustration that we didn't win what is effectively a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for. That's not exactly compelling.
If nobody in the running met these standards, what relevance are they to getting the position in question? It's trying to shoehorn these complaints into a completely unrelated issue. None of that shit has anything to do with whether Canada got the seat or not or how it would have benefited us. Which was my whole point. These kind of standards ain't got nothing to do with the position.
Ireland isn't a NATO member, neither sells weapons to the Saudis (Norway suspended their sales in 2018, so far as I can tell, the Irish haven't since 2013), and neither took our stance on the Bolivian election? So like, I don't think those were the sole deciding factors, but also our foreign policies aren't the same so I don't see why you would pretend they were.
What are you talking about? ArcticLancer is the one that said it was "a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for". I'm going by the standard they put forward here.
The tweet is dumb because the criteria it's using have nothing to do with the position. Even the list of non-permanent members isn't full of sterling moral character.
Shryke is right that the two winners have skeletons in their closets. They're not the same as ours, but they exist. No country is clean. That's not even getting into the permanent members - anyone thinking China, Russia, the UK, France and the USA represent moral beacons in the world is just insane.
That doesn't excuse the list of Canadian failings in that tweet, not to mention the other failings not mentioned in the tweet. I expect better of us. Not for a UN seat, not to compare to other nations. Just because we should be better than this.
+9
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Hey, why would Canada selling weapons to Saudi Arabia be a problem? They were on the UN Human Rights Council, they're good folks!
Please, in honour of our father's day and national aboriginal day, please remember your fellow Canadians and if you read all the way to next steps and follow through, ƛ̓eekoo
Posts
Yeah I live in Airdrie but have a house in temple that I will be moving back to shortly.
Body cams aren’t just used to keep cops in line, thye can also help catch criminals as well.
In one case there was a woman being abused and the body cam caught it on camera. Later the woman tried to retract that her boyfriend abused her(which happens a lot in domestic abuse cases), but the camera caught the footage.
The woman went as far as to go the privacy commission to get the footage retracted.
apparently we'll hear more by Friday
https://mobile.twitter.com/davecournoyer/status/1273363997513838594
This is some hilarious bullshit really.
Does not ring a bell.... The neighbor you say?
Can't be!
At this point, the Alberta flag should just be a finger pointing to someone else.
Well this is disappointing, but not completely unexpected. Canada was competing against two EU nations and so was cut out from European votes, and the pro-Israel anti-Palestine position we inherited from the Harper years didn't make us popular with Middle-Eastern nations. We also started oue campaign in 2016, 10 years after our two competitors, at a point in the race where many countries had already committed their votes. And right when our campaign started it immediately got derailed by more urgent international relations crises caused by the orange buffoon to the south.
Singh probably didn't handle this the best way he could have. Things that one would think are no-brainers fail to get unanimous consent all the time. Maybe Therrien's a racist, maybe he had legitimate concerns with the language of the motion, maybe he just did it for giggles. In any case, it's never good to get oneself kicked out of the HoC for name-calling, 'cause sometimes they make you apologize for your language before you can come back and that's never a good look, particularly if it turns out the guy really was a racist.
No beef with his actions
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Next up according to the Beaverton, Alberta will start heavily investing in Bitcoin.
MWO: Adamski
Except he was being loud and vocal at a member of the third place party and not the Government or even the Official Opposition. He gained nothing and maybe even alienated a potential ally
F' the bloc, they should not exist as a national political party and it's beyond gross that they have enough power to move the needle on issues.
The motion can be heard in the recording, starting at 14:45:00.
My transcription, based on the close captioning:
Nothing shocking, and nothing that should be controversial. This should have passed without any problems.
The only un-parliamentary language here is the "no"; the rules should be updated.
Also, hi, news sources. When talking about what happened around a motion, cite the fucking motion. It's kinda the important part!
For example, the whole pretext used by the BQ to pretend their objection is not racist is that they want a study of the situation first. You know, the thing this motion is asking.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
And how the hell are we not signatory to the UN nuke ban? O_o
NATO.
As for the nuclear weapon ban, you need only Wikipedia for that.
(Spoilers - Elaro is correct)
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Deserved it as much as any of the other temporary members (Belgium, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Germany, Indonesia, Kuwait, Peru, Poland and South Africa) as far as that goes. The setup of the security council is so skewed to the permanent members that I don't think one can really argue that any given country isn't important enough to be a temporary member.
My brother hates Matt Whitman with a righteous fury. He can literally talk for hours about things that Matt Whitman has done that are terrible. I think that every facet of my brother’s life has led him to meet people who have had encounters with Matt Whitman and who have been able to provide examples of how terrible he is.
Yes, as opposed to all the virtuous and ethically pristine members of the Security Council...
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
/fades into Thanos dust
Leaving aside that accurately describing someone isn't "name-calling," the original purpose of "unparliamentary language" rules wasn't decorum, it was to prevent MPs with touchily fragile senses of personal honour from murdering one another on the outskirts of town whenever they got criticized the wrong way. The current purpose of unparliamentary language rules isn't decorum either, it's a bludgeon used to silence MPs that dare discuss malfeasance by other legislators.
Its only other purpose these days is to give civility-over-all types something to tut-tut over.
That way, it can remain functional, and it helps if MPs see each others as colleagues working together.
It also helps because, when needed, the rules can be broken in a spectacular way that bring attention to real problems.
Without Singh's expulsion, no one would be talking about his motions and the Bloc's racism.
Normally, I would say the not all members of the BQ are racists, but the BQ is popular with racists (in Québec. Other province use the CPC for that).
The party defended objecting to the motion. They adopted the position of a racist, making the whole party racist.
If nobody in the running met these standards, what relevance are they to getting the position in question? It's trying to shoehorn these complaints into a completely unrelated issue. None of that shit has anything to do with whether Canada got the seat or not or how it would have benefited us. Which was my whole point. These kind of standards ain't got nothing to do with the position.
Well there is the big hut8 bitcoin operation just outside of Medicine Hat.
Ireland isn't a NATO member, neither sells weapons to the Saudis (Norway suspended their sales in 2018, so far as I can tell, the Irish haven't since 2013), and neither took our stance on the Bolivian election? So like, I don't think those were the sole deciding factors, but also our foreign policies aren't the same so I don't see why you would pretend they were.
What are you talking about? ArcticLancer is the one that said it was "a vanity prize position that nobody in the running was actually good enough for". I'm going by the standard they put forward here.
The tweet is dumb because the criteria it's using have nothing to do with the position. Even the list of non-permanent members isn't full of sterling moral character.
Shryke is right that the two winners have skeletons in their closets. They're not the same as ours, but they exist. No country is clean. That's not even getting into the permanent members - anyone thinking China, Russia, the UK, France and the USA represent moral beacons in the world is just insane.
That doesn't excuse the list of Canadian failings in that tweet, not to mention the other failings not mentioned in the tweet. I expect better of us. Not for a UN seat, not to compare to other nations. Just because we should be better than this.
http://www.theredpanther.com/2020/06/14/over-8-indigenous-murdered-by-police-since-april-8/