I'm kind of of the opinion that when the shadowy council behind the scenes mutes the "leader" of the party during a zoom meeting, the council should be the one on the outs. The "leader" is trying to do a job, and they just undercut her in front of every other Green party member in a blatant display of contempt for her.
I'm kind of of the opinion that when the party leader substitutes her personal opinions to official party positions, likens disagreeing with her to hate speech, openly calls for voting out members that disagree with her personally, refuses to even step foot out of her riding to campaign with other candidates, can't even name a single one of her candidates in Québec, heads into an election with over 80 ridings missing candidates and no national election manager, goes into the debates so unprepared that she couldn't defend, discuss or even name a single party policy and spent two hours rambling on about her family and name-dropping JWR, monopolizes party resources for the purpose of getting herself elected at the detriment of all other candidates in the party, leads the party to its worst electoral defeat in 20 years and ends a distant 4th in her own riding, she has miserably failed at "doing her job" and richly earned the contempt of her party.
According to Paul's own resignation speech, the only emails she has received since the election were the two all-member emails about the leadership review. If true, that tells you everything you need to know about her ability to build bridges to other party members and marshal their support and respect.
But hey, congratulations to her for breaking a glass ceiling (that many other women have broken before her in the past 30 years with much more success).
O'Toole doesn't have long, they're out sharpening the knives looking for someone even less charismatic. I would say the Liberals and Cons are just much much better at hiding the infighting, the Cons especially. Shit, Jagmeet polls the best as far as just the leaders alone go and you still have people in the party wondering if they need to swap out to go any further next time.
There are Cons calling for O'Toole's head for sure. CPC/LPC leaders seldom hold on after losing an election, and the fact O'Toole shifted hard moderate and lost to the right's most hated enemy certainly won't help him. That said, last I heard the calls to remove him were fairly weak while he received some high-profile statements of support.
I hope O'Toole holds on, precisely because of his moderate shift. It would be the best thing for our nation long-term. He's trying to force the CPC to stop being an alt-right Bloc Prairies and to be a moderate national party, and he made in-roads in the eastern part of the nation that way. Moreover, with the PPC available, all the alt-right crazies can just vacate the CPC and join the "purple wave", leaving the CPC membership more moderate. Whether O'Toole is doing this as a political ploy or because it suits his political views better (I think it's the former) is not really important, the net result will be a moderate CPC closer to the old PC and a PPC containing all the wackos and closer to the Republican Party. This is important because the CPC will win again eventually, the LPC will not stay in power forever, and when the CPC comes back I want them to be dominated by moderates and not by alt-right fundies.
If O'Toole gets kicked out, his campaign will likely be held up as proof that moderation doesn't work and his successor will take a hard turn into the alt-right. And that would leave Canada much worse off, especially when they inevitably get back into power.
I'm kind of of the opinion that when the shadowy council behind the scenes mutes the "leader" of the party during a zoom meeting, the council should be the one on the outs. The "leader" is trying to do a job, and they just undercut her in front of every other Green party member in a blatant display of contempt for her.
I'm kind of of the opinion that when the party leader substitutes her personal opinions to official party positions, likens disagreeing with her to hate speech, openly calls for voting out members that disagree with her personally, refuses to even step foot out of her riding to campaign with other candidates, can't even name a single one of her candidates in Québec, heads into an election with over 80 ridings missing candidates and no national election manager, goes into the debates so unprepared that she couldn't defend, discuss or even name a single party policy and spent two hours rambling on about her family and name-dropping JWR, monopolizes party resources for the purpose of getting herself elected at the detriment of all other candidates in the party, leads the party to its worst electoral defeat in 20 years and ends a distant 4th in her own riding, she has miserably failed at "doing her job" and richly earned the contempt of her party.
According to Paul's own resignation speech, the only emails she has received since the election were the two all-member emails about the leadership review. If true, that tells you everything you need to know about her ability to build bridges to other party members and marshal their support and respect.
But hey, congratulations to her for breaking a glass ceiling (that many other women have broken before her in the past 30 years with much more success).
You're completely ignoring the fact that her staff was decimated through lay-offs and she had almost no money to run outside of her riding. I don't think there has been a party leader who has had to even remotely deal with the amount of hamstringing Paul did in this election cycle in the history of this country.
I'm not even a fan of Paul's but I can recognize and respect the hardships she's been through as party leader. She was never going to form a govt, she's essentially a relay racer on the road to helping the party find its footings after May. The level of hate and vitriol you're piling on her here is really fucking weird.
I heart Paul's resignation speech.... Vague accusations of sexism/racism because of a leadership review were called after the election.... As per party guidelines.
I have no hate at all in my heart for her at all but if you finish 4th in the only ridding you campaigned in you are clearly not the right person for the job. I have never voted green but love having strong opposition. With the exception of Jagmeet I find all the federal leaders are so meh atm and that does not do us any favors as a country.
Again, like, I don't really disagree with the actual issues of leadership or party drama that she took part in - she certainly made mistakes, as did the party itself, and that led to poor performance when they burnt half their war chest on dumb shit
But there's a particular viciousness that some posters are engaging in about her claims of sexism and racism that don't read charitably
You can point out the flaws in her leadership without being droll about the sexism and racism that likely played a part in her reception in the party and that she was within her rights to point out
I have doubts the party would have sued their own leadership if a white man, or even Elizabeth May, were still in the position but made the same mistakes
Again, like, I don't really disagree with the actual issues of leadership or party drama that she took part in - she certainly made mistakes, as did the party itself, and that led to poor performance when they burnt half their war chest on dumb shit
But there's a particular viciousness that some posters are engaging in about her claims of sexism and racism that don't read charitably
You can point out the flaws in her leadership without being droll about the sexism and racism that likely played a part in her reception in the party and that she was within her rights to point out
I have doubts the party would have sued their own leadership if a white man, or even Elizabeth May, were still in the position but made the same mistakes
And you can also say "I don't like her" without it being sexist and/or racist.
My main issue with her leadership was that she seemed to attack anyone that had issues with her leadership (especially her own party) by implying they were racist.
Again, like, I don't really disagree with the actual issues of leadership or party drama that she took part in - she certainly made mistakes, as did the party itself, and that led to poor performance when they burnt half their war chest on dumb shit
But there's a particular viciousness that some posters are engaging in about her claims of sexism and racism that don't read charitably
You can point out the flaws in her leadership without being droll about the sexism and racism that likely played a part in her reception in the party and that she was within her rights to point out
I have doubts the party would have sued their own leadership if a white man, or even Elizabeth May, were still in the position but made the same mistakes
This is silly. You are arguing the Green Party treated Paul viciously out of sexism. And you argue this while stating that Elizabeth May, who I may remind you is also a woman, would not have been treated the same. You're arguing that the Green Party, which has been led by a woman for most of the 21st century, rallied behind this woman election after election, and still holds this woman as a highly respected figure in the party, is a sexist party because they rejected Paul.
As for racism, as I've already stated, Paul is not the first black woman in politics. Québec, right now, has a black woman as leader of the PLQ and leader of the opposition, and no one makes a big deal out of it. Québec, the province that half the people in this thread love to shit on for being allegedly the most racist province in Canada, doesn't care. So your belief is that the GPC is somehow much more racist than the "most racist province".
Your argument also ignores the fact that the Green Party voted Paul as its leader less than a year before. The viciously racist and sexist Green Party, according to your world view, voted a black woman as their leader a year before turning on her.
Paul wasn't disliked by the GPC because she's a black woman and they're all secretly racists and sexists who voted her as leader anyway. She was disliked by them because she turned out to be a very bad leader who treated the party as her personal fiefdom where she could dictate policy, publicly call for removing members that disagree with her, and jettison a national campaign to focus the entire party resources on getting herself personally elected. Any leader, regardless of race or gender, deserves to get thrown out on their ass by their party for such behaviour.
The green party had two female MPs to one male MP
Their Federal Council is around 45% women
Their Shadow Cabinet is two thirds women
I really don't think this is a sexism thing, this is about her not sharing the party's values and also willing to burn her MPs instead of just, you know, not. They're a tiny insignificant party as it is, burning the only people able to get elected under their banner over something that the larger party supports the individual MPs on is absolutely bad leadership
Again, like, I don't really disagree with the actual issues of leadership or party drama that she took part in - she certainly made mistakes, as did the party itself, and that led to poor performance when they burnt half their war chest on dumb shit
But there's a particular viciousness that some posters are engaging in about her claims of sexism and racism that don't read charitably
You can point out the flaws in her leadership without being droll about the sexism and racism that likely played a part in her reception in the party and that she was within her rights to point out
I have doubts the party would have sued their own leadership if a white man, or even Elizabeth May, were still in the position but made the same mistakes
This is silly. You are arguing the Green Party treated Paul viciously out of sexism. And you argue this while stating that Elizabeth May, who I may remind you is also a woman, would not have been treated the same. You're arguing that the Green Party, which has been led by a woman for most of the 21st century, rallied behind this woman election after election, and still holds this woman as a highly respected figure in the party, is a sexist party because they rejected Paul.
As for racism, as I've already stated, Paul is not the first black woman in politics. Québec, right now, has a black woman as leader of the PLQ and leader of the opposition, and no one makes a big deal out of it. Québec, the province that half the people in this thread love to shit on for being allegedly the most racist province in Canada, doesn't care. So your belief is that the GPC is somehow much more racist than the "most racist province".
Your argument also ignores the fact that the Green Party voted Paul as its leader less than a year before. The viciously racist and sexist Green Party, according to your world view, voted a black woman as their leader a year before turning on her.
Paul wasn't disliked by the GPC because she's a black woman and they're all secretly racists and sexists who voted her as leader anyway. She was disliked by them because she turned out to be a very bad leader who treated the party as her personal fiefdom where she could dictate policy, publicly call for removing members that disagree with her, and jettison a national campaign to focus the entire party resources on getting herself personally elected. Any leader, regardless of race or gender, deserves to get thrown out on their ass by their party for such behaviour.
@Cello is saying the viciousness is here, in this thread. And they are right.
Paul not being the first black woman in politics has nothing to do with whether or not she has experienced racism and sexism in her stint as party leader. Like wtf even is that line of reasoning?
I was pretty sympathetic to Paul and her treatment until someone posted that reminder of her saying anyone that disagreed with Israeli treatment of Palestinians was an antisemite, and members of her own party who had voiced disagreement should be ejected.
Turn around is fair play, and they can eject her for disagreeing with the party.
Again, like, I don't really disagree with the actual issues of leadership or party drama that she took part in - she certainly made mistakes, as did the party itself, and that led to poor performance when they burnt half their war chest on dumb shit
But there's a particular viciousness that some posters are engaging in about her claims of sexism and racism that don't read charitably
You can point out the flaws in her leadership without being droll about the sexism and racism that likely played a part in her reception in the party and that she was within her rights to point out
I have doubts the party would have sued their own leadership if a white man, or even Elizabeth May, were still in the position but made the same mistakes
This is silly. You are arguing the Green Party treated Paul viciously out of sexism. And you argue this while stating that Elizabeth May, who I may remind you is also a woman, would not have been treated the same. You're arguing that the Green Party, which has been led by a woman for most of the 21st century, rallied behind this woman election after election, and still holds this woman as a highly respected figure in the party, is a sexist party because they rejected Paul.
As for racism, as I've already stated, Paul is not the first black woman in politics. Québec, right now, has a black woman as leader of the PLQ and leader of the opposition, and no one makes a big deal out of it. Québec, the province that half the people in this thread love to shit on for being allegedly the most racist province in Canada, doesn't care. So your belief is that the GPC is somehow much more racist than the "most racist province".
Your argument also ignores the fact that the Green Party voted Paul as its leader less than a year before. The viciously racist and sexist Green Party, according to your world view, voted a black woman as their leader a year before turning on her.
Paul wasn't disliked by the GPC because she's a black woman and they're all secretly racists and sexists who voted her as leader anyway. She was disliked by them because she turned out to be a very bad leader who treated the party as her personal fiefdom where she could dictate policy, publicly call for removing members that disagree with her, and jettison a national campaign to focus the entire party resources on getting herself personally elected. Any leader, regardless of race or gender, deserves to get thrown out on their ass by their party for such behaviour.
@Cello is saying the viciousness is here, in this thread. And they are right.
Paul not being the first black woman in politics has nothing to do with whether or not she has experienced racism and sexism in her stint as party leader. Like wtf even is that line of reasoning?
That would be a weird line of reasoning indeed. Thank goodness it's not the one I use in the post of mine you quoted!
No one in this thread has been particularly vicious towards Paul. In fact the criticism against her here has been rather mild compared to what has been said about, say, Bernier or Québec Bill 21, and even those posts I would not call vicious. Hell, no one in this thread has ever written something I could call "vicious" with a straight face.
Because Bernier and Bill 21 are pieces of shit. Paul is not. She's, at worst, not a great a politician. She's not forcing discrimination unto the masses a la Bernier and Bill 21.
And it's you Richy, writing the things that seem a bit "extra".
Because Bernier and Bill 21 are pieces of shit. Paul is not. She's, at worst, not a great a politician. She's not forcing discrimination unto the masses a la Bernier and Bill 21.
And it's you Richy, writing the things that seem bit "extra".
I didn't say Paul deserved to be treated as poorly as Bernier or Bill 21. I said that... jesus christ forget it, you can just read it again, my post is pretty clear if you're not trying to put words into my mouth.
And yes I realize you and a few other posters are singling me out. I was giving you an out. But if you won't take it, then please go ahead and point to me the "vicious" things I said about Paul. Preferably without twisting my words to make me say things that are not there.
I don't think anything Richy or anyone else has posted about Paul is especially vicious and it's fucking hilarious to have a response like that with all the bashing we give other shit politicians like Kenney or other people it's "Ok" to not like in this thread.
She was terrible at her job, doesn't appear to be especially likeable in her own party or by the electorate in general and in my personal opinion doesn't take personal responsibility for any of that.
Who or what someone is isn't a magic shield against criticism for being terrible at the thing they tried to do.
Because Bernier and Bill 21 are pieces of shit. Paul is not. She's, at worst, not a great a politician. She's not forcing discrimination unto the masses a la Bernier and Bill 21.
And it's you Richy, writing the things that seem bit "extra".
I didn't say Paul deserved to be treated as poorly as Bernier or Bill 21. I said that... jesus christ forget it, you can just read it again, my post is pretty clear if you're not trying to put words into my mouth.
And yes I realize you and a few other posters are singling me out. I was giving you an out. But if you won't take it, then please go ahead and point to me the "vicious" things I said about Paul. Preferably without twisting my words to make me say things that are not there.
It's the commenting about things you would have absolutely no perspective on that are.....fraught. Like, you have zero idea what she's faced in terms of discrimination against her race, religion, or gender during her tenure as party leader. A couple of your posts just seem weirdly vitriolic against her with you highlighting commentary about her own personal experience as a woman of color. I think it's fine to be dismissive, or even antagonistic, towards her politics and policies but drawing her personal experience as a bipoc person into question is just...I don't know - weird, imo.
Richy, your posting in this thread just sometimes comes off as extremely angry, harsh and contemptuous. Saying Paul did a poor job is not exactly a radical position, and I don't even disagree (even considering that Jewish politicians often have to dance carefully around Israeli/Palestinian conflict opinions)—I do think it's just a matter of tone/phrasing.
I guess I do get carried away talking about politics sometimes. I come from a stubbornly politically conservative family so political talk makes my blood boil IRL as well as here. I'll try to tone it down in the future, and take a deep breath before posting.
I don't feel like I can be very critical of anyone for being mad about politics in 2021, if I'm honest
It's hard to take a deep breath lately with all the wildfire smoke in the air
+3
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
FWIW, I also agree that people have been as hard or harder on Quebec recently than people have been on Annamarie in the last few pages. It has definitely been heightened, but fuck some of y'all were being incredibly rough on the Quebecois and putting a lot of words in their mouths ...
Very nice to see the thread talk itself down. Y'all are still good people.
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
edited September 2021
i think it's really fucking weird to say that Paul didn't break any glass ceilings
are there any other Leaders of a Federal Party who are Black Women, Jewish Women, or both? I can't stand Paul but saying she didn't break any barriers is fucking stupid. (and as ammo saying "well the official opposition in quebec has a black lady!!".. so?)
edit - to be clear, her speech still sucked ass and we should talk about how she is a terrible politician but like, come on
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has denied an application to extend an injunction against old-growth logging blockades on southern Vancouver Island, writing that the actions of RCMP officers have put the court's reputation at risk.
Justice Douglas Thompson handed down his reasons for judgment Tuesday, writing that "it is not just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case" to grant Teal Cedar Products Ltd.'s request for an extended injunction order against protests blocking the forestry company's access to its tenure in the Fairy Creek watershed area north of Port Renfrew.
Thompson said he acknowledged that allowing the injunction to expire could cause serious harm to the company's interests and to the rule of law.
"On the other hand, methods of enforcement of the court's order have led to serious and substantial infringement of civil liberties, including impairment of the freedom of the press to a marked degree," Thompson said.
+8
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
That's an incredible ruling. He's essentially called out the RCMP as untrustworthy.
It's basically an acknowledgement that the tools used to enforce the court's orders are broken. It almost reads like a cry for help. The court can't do its job if the RCMP won't do theirs.
Montréal has a municipal election coming, and I'm rather conflicted.
I was planning to vote for Project Montréal, since Plante is pushing the city in a good direction right now, and her main opponent, Coderre, is more in favour of a city for the car than a city for the people.
Then there's Mouvement Montréal. This is basically my ideal municipal program.
City state, official full bilingualism, electrified transportation, etc. The only thing I would add is burning down Laval to the ground and rebuilding it correctly, but I hate suburbs.
The problem is that 8% is low, and 38% vs 37% is not a great margin...
Montréal has a municipal election coming, and I'm rather conflicted.
I was planning to vote for Project Montréal, since Plante is pushing the city in a good direction right now, and her main opponent, Coderre, is more in favour of a city for the car than a city for the people.
Then there's Mouvement Montréal. This is basically my ideal municipal program.
City state, official full bilingualism, electrified transportation, etc. The only thing I would add is burning down Laval to the ground and rebuilding it correctly, but I hate suburbs.
The problem is that 8% is low, and 38% vs 37% is not a great margin...
Strategic voting. It sucks because you get a government that doesn't quite do the right thing, but it saves you from getting a government that does the wrong thing.
I'm in the same situation in Québec City. I also have two good options. Savard is the successor of current mayor Labeaume and their team is doing good work. Marchand is a newcomer and I really like his ideas, they are the best fit for where I want to see the city going. Right now they are polling 1st and 3rd. The problem is that, between them, is Gosselin, a trash-radio-endorsed complete idiot who wants to scrap our public transit development plans and turn us into a car-only city. So I will likely have to vote for my second-favourite Savard to save us from Gosselin.
Montréal has a municipal election coming, and I'm rather conflicted.
I was planning to vote for Project Montréal, since Plante is pushing the city in a good direction right now, and her main opponent, Coderre, is more in favour of a city for the car than a city for the people.
Then there's Mouvement Montréal. This is basically my ideal municipal program.
City state, official full bilingualism, electrified transportation, etc. The only thing I would add is burning down Laval to the ground and rebuilding it correctly, but I hate suburbs.
The problem is that 8% is low, and 38% vs 37% is not a great margin...
Strategic voting. It sucks because you get a government that doesn't quite do the right thing, but it saves you from getting a government that does the wrong thing.
I'm in a similar situation in Québec City. I also have two good options. Savard is the successor of current mayor Labeaume and their team is doing good work. Marchand is a newcomer and I really like his ideas, they are the best fit for where I want to see the city going. Right now they are polling 1st and 3rd. The problem is that, between them, is Gosselin, a trash-radio-endorsed complete idiot who wants to scrap our public transit development plans and turn us into a car-only city. So I will likely have to vote for my second-favourite Savard to save us from Gosselin.
Yes, that's what I'm going to do, in practice. Especially since Plante is very close on policy, and quite frankly while I like the program, I have doubts about how doable it is, in practice.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I know the current state of housing and homelessness are nation-wide problems, but it's been a really big deal locally, as one of the key voting issues during the recently provincial election. I think it was shared around here that we had a "super fun" incident last month where police were being used to carry out forced evictions of shelters and tents, which turned into a several-thousand-people strong protest and a lot of backlash against some very shitty policing and some very shitty city council-ing.
Anyway, the public discourse around that has continued, and we had a swell development: One Erica Fleck has been put in charge of "action on homelessness" and started her tenure by ... personally visiting people in tents and telling them they needed to vacate the peninsula or they'd be forcefully evicted next week.
They clear out local tent encampments here too, not always fast enough though. Had a few catch fire over the summer. Plus you wind up with sharps everywhere. Instead they're renting hotel rooms for folks, since there's laundry and stuff onsite. They typically have to check in with a case worker each day as the participants have addictions/mental health issues that resulted in their homelessness.
They clear out local tent encampments here too, not always fast enough though. Had a few catch fire over the summer. Plus you wind up with sharps everywhere. Instead they're renting hotel rooms for folks, since there's laundry and stuff onsite. They typically have to check in with a case worker each day as the participants have addictions/mental health issues that resulted in their homelessness.
They were doing the hotel thing here until a bunch of them evicted all the tenants overnight because "we're booked solid for the rest of the fall."
+3
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
I'm sure the ambiguity is intentional and just means "somewhere we can't see you."
One program here got extended into 2022, the other isn't being renewed apparently. Dunno why one and not the other.
RCMP union having great day of showing their stripes - doubling down on thin blue line garbage after the fairy creek thing, and then saying it won't support mandating vaccines for RCMP members.
I know the current state of housing and homelessness are nation-wide problems, but it's been a really big deal locally, as one of the key voting issues during the recently provincial election. I think it was shared around here that we had a "super fun" incident last month where police were being used to carry out forced evictions of shelters and tents, which turned into a several-thousand-people strong protest and a lot of backlash against some very shitty policing and some very shitty city council-ing.
Anyway, the public discourse around that has continued, and we had a swell development: One Erica Fleck has been put in charge of "action on homelessness" and started her tenure by ... personally visiting people in tents and telling them they needed to vacate the peninsula or they'd be forcefully evicted next week.
The issue is that tent cities in public parks or what have you is not a solution to the homeless problem or the housing problem. And is also politically quite unpopular.
And all the stuff that is a solution is long-term and often against many of the interests of current residents.
shryke on
+4
Options
ApogeeLancks In Every Game EverRegistered Userregular
They clear out local tent encampments here too, not always fast enough though. Had a few catch fire over the summer. Plus you wind up with sharps everywhere. Instead they're renting hotel rooms for folks, since there's laundry and stuff onsite. They typically have to check in with a case worker each day as the participants have addictions/mental health issues that resulted in their homelessness.
They were doing the hotel thing here until a bunch of them evicted all the tenants overnight because "we're booked solid for the rest of the fall."
I used to live near that hotel and I've been in touch with the residents - it's really bad. Neighbors are forming groups to go out to walk dogs to have safety in numbers. I'm not sure what a better alternative is, though...
They clear out local tent encampments here too, not always fast enough though. Had a few catch fire over the summer. Plus you wind up with sharps everywhere. Instead they're renting hotel rooms for folks, since there's laundry and stuff onsite. They typically have to check in with a case worker each day as the participants have addictions/mental health issues that resulted in their homelessness.
They were doing the hotel thing here until a bunch of them evicted all the tenants overnight because "we're booked solid for the rest of the fall."
I used to live near that hotel and I've been in touch with the residents - it's really bad. Neighbors are forming groups to go out to walk dogs to have safety in numbers. I'm not sure what a better alternative is, though...
SUPPORT SERVICES!!!!!
Sorry, but you can't just shove people in housing without them.
The issue is that tent cities in public parks or what have you is not a solution to the homeless problem or the housing problem. And is also politically quite unpopular.
And all the stuff that is a solution is long-term and often against many of the interests of current residents.
By “against many of the interests” I presume that you mean that solutions require money (I.e., tax dollars) and rarely involves running people out of town?
My ideal long term solution is for the city to go to the many car dealerships on the peninsula and say “there’s absolutely no reason why a car dealership should be taking up valuable land on the peninsula. People who buy your product can drive to it, or can at least afford a cab. We will give you land off of the peninsula, pay you a certain amount, and hell, give you a tax break for the next X years. But we’re taking your parking lots. Feel free to have show rooms on the peninsula, but that’s it.”
Then, put up (actual) affordable housing and subsidized housing and city owned housing for the homeless and some low cost condos while you’re at it. Build four to six stories tall, put commercial space on the ground floor where possible. Don’t worry about putting in granite countertops or real hardwood or fancy amenities. Just build safe, clean, secure facilities. If you want to splurge at all, do so by designing them so that they can have rooftop gardens. Build densely, with none of the usual 20 foot setbacks between buildings and the street, and pack them in there.
If they started a project like that on Friday by bringing it up in city council, they might have the first units done in oh, three or four years. Which does jack shit for the people in tents now.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
They clear out local tent encampments here too, not always fast enough though. Had a few catch fire over the summer. Plus you wind up with sharps everywhere. Instead they're renting hotel rooms for folks, since there's laundry and stuff onsite. They typically have to check in with a case worker each day as the participants have addictions/mental health issues that resulted in their homelessness.
They were doing the hotel thing here until a bunch of them evicted all the tenants overnight because "we're booked solid for the rest of the fall."
I used to live near that hotel and I've been in touch with the residents - it's really bad. Neighbors are forming groups to go out to walk dogs to have safety in numbers. I'm not sure what a better alternative is, though...
For what it’s worth, I live a block from that hotel, and the neighbourhood is fine. Anecdotally: There’s definitely a few more panhandlers about, and I’ve heard about a few more verbally aggressive interactions.
But there’s a support team in place for the shelter who you can call if you see anyone in distress, or anything criminal or something that needs cleanup.
As you probably know, it’s a fairly upper-middle-class/lower six figure salary residential area, and it’s…still basically that. There’s definitely some issues, but if I were living through Mad Max every time I walked my boy to daycare, I would…not be in the neighbourhood.
The conditions in the shelter are, from those images (which turned up with others via the neighbourhood Facebook group unsourced before they got sent to CTV) not good at all, but that’s an argument for better funding and support.
People here really don’t like the hotel thing, and I get why, but if it’s not a storm in a teacup, it’s a tempest in the bath water at worst.
ETA: which is to say I wouldn’t characterise the shelter hotels as a nightmare, at least in my neighbourhood. They’re not a good solution, but right no there’s nowhere else for these unfortunate people to be. Maybe if we vote in some subsidised housing in the core, but I doubt it.
Posts
I'm kind of of the opinion that when the party leader substitutes her personal opinions to official party positions, likens disagreeing with her to hate speech, openly calls for voting out members that disagree with her personally, refuses to even step foot out of her riding to campaign with other candidates, can't even name a single one of her candidates in Québec, heads into an election with over 80 ridings missing candidates and no national election manager, goes into the debates so unprepared that she couldn't defend, discuss or even name a single party policy and spent two hours rambling on about her family and name-dropping JWR, monopolizes party resources for the purpose of getting herself elected at the detriment of all other candidates in the party, leads the party to its worst electoral defeat in 20 years and ends a distant 4th in her own riding, she has miserably failed at "doing her job" and richly earned the contempt of her party.
According to Paul's own resignation speech, the only emails she has received since the election were the two all-member emails about the leadership review. If true, that tells you everything you need to know about her ability to build bridges to other party members and marshal their support and respect.
But hey, congratulations to her for breaking a glass ceiling (that many other women have broken before her in the past 30 years with much more success).
There are Cons calling for O'Toole's head for sure. CPC/LPC leaders seldom hold on after losing an election, and the fact O'Toole shifted hard moderate and lost to the right's most hated enemy certainly won't help him. That said, last I heard the calls to remove him were fairly weak while he received some high-profile statements of support.
I hope O'Toole holds on, precisely because of his moderate shift. It would be the best thing for our nation long-term. He's trying to force the CPC to stop being an alt-right Bloc Prairies and to be a moderate national party, and he made in-roads in the eastern part of the nation that way. Moreover, with the PPC available, all the alt-right crazies can just vacate the CPC and join the "purple wave", leaving the CPC membership more moderate. Whether O'Toole is doing this as a political ploy or because it suits his political views better (I think it's the former) is not really important, the net result will be a moderate CPC closer to the old PC and a PPC containing all the wackos and closer to the Republican Party. This is important because the CPC will win again eventually, the LPC will not stay in power forever, and when the CPC comes back I want them to be dominated by moderates and not by alt-right fundies.
If O'Toole gets kicked out, his campaign will likely be held up as proof that moderation doesn't work and his successor will take a hard turn into the alt-right. And that would leave Canada much worse off, especially when they inevitably get back into power.
You're completely ignoring the fact that her staff was decimated through lay-offs and she had almost no money to run outside of her riding. I don't think there has been a party leader who has had to even remotely deal with the amount of hamstringing Paul did in this election cycle in the history of this country.
I'm not even a fan of Paul's but I can recognize and respect the hardships she's been through as party leader. She was never going to form a govt, she's essentially a relay racer on the road to helping the party find its footings after May. The level of hate and vitriol you're piling on her here is really fucking weird.
Maybe next time do some research into the political positions of the person you want leading your political party?
I have no hate at all in my heart for her at all but if you finish 4th in the only ridding you campaigned in you are clearly not the right person for the job. I have never voted green but love having strong opposition. With the exception of Jagmeet I find all the federal leaders are so meh atm and that does not do us any favors as a country.
But there's a particular viciousness that some posters are engaging in about her claims of sexism and racism that don't read charitably
You can point out the flaws in her leadership without being droll about the sexism and racism that likely played a part in her reception in the party and that she was within her rights to point out
I have doubts the party would have sued their own leadership if a white man, or even Elizabeth May, were still in the position but made the same mistakes
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
And you can also say "I don't like her" without it being sexist and/or racist.
My main issue with her leadership was that she seemed to attack anyone that had issues with her leadership (especially her own party) by implying they were racist.
This is silly. You are arguing the Green Party treated Paul viciously out of sexism. And you argue this while stating that Elizabeth May, who I may remind you is also a woman, would not have been treated the same. You're arguing that the Green Party, which has been led by a woman for most of the 21st century, rallied behind this woman election after election, and still holds this woman as a highly respected figure in the party, is a sexist party because they rejected Paul.
As for racism, as I've already stated, Paul is not the first black woman in politics. Québec, right now, has a black woman as leader of the PLQ and leader of the opposition, and no one makes a big deal out of it. Québec, the province that half the people in this thread love to shit on for being allegedly the most racist province in Canada, doesn't care. So your belief is that the GPC is somehow much more racist than the "most racist province".
Your argument also ignores the fact that the Green Party voted Paul as its leader less than a year before. The viciously racist and sexist Green Party, according to your world view, voted a black woman as their leader a year before turning on her.
Paul wasn't disliked by the GPC because she's a black woman and they're all secretly racists and sexists who voted her as leader anyway. She was disliked by them because she turned out to be a very bad leader who treated the party as her personal fiefdom where she could dictate policy, publicly call for removing members that disagree with her, and jettison a national campaign to focus the entire party resources on getting herself personally elected. Any leader, regardless of race or gender, deserves to get thrown out on their ass by their party for such behaviour.
Their Federal Council is around 45% women
Their Shadow Cabinet is two thirds women
I really don't think this is a sexism thing, this is about her not sharing the party's values and also willing to burn her MPs instead of just, you know, not. They're a tiny insignificant party as it is, burning the only people able to get elected under their banner over something that the larger party supports the individual MPs on is absolutely bad leadership
@Cello is saying the viciousness is here, in this thread. And they are right.
Paul not being the first black woman in politics has nothing to do with whether or not she has experienced racism and sexism in her stint as party leader. Like wtf even is that line of reasoning?
Turn around is fair play, and they can eject her for disagreeing with the party.
MWO: Adamski
That would be a weird line of reasoning indeed. Thank goodness it's not the one I use in the post of mine you quoted!
No one in this thread has been particularly vicious towards Paul. In fact the criticism against her here has been rather mild compared to what has been said about, say, Bernier or Québec Bill 21, and even those posts I would not call vicious. Hell, no one in this thread has ever written something I could call "vicious" with a straight face.
And it's you Richy, writing the things that seem a bit "extra".
I didn't say Paul deserved to be treated as poorly as Bernier or Bill 21. I said that... jesus christ forget it, you can just read it again, my post is pretty clear if you're not trying to put words into my mouth.
And yes I realize you and a few other posters are singling me out. I was giving you an out. But if you won't take it, then please go ahead and point to me the "vicious" things I said about Paul. Preferably without twisting my words to make me say things that are not there.
Sometimes politicians are bad at their jobs.
She was terrible at her job, doesn't appear to be especially likeable in her own party or by the electorate in general and in my personal opinion doesn't take personal responsibility for any of that.
Who or what someone is isn't a magic shield against criticism for being terrible at the thing they tried to do.
It's the commenting about things you would have absolutely no perspective on that are.....fraught. Like, you have zero idea what she's faced in terms of discrimination against her race, religion, or gender during her tenure as party leader. A couple of your posts just seem weirdly vitriolic against her with you highlighting commentary about her own personal experience as a woman of color. I think it's fine to be dismissive, or even antagonistic, towards her politics and policies but drawing her personal experience as a bipoc person into question is just...I don't know - weird, imo.
It's hard to take a deep breath lately with all the wildfire smoke in the air
Very nice to see the thread talk itself down. Y'all are still good people.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
are there any other Leaders of a Federal Party who are Black Women, Jewish Women, or both? I can't stand Paul but saying she didn't break any barriers is fucking stupid. (and as ammo saying "well the official opposition in quebec has a black lady!!".. so?)
edit - to be clear, her speech still sucked ass and we should talk about how she is a terrible politician but like, come on
I was planning to vote for Project Montréal, since Plante is pushing the city in a good direction right now, and her main opponent, Coderre, is more in favour of a city for the car than a city for the people.
Then there's Mouvement Montréal. This is basically my ideal municipal program.
City state, official full bilingualism, electrified transportation, etc. The only thing I would add is burning down Laval to the ground and rebuilding it correctly, but I hate suburbs.
The problem is that 8% is low, and 38% vs 37% is not a great margin...
https://www.mouvementmtl.com/en/platform
Strategic voting. It sucks because you get a government that doesn't quite do the right thing, but it saves you from getting a government that does the wrong thing.
I'm in the same situation in Québec City. I also have two good options. Savard is the successor of current mayor Labeaume and their team is doing good work. Marchand is a newcomer and I really like his ideas, they are the best fit for where I want to see the city going. Right now they are polling 1st and 3rd. The problem is that, between them, is Gosselin, a trash-radio-endorsed complete idiot who wants to scrap our public transit development plans and turn us into a car-only city. So I will likely have to vote for my second-favourite Savard to save us from Gosselin.
Yes, that's what I'm going to do, in practice. Especially since Plante is very close on policy, and quite frankly while I like the program, I have doubts about how doable it is, in practice.
Anyway, the public discourse around that has continued, and we had a swell development: One Erica Fleck has been put in charge of "action on homelessness" and started her tenure by ... personally visiting people in tents and telling them they needed to vacate the peninsula or they'd be forcefully evicted next week.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Pretty sure exile isn't on the list of things the municipal government's empowered to impose.
They were doing the hotel thing here until a bunch of them evicted all the tenants overnight because "we're booked solid for the rest of the fall."
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
RCMP union having great day of showing their stripes - doubling down on thin blue line garbage after the fairy creek thing, and then saying it won't support mandating vaccines for RCMP members.
This is awful.
And all the stuff that is a solution is long-term and often against many of the interests of current residents.
They're doing the hotel thing in Toronto and it's a goddamn nightmare.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/toronto-residents-demand-action-after-popular-four-star-hotel-becomes-homeless-shelter-1.5577955
I used to live near that hotel and I've been in touch with the residents - it's really bad. Neighbors are forming groups to go out to walk dogs to have safety in numbers. I'm not sure what a better alternative is, though...
SUPPORT SERVICES!!!!!
Sorry, but you can't just shove people in housing without them.
By “against many of the interests” I presume that you mean that solutions require money (I.e., tax dollars) and rarely involves running people out of town?
My ideal long term solution is for the city to go to the many car dealerships on the peninsula and say “there’s absolutely no reason why a car dealership should be taking up valuable land on the peninsula. People who buy your product can drive to it, or can at least afford a cab. We will give you land off of the peninsula, pay you a certain amount, and hell, give you a tax break for the next X years. But we’re taking your parking lots. Feel free to have show rooms on the peninsula, but that’s it.”
Then, put up (actual) affordable housing and subsidized housing and city owned housing for the homeless and some low cost condos while you’re at it. Build four to six stories tall, put commercial space on the ground floor where possible. Don’t worry about putting in granite countertops or real hardwood or fancy amenities. Just build safe, clean, secure facilities. If you want to splurge at all, do so by designing them so that they can have rooftop gardens. Build densely, with none of the usual 20 foot setbacks between buildings and the street, and pack them in there.
If they started a project like that on Friday by bringing it up in city council, they might have the first units done in oh, three or four years. Which does jack shit for the people in tents now.
For what it’s worth, I live a block from that hotel, and the neighbourhood is fine. Anecdotally: There’s definitely a few more panhandlers about, and I’ve heard about a few more verbally aggressive interactions.
But there’s a support team in place for the shelter who you can call if you see anyone in distress, or anything criminal or something that needs cleanup.
As you probably know, it’s a fairly upper-middle-class/lower six figure salary residential area, and it’s…still basically that. There’s definitely some issues, but if I were living through Mad Max every time I walked my boy to daycare, I would…not be in the neighbourhood.
The conditions in the shelter are, from those images (which turned up with others via the neighbourhood Facebook group unsourced before they got sent to CTV) not good at all, but that’s an argument for better funding and support.
People here really don’t like the hotel thing, and I get why, but if it’s not a storm in a teacup, it’s a tempest in the bath water at worst.
ETA: which is to say I wouldn’t characterise the shelter hotels as a nightmare, at least in my neighbourhood. They’re not a good solution, but right no there’s nowhere else for these unfortunate people to be. Maybe if we vote in some subsidised housing in the core, but I doubt it.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog