I think reasonable judgement should be used when deciding on how the conditions of a foreign nation's justice system factor.
"Their prisons suck" and "the accused are fragile" are pretty weak, imo. So sorry that the consequences of murder aren't to your liking? Unless there's clearly going to be overly cruel punishment, why should we refuse? "Shit is pretty bad, guys!" is not enough, I think.
Contrast this with cases like "send us these persons because they broke our religious laws and we will torture/kill them" which is refugee status, no way we should be extraditing.
Characterizing a nation's system as brutal is drawing no tears when you're the ones perpetuating such brutality by organizing honour killings.
+6
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
The OEB site lists 'peak' power costs as 18 cents per kwh.
Still cheaper than Yellowknife! :P
Yeah, well, we spend as much to power our 2bedroom condo here in Ottawa as my father does on his 1,200 square feet home in Gatineau. Can't help but feel ripped off here!
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The OEB site lists 'peak' power costs as 18 cents per kwh.
Still cheaper than Yellowknife! :P
Yeah, well, we spend as much to power our 2bedroom condo here in Ottawa as my father does on his 1,200 square feet home in Gatineau. Can't help but feel ripped off here!
Power bills in YK are known to by $400 a month for some homes. Or more.
It's .26 per kwh, plus some fees. They tried to increase it to like, 0.32 cents a couple years back, but there was a huge backlash and the government didn't approve the rate hike.
Aha, think I know how to articulate better what is bothering me.
Human rights lawyers are defending two people that are accused of committing human rights atrocities, the same kind that they are speaking out against a nation for. It's like, what the fuck??
Just read up on Hydro One in Ontario and geeez, it's become even more of a boondoggle since I moved out here to BC. I didn't mind paying a bit extra when they shut down the coal plants, but now it's just all corruption and privatization and ick.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
Aha, think I know how to articulate better what is bothering me.
Human rights lawyers are defending two people that are accused of committing human rights atrocities, the same kind that they are speaking out against a nation for. It's like, what the fuck??
It's almost as if you don't forfeit your basic human rights just by doing a bad thing, and like demonizing criminals as sub human is a really shitty thing to do...
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
These are the same thing. It's about what treatment we are willing to allow those accused/convicted of a crime. If we say the death penalty or torture or inhumane conditions are unacceptable as a punishment for committing a crime, it doesn't suddenly become AOK just because we out-source it to another country.
Deportation is a distraction here. This isn't about quality of life, it's about punishment for a crime.
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
These are the same thing. It's about what treatment we are willing to allow those accused/convicted of a crime. If we say the death penalty or torture or inhumane conditions are unacceptable as a punishment for committing a crime, it doesn't suddenly become AOK just because we out-source it to another country.
Deportation is a distraction here. This isn't about quality of life, it's about punishment for a crime.
1) Is there a credible belief that they would be tortured?
2) Again, we're okay with deporting people to a country where people are tortured, but we're not okay with extraditing a criminal to the same country? Morally, ethically, that seems like that's just fussing around how proximate a cause we are. 80% chance of torture? Not okay. 10% chance of torture? Okay!
3) Also, as far I understand it, torture isn't part of their judicial sentence. It's a byproduct of the Indian penal system. So again, it's very much about quality of life, not about the explicit punishment being meted. Are we okay with the worst aspects of the US penal system too? If someone we extradite to the US is beat up by a prison gang, does that mean we can't extradite to the US either? If that happens in Canada, are our OWN prisons unsuitable for prisoners?
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
These are the same thing. It's about what treatment we are willing to allow those accused/convicted of a crime. If we say the death penalty or torture or inhumane conditions are unacceptable as a punishment for committing a crime, it doesn't suddenly become AOK just because we out-source it to another country.
Deportation is a distraction here. This isn't about quality of life, it's about punishment for a crime.
1) Is there a credible belief that they would be tortured?
2) Again, we're okay with deporting people to a country where people are tortured, but we're not okay with extraditing a criminal to the same country? Morally, ethically, that seems like that's just fussing around how proximate a cause we are. 80% chance of torture? Not okay. 10% chance of torture? Okay!
3) Also, as far I understand it, torture isn't part of their judicial sentence. It's a byproduct of the Indian penal system. So again, it's very much about quality of life, not about the explicit punishment being meted. Are we okay with the worst aspects of the US penal system too? If someone we extradite to the US is beat up by a prison gang, does that mean we can't extradite to the US either? If that happens in Canada, are our OWN prisons unsuitable for prisoners?
Is there a credible belief they will be mistreated? Well, that's what the court is deciding. That's what the courts are for.
And your continued attempt to try and make some sort of distinction between how they will be treated in Indian prison and ... how they will be treated in Indian prison makes no sense. It's part of their judicial sentence in that it's part of what they will be sentenced to in prison.
And deportation is still a distraction in this conversation for exactly the reason I already stated. Deportation and extradition are not the same for what should be obvious reasons. Deportation is not handing someone over to another justice system to be tried.
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
These are the same thing. It's about what treatment we are willing to allow those accused/convicted of a crime. If we say the death penalty or torture or inhumane conditions are unacceptable as a punishment for committing a crime, it doesn't suddenly become AOK just because we out-source it to another country.
Deportation is a distraction here. This isn't about quality of life, it's about punishment for a crime.
1) Is there a credible belief that they would be tortured?
2) Again, we're okay with deporting people to a country where people are tortured, but we're not okay with extraditing a criminal to the same country? Morally, ethically, that seems like that's just fussing around how proximate a cause we are. 80% chance of torture? Not okay. 10% chance of torture? Okay!
3) Also, as far I understand it, torture isn't part of their judicial sentence. It's a byproduct of the Indian penal system. So again, it's very much about quality of life, not about the explicit punishment being meted. Are we okay with the worst aspects of the US penal system too? If someone we extradite to the US is beat up by a prison gang, does that mean we can't extradite to the US either? If that happens in Canada, are our OWN prisons unsuitable for prisoners?
Is there a credible belief they will be mistreated? Well, that's what the court is deciding. That's what the courts are for.
And your continued attempt to try and make some sort of distinction between how they will be treated in Indian prison and ... how they will be treated in Indian prison makes no sense. It's part of their judicial sentence in that it's part of what they will be sentenced to in prison.
And deportation is still a distraction in this conversation for exactly the reason I already stated. Deportation and extradition are not the same for what should be obvious reasons. Deportation is not handing someone over to another justice system to be tried.
No, I would say that it's your position that makes no sense. All I'm getting is, "Torture is bad, so extradition is bad," without any coherent explanation as to why. My presumption is that you think torture is bad because it causes suffering, but our immigration policies don't prevent suffering anyways, so I don't see it as a (consistent) moral imperative that extradition policy avoid causing suffering to the extradited. If we're going to hold ourselves morally responsible for the torture that may happen to a prisoner we extradite, then it's only consistent that we hold ourselves responsible for all the suffering encountered by all prisoners and deportees.
Also, we're not sending them to be tortured; we're sending them someplace where they may be tortured... which is true of everybody we send back to India, for different probabilities of "may". Again, if we're going to hold ourselves responsible for the high probability events, then we also need to hold ourselves responsibility for the low probability events, so deporting 1000 people to India seems just as morally culpable as extraditing 1.
So, articulate for me why the line is drawn in this particular place, since it seems a pretty arbitrary one. Why is torture not okay but, say, prison yard beatings okay? Why can we not extradite these people, but we could block their entry into the country (if they had started outside the country)? It seems obvious to me that pragmatic matters play into this, so I am unmoved by these purely moral arguments, and why I'd prefer a discussion/engagement with this issue that recognizes the various practical concerns that play into this - not that these necessarily remove moral issues from the question, but the converse is also not true.
Also, if anything, I'm NOT confident that our courts will assess this properly. Based on cursory research, it seems that our courts have been rubber-stamping extradition requests lately.
hippofant on
0
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
These are the same thing. It's about what treatment we are willing to allow those accused/convicted of a crime. If we say the death penalty or torture or inhumane conditions are unacceptable as a punishment for committing a crime, it doesn't suddenly become AOK just because we out-source it to another country.
Deportation is a distraction here. This isn't about quality of life, it's about punishment for a crime.
1) Is there a credible belief that they would be tortured?
2) Again, we're okay with deporting people to a country where people are tortured, but we're not okay with extraditing a criminal to the same country? Morally, ethically, that seems like that's just fussing around how proximate a cause we are. 80% chance of torture? Not okay. 10% chance of torture? Okay!
3) Also, as far I understand it, torture isn't part of their judicial sentence. It's a byproduct of the Indian penal system. So again, it's very much about quality of life, not about the explicit punishment being meted. Are we okay with the worst aspects of the US penal system too? If someone we extradite to the US is beat up by a prison gang, does that mean we can't extradite to the US either? If that happens in Canada, are our OWN prisons unsuitable for prisoners?
Is there a credible belief they will be mistreated? Well, that's what the court is deciding. That's what the courts are for.
And your continued attempt to try and make some sort of distinction between how they will be treated in Indian prison and ... how they will be treated in Indian prison makes no sense. It's part of their judicial sentence in that it's part of what they will be sentenced to in prison.
And deportation is still a distraction in this conversation for exactly the reason I already stated. Deportation and extradition are not the same for what should be obvious reasons. Deportation is not handing someone over to another justice system to be tried.
No, I would say that it's your position that makes no sense. All I'm getting is, "Torture is bad, so extradition is bad," without any coherent explanation as to why. My presumption is that you think torture is bad because it causes suffering, but our immigration policies don't prevent suffering anyways, so I don't see it as a (consistent) moral imperative that extradition policy avoid causing suffering to the extradited. If we're going to hold ourselves morally responsible for the torture that may happen to a prisoner we extradite, then it's only consistent that we hold ourselves responsible for all the suffering encountered by all prisoners and deportees.
Also, we're not sending them to be tortured; we're sending them someplace where they may be tortured... which is true of everybody we send back to India, for different probabilities of "may". Again, if we're going to hold ourselves responsible for the high probability events, then we also need to hold ourselves responsibility for the low probability events, so deporting 1000 people to India seems just as morally culpable as extraditing 1.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but seriously?
Of course there's a difference between high-probability and low-probability events. It's really bad argumentation to say otherwise.
For example, our government allows people to operate motor vehicles, despite the fact that thousands of people die in accidents a year, because the likelihood of any one person dying in an accident is low.
Similarly, we allow doctors to give us x-rays despite the fact that an x-ray scan directly increases the odds of getting cancer (by something like 1 in 10,000).
Human society is based on risk assessment. Of course there's a difference between sending someone to a place they're 90% likely to be tortured vs 5% likely they'll be tortured.
Don't pretend that you have to account for every possibility equally in order to win an argument.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
+2
Options
Sir FabulousMalevolent Squid GodRegistered Userregular
Also we expect a difference in QoL between prisoners and regular civilians because prisoners are directly under the care of the government. Civilians (theoretically) can move around and try to better their circumstances by taking new jobs or going to different cities. Prisoners are reliant upon the government for even their most basic needs.
Some people might say that's unfair, and I can see some merit to that position, but that's another difference between extradition and deportation.
Deportation to return to a non-incarcerated life is not at all consistent with extradition into different penal system.
Are there cases where deportation back to a home country will result in prison or detention for the deportee? Yes of course but it is not a given and trying to frame these things as identical or equivalent is Bullshit.
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
darkmayo on
Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
+1
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
Agreed, they aren't crazy-town-banana-pants left, but they certainly aren't centrist either. Just listened to a CBC Eye Opener interview with Brian Jean (leader of the Wild Rose party), and it sounds like the gloves are coming off as far as a leadership race is concerned for the right. Both men want to see a single party, both want it to be THEIR party, and both want it to be them who runs it.
I fear this is going to be ramping up the far right rhetoric even more. Who can be the MOST RAH-RAH Conservative. This is a MONSTER missed opportunity for the Liberal party to come out as a centrist. Even if it's Liberal Light™, it would be better for our province, and country in the long run I believe. They likely wouldn't win, but this election was their best chance to be taken seriously (which is something that hasn't happened in Alberta in a LOOONG time).
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Our Liberal party is kinda of a joke atm as well.
Alberta Party seems reasonable, at least.
Otherwise, yeah. It's slim pickings.
Greg CLark is a dipshit nutter that caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted time and resources by not understanding what transitory records are.
I would argue though that "Liberal-Lite" is just Conservative wolf in a sheep costume. I don't really see a benefit to the FPTP marginalized center to left of center voter aka the center still ends up skewing right. Again.
Meanwhile in BC, the NDP are leading in the polls. Without having actually done much of anything yet. Can they make it through the election without saying or doing anything dumb and let Christy Clark sink herself? Exciting!
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Our Liberal party is kinda of a joke atm as well.
Alberta Party seems reasonable, at least.
Otherwise, yeah. It's slim pickings.
Greg CLark is a dipshit nutter that caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted time and resources by not understanding what transitory records are.
That man has some issues.
Like, living in the modern world issues.
PSN: Canadian_llama
0
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Our Liberal party is kinda of a joke atm as well.
Alberta Party seems reasonable, at least.
Otherwise, yeah. It's slim pickings.
Greg CLark is a dipshit nutter that caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted time and resources by not understanding what transitory records are.
That man has some issues.
Like, living in the modern world issues.
That's disappointing! I haven't paid much attention to the Alberta party, honestly.
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
The conservatives here in Alberta are essentially a centrist party IMO.
Meanwhile in BC, the NDP are leading in the polls. Without having actually done much of anything yet. Can they make it through the election without saying or doing anything dumb and let Christy Clark sink herself? Exciting!
They led in many polls last time too.
Polling in bc is shit.
What I predict will happen is a lame attempt at an ndp campaign that can be summed up as "we hate Christy clark" and then they will bleed support to the greens and end up losing again.
As someone else said, in this very thread, the NDP needs to actually campaign about what they want to do and stay true to the party platform. You're not gonna win the center and when you try, you lose the hardcore left.
OR, I could be totally wrong and the liberals will be crushed
Honestly I kind of do hope the Wildrose wins, but after seeing what happened with Trump I'm not sure letting people experience the post apocalypse they think will be so great is a good idea. I am constantly disappointed by how little accountability the WR is held to.
I honestly have no idea who to vote for. I personally don't find the NDP are doing a great job ( but not the worst party EVARRR like a lot of the loud morlocks are screaming), can't vote Wildrose because I'm not crazy xenophobic and/or really in love with Jesus and the conservatives are just bad.
Our Liberal party is kinda of a joke atm as well.
Alberta Party seems reasonable, at least.
Otherwise, yeah. It's slim pickings.
Greg CLark is a dipshit nutter that caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted time and resources by not understanding what transitory records are.
That man has some issues.
Like, living in the modern world issues.
That's disappointing! I haven't paid much attention to the Alberta party, honestly.
Oh well.
Met him once at a professional function. Not a bad guy but suuuper weird to talk to. Like, he acts like we are still in the 60's in the way he talks about stuff.
Well, at this point, Christy and her party have done far more harm to themselves than anything the NDP have brought to bare, as far as I can tell. Remember that whole nonsense with Christy accusing the NDP of hacking them when they had done no such thing? Yeah...
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
The conservatives here in Alberta are essentially a centrist party IMO.
Pre-Kenney, yeah.
Now? I don't know, he's pretty right.
WATCH THIS SPACE.
+3
Options
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
The conservatives here in Alberta are essentially a centrist party IMO.
A centrist party that got booted out for actual and/or perceived corruption so in many eyes they are not an acceptable choice for either left leaning or centrist people who don't just vote along party lines. If the Conservative party and Wild Rose do merge the ghost of Redford will be brought out to haunt them if the opposition is anywhere near competent.
+1
Options
BouwsTWanna come to a super soft birthday party?Registered Userregular
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
The conservatives here in Alberta are essentially a centrist party IMO.
A centrist party that got booted out for actual and/or perceived corruption so in many eyes they are not an acceptable choice for either left leaning or centrist people who don't just vote along party lines. If the Conservative party and Wild Rose do merge the ghost of Redford will be brought out to haunt them if the opposition is anywhere near competent.
I think if the new conservative movement is rebuilt on the bones of the Wild Rose party, they'll be able to get away from that dumpster fire legacy that was Premier Allison Redford (no comment on her as a person, just on her as a leader). However, the flip side, being built on the platform of the Wild Rose party will scare away a lot of the centrist voters... If they ostensibly become Progressive Conservatives, Feat. Wild Rose, they opposite will happen. Redford and past sins will haunt them, but they'll likely be able to convince some moderate voters to give them a second chance.
Between you and me, Peggy, I smoked this Juul and it did UNTHINKABLE things to my mind and body...
And apparently his platform was one of uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party. That'll be interesting to watch.
I worry about that one a little, given that one of those parties is going to be far more uncompromisingly doctrinaire than the other. If it happens, I hope that "uniting the PCs and Wildrose under a single party" doesn't become the same instance of "subsuming the PCs into the other party" that happened federally.
I think it's pretty much a given, given Kenney's personal history as a Harper lackey, the campaign he ran, and the larger trend of moderate right-wing parties being taken over by right-wing fanatics.
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
The conservatives here in Alberta are essentially a centrist party IMO.
Pre-Kenney, yeah.
Now? I don't know, he's pretty right.
Hard to argue that.
I was speaking of the Stelmach/Redford/Prentice Era.
Well, at this point, Christy and her party have done far more harm to themselves than anything the NDP have brought to bare, as far as I can tell. Remember that whole nonsense with Christy accusing the NDP of hacking them when they had done no such thing? Yeah...
Yeah, I know I'm new here but the atmosphere feels rather like the last federal election. People are tired of the Clark Liberals and Clark has some Harper-esque meanness about her. If the NDP can get their butts together they should have a good chance. I don't know how good the BC NDP is at getting their butts together, though.
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
Kelowna is especially un fond of her for the added bonus of a weeklong 2 hour detour on a main road so she could move into her multimillion dollar lakefront home.
All I'm saying is that if ndp support softens at all or gets siphoned off to the greens the liberals will be back in.
For a Fuck up of a govt like the liberals to still be polling close to the front tells you all you need to know.
People wanting change are gonna have to coalecse and actually vote this time.
0
Options
Lost CanuckWorld's Greatest Escape ArtistDoctor Vundabar's Murder MachineRegistered Userregular
I think the BC NDP has one advantage over last time in that I don't think John Horgan has as much baggage as Adrian Dix did, but whether or not voters are angry enough to overcome their decade-long apathy over the failings of the BC Liberal party is another story.
Part of me is sad that we won't get any ads as stupid and vaguely sexual as "Risky Dix" this time.
I took a near-immediate dislike to Clark when she went on a, "Those icky VANCOUVER people hate pipelines and jobs and YOU" tour of rural BC. Politics of division make me barf.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
I took a near-immediate dislike to Clark when she went on a, "Those icky VANCOUVER people hate pipelines and jobs and YOU" tour of rural BC. Politics of division make me barf.
Everything about how they handled pipelines and LNG was terrible.
A sworn affidavit provided to The Globe and Mail alleges that one of Mr. O’Leary’s key organizers in the Sikh-Canadian community in Brampton, Ont., offered to pay for party membership – a clear breach of party rules.
Six Sikh-Canadians swore an affidavit on Sunday alleging that the president of the Conservative Brampton East Riding Association offered to pay for their memberships.
“I was approached by Ron Chatha from the Kevin O’Leary team to provide names and addresses for myself and friends, so they could sign up for the Conservative Party of Canada [and] not to worry about the fees as they will take care of it. But I discussed with my friends, they said they had to pay for the membership so we decided not [to] sign for membership,” the six men said in the signed affidavit.
The Sikh-Canadians went to a notary’s office in Brampton on Sunday to have their allegations notarized. The affidavit was provided to The Globe from the Bernier camp.
But Mr. Chatha, who is a key organizer for Mr. O’Leary, flatly denied he engaged in voter buying and accused the Bernier campaign of seeking revenge.
Mr. Chatha said he was the one who first complained to party headquarters about false memberships when he looked at the recent list of 278 new members in his riding. Many of the people on that list did not even know they had been signed, he told The Globe.
A party official confirmed that Mr. Chatha had flagged suspicious memberships that lead to an investigation and the removal of more than 1,300 people from the party rolls on Friday.
Posts
"Their prisons suck" and "the accused are fragile" are pretty weak, imo. So sorry that the consequences of murder aren't to your liking? Unless there's clearly going to be overly cruel punishment, why should we refuse? "Shit is pretty bad, guys!" is not enough, I think.
Contrast this with cases like "send us these persons because they broke our religious laws and we will torture/kill them" which is refugee status, no way we should be extraditing.
Characterizing a nation's system as brutal is drawing no tears when you're the ones perpetuating such brutality by organizing honour killings.
Yeah, well, we spend as much to power our 2bedroom condo here in Ottawa as my father does on his 1,200 square feet home in Gatineau. Can't help but feel ripped off here!
Power bills in YK are known to by $400 a month for some homes. Or more.
It's .26 per kwh, plus some fees. They tried to increase it to like, 0.32 cents a couple years back, but there was a huge backlash and the government didn't approve the rate hike.
Human rights lawyers are defending two people that are accused of committing human rights atrocities, the same kind that they are speaking out against a nation for. It's like, what the fuck??
Yup. There's basically no question here because this is what always happens. When it comes down to it, when "moderate right-wing" parties get squeezed, they don't get more moderate, they side with the far-right. You can see their real priorities right there.
This is the same shit as having the death penalty. At the end of the day, we decide some punishments are not ethically acceptable.
I'm confident in our Supreme Court to make a good ruling on the various factors being weighted in this exact case.
It's almost as if you don't forfeit your basic human rights just by doing a bad thing, and like demonizing criminals as sub human is a really shitty thing to do...
This isn't about a grotesque judgement though. It's about the quality of India's prisons. It's one thing to say that the death penalty is grossly disproportionate with what the sentence for murder here would be - a rationale that would fit within my framework, at least, though I'm not sure I'd advance it - and another thing entirely to say that, for example, 10 years in Indian prison is completely unacceptable versus 10 years in Canadian prison. That's, in many ways, a commentary on Indian quality of life as much as it is a condemnation of the Indian justice system.
So we'll deport people to Third World countries, but we won't extradite them? When we deport someone to India, how come the concerns about India's human rights record don't apply then? Does the government guarantee that all Canadians receive a higher quality of life than found in Indian prisons? Because saying that this is an uncrossable line isn't a solid argument if we regularly cross over that line already.
These are the same thing. It's about what treatment we are willing to allow those accused/convicted of a crime. If we say the death penalty or torture or inhumane conditions are unacceptable as a punishment for committing a crime, it doesn't suddenly become AOK just because we out-source it to another country.
Deportation is a distraction here. This isn't about quality of life, it's about punishment for a crime.
1) Is there a credible belief that they would be tortured?
2) Again, we're okay with deporting people to a country where people are tortured, but we're not okay with extraditing a criminal to the same country? Morally, ethically, that seems like that's just fussing around how proximate a cause we are. 80% chance of torture? Not okay. 10% chance of torture? Okay!
3) Also, as far I understand it, torture isn't part of their judicial sentence. It's a byproduct of the Indian penal system. So again, it's very much about quality of life, not about the explicit punishment being meted. Are we okay with the worst aspects of the US penal system too? If someone we extradite to the US is beat up by a prison gang, does that mean we can't extradite to the US either? If that happens in Canada, are our OWN prisons unsuitable for prisoners?
Is there a credible belief they will be mistreated? Well, that's what the court is deciding. That's what the courts are for.
And your continued attempt to try and make some sort of distinction between how they will be treated in Indian prison and ... how they will be treated in Indian prison makes no sense. It's part of their judicial sentence in that it's part of what they will be sentenced to in prison.
And deportation is still a distraction in this conversation for exactly the reason I already stated. Deportation and extradition are not the same for what should be obvious reasons. Deportation is not handing someone over to another justice system to be tried.
No, I would say that it's your position that makes no sense. All I'm getting is, "Torture is bad, so extradition is bad," without any coherent explanation as to why. My presumption is that you think torture is bad because it causes suffering, but our immigration policies don't prevent suffering anyways, so I don't see it as a (consistent) moral imperative that extradition policy avoid causing suffering to the extradited. If we're going to hold ourselves morally responsible for the torture that may happen to a prisoner we extradite, then it's only consistent that we hold ourselves responsible for all the suffering encountered by all prisoners and deportees.
Also, we're not sending them to be tortured; we're sending them someplace where they may be tortured... which is true of everybody we send back to India, for different probabilities of "may". Again, if we're going to hold ourselves responsible for the high probability events, then we also need to hold ourselves responsibility for the low probability events, so deporting 1000 people to India seems just as morally culpable as extraditing 1.
So, articulate for me why the line is drawn in this particular place, since it seems a pretty arbitrary one. Why is torture not okay but, say, prison yard beatings okay? Why can we not extradite these people, but we could block their entry into the country (if they had started outside the country)? It seems obvious to me that pragmatic matters play into this, so I am unmoved by these purely moral arguments, and why I'd prefer a discussion/engagement with this issue that recognizes the various practical concerns that play into this - not that these necessarily remove moral issues from the question, but the converse is also not true.
Also, if anything, I'm NOT confident that our courts will assess this properly. Based on cursory research, it seems that our courts have been rubber-stamping extradition requests lately.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but seriously?
Of course there's a difference between high-probability and low-probability events. It's really bad argumentation to say otherwise.
For example, our government allows people to operate motor vehicles, despite the fact that thousands of people die in accidents a year, because the likelihood of any one person dying in an accident is low.
Similarly, we allow doctors to give us x-rays despite the fact that an x-ray scan directly increases the odds of getting cancer (by something like 1 in 10,000).
Human society is based on risk assessment. Of course there's a difference between sending someone to a place they're 90% likely to be tortured vs 5% likely they'll be tortured.
Don't pretend that you have to account for every possibility equally in order to win an argument.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Some people might say that's unfair, and I can see some merit to that position, but that's another difference between extradition and deportation.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1406-1275-7906
Are there cases where deportation back to a home country will result in prison or detention for the deportee? Yes of course but it is not a given and trying to frame these things as identical or equivalent is Bullshit.
We've already seen the moderate leadership candidates bail from the party, the question is where will the centrists in the party go. The NDP is the only big party but that might be a bit too far of a jump for them (not that the Alberta NDP are crazy left) I still think that the Liberals should have started to ramp up as soon as the NDP won.
Agreed, they aren't crazy-town-banana-pants left, but they certainly aren't centrist either. Just listened to a CBC Eye Opener interview with Brian Jean (leader of the Wild Rose party), and it sounds like the gloves are coming off as far as a leadership race is concerned for the right. Both men want to see a single party, both want it to be THEIR party, and both want it to be them who runs it.
I fear this is going to be ramping up the far right rhetoric even more. Who can be the MOST RAH-RAH Conservative. This is a MONSTER missed opportunity for the Liberal party to come out as a centrist. Even if it's Liberal Light™, it would be better for our province, and country in the long run I believe. They likely wouldn't win, but this election was their best chance to be taken seriously (which is something that hasn't happened in Alberta in a LOOONG time).
Greg CLark is a dipshit nutter that caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted time and resources by not understanding what transitory records are.
That man has some issues.
Like, living in the modern world issues.
I agree with you that Alberta needs a more centrist party like the Liberals, but at this point, the lack of that other choice on the center/left is what allowed the NDP to get into power. If the Liberals do fire up I think that a lot of the people who voted NDP who just wanted a left option will jump ship, but not all of them. I think we'd end up with minority governments until the right does unite and then it will be on lockdown for them since there will no longer be any vote splitting between the Conservatives and the Wild Rose.
That's disappointing! I haven't paid much attention to the Alberta party, honestly.
Oh well.
The conservatives here in Alberta are essentially a centrist party IMO.
They led in many polls last time too.
Polling in bc is shit.
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-were-the-polls-completely-wrong-about-the-bc-election/article11935336/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
What I predict will happen is a lame attempt at an ndp campaign that can be summed up as "we hate Christy clark" and then they will bleed support to the greens and end up losing again.
As someone else said, in this very thread, the NDP needs to actually campaign about what they want to do and stay true to the party platform. You're not gonna win the center and when you try, you lose the hardcore left.
OR, I could be totally wrong and the liberals will be crushed
Met him once at a professional function. Not a bad guy but suuuper weird to talk to. Like, he acts like we are still in the 60's in the way he talks about stuff.
Really hard to put into words.
Pre-Kenney, yeah.
Now? I don't know, he's pretty right.
A centrist party that got booted out for actual and/or perceived corruption so in many eyes they are not an acceptable choice for either left leaning or centrist people who don't just vote along party lines. If the Conservative party and Wild Rose do merge the ghost of Redford will be brought out to haunt them if the opposition is anywhere near competent.
I think if the new conservative movement is rebuilt on the bones of the Wild Rose party, they'll be able to get away from that dumpster fire legacy that was Premier Allison Redford (no comment on her as a person, just on her as a leader). However, the flip side, being built on the platform of the Wild Rose party will scare away a lot of the centrist voters... If they ostensibly become Progressive Conservatives, Feat. Wild Rose, they opposite will happen. Redford and past sins will haunt them, but they'll likely be able to convince some moderate voters to give them a second chance.
Hard to argue that.
I was speaking of the Stelmach/Redford/Prentice Era.
Yeah, I know I'm new here but the atmosphere feels rather like the last federal election. People are tired of the Clark Liberals and Clark has some Harper-esque meanness about her. If the NDP can get their butts together they should have a good chance. I don't know how good the BC NDP is at getting their butts together, though.
For a Fuck up of a govt like the liberals to still be polling close to the front tells you all you need to know.
People wanting change are gonna have to coalecse and actually vote this time.
Part of me is sad that we won't get any ads as stupid and vaguely sexual as "Risky Dix" this time.
Nintendo Switch friend code: SW-4012-4821-3053
Everything about how they handled pipelines and LNG was terrible.