Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

[dapaterson]

Apparently its not the win is the margin of victory. He scored something like 55% of the votes. Which, the article states, is a measure more than usual.

It's an interesting proxy for voter engagement.

But sometimes strong party performance in the past depresses opposition turnout, as they feel the result is foreordained.

I'd be interested to see LPC forecasts of turnout vs actual. That is what might trigger fear.

 

[Remius]

Apparently its not the win is the margin of victory. He scored something like 55% of the votes. Which, the article states, is a measure more than usual.

Agreed. The margin is the real story. Scoring that margin is a sign that the polling is likely correct. Even if that riding has gone concervative for twenty years, the margin is a good indicator. That riding will not exist next election but is still a good example of what could take place next time.

People should look at this with an unbiased eye. When the CPC underperformed in the last few by elections plenty of people on that side dismissed the results etc etc. PP and his team did not. They changed his approach and message. They did exactly what was needed to improve their polling and results.

 

[Good2Golf]

And while many people are affronted by Poilievre’s musings about controlling access to pornography by minors, there appears to be muted criticism (at least at the moment) for Trudeau’s (via his Justice Minister) Bill C-63 ‘House Arrest for Future Potential As Yet Uncommitted But You May Actually Offend, But Let’s Let The Canadian Human Rights Commission Process Complaints And Forward Them To The Courts To Prosecute In Advance Of Any Trial But A Very Carefully Thought Out Justification To Arrest.’

Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future

Arif Virani said new power could restrain behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful conduct

www.theglobeandmail.com

It appears that ‘track record’ need not actually include any convictions for said behavior.

My thoughts, if it’s important enough to paracarcerate, it needs to have more than a non-judicial process justifying restriction to freedoms.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And while many people are affronted by Poilievre’s musings about controlling access to pornography by minors, there appears to be muted criticism (at least at the moment) for Trudeau’s (via his Justice Minister) Bill C-63 ‘House Arrest for Future Potential As Yet Uncommitted But You May Actually Offend, But Let’s Let The Canadian Human Rights Commission Process Complaints And Forward Them To The Courts To Prosecute In Advance Of Any Trial But A Very Carefully Thought Out Justification To Arrest.’

Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future

Arif Virani said new power could restrain behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful conduct

www.theglobeandmail.com

It appears that ‘track record’ need not actually include any convictions for said behavior.

My thoughts, if it’s important enough to paracarcerate, it needs to have more than a non-judicial process justifying restriction to freedoms.

It's almost like they believe their own bullshit.

 

[RangerRay]

It's almost like they believe their own bullshit.

They definitely do. That’s why they cannot countenance any opposition.

 

[ModlrMike]

Maybe they should have read up on the issue first:

The Minority Report - Wikipedia

 

[rmc_wannabe]

And while many people are affronted by Poilievre’s musings about controlling access to pornography by minors, there appears to be muted criticism (at least at the moment) for Trudeau’s (via his Justice Minister) Bill C-63 ‘House Arrest for Future Potential As Yet Uncommitted But You May Actually Offend, But Let’s Let The Canadian Human Rights Commission Process Complaints And Forward Them To The Courts To Prosecute In Advance Of Any Trial But A Very Carefully Thought Out Justification To Arrest.’

Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future

Arif Virani said new power could restrain behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful conduct

www.theglobeandmail.com

It appears that ‘track record’ need not actually include any convictions for said behavior.

My thoughts, if it’s important enough to paracarcerate, it needs to have more than a non-judicial process justifying restriction to freedoms.

@FJAG Would be the best person to confirm this, but I dont see something like this withstanding a Charter challenge at the SCC based on Section 11 a) & d) violations.

 

[OldSolduer]

The current LPC is a cult. Not a political party

 

[brihard]

And while many people are affronted by Poilievre’s musings about controlling access to pornography by minors, there appears to be muted criticism (at least at the moment) for Trudeau’s (via his Justice Minister) Bill C-63 ‘House Arrest for Future Potential As Yet Uncommitted But You May Actually Offend, But Let’s Let The Canadian Human Rights Commission Process Complaints And Forward Them To The Courts To Prosecute In Advance Of Any Trial But A Very Carefully Thought Out Justification To Arrest.’

Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future

Arif Virani said new power could restrain behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful conduct

www.theglobeandmail.com

It appears that ‘track record’ need not actually include any convictions for said behavior.

My thoughts, if it’s important enough to paracarcerate, it needs to have more than a non-judicial process justifying restriction to freedoms.

From looking at it, the list of potential conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring are pretty much the same as with terrorism peace bonds. So basically this is a hate crime peace bond. FWIW, the full house arrest provisions for a terrorism peace bond are exceedingly rare, if they’ve been used at all. In the case of terrorism peace bonds, those can also be imposed without a charge or conviction.

The hate crime provision in the proposed bill basically creates a crim code section that can turn most any existing offence into a hate offence if it’s motivated by one of a list of reasons defined in the bill. They’re consistent with the limited body of existing hate crime motivators.

 

[Lumber]

Hilarious.

The same crowd on here that would gladly and quickly deport immigrants for spewing hateful speech are against house arrest for the same?

 

[Jarnhamar]

The same crowd

Names please.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Names please.

Ditto

 

[lenaitch]

Section 33 allows Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the Charter, namely section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights)

____________________________________

Oh, well it's a good thing Section 33 only allows Parliament to ignore the not important sections of the Charter...

For a minute there I thought you were suggesting that the whole bloody point of having a Charter could be eliminated by a section contained within that same Charter...I should have known that was too silly to possibly be the case!

Oh...wait...


I've never understood the point of having a Charter that can be suspended by the very entity the Charter is supposed to protect the people against (re the government)

They aren't fundamental rights if they can be revoked or suspended.

They are privileges the government allows us to have when things are going well, but if things start going bad they can suspend those privileges/rights - even if they are the ones causing things to go badly...

Bear in mind that no right is absolute; they are all subject to Sec. 1 ('reasonable limits')

You can thank Sec. 33 on the Kitchen Accord (or 'night of the long knives' according to Quebec)between Chretien and the AGs of Sask and Ontario. Up until that point, efforts to repatriate the Constitution weren't going all that well. The provinces wanted a buffer against the federal government.

It has never been invoked by the federal government.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Underlying lesson, repeatedly driven home the past couple of decades: any provision put into law will be used, sometimes more imaginatively than ever intended by its proponents. The ethical principle that one ought not seek loopholes to do what one knows is generally forbidden, is not respected by zealots.

The only way to avoid eventual abuse is to not have the provision.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's not like we have a Prime Minister who labels any criticism as far-right hate speech, conspiracy theories, and unacceptable views.

Three years ago, Trudeau cried racism to block debates on the firing of the two scientists from the high security lab in Winnipeg. Now we know why. ​

 

[ArmyRick]

Hilarious.

The same crowd on here that would gladly and quickly deport immigrants for spewing hateful speech are against house arrest for the same?

Whatever. And which crowd would they be? Go on. Lets hear it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It has never been invoked by the federal government.

Yet.....

 

[Lumber]

Whatever. And which crowd would they be? Go on. Lets hear it.

Well, me for one.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Hilarious.

The same crowd on here that would gladly and quickly deport immigrants for spewing hateful speech are against house arrest for the same?

If there is justifiable cause and said sentence has been handed down; in either case, go for it. If there isn't, and its merely speculative that the "offender" is "feared to conduct hate speech in the future," not a chance in hell I'd support either house arrest or deportation.

We are still a somewhat democratic nation that prescribes to the rule of law and due process. Fear based, speculative pearl clutching from either side of the political spectrum doesn't, nor shouldn't, change that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Too many people get too upset with mere words. Sticks and stones.