Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trudopia Now
AI think it's only fair for the Canadians on the board to have a thread where we can be critical of our leadership as well.

I simply just can't take it anymore.

To be fair, Justin Trudeau is fielding a question by what sounds like a meandering religious nut, but his correction of a certain word of common language is finally a tipping point for a lot of Canadians:


And what is his explanation for this?

It was just a dumb joke, hur hurrrrrrr.


And just as this whole mess goes viral, what's his next strategy? To try and impose punishment on Facebook for propagating fake news.

Where have we heard that before...........?

And all the while, for some reason, our Prime Minister is touring US colleges.

Despite living in a northern border state, I know very little of Trudeau beyond the handsome, liberal crusader image some in the US have of him. Or having the persona of wokest politician of all mankind (peoplekind!) as this article puts in. He seems to be popular in the States simply because he is not Trump. Is he exaggerating his person or is Trudeau yet another politician who has discovered good intentions don't always translate into effective policy? 


I'm not sure if this thread is for ragging on JT or supporting him, but there's this:

I'm proud of our cabinet's diversity and qualifications.


We can criticize and praise our PM like anyone else.  Nobody's perfect.

I'm not exactly enamored with him right now due to the whole forcing the Kinder Morgan pipeline down our throats. I'm glad our NDP/Green coalition government are pushing back on that.

ALegally approved = forced down throat

JT is as obnoxious a hypocrite as his old man. Canadian politics are such a joke, one can only dream of getting hooked up to the sweet sweet government tit. And the worst part is he's the best choice.

Our tax rate is pretty much the same as the US when you factor in health care costs.  Better cops, better teachers, better libraries, bike access, cheap cheap cheap Nuclear power, and amazing parks and public events (Winterlude, Mosaica, etc.) ... it's just the little things that make it so much better.  The only thing I can't get used to is that people are much more obnoxious when they don't live in a police-state, but it's mostly tolerable.

JT's doing his thing.  He's learning on the job and could be doing A LOT worse.

ALet’s be honest here; considering the current situation and the rest of the world, JT is a pretty solid and estable leader for his country.
One D is a hell of a difference.
And yes, I know Canadian politics can and are as complex and wrenching as USA ones, but right now?
Most gringos would take a JT over DJT in a heartbeat.

Here is our Prime Minister essentially jury tampering:

“I’m not going to comment on the process that led us to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times…Indigenous people across this country are angry, they’re heartbroken, and I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better.”

Our Prime Minister is basically alluding that the jury for the Gerald Stanley were racists.  They found a white man not guilty in for second degree murder or manslaughter of an Indigenous man because of racism.  Whether he made this comment to pander for votes, or to further his ideology, but what he did was wrong.

I highly doubt while JT was touring the US to talk about NAFTA that he was aware of what the jury was hearing in the court room.  But what he has done is this, if the Crown appeals the not guilty verdict, based on law, how is there going to be a new trial with an impartial jury, when the Prime Minister of the country is scrutinizing their decisions.

750 people were served notice to attend for jury selection.  Of that number roughly 200 arrived.  Of that 200, many were Indigenous people.  A source during the selection process mentioned that a lot of those people were heard making comments about finding Stanley guilty before they heard evidence, even going as far as saying they would hang him.  Of course those people would not be fit for the jury.  So they weren't selected.  The Crown and Defense then used their premptory challenges, of which they both have 14, to eliminate jurors to stack the jury more in their favour.  Yes, the defense managed to make sure there weren't any Indigenous people on the jury, but the Crown also made sure that there were not middle aged white males on the jury.

Now, instead of giving JT too much grief, because to be fair he is probably the least experienced Prime Minister we've ever had (He after all only has finished one year in an engineering program) the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, was a criminal defense lawyer and actually passed the Bar exam.  What does he have to say about the verdict?

So let's just take race entirely of the scenario here because that seems to be what has been injected into being the only thing important about the case.  Here's what happened.  A group of men, who were intoxicated and had one gun, were attempting to steal cars from rural properties.  They went on to a farm and, while attempting to steal a truck and an ATV were confronted by the farmer who owned the property.  The farmer shot three rounds as warning shots with a semi automatic handgun.  He then confronted the group and, while leaning into the vehicle they were in and trying to get the keys from the ignition, the farmer shot a man in the back of the head and killed him.

He was charged with second degree murder.

It is entirely possible the farmer executed the man and his defense would be lies.  However, the defense was that the last round went off, accidentally, as a hangfire.  A hangfire is extremely rare, like, extremely rare.  But the type of ammunition that the farmer loaded in the gun is the most prone to have a hangfire.  And there is precedent in Canadian law that a hangfire was a defense in a trial in the 1980s.  That means it can happen.  The jury sat in the court room, heard evidence from witnesses, experts, the Police, and then weighed that evidence.  They ultimately believed that the gun went off accidentally.

But according to Jagmeet Singh, a defense lawyer, the decision was made because of a legacy of colonialism and genocide.

These comments are irresponsible.

If the Crown ever tried to appeal the verdict,  it would be almost impossible to find impartial jury members.  It's sickening.


Politicians jumping in on controversial cases when they shouldn't isn't that usual though.  Not great, but not unusual.  It seems like you could take what they are saying as pat of a general trend, kind of like comments around Trayvon Martin that were really talking about the police and not specifically related to that case, but it sparked such comments regardless.  But I don't know.  Has there been a spate of violence towards Indigenous people of late?

Seems like much would depend on the details in this case.  How do you prove something was a hang fire?  Was the gun back in his pocket when it went off or something?

I may not understand the problem.  If it's a hang fire doesn't that mean instead of firing 3 times into the air he actually fired 4 but the last one didn't go off and he didn't notice?  That kind of thing makes me queasy just thinking about it.


I'm embarrassed to say that I only just worked out this was a thread about Canada. Been seeing the title for a while and was wondering if this was a movie or TV show or what? Somehow managed to miss the Political Discourse tag until just then too.

I'm guessing the banishing of Harper gave your current PM a lot of good will. I've heard secondhand and from people I know that people were a little less than enamoured by him ...


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)