• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trust in our Institutions

Has your trust in our institutions changed?


  • Total voters
    44
Precisely!

Some real fucking low-information people out there just looking to rage about anything
As if this came out of nowhere.

You know damn well that people are outraged because it is believable.

If that story had come out 15 years ago, we'd laugh it off. But it is precisely because we know many institutions and organizations are in fact using and propagating such phrases that our collective frustration erupts so easily when the highest court appears to take its part in the circus.
 
Survey says...

I'm triggered... the gubmint said 'low life' ;)

Confidence in institutions and the media, 2023​


Reporting low life satisfaction associated with lower levels of confidence in Canadian institutions​

Life satisfaction and sense of meaning and purpose are other measures of overall wellbeing linked to public confidence and trust. Canadians who were less satisfied with their life and who had a weak sense of meaning and purpose had less favourable perceptions of institutions.

Almost 9 in 10 Canadians with low life satisfaction (86%) or a weak sense of meaning and purpose (87%) had low confidence in institutions. This compares with 64% of those with high life satisfaction and 65% of those with a strong sense of meaning and purpose.

Similarly for trust in media, 77% of Canadians with low life satisfaction or a weak sense of meaning and purpose had low levels of trust, compared with 45% of those with high life satisfaction, and 48% of those with a strong sense of meaning and purpose.

 
It's lookin uglier and uglier:


Let's see if the general population in Canada even cares... I'm guessing no.


“The Committee rejects any notion that the individual or individuals responsible for the leaks acted as patriots or whistleblowers,” the NISCOP report states.<--TROUBLING “On the other hand, the Committee acknowledges an uncomfortable truth. Prior to the leaks, there was little sense of urgency between elected officials and senior decision-makers to address outstanding gaps to this important and well-documented threat to national security.”

The CSIS leaks, which began appearing in Global News, the Globe and Mail and other mainstream news media in November, 2022, were “the principal catalyst for the government to start considering key legislative reforms and to take meaningful actions against particular states.”

The NSICOP report presents several case studies to illustrate the way foreign interference works in Canada. One of those studies focuses on the case of Don Valley North MP Han Dong, the subject of a series of CSIS leaks. Dong stepped away from the Liberal Party in March last year following evidence that he was a central figure in a massive Chinese interference operation that targeted at least 11 candidates and 13 campaign staffers, “some of whom appeared to be wittingly working for the PRC,” the NSICOP report states.

Although heavily redacted, as is much of NISCOP’s 92-page report, the Han Dong case study contains sharper and far more damning detail than has emerged from news reports going back to 2022, and also calls into question Trudeau’s sworn testimony during the Hogue inquiry hearings in April.

NSICOP describes Dong’s case as an example of a successful direct foreign manipulation of a close-run Liberal candidacy contest that went on to produce the Chinese government’s desired election result in the 2019 federal election in Don Valley North. The CSIS investigation made available to NSICOP showed that Beijing’s Toronto consulate provided between 175 and 200 Chinese foreign students with “fraudulent residency paperwork” and arranged for them to travel in several buses to the September 12, 2019 nomination vote. The students, who were under strict instruction to vote for Dong under penalty of losing their student visas, also “sought to physically intimidate voters and distribute pro-Dong materials,” contrary to Party rules, the report states.

The Toronto consulate also “knowingly broke the Liberal Party of Canada’s rule that voters in a nomination process must live in the riding.”

CSIS concluded that the operation played a “significant role in Mr. Dong’s nomination, which he won. . . by a small margin,” thereby “successfully interfering in the nomination process of what can be considered a safe riding for the Liberal Party of Canada.”

CSIS saw to it that Prime Minister Trudeau and his officials were made aware of Beijing’s operation in Don Valley North before the 2019 election, but Trudeau allowed Dong’s candidacy to stand anyway, and Dong was also allowed to run again in 2021. The NSICOP case committee concludes: “On September 28, 2019, CSIS briefed the Liberal Party of Canada’s secret-cleared representatives on its assessment, who in turn briefed the PM alone the following day. The Liberal Party of Canada allowed Mr. Dong to run in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.”

Despite intense controversy and repeated questioning about Dong’s candidacy going back to February 2023, for more than a year
Trudeau said nothing about having been briefed by CSIS about the matter and instead dismissed concerns about Han Dong’s candidacy as “anti-Asian racism.”
But hey, conservatives will save us soon, right?

 
They're (almost) all cowards.

PP is almost as big a panderer as Trudeau, putting on costumes to beg for ethnic votes left and right.

Say what you will about Mad Max, I'm pretty sure he's not a foreign agent.
No, but he did leave classified information lying around his apartment when his linked-to-organized-crime girlfriend was around.
 
The author of the National Post story opinion piece may have read the SC decision and on isolating the one instance that the phrase "person with a vagina" was used, decided to make it the basis for "click bait". Totally understandable when viewed in the light of the current lack of journalism standards, especially in some publications. But that doesn't make it the focus of the court's decision.

In the SC's decision, "woman" was used 26 other times without any suggestion that it be replaced by the other descriptive phrase. Similarly, "vagina" was used 40 other times also without making it part of that phrase. Penis, anal and penetration are also liberally used in the court's written decision. So one can reasonably assume what the referenced cases were about.

If one can't be bothered to read the decision, my unlearned take on it is, the Court of Appeal overturned two convictions because they decided that two judges erred by making assumptions that had not been presented as evidence by the Crown or in the testimony of the victim. In what was probably the reference to "unfortunate" use of the word "woman", the trial judge (a man) had concluded it was unlikely that a "woman" would be mistaken about the feeling of penile-vaginal penetration. The Court of Appeal had focused on that assumption and decided since no evidence had been provided on "how" that specific victim, when she testified, had known the slimy piece of shit who raped her (my personal opinion) was inside her, then the trial judge had engaged in speculative reasoning not based on the evidence and thus new trials had been ordered. The Supreme Court basically said the Appeals Court was wrong and ordered the convictions restored.




The only one who is suggesting that "person with a vagina" will be the new term in law is the idiot who wrote the drivel in the NP.
I very much appreciate the correction. I hadn't looked it up via Canlii or anywhere else yet, and was simply going off of the NP article

Silly me & I absolutely should have known better. The click bait worked, bah...
 
See here for more ;)

In the attached judgment, "woman" or "women" was used 69 times, and "person with a vagina" was used once.

No shortage of stuff to blast out there, but there's gotta be bigger fish to fry than this one, no?
Seen, seen...

I fell for the click bait & hadn't read the actual decision for myself. That's my bad.
 
... I fell for the click bait & hadn't read the actual decision for myself. That's my bad.
Don't be too hard on yourself, bud - if the Chief Justice has to tell the world about it (and judges tend to be hesitant about saying anything in public away from the bench), you have a lot of company :)
 
They're (almost) all cowards.

PP is almost as big a panderer as Trudeau, putting on costumes to beg for ethnic votes left and right.

Say what you will about Mad Max, I'm pretty sure he's not a foreign agent.
I haven't seen PP ever rock black face. Or wear a turban, or dress like a Hindi guru...

And as far as I know, he hasn't slept with any minors he was responsible for while in a position of trust and then bribed them afterwards for their silence. (That is what a monetized NDA is, after all...)


To be fair, they are all politicians. People trying to be elected to office. And one could argue that their main job, when not elected, is to try and sway as many people as possible into voting for them - and that means wearing slightly different hats depending on who the audience at the time is...

Anybody elected to office is going to have to pander to some extent. It's the nature of the beast.


That being said, I personally feel like the Conservatives have earned the opportunity to be Canada's next government. Pierre is consistently advocating for some common sense solutions to problems we shouldn't have in the first place, and I find myself consistently impressed with the competence of some of the CPC's MP's.

Setting aside my personal feelings about Trudeau and Freeland, mathematically speaking we can't continue on the path we are on.

We literally can't afford to double our national debt yet again, nor can we afford to continue to deny projects that would employ tens of thousands of people across the country.

We can't afford a PM that is seen as so shady and slimey that we get left out of security arrangements & viewed as a less reliable ally than we have been in the past.

And we can't afford to have our dollar drop much further or have our economy shrink even further, thus we run a real risk of being booted from the G7. (Heck we aren't even the +1 of the G7 anymore...)



If people want to be skeptical of Pierre, I understand that. He hasn't been PM before, and none of us know for sure how it would really go.

But I'm willing to give the guy a solid chance to turn things around, as I've seen what the current cast has to offer and am violently unimpressed.
 
But hey, conservatives will save us soon, right?

Legitimate question about this, re mentioning the Chinese foreign students being bussed in to vote for a certain candidate

I was having a convo a few days ago about this exact situation, and my friend asked "why were they even allowed to vote at all?"


Are foreign students allowed to vote in Canadian elections? I thought that was a right only afforded to Canadian citizens?


(I could understand expanding it to include Permanent Residents. But foreign students who are expected to go home once they finish their studies?)
 
Legitimate question about this, re mentioning the Chinese foreign students being bussed in to vote for a certain candidate

I was having a convo a few days ago about this exact situation, and my friend asked "why were they even allowed to vote at all?"


Are foreign students allowed to vote in Canadian elections? I thought that was a right only afforded to Canadian citizens?


(I could understand expanding it to include Permanent Residents. But foreign students who are expected to go home once they finish their studies?)
No, they are not. Only Canadian citizens are allowed to vote in Canadian elections.

Edit to add: Actually, if the case you’re talking about is the Han Dong case, it is an LPC internal party election to choose the candidate, not like a federal or other public election. From the NYT article about it, non-citizens over the age of 14 can vote in those.

 
But I'm willing to give the guy a solid chance to turn things around, as I've seen what the current cast has to offer and am violently unimpressed.
For sure, I'm not denying that at all and I can't wait for him to be PM.

I just warn against expecting him to solve everything.
 
No, they are not. Only Canadian citizens are allowed to vote in Canadian elections.

But if you provide them with false documentation...

Canadian Lawmaker Testifies Chinese Students Were Bused In to Elect Him​

Han Dong, a member of Parliament who is accused of benefiting from the Chinese government’s help, testified at a public hearing on foreign interference.


Testifying during a public hearing in Ottawa, the Parliament member, Han Dong, a Chinese-Canadian politician formerly from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, said that he had met and sought the support of the students from a private high school in 2019, but that he did not know who had chartered or paid for the bus on the day of the election.

A Canadian intelligence report disclosed during the hearing said there were indications that a “known proxy agent” of the Chinese Consulate had provided the students “with falsified documents to allow them to vote” even though they did not reside in Mr. Dong’s electoral district.

Noncitizens over the age of 14 can register and vote in party elections as long as they show proof they live in an electoral district.


 
But if you provide them with false documentation...

Canadian Lawmaker Testifies Chinese Students Were Bused In to Elect Him​

Han Dong, a member of Parliament who is accused of benefiting from the Chinese government’s help, testified at a public hearing on foreign interference.


Testifying during a public hearing in Ottawa, the Parliament member, Han Dong, a Chinese-Canadian politician formerly from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, said that he had met and sought the support of the students from a private high school in 2019, but that he did not know who had chartered or paid for the bus on the day of the election.

A Canadian intelligence report disclosed during the hearing said there were indications that a “known proxy agent” of the Chinese Consulate had provided the students “with falsified documents to allow them to vote” even though they did not reside in Mr. Dong’s electoral district.

Noncitizens over the age of 14 can register and vote in party elections as long as they show proof they live in an electoral district.


I think we’re arguing the same thing.

The false documentation alleged wasn’t the age or the citizenship (or lack thereof), it was that they weren’t from his district - because it was an internal LPC candidate election.

TIL that non-citizens can vote in those.
 
Back
Top