Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

All About Justin / The good, the bad and the ugly

Recommended Posts

Just like islamophobia, white supremacy will not have a specific definition under the liberals....just a phrase be used as a general smear against anyone (you and me) that has, by no fault of their own, called this country home, and happens to speak out against the trudeau agenda.... 😢.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin Trudeau's 'annus horribilis': All the reasons why the October election can't come soon enough

Diane Francis: If Trudeau can sue Scheer, Canadians should be able to launch our own class action against the Prime Minister for all the ways he's done us wrong

The Prime Minister’s threatened libel lawsuit against Andrew Scheer enhances the Opposition leader’s stature, and diminishes his own.

Scheer’s response — to allegations that he defamed the PM concerning the SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. scandal — was pitch perfect. At a Sunday afternoon press conference, he was passionate but unemotional. He looked Prime Ministerial, was lauded by all commentators and parties, and overnight became First Among Opposition Leaders.

The Prime Minister’s justification for legal action was to make Scheer “accountable” for alleged misleading statements, ironic coming from a leader who has been hardly a paragon of accountability during the entire, shabby SNC scandal.

It was Trumpian. Small. Unbecoming. And ineffective. “I have to ask who is doing the damage control in the Prime Minister’s Office because this (SNC affair) has been like a relentless dumpster fire that they keep pouring gasoline on,” said New Democratic Party MP Charlie Angus.

 

Frankly, even if the lawsuit is more than just a threat and lands a punch, no one will be the wiser. Such actions take months or years and bore voters to tears.

Clearly, this has been Trudeau’s “annus horribilis,” a year of multiple resignations, two eyebrow-raising expulsions from the Liberal caucus, policy flops and sagging polls.

In January, he dismissed as “false” a news story about the former Liberal Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould getting pushed around to overturn a decision to prosecute SNC-Lavalin on corruption charges. Turns out, it wasn’t false.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/justin-trudeaus-annus-horribilis-all-the-reasons-why-the-october-election-cant-come-soon-enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau plays politics with terrorism

 

“Trudeau spent most of last week trying to link his Conservative opponents to white supremacist extremism. It’s a ploy he’s been using since the heinous shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, last month.

Meanwhile, he pushed through a removal of any reference to Sikh extremism from an intelligence report just before he visited one of the largest Sikh temples in Canada on Saturday.”

“So let’s get this straight, we need to be scared of white supremacy and name it, yet when it comes to the group responsible for the deadliest terrorist attack in Canadian history, the Air India bombing, we should drop any reference to that group over political pressure?

Justin Trudeau came to power promising “sunny ways.” Now he warns darkly that his opponents are racist and that violence lurks around every conservative corner while turning a blind eye to a history of violence committed in this country.
Turns out his sunny ways were as fake as his feminism.”

 

For Justin Trudeau, the problems of terrorism and extremism in Canada appear to be nothing more than partisan political issues.

I don’t make that claim lightly, nor do I make it without some kind of proof. In fact, I make this claim based on Trudeau’s actions of the last week.

Trudeau spent most of last week trying to link his Conservative opponents to white supremacist extremism. It’s a ploy he’s been using since the heinous shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, last month.

Meanwhile, he pushed through a removal of any reference to Sikh extremism from an intelligence report just before he visited one of the largest Sikh temples in Canada on Saturday.

What else should we make of this?

13x014_6cc1_9-e1555269624579.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w=404&strip=all

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau bows his head before speaking at the Khalsa Diwan Society Sikh Temple before marching in the Vaisakhi parade, in Vancouver on Saturday April 13, 2019. (The Canadian Press)

There is no evidence that Andrew Scheer the federal Conservative leader supports white supremacy let alone those that would use violence to push the idea for political reasons. Scheer has even denounced the ideology to Trudeau’s face in the House of Commons.

He did so last week as Trudeau again raised the issue and falsely claimed that Scheer supported the idea and stood with those that did.

“Those are typical Liberal smear tactics. They know that I have always 100% denounced white supremacy and racism and anyone who promotes those hateful ideologies,” Scheer said after Trudeau raised the issue to deflect from a question about the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Yet, there was Trudeau on Friday night linking Scheer to white nationalists in a speech to supporters in Mississauga. He tried to link Scheer, a man I’ve known for 15 years and without a racists bone in his body, to Ontario Premier Doug Ford and then link them both to racism.

Ford won seats across the Toronto area with huge support among the city’s many diverse communities. Many of his top staffers, long serving staffers, are visible minorities.

But to Trudeau, linking these two men to white nationalism, white supremacy, without proof is fine because it helps him politically.

Then there is the removal of Sikh extremism from the 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada, issued by Public Safety Canada, after consultation with the various intelligence agencies of the federal government.

Originally it listed in order, Shia extremism, Right-Wing extremism, Sikh extremism, Sunni extremism, and Canadian extremist travellers.

Now the reference to Sikh extremists is gone and is replaced by, “Extremists who Support Violent Means to Establish an Independent State Within India.”

On the website of Public Safety Canada is a statement about the removal of Sikh extremism, which says, “The Government’s communication of threats must be clear, concise, and cannot be perceived as maligning any groups.”

Funny that.

Shia Muslims are a group representing as many as 200 million Muslims around the world.

Sunni Muslims are another group and they representing more than 1 billion people.

So much for that statement.

Did I mention that the change was made just before Trudeau visited a major Sikh temple?

Here’s another oddity to deal with.

When Trudeau’s minister for foreign affairs appeared before a Senate committee, she emphasized the importance of calling out violent groups by naming them.

“I absolutely believe we need to name that threat, we need to be aware of it, and we need to work hard to find ways to protect our societies and our people from it,” Chrystia Freeland said.

So let’s get this straight, we need to be scared of white supremacy and name it, yet when it comes to the group responsible for the deadliest terrorist attack in Canadian history, the Air India bombing, we should drop any reference to that group over political pressure?

Justin Trudeau came to power promising “sunny ways.” Now he warns darkly that his opponents are racist and that violence lurks around every conservative corner while turning a blind eye to a history of violence committed in this country.

Turns out his sunny ways were as fake as his feminism.

 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-plays-politics-with-terrorism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New ‘independent’ Senator and former CBC pollster under fire for pro-Trudeau poll

Conservative senators want rookie Trudeau appointee Donna Dasko to consider repaying $15,000 in expenses for a “push poll” she commissioned out of her office budget, then used to ballyhoo Liberal government reforms.

“Clearly this survey was developed with partisan political considerations in mind, attempting to validate Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau’s platform promises,” said Conservative Senate caucus leader Larry Smith, adding the dubious poll broke enhanced spending rules restricting partisan activities.

In June of 2018, Trudeau picked the prominent Canadian pollster to occupy one of 105 seats in the Canadian Senate: storied Upper Chamber of sober second thought to the House of Commons’ legislative inclinations. 

A Prime Minister’s Office-vetted bio describes Dasko as “media commentator” whose record with Environics, the polling company she founded, included the “Globe-Environics Poll and election and special feature polling for the CBC.”  

Dasko is among 49 senators appointed via a new shortlist process, a product of Trudeau’s promised Senate reform and different from the old-fashioned way of a PM simply nominating anyone he or she pleased. 

While Trudeau claims this Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments will make the Senate non-partisan, the board is entirely handpicked by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Additionally, the panel is not only concerned about merit, but rates candidates on a range of metrics including sexual and ethnic diversity – see the board’s latest report, here

Gauging public sentiment on these appointment changes – a process that led to Dasko’s own selection – was the goal of the Nanos poll she commissioned, and according to its results, the entire reform process is virtually unknown to half of the 1000 Canadians who answered her survey.!

Nevertheless, Dasko claims her poll’s results show 77 per cent want to keep these reforms that fewer than four-out-of-ten admit they “heard or read something about” – just 56 per cent actually “heard about independent senators.”

The first independent senators were born in April 2014, when Trudeau decided to cut existing Liberal appointees in the Upper Chamber from the party’s national caucus. The son of former PM Pierre Trudeau had barely been party leader for a year before making this nation-changing decision.

And his Senate reform continued after winning a majority government, when in January 2016, the PMO established by way of Order-in-Council, the advisory board to weed through applicants and build a roster of potential “independents” to fill Senate vacancies.

By March of that year, the Independent Senator Group in the Upper Chamber was formed; an amalgam of Trudeau’s original castaways, destination for his new picks and haven for embattled Harper-era appointees including Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau.”

Trudeau’s decision to abandon his Senate caucus occurred just months before Duffy was charged with 31 counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery in July of 2014. It was the capper on highly publicized spending scandals involving all three that culminated with Duffy’s trial and exoneration, well after Stephen Harper lost the election and had exited federal politics. 

But even an intensifying scandal focussed on his trio of picks – suspended in November 2013 from the Senate (all since reinstated) – didn’t prevent then-PM Harper from chiding  Trudeau’s decision to cut his Liberal senators loose.

“I gather the change announced by the leader today is that unelected Liberal senators will become unelected senators who happen to be Liberal,” said Harper during question period repartee on that Senate scandal and purported reform at the time. 

Harper wanted an elected Senate, but requiring Constitutional support by the provinces to do it, the polarizing Conservative leader could only exercise that option in Alberta, which had its own elected appointee process until related provincial legislation expired in 2016.

Dasko’s survey notes 46 per cent still report “negative impressions” of the Senate due to “scandal” but credits a 20 per cent drop in negative impressions since 2016 to Trudeau’s reforms. Nearly 60 per cent who responded say these reforms will improve the Senate, according to survey results.

“Conservative leader Andrew Scheer has vowed to scrap the independent selection process and return to a partisan Senate if elected,” warns Dasko, now a member of the Independent Senate Group, whose 58 mostly Liberal government appointees currently hold the outright majority in the Upper Chamber. 

And because of this majority, they are called upon to answer for the current government’s policy by the second-largest block – 31 Conservative caucus members under Smith’s leadership in the Senate. All are direct PM appointments under the previous system and members of the Conservatives’ national caucus, unlike a compact of nine Liberals (the third place block), also direct PM-appointees, who now sit unrecognized and estranged by their national caucus.

Smith accuses Dasko of creating a “push poll” with leading questions, whose results are very unreliable and ultimately intended for political messaging. Its citation by a salutary Independent Senator Group press release, then reference by ISG leader Peter Harder in Senate debate, only reinforces its partisan intention said Smith.

“For a group that claims to be non-partisan, they are certainly playing political games. Their actions speak louder than words,” he said. “With the fall election looming, the testing of the Trudeau Liberal narrative in the Senate should be considered a campaigning effort.”

During Thursday’s Senate question period, Senator Dennis Batters challenged Harder for guarantees on the new senate advisory board’s autonomy.

“To date you haven’t given us any information so that we can evaluate how independent and arm’s length it really is. We don’t know who sponsored the now 16 most recently appointed senators,” said Batters. “We know that those boards were 100 per cent filled by the PMO.”

Harder, who is Trudeau’s first “independent senator” pick under the PM’s Senate-reform package, replied that Dasko’s survey suggested voters had faith in the process.

“Let me simply draw attention to a recent public survey that was referenced yesterday by Senator Dasko, which speaks to the support that Canadians have expressed, which I think is 77 per cent on the independent Senate appointment process.”

According to the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments’ December 2018 report (see above link) from a pool of more than nearly 3300 applicants, it shortlisted 180 candidates for selection. 

But the board’s “arm’s length” credentials were damaged after celebrity chef and CBC Dragon’s Den personality Vikram Vij, a panel member for British Columbia, was discovered as Trudeau’s ‘guest chef’ on the PM’s botched goodwill visit to India.

The Post Millennial provided Senator Dasko an opportunity to respond to Smith’s claims she violated office spending rules and to explain her poll’s methodology, but she has not responded as of the time of publishing.

Dasko did, however, give an interview on Wednesday to her old paymasters CBC, for whom the PMO earlier bragged Dasko had conducted custom polling in her previous career. Speaking to As It Happens, Dasko denied her poll was partisan and that it broke spending laws in the Senate.

“This is perfectly legit. It was all cleared,” Dasko claimed. “Comes right out of my existing budget.” 

While section 5.18 of the Senate’s office budget policy restricts spending on partisan activities, it does not specifically mention the commissioning of polls.  

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/new-independent-senator-and-former-cbc-pollster-under-fire-for-pro-trudeau-poll/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEW STUDY: Prime Minister Trudeau has broken the record for debt growth outside world wars and recessions.

Visit fraserinstitute.org to learn more..

23BCBE91-62C8-4682-814D-8FFF436A0666.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-did-jody-wilson-raybould-understand-her-role-as-attorney-general/

Brian Greenspan is past president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, founding chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers and the recipient of an honorary doctor of laws from the Law Society of Ontario.

The reputation and integrity of the administration of criminal justice in Canada has recently been challenged by critics who betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the responsibilities of key participants in our justice system. Regrettably, these misconceptions have been fuelled by our former attorney-general, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

There is no question that the attorney-general must exercise her role objectively and independently. However, in a free and democratic society, the prosecutorial function does not operate in a vacuum, in isolation and immune from debate, discussion and, indeed, persuasion. Isolation breeds tyranny. Access to justice requires those who administer justice to be accessible, to be open to advocacy on behalf of clients and causes. Advocacy in the adversarial process does not undermine independence. In fact, the public interest is best served by ensuring that the decision-maker has meaningfully examined the conflicting positions and has been exposed to a comprehensive review of all relevant considerations.

Over the course of more than 45 years as defence counsel, I have often advanced controversial positions. I have repeatedly and unrepentantly attempted to persuade prosecutors and courts that they ought to exercise their discretion, in the public interest, in a manner favourable to what I have urged was a just result. Prosecutors routinely take public-interest considerations into account in the exercise of their quasi-judicial discretion. Every decision to prosecute, every application for bail and every sentence imposed on a convicted offender engages a consideration of the public interest. As well, the public interest is a vital consideration in resolution discussions which routinely take place in private settings, often in teleconferences, frequently in direct personal meetings, but never surreptitiously recorded. When I wasn’t satisfied that a Crown had fairly or properly evaluated my submissions, I would, on occasion, resort to further meetings with supervising prosecutors. If I concluded that legal principles or mitigating circumstances had been ignored and that the path to resolution had not been exhausted, I might arrange a meeting with an assistant deputy attorney-general or, on rare occasions, with either the attorney-general of the province or the attorney-general of Canada. This process does not challenge independence; it ensures its vitality.

If an attorney-general can receive such vigorous advocacy and remain objective, then certainly her objectivity can also withstand collegial conversations with government colleagues and bureaucrats in which they share their views and opinions on the merits of a prosecution. Thoughtful reconsideration and sober second thoughts do not threaten the independence of the attorney-general nor do they jeopardize the integrity of our justice system.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould has expressed the position that any intervention by the attorney-general with the decision of the director of public prosecutions (DPP) would have been automatically suspect and that it would risk calling into question prosecutorial independence and the rule of law. The DPP, in fact, fulfills her responsibility under and on behalf of the attorney-general, and the act which governs her authority empowers the attorney-general to assume carriage of a prosecution or to direct the director. The attorney-general’s power to superintend prosecutions is an important aspect of our system. The former attorney-general treated the DPP as essentially unreviewable. Politically accountable oversight in ensuring that the public interest is properly taken into account isn’t anathema to the rule of law. The attorney-general’s power to superintend prosecutions is an integral part of our justice system.

The DPP is expressly mandated to notify the attorney-general if a case “raises important questions of general interest.” The conviction of SNC-Lavalin would affect thousands of people, including employees, pensioners and shareholders who were innocent bystanders to the alleged wrongdoing. In fact, one of the key underlying objectives of remediation agreements is to reduce the collateral negative consequences to those not engaged in the wrongdoing. The DPP fulfilled her responsibility to notify the attorney-general, recognizing that this case raised important questions of public interest. However, rather than address, assess or weigh the competing positions, the attorney-general appears to have reflexively deferred to the DPP and abdicated her responsibility for vigorous and independent oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this