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

Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,804
Points
940
It would still justify as a refusal of service and a notification to the board of the request would be helpful as immigrants who want that stuff tend to send their daughters out of country to get it done.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,873
Points
910
Then there's no issue of a Canadian doctor refusing this illegal medical procedure then, is there?
Doesn’t really solve the problem, does it?

I am not saying this is a big problem, or that it is anywhere close to Canada’s most pressing problem, but it cannot be wished away either.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
445
Points
880
Doesn’t really solve the problem, does it?

I am not saying this is a big problem, or that it is anywhere close to Canada’s most pressing problem, but it cannot be wished away either.

I don't want to derail the thread/topic. My point was that we were referring to legal medical procedures. If people are, indeed, requesting FGM from doctors, then yes, those requests should be reported. As should any request for an illegal medical procedure.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,873
Points
910
Is there really so many requests to doctors for FGM?

I don't want to derail the thread/topic. My point was that we were referring to legal medical procedures. If people are, indeed, requesting FGM from doctors, then yes, those requests should be reported. As should any request for an illegal medical procedure.
Fair point and I wasn’t accusing you of supporting or condoning it.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
974
Points
1,060
Sad. Tie a firecracker to a dog's tail and there will be unanimous condemnation. Kill a child while it is in the womb and everyone screams woman's rights to choose and condemn those who think differently. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Good night.

There is debating an issue, and there is being a jerk. You've fallen on the latter side.

Strike 1.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
575
Points
910
I'm a liberal party supporter, having voted for them since 2015, and 4 of the 6 last elections.(2011 was the Bloc and 2019 was a throwaway vote for the PPC in a safe LPC riding)

And I will say this, this is a bad a campaign as I've seen since 2011, at least off the bat. When the writ was dropped, I expected the LPC to run on all the vaccines they got. I expected the LPC to hammer home that we are one of the most highly vaccinated countries on the planet. I expected them to remind Canadians that O'Toole said Canada would be vaccinated in 2030, and show that we are mostly fully vaccinated in 2021, before the September deadline. I expected them to come up with a real plan to show how they were going to deal with the housing crisis, a real problem for millennials that voted for him in 2015.

Instead, mandatory vaccines as a campaign wedge issue? Vaccines were nicely unpolitical for all parties, and now he's making them into a political issue. Its gross. It reeks of what is going on in the states.

He is making abortion a campaign issue? This isn't 2019, and O'Toole, for all his faults, is not Andrew Sheer. He isn't making the daily awkward statements on abortion that can be construed as encroaching on a woman's right to an abortion.

The LPC is making the same mistakes that the CPC did in 2015, running a negative campaign on issues that the public frankly doesn't care about. This is not sunny ways, this is not forward facing, this is a campaign that is banking on people being afraid of a Harper rerun, which is not nearly as relevant 6 years removed from Harpers last term, and definitely irrelevant in a world grappling with covid19 and its fallout.

He said he wanted to have this campaign in the middle of a pandemic to allow Canadians a choice on how to move forward. Fine. Show me something, anything on how the LPC would lead Canada into the future. Focusing on abortion like its 2019 and largely ignoring things like housing is an amazing failure. Making vaccines political is a bad look.

I hope that they adjust and do better, otherwise a minority parliament with the NDP forcing through real progressive legislation via a minority Parliament is far better than this so far aimless campaign being given a majority.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
675
Points
910
One can have a good campaign and clamp down on guns.

2015 for example.
So why, then, has gun violence soared since then, as claimed by the LPC themselves, despite new regulations the lawful use of firearms? No need to reply here. There's a whole other thread for this topic.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Well, Altair, at least count yourself lucky that ... this will be the last election ran using First-Past-the-Post. ;)

/SARC OFF

And Haggis, you may find this refreshing: There has been a rise in gun violence in Montreal lately, so what did the Montreal Police and the local/provincial governments do? They announced that they are boosting up the Gangs/Org. crime units and teaming with the Sureté du Québec Gun Smuggling team. Already they have made a couple of seizures, which would normally classify as small (50 to 70 guns each). Yet, the message they harp on to the press is "These are important seizures. The important point is not the number of guns seized, it's whose hands your seizing them from, and these were seized from the East-end gangs, where most of the current rash of shooting comes from."

Like I said: it is refreshing to see policing and public message going in the direction of the gun violence primary source instead of the law abiding owners.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,132
Points
990
Well, Altair, at least count yourself lucky that ... this will be the last election ran using First-Past-the-Post. ;)

/SARC OFF

And Haggis, you may find this refreshing: There has been a rise in gun violence in Montreal lately, so what did the Montreal Police and the local/provincial governments do? They announced that they are boosting up the Gangs/Org. crime units and teaming with the Sureté du Québec Gun Smuggling team. Already they have made a couple of seizures, which would normally classify as small (50 to 70 guns each). Yet, the message they harp on to the press is "These are important seizures. The important point is not the number of guns seized, it's whose hands your seizing them from, and these were seized from the East-end gangs, where most of the current rash of shooting comes from."

Like I said: it is refreshing to see policing and public message going in the direction of the gun violence primary source instead of the law abiding owners.
The hamstringing of police in effectively investigating and hammering on the violent street level organized crime is another thing entirely… But yes, intelligence led efforts, supported by vigorous street level proactive policing, can help pluck a lot of low hanging fruit, get crime guns off the street, and get offenders back into the system. Unfortunately, initiatives aimed at reducing remand custody have cranked up the speed on the revolving door. There is real room for the federal government to play a major role here.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
575
Points
910
Well, Altair, at least count yourself lucky that ... this will be the last election ran using First-Past-the-Post. ;)

/SARC OFF
I never saw the benefit of it, but I guess permanently hamstringing the CPC would be a nice side benefit.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
203
Points
630
There is debating an issue, and there is being a jerk. You've fallen on the latter side.

Strike 1.
my apologies, it was not my intention. I am more than a little saddened at the universal acceptance of convenience over life. This will be my last response (thank goodness you say) as I don't wish to de-rail the main topic any further.
With few exceptions, rape being the one, a woman becomes pregnant as a result of an activity in which she voluntarily participated without taking reasonable precautions. The death of a child shouldn't be the end result of an life-style choice. Don't you think it just a little bit hypocritical that abortion to eliminate an unwanted boy/girl causes people to criticize but abortion resulting from a fun night out is quite ok? After all, it is a totally equal opportunity termination: don't know if it is male or female. So it becomes ok for a doctor to balk at that but not because he believes that the fetus is indeed a human being.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
675
Points
910
And Haggis, you may find this refreshing: There has been a rise in gun violence in Montreal lately, so what did the Montreal Police and the local/provincial governments do? They announced that they are boosting up the Gangs/Org. crime units and teaming with the Sureté du Québec Gun Smuggling team. Already they have made a couple of seizures, which would normally classify as small (50 to 70 guns each). Yet, the message they harp on to the press is "These are important seizures. The important point is not the number of guns seized, it's whose hands your seizing them from, and these were seized from the East-end gangs, where most of the current rash of shooting comes from."

Like I said: it is refreshing to see policing and public message going in the direction of the gun violence primary source instead of the law abiding owners.
It is refreshing, but an isolated example which runs counter to the LPC messaging regarding the source of gun violence in Canada. The LPC have yet to release their firearms policy for this election. They may have been waiting to see what the other parties come out with. I expect it will make Bill C-21 look pretty benign.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
382
Points
1,130
I don't wish to de-rail the main topic any further.
We had a mega-thread,
It says,
Not open for further replies.
Hope it stays that way.

But, you may find it intersting reading. In case you have not already.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Isolated example perhaps Haggis, but at least, because it is recent and ongoing, it makes it difficult for the LPC to come in Montreal, or the province generally, and try to turn gun policy of "going after legal owners even more" into an electoral issue when their local/provincial government just told them that the problem lies with gang/organized crime gun violence, not the law-abiding owners.

I never saw the benefit of it, but I guess permanently hamstringing the CPC would be a nice side benefit.

It would permanently hamstring the LPC also, Altair. Think of the last election, if a full proportional had been in place, the results would have been: CPC (yes, CPC with the most seats): 116, LPC: 112, NDP: 54, BQ: 26, Green: 22, People's Party: 6 and other: 2. Nobody would have been able to do anything unless they could get the NDP and either of the BQ or Green on side. Or in the case of the CPC, they could do something without the NDP if and only if they brought every other third party on their side.

Personally, in a Westminster setting, I think FPTP is the better way to go.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
575
Points
910
my apologies, it was not my intention. I am more than a little saddened at the universal acceptance of convenience over life. This will be my last response (thank goodness you say) as I don't wish to de-rail the main topic any further.
With few exceptions, rape being the one, a woman becomes pregnant as a result of an activity in which she voluntarily participated without taking reasonable precautions. The death of a child shouldn't be the end result of an life-style choice. Don't you think it just a little bit hypocritical that abortion to eliminate an unwanted boy/girl causes people to criticize but abortion resulting from a fun night out is quite ok? After all, it is a totally equal opportunity termination: don't know if it is male or female. So it becomes ok for a doctor to balk at that but not because he believes that the fetus is indeed a human being.
The only thing I find hypocritical is people who want so badly that a woman have a baby instead of choosing an abortion, but when it comes to things like subsidized daycare for said baby that was not aborted, there are complaints about affordability and who's responsibility it is to raise that child.

Want a woman to choose life, make it so she can get back to work, have a career, and not need to stay home until that child is in school and maybe she would want to keep it.
 
Last edited:

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
575
Points
910
It would permanently hamstring the LPC also, Altair. Think of the last election, if a full proportional had been in place, the results would have been: CPC (yes, CPC with the most seats): 116, LPC: 112, NDP: 54, BQ: 26, Green: 22, People's Party: 6 and other: 2. Nobody would have been able to do anything unless they could get the NDP and either of the BQ or Green on side. Or in the case of the CPC, they could do something without the NDP if and only if they brought every other third party on their side.
The LPC have natural partners they could work with, the CPC less so.

They could try to get things done, but would need to be giving out goodies to the progressive parties to get it done, so progressive legislation gets passed either way.
Personally, in a Westminster setting, I think FPTP is the better way to go.
I like majorities as they are more stable and don't dole out power to those on the fringes, so I am more partial to FPTP, but I am not blind to the advantageous position it would give to the 6-7 out of 10 Canadians who vote for a left leaning party.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
274
Points
910
Personally, in a Westminster setting, I think FPTP is the better way to go.

The real weakness of P.R. is that there is no accountability for individual MPs, they become slaves to the party.

Given that we are already suffering from that in our current FPTP system, then I would argue we should either fix it by making MPs relevant again (which we seem incapable of), or we have to acknowledge that MPs don't represent people in their riding, they represent the party, and so we might as well adopt P.R. and get the benefits (proper representation for voters) since we're already accepting the drawbacks.

I'm okay with hamstringing the government. As COVID has shown, when it matters, they can make things work as they do fear the wrath of the ballot, but when they try to take advantage (like the Liberals did at the outset of COVID by trying to pass legislation that would essentially make them our new overlords), the ability to hamstring them is pretty important.

FPTP only works when individual legislators are empowered, it relies on that. We don't have that right now.
 
Top