News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 586     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.8K     8 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

The 'moral' matters are between he and his spouse and the other women involved.

What has me aghast is the level of stupidity.

For the moment, assuming his activities only involved consenting adults, and putting aside his marital status..........

There is no way, as a public figure, that it shouldn't occur to you that sending images, never mind videos, is at best ill conceived, and if not career suicide, is certainly career injurious.

To add to that, doing so with women he had never met in person, so he had no real basis on which to trust them...........

Then adding in that he's in a 'conservative' party, and how it would likely appear to others in light of his being married.........

What part of this does not hit you in the proverbial head as being exceedingly unwise?

All that while being on a high-security clearance committee..........even before facing issues of extortion, let alone after said s$#t hits the fan.

Just wow.

That's just a kind of stupid I don't want anywhere near the levers of power.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
The 'moral' matters are between he and his spouse and the other women involved.
What has me aghast is the level of stupidity.
....
Click to expand...

...plus the fact that he was already get "probed" about these activities *last year* but kept doing it. You'd think he would have had a major "Oh shit!" moment the first time he had to approach the police about it. But no......
 
You do have to wonder if OPP ever communicated the concern to the Privy Council - if not RCMP or our intelligence apparatus - or whether it is one of these "hear nothing, say nothing" kind of affair. You'd think that anything to do with individuals on the security and intelligence committee being put in a potentially compromised position should trip up warnings everywhere; not basically pretend nothing to see here until a major newspaper was going to below things up on his behalf.

Seriously, that is mightily disappointing - and concerning.

AoD
 
I really don't understand what Clement expected. Also judging from twitter it seems like he was messaging random young political women on twitter. I mean was he expecting that everyone was going to be ok with him messaging them and them not saying anything? I would have thought he had better self preservation instincts.
 
Just a reminder that today is the last day to submit your thoughts on new gun control measures to the federal government.

Link is here:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/...ghMdvkOcHPw_dB5dVXrs1OFNBmioIEJ9eiUK7GMbdSa68

FWIW:

I suggested capping the number of restricted weapons (handguns) that can be purchased/owned by any one person, in order to reduce the problem of 'straw man' purchases.

I also suggested a police inspection of a restricted weapons permit applicant's home, prior to permit issuance to ensure they actually own a gun safe which can reduce theft/misuse.

Finally, I suggested a mandatory marksmanship test. I see this as likely to reduce frivolous ownership; but also to ensure someone who actually needs such a weapon can hit their intended target (otherwise it would be rather pointless).
 
Northern Light said:
Just a reminder that today is the last day to submit your thoughts on new gun control measures to the federal government.

Link is here:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/...ghMdvkOcHPw_dB5dVXrs1OFNBmioIEJ9eiUK7GMbdSa68

FWIW:

I suggested capping the number of restricted weapons (handguns) that can be purchased/owned by any one person, in order to reduce the problem of 'straw man' purchases.

I also suggested a police inspection of a restricted weapons permit applicant's home, prior to permit issuance to ensure they actually own a gun safe which can reduce theft/misuse.

Finally, I suggested a mandatory marksmanship test. I see this as likely to reduce frivolous ownership; but also to ensure someone who actually needs such a weapon can hit their intended target (otherwise it would be rather pointless).
Click to expand...
1 Option is the status quo - just crack down on illegal guns and make penalties for their use more severe. mandatory minimum sentances for such crimes would be a good idea.

The next option is to confiscate the offensive weapons and reimburse the owners for the value of their investments. This is similar to when land is expropriated to build a road or building. I am not sure how big a pot of money would be needed - maybe a couple of Billion. The sooner we do this, the faster we will realize that it didn't work - and we can start looking at real solutions.
 
BurlOak said:
1 Option is the status quo - just crack down on illegal guns and make penalties for their use more severe. mandatory minimum sentances for such crimes would be a good idea.

The next option is to confiscate the offensive weapons and reimburse the owners for the value of their investments. This is similar to when land is expropriated to build a road or building. I am not sure how big a pot of money would be needed - maybe a couple of Billion. The sooner we do this, the faster we will realize that it didn't work - and we can start looking at real solutions.
Click to expand...

Do you know what would be really nice?

If before you comment on someone's post you ask yourself "am I informed on this issue" and if the answer was 'no', you didn't post.

Mandatory minimums for gun crimes have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so they are not an option.

See link:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/su...ry-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes-1.3031847

Second, neither I, nor anyone in this thread suggested mass seizures of hand guns, so the argument on the effectiveness of said idea is rather wasted.

Third, even if that was a proposed solution, the cost, assuming the government paid full retail value for said firearms would be 500 million dollars CAD. How do I know that?

Because I googled the number of restricted weapons in Canada, and then the average price of a hand gun in Canada, and then multiplied. You could have done that.

Fourth if you''re going to suggest 'real solutions' at the end of your post, perhaps you could outline what those are.

Just sayin.
 
Northern Light said:
Mandatory minimums for gun crimes have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so they are not an option.

See link:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/su...ry-minimum-sentences-for-gun-crimes-1.3031847
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out that there are ways to reduce crime - but our constitution is in conflict with this. We view our Charter rights so important that we are willing to let criminal back on the street to kill again. It's essentially the same thing as the "Right to bear arms" in the USA. They know it leads to more deaths, but the constitutional rights are more important than lives.

Northern Light said:
Second, neither I, nor anyone in this thread suggested mass seizures of hand guns, so the argument on the effectiveness of said idea is rather wasted.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you did. I think it may be a more honest way of going about it though. The option is to restrict the weapons farther, so fewer people can buy them, thus lowering demand. Lower demand will lower the price. Essentially, the government policy would be reducing the value of the individuals assets. There are some collectors and ordinary folks for whom that loss of asset value would be significant. It seems only fair that these people should be compensated.
Northern Light said:
Third, even if that was a proposed solution, the cost, assuming the government paid full retail value for said firearms would be 500 million dollars CAD. How do I know that?
Because I googled the number of restricted weapons in Canada, and then the average price of a hand gun in Canada, and then multiplied. You could have done that.
Click to expand...
I googled and got a value of $2B. Either way, I think it is a small value compared to the other money the government wastes. I think it won't do much to reduce killings, so the faster we do it (and confiscation and not slowly phasing them out with some grandfathered) the sooner we can prove that it didn't work and get on to something better. If you think it will reduce crime, then again you should support confiscation and reimbursement (maybe even over-compensation) as it would be the fastest way forward.
https://thegunblog.ca/2018/09/21/handgun-semi-auto-ban-could-wipe-out-2-billion-from-gun-owners/
Northern Light said:
Fourth if you''re going to suggest 'real solutions' at the end of your post, perhaps you could outline what those are.
Click to expand...
Real solution may be to admit that the Charter of Rights (or the judges interpretation) may not be in our best interest. Just as USA needs to find a way to realize the same with the 2nd amendment.
 
BurlOak said:
I was just pointing out that there are ways to reduce crime - but our constitution is in conflict with this. We view our Charter rights so important that we are willing to let criminal back on the street to kill again. It's essentially the same thing as the "Right to bear arms" in the USA. They know it leads to more deaths, but the constitutional rights are more important than lives.


I didn't say you did. I think it may be a more honest way of going about it though. The option is to restrict the weapons farther, so fewer people can buy them, thus lowering demand. Lower demand will lower the price. Essentially, the government policy would be reducing the value of the individuals assets. There are some collectors and ordinary folks for whom that loss of asset value would be significant. It seems only fair that these people should be compensated.

I googled and got a value of $2B. Either way, I think it is a small value compared to the other money the government wastes. I think it won't do much to reduce killings, so the faster we do it (and confiscation and not slowly phasing them out with some grandfathered) the sooner we can prove that it didn't work and get on to something better. If you think it will reduce crime, then again you should support confiscation and reimbursement (maybe even over-compensation) as it would be the fastest way forward.
https://thegunblog.ca/2018/09/21/handgun-semi-auto-ban-could-wipe-out-2-billion-from-gun-owners/

Real solution may be to admit that the Charter of Rights (or the judges interpretation) may not be in our best interest. Just as USA needs to find a way to realize the same with the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I agree and the constitution provides for that by allowing elected provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament to use the Notwithstanding Clause to shield legislation from creative and expansive judicial Charter innovation.
 
I think gun rights are a somewhat sleeper issue in Canada. To date, they've been deal with by having provincial Chief Firearms Officers enforce vastly different standards. But if that changes in the future, I expect trouble.

Having grown up in Toronto, I never understood the gun rights debate until my career took me across the country to different parts of Canada. When you live in rural Saskatchewan, 20 mins away from a police or ambulatory care station, a rifle is seen as a tool, not a luxury.

I think we can do a better job of putting out different rules for rural and urban areas to protect different interests.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top