Canadian Politics Redux

1237239241242243

Comments

  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    Ok, I know I’ll be drawing a fair bit of heat for saying this, and I am, in fact, just trying to understand this.

    What is so wrong with what happened to Chrystia Freeland over the weekend?

    Now I’ll attempt to explain why these reactions are over the top to me. First, there was seemingly nothing planned about the encounter. The people literally just happened to be in the building when Freeland walked in.  Yes, they used vulgarities and called her names, but I’ll suggest we’ve all been aware of equal or stronger expressions on both sides of the aisle.

    Further, none of the clips I’ve seen show anything approaching any sort of threat and neither did they make her gender part of the “attack”.

    If the problem is the differences in stature (the implied intimidation), are we then saying only short people can express anger directly to our elected representatives? That’s not equal rights to me.

    She’s a public figure, accosted in public, and she is (supposedly) second-in-command of a controversial government (to put it mildly), and where said government has seemingly been pissing on that region, such receptions should almost be expected (wasn’t it Trudeau the First that gave us the West Coast Salute as a reaction to hostile crowds?). As a public figure I feel it’s on her to develop thicker skin than most since as a public figure I feel she’s game for public criticism (politicians have zero problems with public affection).

    Personally, the only way lines would have been crossed is if they had showed up at Freeland’s personal residence, a practice I find reprehensible, but that’s not what happened here.

    If there’s footage of the encounter that shows verbal threats or attempts at an assault I will eat crow and change my stance but at the moment this feels like we’re being told we can’t express ourselves directly to our elected officials, something I do see as a cornerstone of an open democracy. There is also the possible angle that this is problematic in part because it was white right-wingers.

    If I thought for a second that Freeland would have given these people a couple minutes of her time (instead of rushing into the elevator and hiding behind the other women present) that would change my view on this as well.

    And to wrap up, for clarity, I’m calling for the maintenance of the right to yell “Fuck Trudeau” to his face right along with your right to yell “Fuck Poilievre” to his face. It cuts both ways and both sides are equally responsible for any deterioration of the political climate.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    I just read that she was called a bitch. Without denying the distastefulness of the name, the only solution to that is that we now just call everyone “assholes” instead, in the name of equal rights. But it could be said her gender was brought into the tirade, counter to what I thought.

    One other angle here is that there don’t appear to be any children present, and at the end of the day what I see is adults adulting (even if in vulgar fashion).
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    if I was a woman of her height and saw that ripped-wife-beater-wearing-ape coming at me calling me a traitor and to get out of alberta, I'd be intimidated too. 

    if you watch the whole video, it actually did seem planned. the guy and the woman recording kept commenting after about how it was perfect timing and all of that. 


    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    and no, I don't agree that any public figure should "grow a thicker skin" to deal with this stuff. when you normalize this, then the next incident will be an escalation (assault, etc). This shit needs to be snuffed out. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    if I was a woman of her height and saw that ripped-wife-beater-wearing-ape coming at me calling me a traitor and to get out of alberta, I'd be intimidated too. 

    if you watch the whole video, it actually did seem planned. the guy and the woman recording kept commenting after about how it was perfect timing and all of that. 


    Different perspectives, possibly based on where we each stand. I did just watch what appears to be the unedited footage and the “perfect timing” doesn’t come across as anything other than coincidence.

    And you seem to be endorsing my suggestion that physically large people aren’t allowed to express themselves as others are. Yes, it was a big burly guy, but are we not adults? All I saw was words, and the building’s security (or management) seem to be on scene extremely quickly. Am I therefore free to accost Trudeau if see him because he stands a couple inches taller than me?

    Again (and having watched the full encounter I feel this is proven), zero verbal threats or attempts at physical assault. They didn’t even seemingly try to force their way onto the elevator.

    More and more I’m being forced to assert that we are living in Monty Python World where the absurd rules and common sense is utterly abandoned. And it ain’t gonna have a pretty ending.

    And again, why the “Heavens-to-Betsy” reaction to this incident, given what both sides have done over the last while?
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    and no, I don't agree that any public figure should "grow a thicker skin" to deal with this stuff. when you normalize this, then the next incident will be an escalation (assault, etc). This shit needs to be snuffed out. 
    Then why hasn’t the escalation been called out along the way? I won’t give an inch on blaming both sides, sorry.

    And I do feel that anyone who CHOOSES to put themselves in the public light (including entertainers and sports figures) then they need to prepare themselves to deal with the criticisms as well as the worship.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    criticisms, yes. being accosted and sworn at incessantly by a man 3 times her size, no. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    if I was a woman of her height and saw that ripped-wife-beater-wearing-ape coming at me calling me a traitor and to get out of alberta, I'd be intimidated too. 

    if you watch the whole video, it actually did seem planned. the guy and the woman recording kept commenting after about how it was perfect timing and all of that. 


    Different perspectives, possibly based on where we each stand. I did just watch what appears to be the unedited footage and the “perfect timing” doesn’t come across as anything other than coincidence.

    And you seem to be endorsing my suggestion that physically large people aren’t allowed to express themselves as others are. Yes, it was a big burly guy, but are we not adults? All I saw was words, and the building’s security (or management) seem to be on scene extremely quickly. Am I therefore free to accost Trudeau if see him because he stands a couple inches taller than me?

    Again (and having watched the full encounter I feel this is proven), zero verbal threats or attempts at physical assault. They didn’t even seemingly try to force their way onto the elevator.

    More and more I’m being forced to assert that we are living in Monty Python World where the absurd rules and common sense is utterly abandoned. And it ain’t gonna have a pretty ending.

    And again, why the “Heavens-to-Betsy” reaction to this incident, given what both sides have done over the last while?
    physically large people can have their opinion too. but this doofus has to know that she's going to be scared of what he might do with how big and angry he was. come on. you can't tell me that you'd expect her to stand her ground and try to talk some sense into this buffoon. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    edited August 29
    if I was a woman of her height and saw that ripped-wife-beater-wearing-ape coming at me calling me a traitor and to get out of alberta, I'd be intimidated too. 

    if you watch the whole video, it actually did seem planned. the guy and the woman recording kept commenting after about how it was perfect timing and all of that. 


    Different perspectives, possibly based on where we each stand. I did just watch what appears to be the unedited footage and the “perfect timing” doesn’t come across as anything other than coincidence.

    And you seem to be endorsing my suggestion that physically large people aren’t allowed to express themselves as others are. Yes, it was a big burly guy, but are we not adults? All I saw was words, and the building’s security (or management) seem to be on scene extremely quickly. Am I therefore free to accost Trudeau if see him because he stands a couple inches taller than me?

    Again (and having watched the full encounter I feel this is proven), zero verbal threats or attempts at physical assault. They didn’t even seemingly try to force their way onto the elevator.

    More and more I’m being forced to assert that we are living in Monty Python World where the absurd rules and common sense is utterly abandoned. And it ain’t gonna have a pretty ending.

    And again, why the “Heavens-to-Betsy” reaction to this incident, given what both sides have done over the last while?
    physically large people can have their opinion too. but this doofus has to know that she's going to be scared of what he might do with how big and angry he was. come on. you can't tell me that you'd expect her to stand her ground and try to talk some sense into this buffoon. 
    This why it breaks down for me as simple partisan wedging:  I’ve seen buffoons given a pass in the past for worse.

    Do I expect her to bump chests with the guy? No, but to call this a violent attack is equally asinine.

    Is it really so hard to acknowledge all sides are responsible for creating this environment and if it is, in fact, dangerous could have been addressed long ago? The current PM has been FAR more divisive than his predecessor in his language and rhetoric. I’m also a big believer in that one reaps what they sow.

    Edit: Justin’s behaviour was learned from daddy as a starting point. I mislabeled it the West Coast Salute when it was the Salmon Arm Salute. When that’s the bar set by our top politician (he of the fuddle duddle) where else can we end up?

    https://parli.ca/salmon-arm-salute/
    Post edited by DarthMaeglin on
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    no, I don't see it that way. I don't see it as "violent attack" (who said that? the media? the PM?), but there's no doubt that there was a threat of intimidation at play.

    but I still don't see Trudeau as being divisive. I just chalk that up to people not liking hearing the truth. 

    I would call Jagmeet divisive. Pierre is divisive. But I don't look at Trudeau that way. 

    you also have to take into consideration the full context of what female and public figures of colour have to deal with from apes like that:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-women-public-life-journalists-politicians-1.6564376
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    I also find it odd that this has been condemned across all parties, but you're doubling down on it as not really a big deal:

    Conservative leadership candidate Jean Charest called it "gross intimidation" and "dangerous behaviour" in a tweet. Former Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna called it "beyond the pale."

    Alberta Premier Jason Kenney referred to the incident as "reprehensible" and Conservative MP Dan Albas said, "What our Deputy PM experienced yesterday has no place here in Canada.

    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    no, I don't see it that way. I don't see it as "violent attack" (who said that? the media? the PM?), but there's no doubt that there was a threat of intimidation at play.

    but I still don't see Trudeau as being divisive. I just chalk that up to people not liking hearing the truth. 

    I would call Jagmeet divisive. Pierre is divisive. But I don't look at Trudeau that way. 

    you also have to take into consideration the full context of what female and public figures of colour have to deal with from apes like that:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-women-public-life-journalists-politicians-1.6564376
    I’m not talking press or individual subgroups here, I’m trying to deal exclusively with the attentions politicians invite upon themselves (with a nod to the fact government policies contribute strongly to the sentiments we saw on display). I did read the article you posted earlier (it was the source that informed me she was called a bitch, later confirmed in the unedited footage), and it veers far afield from the incident in question.

    I’m really struggling to see where the line is as to what’s to be tolerated and what’s not.

    And I’m truly sorry to say this but if you honestly can’t see Trudeau as being divisive then I don’t think you’re really paying open and unbiased attention to what’s been happening the last 7 years, especially since his second election as PM (his first term was defined by broken promises and a lack of basic democratic ethics, since then he’s just been wedging to cling to power, aided by poor showings by the opposition). I get we all have our biases but just as oftenreading suggested that it’s up to individual viewers to be critical and analyze what we’re told by the media, I see it as incumbent upon the individual to both acknowledge their biases and work against them. By no means do I claim perfection myself, and will continue to laugh loudly at those that do.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    I also find it odd that this has been condemned across all parties, but you're doubling down on it as not really a big deal:

    Conservative leadership candidate Jean Charest called it "gross intimidation" and "dangerous behaviour" in a tweet. Former Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna called it "beyond the pale."

    Alberta Premier Jason Kenney referred to the incident as "reprehensible" and Conservative MP Dan Albas said, "What our Deputy PM experienced yesterday has no place here in Canada.

    I don’t want anyone’s voice silenced unreasonably, I’m arguing on principle not party (I had hoped I’d made clear that was the case, please see my above sentence regarding perfection). Sometimes the majority can be wrong.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    no, I don't see it that way. I don't see it as "violent attack" (who said that? the media? the PM?), but there's no doubt that there was a threat of intimidation at play.

    but I still don't see Trudeau as being divisive. I just chalk that up to people not liking hearing the truth. 

    I would call Jagmeet divisive. Pierre is divisive. But I don't look at Trudeau that way. 

    you also have to take into consideration the full context of what female and public figures of colour have to deal with from apes like that:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-women-public-life-journalists-politicians-1.6564376
    I’m not talking press or individual subgroups here, I’m trying to deal exclusively with the attentions politicians invite upon themselves (with a nod to the fact government policies contribute strongly to the sentiments we saw on display). I did read the article you posted earlier (it was the source that informed me she was called a bitch, later confirmed in the unedited footage), and it veers far afield from the incident in question.

    I’m really struggling to see where the line is as to what’s to be tolerated and what’s not.

    And I’m truly sorry to say this but if you honestly can’t see Trudeau as being divisive then I don’t think you’re really paying open and unbiased attention to what’s been happening the last 7 years, especially since his second election as PM (his first term was defined by broken promises and a lack of basic democratic ethics, since then he’s just been wedging to cling to power, aided by poor showings by the opposition). I get we all have our biases but just as oftenreading suggested that it’s up to individual viewers to be critical and analyze what we’re told by the media, I see it as incumbent upon the individual to both acknowledge their biases and work against them. By no means do I claim perfection myself, and will continue to laugh loudly at those that do.
    the line is an angry ape thrice her size moving towards her in a threatening/intimidating manner while shouting obscenities.

    that's the line. 

    I'm not sure what his record as PM has to do with this idea that he's divisive. I have openly admitted I'm no Trudeau fan boy. I just couldn't vote for any of the other idiots. I'm not biased towards him (I'll say it again: I have voted for every single party in the past, depending on platform and present context-not person or party). I think he can come off as unprepared or ignorant sometimes and engages in double speak and deflection just like any politician. I certainly don't like it, but as we know in the south, if you play nice you don't win the game. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    no, I don't see it that way. I don't see it as "violent attack" (who said that? the media? the PM?), but there's no doubt that there was a threat of intimidation at play.

    but I still don't see Trudeau as being divisive. I just chalk that up to people not liking hearing the truth. 

    I would call Jagmeet divisive. Pierre is divisive. But I don't look at Trudeau that way. 

    you also have to take into consideration the full context of what female and public figures of colour have to deal with from apes like that:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-women-public-life-journalists-politicians-1.6564376
    I’m not talking press or individual subgroups here, I’m trying to deal exclusively with the attentions politicians invite upon themselves (with a nod to the fact government policies contribute strongly to the sentiments we saw on display). I did read the article you posted earlier (it was the source that informed me she was called a bitch, later confirmed in the unedited footage), and it veers far afield from the incident in question.

    I’m really struggling to see where the line is as to what’s to be tolerated and what’s not.

    And I’m truly sorry to say this but if you honestly can’t see Trudeau as being divisive then I don’t think you’re really paying open and unbiased attention to what’s been happening the last 7 years, especially since his second election as PM (his first term was defined by broken promises and a lack of basic democratic ethics, since then he’s just been wedging to cling to power, aided by poor showings by the opposition). I get we all have our biases but just as oftenreading suggested that it’s up to individual viewers to be critical and analyze what we’re told by the media, I see it as incumbent upon the individual to both acknowledge their biases and work against them. By no means do I claim perfection myself, and will continue to laugh loudly at those that do.
    the line is an angry ape thrice her size moving towards her in a threatening/intimidating manner while shouting obscenities.

    that's the line. 

    I'm not sure what his record as PM has to do with this idea that he's divisive. I have openly admitted I'm no Trudeau fan boy. I just couldn't vote for any of the other idiots. I'm not biased towards him (I'll say it again: I have voted for every single party in the past, depending on platform and present context-not person or party). I think he can come off as unprepared or ignorant sometimes and engages in double speak and deflection just like any politician. I certainly don't like it, but as we know in the south, if you play nice you don't win the game. 
    I suggest you go read Brian Lilley’s column in the Sun today (I’ll use my other device to post it shortly, stupid paywall).

    You honestly don’t recall all the medical experts in the country asking politicians to not politicize vaccines in the last election, with Trudeau doing so right out of the gates (reversing his stance from just weeks prior)? Shit, that’s what helped set the stage for the terrible, terrible, no good occupation of Ottawa (and let’s not forget the PM’s words regarding that)!

    In terms of his policies, let’s look at just last week when he said there’s no business case (said the guy who doesn’t concern himself with monetary policy) for moving western natural gas to the east coast for sale to Europe (yes, the infrastructure needs building but Putin doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon). Hell, the fact Germany’s firing up their coal plants again should make the case to our super-environmentalist government.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    And just to show I’m perfectly comfortable criticizing “my side”, I completely disagree with shutting down public consultations on any issue, but especially issues like this one.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bil-7-long-term-care-public-hearings-1.6565577
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    If there’s a troubling angle to the Freeland story to me, it’s the revelation that our Deputy PM and Minister of Finance travels the country with no security detail.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    edited August 29
    Lilley’s column, and another that is non-partisan food for thought.

    https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-if-justin-trudeau-wants-canadians-to-show-each-other-respect-he-should-lead-by-example

    https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/agar-politicians-arent-listening-to-people-no-wonder-so-many-are-angry


    Edit: Yes, they condemn the incident, but I see that as much being they don’t want to face such attentions themselves.
    Post edited by DarthMaeglin on
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    And the overreaction continues.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-investigating-freeland-1.6566633

    If one isn’t allowed (in this case because of physical stature), NONE are allowed. Guess the harassment of company executives and anyone else in the public eye has to end or one will be punished. Protest in Canada will be far more polite hereafter! Hopefully this investigation ends with no charges (in my opinion).
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    isn't it standard procedure for the RCMP to investigate any perceived/actual threats towards high profile individuals in government? I'd expect the same if it were against Polliviere. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    edited August 30
    isn't it standard procedure for the RCMP to investigate any perceived/actual threats towards high profile individuals in government? I'd expect the same if it were against Polliviere. 
    Except for the fact the entire encounter has been easily viewable and it’s crystal clear that there are no threats, either verbal or physical. The only possible issue is the difference in stature you’ve mentioned, which strikes me as being discriminatory, unless we ban everyone from doing this.

    Edit: What I’m trying to get at is that any investigation should already be over.
    Post edited by DarthMaeglin on
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    A bit surprised no one has called me out yet on how “Get out of here” and “You don’t belong here” can be seen as veiled threats, but then I would have to point to the calls for the “colonials” to go back to Europe that have gone unprosecuted (even if they were investigated which I’m not convinced they were). Personally I wouldn’t have investigated those calls (spray painted on walls) as anything more serious than vandalism (which, if they were investigated there apparently were no charges laid).
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    A bit surprised no one has called me out yet on how “Get out of here” and “You don’t belong here” can be seen as veiled threats, but then I would have to point to the calls for the “colonials” to go back to Europe that have gone unprosecuted (even if they were investigated which I’m not convinced they were). Personally I wouldn’t have investigated those calls (spray painted on walls) as anything more serious than vandalism (which, if they were investigated there apparently were no charges laid).
    there's a lower threshold for investigations when it comes to public figures. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    A bit surprised no one has called me out yet on how “Get out of here” and “You don’t belong here” can be seen as veiled threats, but then I would have to point to the calls for the “colonials” to go back to Europe that have gone unprosecuted (even if they were investigated which I’m not convinced they were). Personally I wouldn’t have investigated those calls (spray painted on walls) as anything more serious than vandalism (which, if they were investigated there apparently were no charges laid).
    there's a lower threshold for investigations when it comes to public figures. 
    And why is that? Can’t both statements be seen as equally hateful/angry?

    This is really starting to feel like rules for some but not all. If so, maybe it’s time to openly acknowledge that and abandon any pretences to believing in equality and the rule of law.

    I really don’t agree with the thinking that people who CHOOSE to enter the public arena deserve special protections. I’ve never seen a politician turn down any adulation showered on them, but they cry foul when faced with negative attention? I call bullshit.

    I guess it’s just as well the weather sucks in Toronto today and I’ve decided not to go down to Queen’s Park (uh oh, does Ontario need to rename its legislature?) to protest Trudeau when he meets with Doug Ford. If I yelled at him I might be facing a criminal investigation for expressing my political views.

    Wonderful, Mendicino’s live on my tv, time to cue up the lie counter, he’s a pro!
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Usually, spray painted words that count as possible hate speech usually are investigated. If they weren't, they should have been. 

    I never said they should be free from criticsm. I agree 100% that if you enter the public sphere you need to expect the positive and the negative. But we're not just talking about someone having a calm conversation and saying they disagree with policy. I had zero issue with that video that went viral a couple years ago where some older gentelman was in Trudeau's face. Why? because, even though he was visibly upset, he wasn't projecting any kind of threatening demeanor. We're talking about a potential threatening loser coming towards her in a confined space. Again: yes, size difference matters. I'm not saying because he's big and scary looking he can't talk to her. But he came at her threateningly. If someone like that came at ME like that I'd feel threatened, especially using words like "traitor" and I'm no small man. 

    Didn't you also ask where her security detail was? but now you're saying she shouldn't be afforded special protections?
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Usually, spray painted words that count as possible hate speech usually are investigated. If they weren't, they should have been. 

    I never said they should be free from criticsm. I agree 100% that if you enter the public sphere you need to expect the positive and the negative. But we're not just talking about someone having a calm conversation and saying they disagree with policy. I had zero issue with that video that went viral a couple years ago where some older gentelman was in Trudeau's face. Why? because, even though he was visibly upset, he wasn't projecting any kind of threatening demeanor. We're talking about a potential threatening loser coming towards her in a confined space. Again: yes, size difference matters. I'm not saying because he's big and scary looking he can't talk to her. But he came at her threateningly. If someone like that came at ME like that I'd feel threatened, especially using words like "traitor" and I'm no small man. 

    Didn't you also ask where her security detail was? but now you're saying she shouldn't be afforded special protections?
    As to your last paragraph, you misunderstood me, sorry for not being clear.

    To me there is a big difference between having a protective detail assigned to someone, and having a lower threshold when it comes to investigating incidents compared to the average citizen. They’re two completely separate things, appels + oranjes to me.

    Negative attentions towards politicians won’t necessarily be presented in a calm manner and I feel there’s nothing wrong with that. Please remember, I’ve been saying at every step here that I equally support others’ right to be rude and crude to “my guy”. And if we won’t allow one then we can’t allow any is something else I feel strongly about.

    Going back to the calls for colonials to leave, why should I not therefore feel I have been threatened as someone who can trace my family name on this continent 400+ years? Especially if I just happened to be walking along that street (the incident I have in mind was at the Ryerson University protests where the head of the statue was mounted on a pike at a FN occupation that’s been ongoing for years)? If it’s good for Freeland then it must be good for you and I then, right?
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 33,223
    I suppose the difference is one is a possibel immediate threat and one isn't. 

    I'm going to say it one last time: yes, all opinions, even heated ones, should be allowed (I thought I was clear?). But this guy crossed the line. there was an obvious possibility he'd get violent. there's no two ways about it. if someone had come at the VPOTUS like that, the guy would have tackled to the grown and in cuffs, and you're damn right he'd be investigated to see if he posted any future threat. Not sure why this should be treated any different. 
    I think I'll move to Australia


  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    I suppose the difference is one is a possibel immediate threat and one isn't. 

    I'm going to say it one last time: yes, all opinions, even heated ones, should be allowed (I thought I was clear?). But this guy crossed the line. there was an obvious possibility he'd get violent. there's no two ways about it. if someone had come at the VPOTUS like that, the guy would have tackled to the grown and in cuffs, and you're damn right he'd be investigated to see if he posted any future threat. Not sure why this should be treated any different. 
    Since there’s an equal chance smaller people can turn violent then, as I’m suggesting, if we deny one we deny all. My own frustration comes from behaviours I’ve watched in the past that were apparently tolerated, some worse than this. I don’t understand why we’re calling it out in this case unless it goes to it being safe to do so based on appearances.

    I’ll suggest that based on what we can all see in the footage that if a security detail had tackled this man then they would have very faced lawsuits and dismissal. As far as I know Secret Service types are trained to react to physical actions, not words, as they should be. Or do we want security details to simply function as a goon squad when faced with someone who is angry but not violent?
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    I suppose the difference is one is a possibel immediate threat and one isn't. 

    I'm going to say it one last time: yes, all opinions, even heated ones, should be allowed (I thought I was clear?). But this guy crossed the line. there was an obvious possibility he'd get violent. there's no two ways about it. if someone had come at the VPOTUS like that, the guy would have tackled to the grown and in cuffs, and you're damn right he'd be investigated to see if he posted any future threat. Not sure why this should be treated any different. 
    And at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is the man did not become violent and left the building peacefully when asked to (the entire video runs barely 2 minutes from the confrontation to the discussion of timing in the parking lot afterwards).

    Yes, this looks distasteful and was crude. A threat to democracy? Not even close.
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
  • DarthMaeglinDarthMaeglin TorontoPosts: 2,075
    edited August 30
    If anyone can find a link to the full footage of the encounter, that would be appreciated. CBC is now reporting (article above was updated) that a longer video exists that shows the people asking about Freeland at reception or something before she arrived. Unfortunately they tell us about it but won’t show us and I keep finding the same clip posted earlier or edits thereof. If you want me to be fair and accurate in my criticisms then trust me (us) with the raw footage.

    If they did track her down, that will change my perception of the incident, however I will still argue into my grave for peoples’ right to be vulgar towards politicians (and other public figures).

    Edit: This is probably it, but I absolutely hate that it’s been edited.

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=full+video+chrystia+freeland+edmonton+elevator&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&prmd=nvi&sxsrf=ALiCzsaTuW0b7Upq49c-4Hl-_5VwnHYz7Q:1661890939606&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfvvCYsu_5AhUAhIkEHVjUAO4Q_AUoAnoECAIQAg&biw=375&bih=550&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7593e499,vid:BHUfwKZh43c,st:0
    Post edited by DarthMaeglin on
    "The world is full of idiots and I am but one of them."

    10-30-1991 Toronto, Toronto 1 & 2 2016, Toronto 2022
Sign In or Register to comment.