Canadian Politics Redux

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

DarthMaeglin

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).

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

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. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

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!

HughFreakingDillon

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?

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

HughFreakingDillon

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. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

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?

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

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.

DarthMaeglin

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

HughFreakingDillon

threat to democracy? I think you've jumped the shark on this one. 

no one becomes violent until they do. My point was it easily could have been interpreted that he MIGHT. the guy who was confronting JT didn't appear to have the same threatening body language. You simply cannot blanket all confrontations into one basket. Every situation is different. 

this argument is becoming rather bizarre. 

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

threat to democracy? I think you've jumped the shark on this one. 

no one becomes violent until they do. My point was it easily could have been interpreted that he MIGHT. the guy who was confronting JT didn't appear to have the same threatening body language. You simply cannot blanket all confrontations into one basket. Every situation is different. 

this argument is becoming rather bizarre. 

The threat to democracy is out of Mendacious Mendicino’s mouth (as well as others), I didn’t make it up. I’m just the reporter in that instance.

You’re right, no one is violent until they are. And they can go from calm to violent in the blink of an eye, hence my blanket statement. Who would be a bigger threat, this Edmonton guy or a (hypothetical) 5’2” guy who no one knows has a 10th degree black belt until he starts moving? One or two posts back you suggested that in Edmonton the man should have been tackled to the ground by the (non-existent in this case) security detail BEFORE he became violent. I’m EXTREMELY leery of starting to engage in pre-crime, which is essentially what you were suggesting.

Yes, what I’m suggesting could allow any potential threat to get a shot or two off before security can react, I don’t deny that. You’re asking for anyone who openly displays hostility should be met with violence before they themselves (MAYBE) become violent. While my suggestion could lead to tragedy, at least it’s not borderline authoritarian as I see your suggestion.

HughFreakingDillon

this ape exhibited pre-violent behaviour. if not tackled to the ground, at least detained. this is not strange. security forces do this all the time with threats they deem imminent/possible. 

the 5'2" black belt wouldn't exhibit any noticeable imminent threat, so no, he likely wouldn't be "taken down" just because he's mad, and as I said about the guy who confronted JT, it was handled/not handled the way it should have, because he wasn't considered an threat.

I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain this: it was a combination of "massive guy vs smaller woman" and how hostile he seemed, his language, body and verbal. it's not this preposterous notion that "big people can't complain" or whatever it is you're saying my point is. 

the guy looked disheveled and unhinged. he should be investigated. he's most likely just a harmless oaf that got off on letting off some steam on someone more powerful than he. but if they find an arsenal in his basement, then...

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

this ape exhibited pre-violent behaviour. if not tackled to the ground, at least detained. this is not strange. security forces do this all the time with threats they deem imminent/possible. 

the 5'2" black belt wouldn't exhibit any noticeable imminent threat, so no, he likely wouldn't be "taken down" just because he's mad, and as I said about the guy who confronted JT, it was handled/not handled the way it should have, because he wasn't considered an threat.

I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain this: it was a combination of "massive guy vs smaller woman" and how hostile he seemed, his language, body and verbal. it's not this preposterous notion that "big people can't complain" or whatever it is you're saying my point is. 

the guy looked disheveled and unhinged. he should be investigated. he's most likely just a harmless oaf that got off on letting off some steam on someone more powerful than he. but if they find an arsenal in his basement, then...

Judge a book by its cover. Fair enough I suppose, as long as there’s heavy penalties when the judgment is wrong (as it would have been if the Edmonton man had been tackled preemptively).

Your description of the Edmonton man (nothing about the woman?) speaks volumes to me about why we will never agree on this.

I had hoped to hear more than just one other perspective on this but I’ll just have to be patient. I believe I have explained my own point of view thoroughly and more or less clearly, even if it’s not agreed with.

DarthMaeglin

I had to put the bowl down for a minute to eat a bit of crow here.

I’ll agree that the encounter is problematic, though I remain unbothered by how the confrontation ultimately unfolds.

What could (and maybe should) be looked into is why these people were, by all appearances, trying to track Freeland down. Beyond that, for all we know what we saw in the video is all that was intended (which I’ll still allow for unfortunately). And Hugh’s right, an investigation should be par for the course. If anything criminal is found and provable (such as a kidnapping plot or shooting), I hope my record here shows I’d be fine then with throwing the book at them. Lately I’ve not been given much reason to have faith in the organization but I’ll have to trust to the RCMP (and hopefully Edmonton Police if they’re not already the federal force).

I’m guessing the guy that seems to work in the building (that the big guy points out) is getting some shit for tipping off the group. I’d possibly be ok with that guy getting some heat for disclosing the Deputy PM’s potential location (especially with her lack of security). While I’ll admit to looking at Trudeau’s posted itinerary (open and transparent my ass) regularly I haven’t looked at Freeland’s (they were posting hers alongside his for a while and I did look a couple times then, but they removed hers before covid I believe). No doubt he’s part of the investigation as well.

HughFreakingDillon

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

this ape exhibited pre-violent behaviour. if not tackled to the ground, at least detained. this is not strange. security forces do this all the time with threats they deem imminent/possible. 

the 5'2" black belt wouldn't exhibit any noticeable imminent threat, so no, he likely wouldn't be "taken down" just because he's mad, and as I said about the guy who confronted JT, it was handled/not handled the way it should have, because he wasn't considered an threat.

I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain this: it was a combination of "massive guy vs smaller woman" and how hostile he seemed, his language, body and verbal. it's not this preposterous notion that "big people can't complain" or whatever it is you're saying my point is. 

the guy looked disheveled and unhinged. he should be investigated. he's most likely just a harmless oaf that got off on letting off some steam on someone more powerful than he. but if they find an arsenal in his basement, then...

Judge a book by its cover. Fair enough I suppose, as long as there’s heavy penalties when the judgment is wrong (as it would have been if the Edmonton man had been tackled preemptively).

Your description of the Edmonton man (nothing about the woman?) speaks volumes to me about why we will never agree on this.

I had hoped to hear more than just one other perspective on this but I’ll just have to be patient. I believe I have explained my own point of view thoroughly and more or less clearly, even if it’s not agreed with.

why does my description of him speak volumes about why we'll never agree?

DarthMaeglin

HughFreakingDillon said:

DarthMaeglin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

this ape exhibited pre-violent behaviour. if not tackled to the ground, at least detained. this is not strange. security forces do this all the time with threats they deem imminent/possible. 

the 5'2" black belt wouldn't exhibit any noticeable imminent threat, so no, he likely wouldn't be "taken down" just because he's mad, and as I said about the guy who confronted JT, it was handled/not handled the way it should have, because he wasn't considered an threat.

I'm sorry I don't know how else to explain this: it was a combination of "massive guy vs smaller woman" and how hostile he seemed, his language, body and verbal. it's not this preposterous notion that "big people can't complain" or whatever it is you're saying my point is. 

the guy looked disheveled and unhinged. he should be investigated. he's most likely just a harmless oaf that got off on letting off some steam on someone more powerful than he. but if they find an arsenal in his basement, then...

Judge a book by its cover. Fair enough I suppose, as long as there’s heavy penalties when the judgment is wrong (as it would have been if the Edmonton man had been tackled preemptively).

Your description of the Edmonton man (nothing about the woman?) speaks volumes to me about why we will never agree on this.

I had hoped to hear more than just one other perspective on this but I’ll just have to be patient. I believe I have explained my own point of view thoroughly and more or less clearly, even if it’s not agreed with.

why does my description of him speak volumes about why we'll never agree?

You’re incredibly condescending to the guy without giving him any benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he’s disheveled and unhinged because he’s been living in his truck for the last  6 months in part due to Trudeau government policies?

And calling him an ape is disgusting. Try doing that with someone who has darker skin, I’m quite sure the condemnation would be almost universal.

To me that tells me you’re unwilling to even consider the other side in this, hence we won’t be arriving at any sort of compromise or agreement.

HughFreakingDillon

why would I give someone who calls a woman a C*NT any benefit of the doubt? hahaha. seriously. 

condemnation would be warranted in that context. but not here. one is racist, one is describing how I see him act and how he comes off intellectually in the video. not even in the same universe. 

dignin

Apes behave better than that POS.

Fuck that sack of shit.

DarthMaeglin

Fair enough, it’s cool to look down our noses at our fellow humans, the standard has been set and accepted (not by me though, sorry). So much for tolerance and any attempt at understanding. I make a suggestion that might explain this man’s anger and it’s apparently ignored because he used dirty words and looked a certain way.

I was hoping my late night post might have changed the tenor of the discussion but it clearly hasn’t (since many of my suggestions and assertions were seemingly ignored in favour of focusing on the man’s appearance).

And for the record I do feel that she’s a **** based on everything I’ve seen and heard from her over the years. So I suppose that makes me a Neanderthal to many, and that is their choice.

I think I’m done here since I’ve done more to shift my perspective than any of the discussion here.

Edited to bleep a word I apologize for using in full given how offensive it is to women. I hope the edit carries through any quotes of this post.