turningrite

I think left wing/progressive politicians simply and uncritically ignore any connection between large-scale immigration and their oft-stated concerns about the alienation of indigenous communities. The whole thing becomes somewhat comical when one considers that some self-styled proigressive non-white immigrants are now distancing themselves from the assumed past abuse of indigenous peoples by the "settler" population by declaring themselves definitionally excluded by virtue of their non-European ancestry. But as I've asked in a forum topic I started on this site, who and what is a "settler"? Most Canadians who have ancestry extending back for more than a couple generations are of mixed ethnic descent. My father's ancestry, while mixed in its own right, might warrant the "settler" designation as his father's French ancestors arrived in Canada in the 17th century. But his Portuguese and Irish ancestors' failings in reference to indigenous abuse are somewhat more difficult to sustain. And what about my mother, who immigrated to Canada following WWII? Can her role as an assumed abuser be established solely on race? And me? As a person of clearly mixed although Caucasian ancestry, including having an immigrant mother, am I guilty solely as a result of race? This appears to be what the "settler" mentality crowd would appear to believe to be the case (i.e. If you're white, you're guilty!), in which case the whole thing becomes a morass of repugnant racialist ideology. We need to move past this nonsense - if only progressives would permit rational discussion and debate on the topic.

Process is the problem. Ford didn't run on this and it's pretty clear that his agenda is at least in part grounded in personal grudges and animosities. As a Torontonian, though, I'm not hugely concerned about a decline in the number of councillors. When you contact their offices it's the staff rather than the politicians who usually respond in any case. In my area of the city I believe there have been multiple development-related concerns raised with local councillors but I haven't heard of anybody who's had a specific complaint (i.e. about traffic disruption, work hours, or pollution from idling heavy vehicles) addressed by an individual councllor. My guess is that with a smaller council, each councillor will have to be furnished a larger staff, which will likely defray the savings held to apply to the change. So, we get back to politics and score settling. Ford owes voters in affected municipalities a broader explanation for his motives.

I think it's called blind pandering to politically correct ideology. But more are questioning it all the time. Most voters in Canada, I suspect, are quite willing to address aboriginal/indigenous problems and claims but it seems many on the left, particularly academics and politicians, have preemptively capitulated.

Huh? What do you think he is? An unchecked emperor or king? Isn't this exactly what the republic's founders sought to avoid? Actually, Trump's power over trade isn't grounded in the constitution but instead is a consequence of congressional decisions over time to transfer emergency powers to the president. These powers can, reportedly, be rescinded, however such an outcome is unlikely where Republican lapdogs continue to enable Trump's behavior. There's a growing sense that he's abusing the "national security" rationale and imposing an agenda that in many aspects is likely opposed by a majority in Congress, at least if the non-binding Senate vote is a good indication. The midterms should prove interesting as all bets will be off in the event that the Republicans lose control of one or both houses.

Perhaps you didn't fully read my post, which by implication suggests that Trudeau's credibility will probably be best served at this point by saying nothing. He has little or no right to pontificate on the Danforth fiasco by employing his usual preachy bromides. As Heather Mallick noted in her column in today's Toronto Star, the left has in the absence of a credible official explanation for the shooter's motives transformed the perpetrator into a victim while the right has essentially cast him as a terrorist. But, of the two extremes, which one is more defensible? Mallick casts the two views as equally problematic but I doubt that general public opinion does. Trudeau's government has thus far sided with the obscurantists, so he and his colleagues are part of the problem. That's a common sense conclusion. Obviously you've made you mind up on this topic, which presumably is why you don't appear to want to engage contributors who offer credible opinions on the other side. Your 'ad hominem' critique isn't credible.

There's a good article in today's Globe and Mail, written by an immigrant, about the illegal/irregular migrant issue. (See link, below) The author of the piece notes that Trudeau's stance on this issue has the effect of undermining the seriousness of Canadian citizenship itself: "We could, and should, have an honest debate about the consequences of the PM’s grandstanding in encouraging migrants to cross over in the first place, and his seeming reluctance to defend the integrity of Canada’s borders publicly. What is irrefutable is that his words betrayed a lack of seriousness about the value of Canadian citizenship." The author goes even further in noting the consequences of Trudeau's self-serving and hollow approach in stating that "[he] is increasingly likely to lose [immigrants'] support in 2019 by willfully diminishing the values of new Canadians and replacing them with his own. Then he expects them to be grateful for it." Ouch. I think it's time for a fresh look at damage being done by our 'poseur-in-chief' and by 2019 it will be well past time to dispatch him to the dustbin of political history. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-justin-trudeaus-gamble-on-immigrant-voters/

I heard in an item on yesterday evening's news indicating that Trudeau will be in Toronto today, presumably for the funeral of one of the victims. And I assume it likely he'll make an excursion to the Danforth for photo-ops. He's in town anyway, so why not, eh? Maybe he bought new socks? In a column today in the generally pro-Liberal Toronto Star, 'A little patience won't hurt us'', Andrew MacDougall, while lamenting the proliferation of non-factual theories coming from all corners about the shooter, also notes that in the new media age public authorities must be more transparent than has apparently been in the case in the Danforth shooting. MacDougall states that "A population that knows they'll be updated regularly is one less likely to troll the wilds of the internet for alternative sources of information." He goes on further to opine that "...the frequent proactive disclosure of information is the best course of action for police." MacDougall's piece tries to have it both ways but in the end reflects the reality that even moderate media voices are becoming aware that the way this growing fiasco has been handled undermines confidence in the objectivity of public institutions. If he speaks at all, I wonder whether the feckless Trudeau, who'll no doubt affect a solemn persona in Toronto, will promote the cause of transparency or, alternatively, lecture us about conclusions we mustn't draw. My money is on the latter. We'll see.

You only need read a little more broadly to be informed of the political battle that's emerged within Trump's party over tariff policies. You might have to spend more than two seconds googling, though, to actually know what you're talking about. Perhaps it's an attention span issue? In any case, you raise the situation of one industry in one country while ignoring the emerging political resistance to tariff policy within Congress itself. Are you aware that the U.S. Senate recently voted 88-11 against Trump's approach on tariffs? (See first link below). Although the vote is non-binding, it suggests Trump's tariff policies are a hard sell with many Republicans in Congress, apparently including some of the usual lapdogs who've reflexively supported Trump on other issues. The rumblings of discontent were apparent from the outset, particularly where Trump's attacks on allies are concerned.(See second link below) Trump, as it turns out, isn't yet a dictator, even within his own party, which perhaps explains why he seems so entranced by the powers of dictators elsewhere who don't have to deal with pesky politicians who are compelled to respond to constituent concerns in order to get elected. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-11/senate-sends-trump-message-to-slow-down-on-tariff-escalation https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/republicans-gop-react-tariffs-trade-trump-aluminum-steel-imports/index.html

I believe that despite all his huffing and puffing and tough talk Trump was facing a lot of grief from Republican members of Congress, particularly in battleground regions that could well tip the outcome of the midterms, thus causing him to seek a quick resolution. The EU had reasons as well to want the tariff war halted but it didn't start the conflict in the first place. Where a person or party starts a fight and then quickly backs off, it's generally seen as the aggressor's loss.

1.) People generally engage in conjecture when there is no concrete information available to explain issues that are legitimately in the public realm. It seems you'd prefer that our betters determine the matters that are open for public debate, which if factual seems indicative of an undemocratic instinct on your part. We don't live in a cloistered society. And in a democracy it's wise for people to be skeptical when public officials say little or nothing on controversial matters. As for the mental illness theory, I believe the narrative originated with the family and its advocates, However, other than anecdotal reports that are in their own right conflicting, no actual, firm evidence that the shooter was ever diagnosed with or treated for a mental illness serious enough to constitute an explanation for last Sunday's travesty has been disclosed by authorities. So, there's not much to go on where the mental illness narrative is concerned, unless one wants to make excuses... 2. & 3.) To equate the Danforth shooting with 9/11 is ludicrous .The 9/11 attacks were a well-funded and well-orchestrated conspiracy. And quite specific information started emerging very quickly following the horrendous events that transpired on that day. Of course, it eventually became obvious that a security failure was involved. But I don't recall that either the U.S. government or the mainstream media made efforts to block information from being disseminated as it became available. And in other recent events in this county, including the Quebec City mosque shooting and the Yonge St. van massacre, information about motive emerged very quickly. In the first instance, we were quickly told about the shooter's anti-immigration views, and in the second we heard on the same day as the attack about the "incel rebellion" motive and the attacker's online activities. (I'd never heard of the incel subculture until that day.) As it turns out, the Quebec City shooter also suffers mental illness and the Yonge St. attacker suffers with autism. In neither case, however, were these mental and/or social disorders held as tantamount to an excuse for the atrocities committed by these men.

The main problem right now is that we have heard no comprehensive report from officials about the investigation into the shooter's background and motives or about any other factors that might apply. Pretty much every theory remains conjecture at this point and we're left with a speculative narrative on mental illness that was generated at the outset, offset by dribbles of leaks, presumably from inside the investigation, that appear to have been plugged over the past couple days. I can't think of any situation that's been handled in this manner by authorities and the media, which in the latter case you'd imagine would in a democracy be clamoring for details. A good friend of mine said the other day that he's increasingly convinced that for some reason the authorities want the whole thing to just disappear into the mists of history, possibly due to the fact that a security failure might be exposed were the public to know more. That's as solid a theory as any other we've heard, right?

I agree with much of what you say. I believe, however, that some of the homeless, including veterans, have fallen through the cracks and realized on the way to the bottom that there's no safety net left for most ordinary people. You wonder what our feckless politicians would say to 'Anne'. I don't. They'd tell her she's out of luck - i.e. to suck it up. It's exactly this kind of thing that generated the Brexit result. I remember watching a British documentary prior to the Brexit referendum in which a woman very much like 'Anne', with kids and a physically disabled spouse and who'd waited years without result for a social housing unit, said she was fed up with being continuously ignored and therefore believed she'd likely support the pro-Brexit side if for no other reason than to send a message. She felt she and her family had nothing to lose. I wonder how many Canadians who haven't been in the position of having to rely on a safety net they've always assumed will be there if/when they really need it would react were they to realize how bad the situation really is?

Ford's complaint that city council is an unproductive talk shop resonates with many voters. I suspect the move is intended to undermine the influence of NDP/progressive councillors and perhaps to undercut the mayor. I suspect Ford and his closest advisors are POed by the sanctuary city nonsense as well as the city's negotiations with the federal government to accommodate the irregular/illegal migrants. Logically, the mayor's approach of negotiating directly with Ottawa undermines Ford's clearly stated hardline position. I believe Ford has put council and the mayor on notice that he's in charge. Actually, I think it completely bizarre that local politicians didn't recognize that there's a new sheriff wearing the hat at Queen's Park, a fact that should have caused council and the mayor to act more cautiously. Ford called their bluff big time. Things might change as different issues emerge, but at this point I think a lot of Torontonians don't disagree with Ford.

Again, huh? What are you on about?

1.) You haven't responded to my inquiry. 2.) I seriously doubt it has, nor should any responsible Canadian believe it has. Again, did you read Ms. Malcolm's piece?

1.) No, that is up to you to do. You've made a statement which you refuse to substantiate. It's not up to me to prove it's incorrect if you can't even prove the veracity of your own claim. 2.) The truth should have come out by now. Didn't you read Ms. Malcolm's column in the Toronto Sun on the abysmal fashion in which this incident is being handled? Anybody concerned about a free and objective press should be concerned about what's going on. We're becoming a banana republic, apparently.

Pontificate much?

Huh? What does that even mean? He went to self-help groups, maybe? I've read anecdotal accounts indicating that he appeared quite happy and well adjusted. I also watched an interview on a TV news item with a woman who taught or coached him in a community-based program, who indicated that he exhibited pretty garden-variety emotional problems similar to others from broken families and difficult backgrounds. I've seen and read absolutely nothing to substantiate the notion that he was ever diagnosed with a serious mental illness. Personally, I think the official narrative is being manipulated, as the journalist Candice Malcolm has argued to be the case. Why public officials aren't being open about what they know of the shooter's background and motives is both puzzling and troubling. It's especially problematic that information that is coming to light is from leaks, which suggests that some (many?) involved in the investigation are becoming frustrated by the lack of transparency.

Reportedly, the mayors of some of the suburban cities in Peel and York regions are quite happy that Ford nixed the elected chair positions as they felt this would have established a powerful supermayoral role in both regions. So, reverting to the status quo suits them. And Ford gets to stick it to Patrick Brown in the process, although I have some sympathy for Brown. As for the situation in Toronto, I suspect few of Ford's ministers or backbenchers will shed many tears. A reduction in seats will likely lead to a loss of NDP/progressive voices at city hall and downtown Toronto overwhelming rejected Ford's party in the recent provincial election in any case. Provided the impact in the suburban wards is not as great, I don't think Ford will face much blowback. I agree, however, that he's likely making changes largely inspired by his own personal experiences and animosities. The outcome, however, may benefit local taxpayers. On another note, it's fascinating to see that Keesmaat entered the mayoral race against Tory. It will be interesting to see how her candidacy changes the dynamic. She's an intelligent and thoughtful person. I like Tory on a personal level (and voted for him against Ford the last time around) but wonder how much he's actually been able to accomplish.

What does this nonsensical statement even mean? And how does it contribute to the debate?

You seem fixated on Canada and Trudeau. This topic is about Trump and the EU. And what about Merkel? She's figured out how to get around Trump as she's got the power of the EU behind Germany's interests. Trump thinks that allies are expendable while Merkel seems to understand how very useful they can be. She didn't need to be the front person in the effort to get Trump to fold on tariffs. We'll see how far Trump's 'l'etat c'est moi' schtick works in the modern world.

I've read nothing of the sort in the NP, although I may have missed something. Please provide a link to substantiate your position. Otherwise, your post is pointless and meaningless.

The point you make is essentially identical to that a friend discussed with me earlier today. He suspects a political agenda underlies the bizarrely secretie fashion in which the Danforth investigation has been handled. The most chilling aspect of the quotation you cite from my post is that it's from a column written by Candice Malcolm, a journalist who clearly seems to be frustrated by the extent to which information about the Danforth investigation is apparently being managed and media coverage is being manipulated. One has to be concerned about how and why this is happening in a democracy. I feel sorry for the shooter's victims and the fact that those deaths and injuries may have been eclipsed while the perpetrator is somehow morally absolved of his crimes on grounds of, as Malcolm puts it, "an unverified claim about mental illness." It sets up an outrageous equivalency, if you ask me.

Actually, in Canada it raises a starker and more immediate contrast. We're putting the illegal/irregular migrants up in hotels while our growing horde of homeless have to make due, if they're lucky, with sleeping bags and a cots in church basements when the weather gets cold. And no doubt the migrants will quickly be prioritized for what little social housing is available and while waiting for their claims to be processed, which can often take years, will be provided better government-funded health benefits than are available to seniors - too bad those seniors paid all those taxes for all those years just to be pushed to the back of the line. Oh, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission recently ruled that those who have temporary work authorizations can't be denied permanent jobs by employers. Too bad for those who thought being a Canadian comes with any real advantages other than being able to vote and conveniently move around the world and then back to Canada when it's convenient to do so.

Canada is a minnow in a big sea and Trudeau's a lightweight, so perhaps you might set your gaze elsewhere to get a true picture of what's going on. Trump has been trumped in his meetings with almost every major foreign leader he's dealt with. Xi, Kim, Putin and the major EU leaders (with the possible exception of the UK's May, who's facing a political crisis) have all figured Trump out. Accommodating his narcissism is step one, and things go downhill for U.S. interests from that point. It was kind of surprising that Putin didn't pat the embarrassingly obsequious and servile Trump on the head at the end their meeting in Helsinki. Maybe he was warned to avoid contact with the hair dye. The only risk for Canada as Trump continues to flail is that we might eventually be the only punching bag he has left, especially given our feckless leadership.