left_alberta

Yes, we've already had the Saudis reassuring us that they won't cut off oil sales to Canada, and Morneau saying that there won't be any economic sanctions against the Saudis. And even Jagmeet Singh, who is calling for Canada to buy oil from other nations besides the KSA, hasn't actually suggested any possibilities. It's not so much that Canada is standing alone on this, but that Canada isn't really standing at all.

I agree legalization is not likely before the next election. And I'm wondering what's gonna happen to these companies who are planning things like "marijuana tours" for when "weed is legalized in less than a year"(as the papers are all saying, taking Liberal promises at face value for some strange reason). I think some of these investors are gonna get burned pretty badly. And I don't think it's just pandering to conservatives that's the problem. There's also the Liberals wanting marijuana to be a provincial responsibility, while still maintaining some sort of federal control. Since it's going to be the provinces regulating it, why even bother having these hearings in Ottawa? The Liberals should just say "Okay, in a year, marijuana will be out of the criminal code, and we're washing our hands of this. The provinces can do whatever they want." Any hearings between now and then should be held by the respective provinces, not the federal government. But of course it's obvious the Liberals want to dodge the responsibility of regulation, while still being able to collect taxes on weed as well as maintain some influence over what the provinces do. So we've got all these hearings and debates at the federal level, complicating what would otherwise be a pretty simple process.

taxme: In regards to "democratic appointed judges", the majority in Texas Vs. Johnson(the flag burning case) was Brennan(Eisenhower appointment), Marshall(Johnson), Blackmun(Nixon), Scalia(Reagan), and Kennedy(Reagan). In other words, four Republican appointments and one Democrat. It might be more accurate to say that it was liberal judges who allowed flag burning, but even then, Scalia was NEVER considered liberal.

My understanding is that all that McGuinty ever considered was giving Muslim domestic tribunals the same jurisdiction as were at that time enjoyed by Catholic and Jewish tribunals. Facing backlash, he then nixed the proposal, along with the Muslim and Jewish bodies. Long and the short, Muslims weren't asking for anything that hadn't already been given to other interested faiths.

Thanks, I've just been reading up on gay bashings in Montreal over the last few years, most of which I wasn't familiar with, so I guess that some of this stuff does indeed go under-reported in the national news.

Citizen: When did this mass gay-bashing in Montreal take place? Not that I'm doubting you, but I'm just kind of surprised that it wasn't reported in the media, at least not that I noticed.

I don't think the Wildrose has much interest in forgiving Danielle. According to media reports, when it was announced at their convention that she had lost her nomination battle, the crowd cheered. As for Manning, well, I'd imagine there is some unofficial taboo on the right about openly disparaging him, even if you ridicule the people who take his advice, since he is such a venerable figure. But his talents as a political operator have always been seriously exaggerated. He has always overestimated the desire among Canadians, even western Canadians, for the brand of conservativism that he is selling.

I seem to recall that Prentice did make some token endorsement of Smith, in one way or another. As for him supposedly pulling one over on her, I suspected he probably didn't make any ironclad promises, but just allowed her to think that she was a shoe-in for the Tory nomination. And maybe he even believed that himself. Right after Smith, Bikman, and Fox lost their nominations, Prentice intervened to ensure that Bruce McAllister's nomination went unchallenged. Possibly a sign that Prentice was unhappy about the other crossovers losing.

The thing is, she is now pushing the line that she was essentially chased out of WIldrose by the social-conservative faction, who voted down the inclusive, pro-GLBQT language, in addition to other alleged harassment tactics, at the Red Deer convention. Which, if true, might paint her actions in a more sympathetic light, since a leader can't very well be expected to stay on if a huge faction of the party is fundamentally opposed to her stance on issues like that. Problem is, her narrative doesn't really harmonize with some other known and implied facts of the matter, ie. Prentice says that they'd been negotiating since September, she wanted to merge the two parties(why, if she hates Wildrose's social views), etc.

Yes, your description is more accurate, and detailed, than mine was. In any case, my main point was that, contrary to the notion that it lines up as Tory Tolerance Vs. Wildrose Homophobia, there were actually more WIldrosers casting a vote in favour of GSAs than Tories. With the caveat that things might be different if it was a free-vote with a Wildrose majority in the legislature.

There was that Wilson guy in BC in the 90s, who quit the Liberals and started his own party. He crossed over to the NDP. But he was the only MLA representing that party, so it wasn't quite as earth-shattering as this WIldrose-Tory stuff is.

The funny thing about that is, Alberta has the second-highest percentage of people who list "No religion" on the census. I think BC is the first.

When Prentice introduced Bill 10, gutting the Liberal bill that protected GSAs, there were two Wildrosers voting against it(including Smith, who made a speech defending the clubs), and one Tory. That's right. More Wildrosers that Tories. Mind you, it might be a different story if WIldrose had a majority, and Smith called a free vote. She may very well vote for GSAs herself, while most of her caucus goes the other way.

And it is an increasingly small home, the walls are closing in. My prediction is that they'll hold onto most of what they've got in the south, but make few if any inroads in the cities or the non-southern rurals. They'll probably still be the official opposition after the next election, but no more a government-in-waiting than Ray Martin was between '86 and '93.