Evening Star

Actually, there wasn't a provincial Conservative party in Quebec either during the time when Mulcair was involved in QC provincial politics. The major parties are the separatist PQ and the federalist Liberals. But, yes, I agree with you on the main points here, waldo. I haven't seen much evidence that Mulcair is more of a centrist than Layton. After all, he could have joined the LPC instead of the NDP if he had wanted.

Well, why is assisted suicide OK for the incurably ill but not for anyone else? Is this not a double standard? A young man whose girlfriend left him may well feel that his suffering is intolerable but it would be a crime for someone to assist him to commit suicide safely and effectively. Resources would be marshalled in that case to keep him from doing so, even if it possible that he would spend the rest of his life with depression. Where is the line? Why is his life more worth preserving than that of a person with incurable chronic physical pain? If your position is a more 'libertarian' view that EVERYONE should have the choice and the support to commit suicide if that is their preference, then I could respect that as a consistent view. (I might even be persuaded towards this position.) However, this seems to be a pretty rare position on the issue. I am genuinely interested in these questions and am not 100% committed to a position yet.

I basically agree with msj about this. I'm pretty disappointed that the NDP isn't more willing to scrap a garbage regressive 'benefit' like this, especially since they will actually need to raise revenue to sustain social programmes. I'm also moving towards the position that a federal day care programme is impractical at this time, given that basic social services of health and education are approaching a crisis point as it is imo.

NDP cleared of wrongdoing related to mass mailouts in 2013 byelections: http://globalnews.ca/news/2123242/elections-commissioner-clears-ndp-in-2013-byelection-mailings/

I'm not sure what you could be referring to. If you're talking about Greece, that's a case where some of the major creditors are social democratic welfare states themselves. If you're talking about the 2008 economic collapse and its aftereffects, I derive basically the opposite message from that.

Where did you find these?

0.6 points is less than the margin of error of any of these polls; it's nothing I'd get very excited about.

The Star piece also did this.

Yeah, it's a frustrating thing about this story. Most of the coverage is basically provided in opinion pieces.

Yeah, that's true, and you're also right that the top story does seem to rotate. (I've seen three different stories as the 'top story' so far today.)

I don't entirely disagree here. Ha, actually the comments sections on CBC articles aren't that different from a forum, but I think there is a value even to 'debate' between journalists or scholars who hold different views on the issues, even if the general public can't always participate.

Thanks for that.

I see now that my links are old, from 2012-2014. (Edited: I have added a more recent Post link.) I only found out about the story in the last day or two via Facebook links to sources I did not trust and then searched for MSM reports.

Yes, of course, but that was my (subjective) perception based on what was quoted in the articles. The quotes in the Post and Star articles did not seem that much harsher than what one can find in many online fora such as this one. I did not see any suggestion of sexual harassment, which the Metro article does mention, and which seems like a more serious charge. What is your opinion? xpost

It's hard to find good coverage of this issue but it seems like it might have major repercussions: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/01/09/gregory_alan_elliott_frustrations_boil_over_in_twitter_harassment_trial.html http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/448441/alleged-harassment-over-twitter-leads-to-criminal-charges-for-toronto-man/ Depending on the source, Elliott is either being targeted and silenced for holding views that are in conflict with those of young feminist activists or he was actually stalking and sexually harassing young women online. Either way, this could be the first case of someone going to court for social media harassment. What I find curious is that the accusation of sexual harassment only seems to appear in the Metro version of the story. Based on what the Post and the Star report, it seems like Elliott's comments were relatively mild and he is in fact being targeted here. Unfortunately, it seems like most of the coverage of this story is coming from sources that I am reluctant to trust, such as MRA groups. Anyone have info or thoughts on this? Edited: added link to Christie Blatchford's piece from last week

I dunno, most newspapers do include opinion pieces in their news sections. The Globe and the Citizen both link editorials and columns on their front pages today, for example. The prominence that was given to this particular (imo not especially interesting) opinion piece on the CBC page was excessive and problematic, though; I agree with you there. Editorials should come second to actual news. If you think that a public broadcaster should not run opinion pieces at all, then that is a debate to be had in and of itself. I think that one of the virtues of having a public broadcaster at all is that it can be a forum for debate, including viewpoints and depth of discussion that might be harder to find in private media. I do think that the CBC often falls short of what it could be doing here. If your view is that instead of doing this, the CBC tends to lean too hard to the mushy middle, I could see where you're coming from. I've generally always gone to the CBC first for news but, increasingly, I'm thinking of looking more towards other sources.

This is the top story on their page today: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/why-netflix-and-hbo-don-t-care-if-they-lose-500m-a-year-to-password-sharing-1.3154873 I'm not sure why they've started giving the 'Analysis' pieces top billing on their news page.

Yeah, they have 'Analysis' pieces just about every day. They are always opinion pieces, which are not presented as anything else. This is an example of one that came from an arguably more conservative perspective: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mansplaining-the-return-of-political-correctness-1.2999060 If the issue is that an opinion piece shouldn't be given front-page prominence on a news website, I tend to agree. However, I don't see that as a very strong reason to scrap the Ceeb altogether. Edited: run-on sentence

This might describe the US better than Canada. The CPC has not made any moves towards criminalizing abortion or bringing back the death penalty, really. And the NDP has not been especially gung-ho about assisted suicide. In fact, that issue does not really seem to be a partisan one. Last year, a Conservative MP proposed a bill overturning the ban which was opposed by both NDP and CPC MPs. (I tend to agree with Angus myself, btw.) In 2009, MPs of most parties except the BQ voted against a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Currently, it is mainly the Liberals and Greens who have strong positions in favour of legalization. Edit: Also, it's worth remembering that there are many in the disability community, who are not necessarily right-wing, who oppose AS, on the grounds that it sets a double standard for the value of a disabled person's life. (Hyatt's argument in the link is one that I find convincing, too.)

Absolutely. When have I done otherwise?

i.e. by the party's two political rivals; you see why I'm not ready to consider it settled yet? Where have I expressed 'outrage' about Duffy? Anyway, yes, improper use of public funds is definitely wrong. I'm just not sure that the dollar amount is the only thing to consider if we are somehow ranking the gravity of different offences: intent is one factor; the purposes to which the money was put could be another, etc. (Courts usually do consider factors like this in legal cases.) Someone improperly using taxpayer money to fund his own personal living expenses in one province because he has been appointed as a Senator in another province where he is not even a resident may well be worse than a party pooling its allotted office budgets to set up satellite offices where staff do the Parliamentary work they would do anyway, just in another city, even if a rule was violated in the process. Or it might not be. I'd want to know more of the details.

No, not yet. The NDP's defences sound potentially credible so I do not consider the matter settled yet. Even if it were, the dollar amount is not the only factor I'd consider when judging whether one improper expense is 'as bad' as another.

You have to acknowledge that there's a difference between a detailed report openly published by the Auditor General after a two-year review and a decision made by a secretive internal board staffed by other MPs, which the NDP is still contesting. Actual legal proceedings would be quite different from this.

Ha, you give the LPC more credit for having a clear set of ideological principles than I do.

Definitely. Either way, my point was that it does not seem to be the case that "few can learn English well".