Quebec Liberal candidate accused of being a white supremecist

[TheRightWing]

I really have no idea. Maybe it was laughed out of existence. Some people used to get pretty angry at old Mordecai Richler (a Montrealer) for endlessly mocking it in the national media.

Well it was kind of deserved.

I'm pretty sure if I end up moving back to Halifornia, I may just make sure that below every English sign for a business is the word "Tabernac" in the smallest writing possible when I become mayor of course

[Shwa]

I'm only expressing, in the most polite terms possible, the utter confusion of your arguments.

Oh is that what you call it?? I was wondering. That changes things a bit.

So should the old sayings now be: 'do bears confusion in the woods?' or 'this car runs like confusion' or 'confusion or get off the pot' ?

[kimmy]

Where are all these "Black Supremacist" groups in Canada? How many members do they have?

I couldn't even guess. It can't be many. Btw, how many "White Supremacist" groups are there in Canada, and how many members do they have?

We're talking about a highly fringey assortment of people either way. While I'm sure the news and popular entertainment would have you believe white supremacists are lurking around every corner, that's not the case. Refer to Da Shwa's earlier thread, where some dude having a "British Heritage" party on his property turned into big news for no explicable reason. Or the event in Calgary where a handful of skinhead mooks became national news for no explicable reason. Clearly the media is highly vigilant for White Supremacist-related news items and will report them even when there's very little actual news to report; I'm skeptical that the reverse is true.

And you proposed the theory that the concept of "supremacy" is limited to whites, based on your class-struggle ideas. I offer "melanin theory" as a counterexample: an idea based on pseudoscience that black people are just straight up superior to everybody else based on the miraculous properties of melanin. You're probably also aware of religious theories of black supremacy, based on interpretations of the Old Testament that hold that black people are actually God's chosen people. Or that cult that believe that white people have no souls. There's also theories that people with pale coloration are the result of inbreeding or genetic defects like albinism; charter-rights has come at me personally with that one more than a couple of times. So, long story short, I think your theory falls flat.

-k

[cybercoma]

Of course there are supremacy groups for all races. The difference being that our institutions grant nearly unfettered access to whites (given the appropriate income level), while limiting the opportunities for other "races". "Black" supremacy is ineffectual for this reason and stupid, but not nearly as worrisome.

[Bonam]

Of course there are supremacy groups for all races. The difference being that our institutions grant nearly unfettered access to whites (given the appropriate income level), while limiting the opportunities for other "races".

Proof? I haven't seen any studies that proved this claim in Canada that properly controlled for important variables besides race.

[bloodyminded]

While I'm sure the news and popular entertainment would have you believe white supremacists are lurking around every corner, that's not the case. -k

more "lefty media using scare tactics" stuff?

I wouldn't have expected that from you ()sincerely!)

The news and popuar entertainment make no such claims, nor insinuations. The issue is (as I've said earlier, twice now, and in fact we agree at least on this point) fairly trivial.

I'm saying there are more actual White supremacist groups in Canada--including relatively, by percentage of population--then there are any other types of supremacist groups. (No one hear can name one--one!--supremacy group that isn't white. Forgive me if I don't consider "political correctness" or (more amusing) the "leftist media" [sic] to be the reason for this.)

However, I will concede that my "theory falls flat," as you say; even calling it a "theory" is probably generous on your part.

And you proposed the theory that the concept of "supremacy" is limited to whites, based on your class-struggle ideas.

I plead provisionally guilty to the latter point (in that I do seem to have a class-issues bee in my bonnet), but not to the first. That wasn't my claim.

In fact, I said the concept of supremacy isn't limited to whites (whose supremacy, by the way, is also usually a matter of real or perceived class disenfranchisement--stop rolling your eyes, Kimmy!); rather, I said there were fringe groups called "white Supremacists"; but that other types of supremacists tend usually to be a fringe element of pre-existing ()non-supremacist) groups.

On reflection, I don't know that it's a perfectly accurate assertion; but I think it generally probably holds.

[An unrelated warning; if you wish to respond, you might find it frustrating or difficult; Corey and Trevor have recently been attempting to derail many threads that I post in, for reasons known only to themselves. I suppose I am an anointed enemy of some kind.]

Edited April 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[kimmy]

more "lefty media using scare tactics" stuff?

I wouldn't have expected that from you ()sincerely!)

Nothing "lefty" about it. For-profit media in search of a sensationalist story to sell papers, get viewers, or generate page-impressions.

There's a number of threads where myself, Da Shwa, and Michael Hardner have discussed the subject, but basically my position is that a racial aspect to a news story is a factor that generates extra media interest... as long as it's white people who are in the wrong. In reversed situations, the racial aspect tends to be overlooked or not mentioned at all.

I think the media love any story where they get to talk about white supremacists (or especially use the word Nazi!) but handle "reverse racism" situations with extreme caution because they're worried about being "inflammatory" or "hot-button issues", etc.

I'll send you some links to prior threads on the subject when I have more time.

I plead provisionally guilty to the latter point (in that I do seem to have a class-issues bee in my bonnet), but not to the first. That wasn't my claim.

In fact, I said the concept of supremacy isn't limited to whites (whose supremacy, by the way, is also usually a matter of real or perceived class disenfranchisement--stop rolling your eyes, Kimmy!); rather, I said there were fringe groups called "white Supremacists"; but that other types of supremacists tend usually to be a fringe element of pre-existing ()non-supremacist) groups.

On reflection, I don't know that it's a perfectly accurate assertion; but I think it generally probably holds.

I'm skeptical that you can draw any linear relationship between the fringey black supremacist groups and pre-existing non-supremacist groups. I don't see a connection between black liberation movements and the ideas of these fringe groups.

And I think that the majority of "white supremacists" would actually also be more accurately described as being more interested as segregationists than supremacists, as well, so I'm not sure that using a literal definition of supremacist is a distinction here either.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Nothing "lefty" about it. For-profit media in search of a sensationalist story to sell papers, get viewers, or generate page-impressions.

There's a number of threads where myself, Da Shwa, and Michael Hardner have discussed the subject, but basically my position is that a racial aspect to a news story is a factor that generates extra media interest... as long as it's white people who are in the wrong. In reversed situations, the racial aspect tends to be overlooked or not mentioned at all.

I think the media love any story where they get to talk about white supremacists (or especially use the word Nazi!) but handle "reverse racism" situations with extreme caution because they're worried about being "inflammatory" or "hot-button issues", etc.

That could well be true.

I'm skeptical that you can draw any linear relationship between the fringey black supremacist groups and pre-existing non-supremacist groups.

I believe there was a fringe of the Black Power movement that seemed to edge into racism, which was not the intent of the group itself.

But whether or not they constituted an actual "group" in a meaningful sense is questionable, sure.

I don't see a connection between black liberation movements and the ideas of these fringe groups.

Probably there isn't.

And I think that the majority of "white supremacists" would actually also be more accurately described as being more interested as segregationists than supremacists, as well, so I'm not sure that using a literal definition of supremacist is a distinction here either.

Fair enough.

Edited April 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[punked]

It now appears when Iggy said he "Fired" the white supremacist as a candidate he really meant he "hired" him. It appears this man will be the on the Ballot as a Liberal and Iggy didn't know what he was talking about when he said he "Fired" him. Now we know why Iggy didn't fire the judge who lets rapists off easy. I really don't want these guys running my country honestly if they can't get their ducks in a row what am I to expect if they are in charge?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-hopeful-booted-for-featherheads-quip-fails-to-withdraw-candidacy/article1980584/

[kimmy]

Now we know why Iggy didn't fire the judge who lets rapists off easy.

That's a total misrepresentation of John Reilly's comments. He never said any such thing. He said there's different levels of sexual assault, requiring different levels of punishment, and that judges need to have discretion to do that.

He's absolutely correct.

That he's being made to apologize for stating the obvious is a joke. The way his comments are being distorted is a disgraceful statement about the state of politics in this country.

-k

[punked]

That's a total misrepresentation of John Reilly's comments. He never said any such thing. He said there's different levels of sexual assault, requiring different levels of punishment, and that judges need to have discretion to do that.

He's absolutely correct.

That he's being made to apologize for stating the obvious is a joke. The way his comments are being distorted is a disgraceful statement about the state of politics in this country.

-k

He gave a man who molested a 14 year old mentally challenged girl 90 days in jail at which point a higher court had to step in and change the sentence saying it was to light. That is what I was talking about Kimmy. You plan on defending that one?

[Shwa]

It now appears when Iggy said he "Fired" the white supremacist as a candidate he really meant he "hired" him. It appears this man will be the on the Ballot as a Liberal and Iggy didn't know what he was talking about when he said he "Fired" him. Now we know why Iggy didn't fire the judge who lets rapists off easy. I really don't want these guys running my country honestly if they can't get their ducks in a row what am I to expect if they are in charge?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-hopeful-booted-for-featherheads-quip-fails-to-withdraw-candidacy/article1980584/

No, he is effectively fired from the Liberal Party, but will remain on the ballot as a 'Liberal' due to electoral law.

A spokesman for Elections Canada said the Liberals cannot run another candidate in the riding because Mr. Forbes's name was still on the list after Monday's nomination deadline.

Now why his name was still "on the list" is baffling. Why wasn't his name taken off the list since this story is about a week old now...

[Tilter]

No, he is effectively fired from the Liberal Party, but will remain on the ballot as a 'Liberal' due to electoral law.

Now why his name was still "on the list" is baffling. Why wasn't his name taken off the list since this story is about a week old now...

I guess because it's his name & he wanted to be associated with the Liberals. Wow--- that's one sick guy.

[Shwa]

I guess because it's his name & he wanted to be associated with the Liberals. Wow--- that's one sick guy.

No. In the Globe story:

A spokesman for Elections Canada said the Liberals cannot run another candidate in the riding because Mr. Forbes's name was still on the list after Monday's nomination deadline.

I am presuming that the Monday they are talking about is yesterday, April 11th. This story is a week old now. If the LPC wanted him off their rolls, they had about a week to make it happen and it doesn't appear they did so.

Why the delay? Did the LPC run out of coal for their steam powered Internet calculatory device?

I mean, they seem to get their own internal party news by Pony Express...

[Bryan]

I am presuming that the Monday they are talking about is yesterday, April 11th. This story is a week old now. If the LPC wanted him off their rolls, they had about a week to make it happen and it doesn't appear they did so.

Something is funny about that. Is it that the LPC didn't deem it important enough to follow through with the announced firing, or is having someone step down strictly an honour system type of thing? Either way, that's strange.

[kimmy]

He gave a man who molested a 14 year old mentally challenged girl 90 days in jail at which point a higher court had to step in and change the sentence saying it was to light. That is what I was talking about Kimmy. You plan on defending that one?

I notice we went from "rapist" to "molested" in the span of a few minutes. "Molest" covers a lot of ground too. It could be a horrifying incident or it could be an ass-grab in the check-out at Safeway. I gather that this particular incident took place on a bus, so I suspect it was probably closer to "ass grab" than "horrifying incident".

Sexual assault is such a broadly applied term, and incidents vary so much from one to another that I think it's impossible to assess whether 90 days is a fair sentence without any specifics about the case.

I will say that I've been grabbed inappropriately, and while I've been mad enough about it to throw punches, I've never thought it was severe enough that somebody should spend months in jail over it.

-k

[punked]

I notice we went from "rapist" to "molested" in the span of a few minutes. "Molest" covers a lot of ground too. It could be a horrifying incident or it could be an ass-grab in the check-out at Safeway. I gather that this particular incident took place on a bus, so I suspect it was probably closer to "ass grab" than "horrifying incident".

Sexual assault is such a broadly applied term, and incidents vary so much from one to another that I think it's impossible to assess whether 90 days is a fair sentence without any specifics about the case.

I will say that I've been grabbed inappropriately, and while I've been mad enough about it to throw punches, I've never thought it was severe enough that somebody should spend months in jail over it.

-k

You think a court stepped in to up a sentence by 4 times and reprimand the judge for an ass grab? Seriously you think a higher court took on this case to over rule this judge over and ass grab?

[kimmy]

You think a court stepped in to up a sentence by 4 times and reprimand the judge for an ass grab? Seriously you think a higher court took on this case to over rule this judge over and ass grab?

Quite possibly. Who knows what might happen if a case attracts enough negative attention? It's Wild Rose Country. The perp is probably lucky he didn't get lynched.

Without specifics, how can we know?

-k

[punked]

Quite possibly. Who knows what might happen if a case attracts enough negative attention? It's Wild Rose Country. The perp is probably lucky he didn't get lynched.

Without specifics, how can we know?

-k

Yah ok you keep thinking that a Higher court stepped in to reprimand a judge for being soft on crime because someone grabbed someones butt.

[kimmy]

Yah ok you keep thinking that a Higher court stepped in to reprimand a judge for being soft on crime because someone grabbed someones butt.

Hey, who knows, maybe it was a boobs-grab instead. It apparently happened on a bus... how serious could it have really been?

-k

[cybercoma]

Hey, who knows, maybe it was a boobs-grab instead. It apparently happened on a bus... how serious could it have really been?

-k

Tough to say without any of the evidence. One thing's for sure, I won't travel on a Greyhound through Winnipeg anymore.

[punked]

Hey, who knows, maybe it was a boobs-grab instead. It apparently happened on a bus... how serious could it have really been?

-k

Wow play down the sexual assault much?

[kimmy]

Wow play down the sexual assault much?

As I said before, I've been grabbed inappropriately and been mad as hell about it, but never thought the other party should spend months in jail for doing it.

Now, I don't know that the incident we're discussing was "just" a grab, but at the same time you certainly don't know that it wasn't.

-k

[punked]

As I said before, I've been grabbed inappropriately and been mad as hell about it, but never thought the other party should spend months in jail for doing it.

Now, I don't know that the incident we're discussing was "just" a grab, but at the same time you certainly don't know that it wasn't.

-k

Yah I know a higher court in Canada would not get involved in an ass grab. Sorry it just would not happen.

[cybercoma]

It comes down to this. John Reilly is against mandatory minimums because it takes away judges' discretion in determining sentencing based on the particular circumstances of each court case. Was it wrong to say "there's sexual assault then there's sexual assault"? Yes. However, it's fair to say that not all sexual assaults should or will be sentenced equally. Legislators cannot possibly create a law that covers every last circumstance of a case. Judges are bound by things that are specifically outlined in the law; however, anything that can be read in more than one way needs to be interpreted by the judge.

Moreover, laws have a certain "spirit" to them that needs to be considered in rulings. You can create a law that says "no motorized vehicles allowed in the park". If someone with a motorized wheelchair enters the park or a mobility scooter, is that a motorized vehicle? Are you going to punish them the same way you would punish someone that drives a truck through the park recklessly? Laws require that a judge interpret them and hold the particular circumstances of the case against the written law, the spirit of the law and the judge's interpretation of the law. Should the judge make a ruling that seems inconsistent with these things, the system allows it to be challenged--as is the case with Reilly's 90 day sentence. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he was making a point about minimum sentencing. Something that every criminologist in the country stands against.