Jump to content

Is Trudeau saying most Canadians are racists?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Slick said:

We have people complaining about aspects of this government that are far superior to the previous. Hence, reference to that government are required.

Scheer will now use immigration as a wedge issue like Harper tried to do with the niqab ban. I find the leveraging racial fears for political gain to be distasteful. 

If you're saying that the secrecy of this government is far superior then you're correct. We haven't had a government as secretive and closed down as this one before. That fact has been made public based on metrics that monitor access to information, not to mention some "secret" activities that became public. As an acolyte I'm sure you'll just ignore that though.

Your next point is hilarious in that it's Trudeau who is creating the wedge issue. It actually appears that this will be the go to tactic the Liberals will employ during the next election. The fact is that no other PM or government has ever caused the division that this train wreck is causing now.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Slick said:

1.) I agree she can freely express herself. However, I am also saying that she would have been hastily removed from a Harper rally, not indulged. It is also true that JT takes infinitely more unscripted questions from the press and public than our former PM, meaning the voices of far more Canadians are expressed now.  The woman is part of a group with a race based anti-immigration agenda and she yelled that the PM is intolerant of white Quebecors. Rallying the troops around a message that racism will not be tolerated by Liberals was an appropriate response. 

2.) It was a rally not a town hall or Q&A. His tone suggested he is trying to rally his supporters it does not even come close to a derogatory tirade or your "my way or the highway" suggestion. The question of cost and what portion each level of government will be responsible for will have to be addressed, especially leading up to the next election, but not at a rally.

3.) The world is housing massive number of refugees fleeing certain death. Don't you think Canada has a responsibility to carry a tiny fraction of that load? 

1.) You say she can freely express herself and yet you denigrate her. That's not particularly consistent on your part. Further, the issue here is not what Harper would or wouldn't have done. Harper tended to avoid substantive contact with the media and public whereas as part of his brand Trudeau is more willing in general to put himself in situations where he might be exposed to open questioning and/or criticism. As such, though, he also has to accommodate and accept the downside, which is that he might have to respond to questions he finds inconvenient or even distasteful. If he can't do so in a respectful fashion, he should drop the "open" schtick for which he seeks credit. I suspect he reacted in the fashion he did because he's aware that public opinion is not on his side where the refugee debate is concerned. In politics, petulance isn't generally perceived as being virtuous.

2.) If you watch the entire news clip, it's clear that Trudeau's response was quite derogatory, angry and he became more intolerant and vitriolic as the woman persisted in her questioning. The tone of the exchange and the nature of the PM's response were notable enough to render the incident a lead story on some news broadcasts. So, not just another rally.

3.) I've already answered this. There are more effective and efficient ways to address these problems than to in a tokenistic fashion bring several thousand people to a cold, economically declining and completely foreign country.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was very derogatory only giving liberal talking points as answers. I sure agree with Michelle  Rempel's call for civility, which, sorry to say, doesn't fit withTrudeau's plan. As she said,   "I don't expect to be labelled with some sort of disparaging remark when I stand up in the House of Commons and ask ... how much something is going to cost."

Calling someone a racist or bigot is nothing but an attempt to end the debate.    It is necessary to have a debate on a Immigration whichis a matter of public policy  so a cost/benefit analysis is more than appropriate and should not be deemed racist.

Edited by scribblet
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scribblet said:

He was very derogatory only giving liberal talking points as answers"

A Journal de Montreal opinion piece describes Trudeau as becoming "fou", meaning crazy as he responded loudly to the woman. It was a spectacle, not something you would expect from a Canadian Prime Minister.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are right, he did sound crazy, maybe he needs more time off. 

Certainly it is Trudeau who needs a wedge issue in order to frame the election campaign in his preferred terms eg  "enlightened" vs the "bigots". It is divisive and offensive but serves his purpose, one which much of the media caters to. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cite, please !  I love the quote but I can't really believe it until I see a link.  I'll wait.

I remember the first words out of old man Trudeau's liberal/communist mouth when he won the election in 1980. He said to all his supporters "welcome to the new Canada". Well now, I wonder what he meant by that? Do you know? I am pretty sure that I know and we are starting to see the fruits of those words coming to fruition in Canada today.

You don't need a link? What you need to do is just open up your eyes and brains to see the link. Try it out sometime. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capricorn said:

A Journal de Montreal opinion piece describes Trudeau as becoming "fou", meaning crazy as he responded loudly to the woman. It was a spectacle, not something you would expect from a Canadian Prime Minister.

Nor would one expect to hear from a real and true leader like the words "people kind"  which he pretty much told a woman in an audience that he would prefer to hear her say rather than the word mankind. That word must of hurt this feminist prime mistake of yours sensitive feelings. I wonder what the fool would have said to her if the woman had said woman kind? Clap-clap? What was even worse was that the rest of the audience pretty much applauded for the kid correcting that woman. This country is well on it's way to becoming a liberal paradise for liberal minded fools. Every conservative needs to be sacred and start working on getting rid of this Khanuckistan prime mistake of ours. This fool is a total embarrassment to normal and decent conservative Canadians. Shocking indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, taxme said:

1. I remember the first words out of old man Trudeau's liberal/communist mouth when he won the election in 1980. He said to all his supporters "welcome to the new Canada"

2. You don't need a link? What you need to do is just open up your eyes and brains to see the link. Try it out sometime. :D 

1. Do you make a living being wrong ?  Because you are very good at it:

2.  No link needed.  I was there and I knew you were wrong, so I gave you the link.  You're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, turningrite said:

The current large-scale immigration model began in earnest under Mulroney and has more or less continued apace since then. Harper tweaked it, mainly to prefer skilled and employable immigrants and to rein in problematic aspects of the refugee program, but still kept intake levels relatively high. The reasons for high intake levels are often misrepresented. It's been demonstrated via objective analysis, including by Australia's Productivity Commission, which examined that country's similarly large-scale immigration program in depth, that the "demographic" argument used to justify high intake levels is mainly hokum. I believe it more likely that the principal intent of Canada's programs has been wage suppression combined with rentier profiteering,

I think it's much simpler than that. If you increase immigration levels then you get to stand in front of ethnic crowds and grandly tell them that you love immigrants so much you increased immigration levels! Plus this makes it easier for them to bring over family members. But if you DECREASE immigration levels you will be attacked for hating immigrants and wanting fewer of them in Canada. The media and lefty politicians will call you a racist and a xenophobe, and the immigration industry will denounce you and make the same claims everyone has been making for years about how we need immigration because of labour shortages or low birth rate or aging population or somesuch (no evidence will be provided or asked for by the media to support these claims) and it's generally not going to be a big vote winner because of all the hysteria that will surround it.

Plus, as Barbara McDougal, the immigration minister under Mulroney who pushed through the idea of tripling immigration levels said "They'll vote for us".
New citizens tend to vote for the party that was in power when they came in, esp if they come from cultures without a democratic tradition.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Slick said:

Some of these posts seem completely ludicrous. The press and public have infinitely more access to the PM than under Harper

As long as they don't expect answers to their questions.

https://torontosun.com/2017/09/27/transparent-trudeau-liberal-government-worse-than-harper-according-to-access-to-information-audit/wcm/ab36af22-9d4e-4aab-bcc9-d3be66bd7bf2

5 hours ago, Slick said:

In this incident the heckler not only asks a question about the cost of housing refugees, she also states that Trudeau is intolerant of white Quebecors.

Not quite. She only brings up the 'white Quebecers' which is mistranslated, btw, after he starts calling her intolerant and saying she and her views have no place in Canada.

The term she used is apparently one commonly used by separatists . It is basically the 'puere lain Quebecer' thing.

5 hours ago, Slick said:

The world has seen the highest surge in refugee claims since 1961 and Canada, a big, wealthy nation with low population density, is housing a tiny fraction of them.

Canada is not a big country. About 90% of Canadians live in a strip of land within 100 miles of the US border. And 99% of immigrants wind up in this same strip.

5 hours ago, Slick said:

Does anyone really believe that Canada should not help out at all? 85% of the world refugees from the last couple of years are being housed in poor, developing nations.

It costs 10-20 times more to shelter a refugee in Canada than it does in one of those poor nations. The cost of bringing over all those refugees from Turkish refugee camps would have paid to take care of a lot more people over there if we'd used it in that way. Then those people would be there and ready to go home when the war ends next year.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Slick said:

Our previous federal government was the closest Canada has been to Totalitarianism

Utter drivel. You clearly know nothing about Canada's history.

5 hours ago, Slick said:

Harper consolidated unprecedented power and control within the PMO. He gagged experts, scientists and his own MPs.

Something begun long before Harper and which continues today under Trudeau. This was going to be the open government which returned power to MPs. Well, MPs have no power, in the House or in committees, and the government is less open than Harper's according to its own information commissioner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys should read the you tube comments of the coverage on cbc. I didn't think it was candaianly possible for you guys to get so worked up about something other than a hockey game...

" She has no place in Canada??? So we’re not allowed to be worried where our taxes are going?"

Jihadi Justin at it again....

Justin Trudeau has no place in Canada-He is a Traitor.

Hey liberals there’s your prime minister, he’s a bully to Canadians, he caused this illegal immigrant mess and wants the provinces to foot the bill.... let’s vote him out 2019"

Edited by paxamericana
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paxamericana said:

 

 

3 hours ago, paxamericana said:

You guys should read the you tube comments of the coverage on cbc. I didn't think it was candaianly possible for you guys to get so worked up about something other than a hockey game...

" She has no place in Canada??? So we’re not allowed to be worried where our taxes are going?"

Jihadi Justin at it again....

Justin Trudeau has no place in Canada-He is a Traitor.

Hey liberals there’s your prime minister, he’s a bully to Canadians, he caused this illegal immigrant mess and wants the provinces to foot the bill.... let’s vote him out 2019"

In fairness I don't think it's him alone who caused it. Outside influences are at play as well, including Soros with his Open Societies foundation who have partnered with the Trudeau Liberals on immigration policy. Of course it's supposed to be about sponsored immigrants but I find it interesting that Trudeau made his infamous tweet shortly after this partnership was formed. In my opinion Soros should be allowed zero influence on Canadian immigration matters.

Edited by AngusThermopyle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

  ...including Soros with his Open Societies foundation who have partnered with the Trudeau Liberals on immigration policy. 

 In my opinion Soros should be allowed zero influence on Canadian immigration matters.

Oh, right... Soros the Bond Supervillain of the right... behind the scenes of every conspiracy.   The emergence of his name usually signals me not taking posts seriously.  You have the Koch brothers who marshalled $900M in 2016. to eliminate ACA and give themselves more tax breaks.  The weird thing to me is how much the new populists are starting to sound like hard leftists, except that they still thing tax cuts and service cuts are going to help them somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, scribblet said:

They are right, he did sound crazy, maybe he needs more time off. 

Certainly it is Trudeau who needs a wedge issue in order to frame the election campaign in his preferred terms eg  "enlightened" vs the "bigots". It is divisive and offensive but serves his purpose, one which much of the media caters to. 

 

I was surprised to learn the woman involved is 74 years old. Apparently she is considering legal action against Trudeau and the RCMP officers over the altercation. In an interview yesterday she said she still has bruises on her arm which is still painful. She says the injury was caused when she was manhandled by the 2 RCMP officers. She said she is seeing her physician today regarding the injury. This not yet available in the English media.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201808/22/01-5193825-altercation-avec-trudeau-jai-encore-des-bleus-dit-diane-blain.php

Trudeau may have picked on the wrong target for his over the top reaction to a perfectly valid question from a citizen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

In fairness I don't think it's him alone who caused it. Outside influences are at play as well, including Soros with his Open Societies foundation who have partnered with the Trudeau Liberals on immigration policy. Of course it's supposed to be about sponsored immigrants but I find it interesting that Trudeau made his infamous tweet shortly after this partnership was formed. In my opinion Soros should be allowed zero influence on Canadian immigration matters.

Hungary and Poland have rejected Soros funding etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, capricorn said:

I was surprised to learn the woman involved is 74 years old. Apparently she is considering legal action against Trudeau and the RCMP officers over the altercation. In an interview yesterday she said she still has bruises on her arm which is still painful. She says the injury was caused when she was manhandled by the 2 RCMP officers. She said she is seeing her physician today regarding the injury. This not yet available in the English media.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201808/22/01-5193825-altercation-avec-trudeau-jai-encore-des-bleus-dit-diane-blain.php

Trudeau may have picked on the wrong target for his over the top reaction to a perfectly valid question from a citizen.

I hope she does go after them as there was no reason for manhandling her like that.   She also denies that she is a member of some 'far right' group, I also think there's a lot more in the French media we don't see.     What about the $164 million that's been spent on illegal immigrants so far? - is not a racist question and how Trudeau plans to finance this ongoing situation is something provinces would like to know too.

Saw this on twitter:

Woman Trudeau insulted/harassed is a 74 year old retired nurse Says she went to the event after seeing an ad in the paper & that she has never been a spokesperson for the group Storm Alliance as alleged. English translation of the event is not accurate IMO but Would MSM spin?

Edited by scribblet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, scribblet said:

I hope she does go after them as there was no reason for manhandling her like that.   She also denies that she is a member of some 'far right' group, I also think there's a lot more in the French media we don't see.     What about the $164 million that's been spent on illegal immigrants so far? - is not a racist question and how Trudeau plans to finance this ongoing situation is something provinces would like to know too.

Saw this on twitter:

Woman Trudeau insulted/harassed is a 74 year old retired nurse Says she went to the event after seeing an ad in the paper & that she has never been a spokesperson for the group Storm Alliance as alleged. English translation of the event is not accurate IMO but Would MSM spin?

I absolutely hope she pursues action and challenges those who have slagged and degraded her. I watched an English-language news broadcast earlier this week where the anchor emphatically proclaimed that the woman "IS a racist" (anchor's emphasis on "IS") due to her alleged membership in a far right, anti-illegal/irregular migrant group. Even if the woman does belong to such a group, which reportedly she denies is the case, how could this undermine her right to speak out on an issue of public policy in a country where the Charter purportedly protects the freedoms of expression and association. And why would association with such a group necessarily deem one a racist anyway? I guess that for our shrill progressives the Charter is only applicable where their own pet causes are concerned.

She should definitely seek redress.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that if people speak out in public, even to the PM, they are not guaranteed to be free of consequences, including being thought racist.

Having said that, Trudeau certainly could, and should, have responded with more patience.

Don't know about her removal by police.  If she was really disruptive I would ecpect that would happen.  But I haven't watched any video of that event, so can't give an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

Seems to me that if people speak out in public, even to the PM, they are not guaranteed to be free of consequences, including being thought racist.

Having said that, Trudeau certainly could, and should, have responded with more patience.

Don't know about her removal by police.  If she was really disruptive I would ecpect that would happen.  But I haven't watched any video of that event, so can't give an opinion.

If the information communicated about her, including about her membership in an supposedly far-right group, isn't accurate, I believe she has a valid case to file a defamation claim, at the very least. And if Trudeau called her an intolerant racist on this basis, as is now the justification stated by some to defend him, he too should be held to account. We, members of the public, are permitted to slag politicians and in so doing be protected from legal sanction, but I don't believe our legal system so insulates politicians who defame members of the public.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2018 at 6:53 PM, AngusThermopyle said:

So has everyone forgotten what his father said when asked if he thought Canada would be better as a one party state? If you have I'll remind you. He replied that he thought it would, but that the time wasn't right, perhaps some time in the future. Obviously Justin was greatly influenced by his father, that's plain for all to see, and makes perfect sense. That being the case I really don't find it too far fetched that he would aspire to make that hypothetical situation a reality. In fact I've believed that might be his ultimate end game since he was first elected. He hasn't been shy about professing his admiration for other single party dictatorship type states, it's not too much of a stretch to surmise that he may want just such a system for Canada.

My question, for all the supporters of Trudeau who post here is this. If indeed Trudeau wanted to abolish democracy in Canada and move us to a single party state, would you still support him and his agenda?

Of course they would, wait til next election and see the voting results. Canadians are not very bright, they want to be abused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

If the information communicated about her, including about her membership in an supposedly far-right group, isn't accurate, I believe she has a valid case to file a defamation claim, at the very least. And if Trudeau called her an intolerant racist on this basis, as is now the justification stated by some to defend him, he too should be held to account. We, members of the public, are permitted to slag politicians and in so doing be protected from legal sanction, but I don't believe our legal system so insulates politicians who defame members of the public.

We are not allowed to slag politicians we just think we are. They are above the law and get away with everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

If the information communicated about her, including about her membership in an supposedly far-right group, isn't accurate, I believe she has a valid case to file a defamation claim, at the very least. And if Trudeau called her an intolerant racist on this basis, as is now the justification stated by some to defend him, he too should be held to account. We, members of the public, are permitted to slag politicians and in so doing be protected from legal sanction, but I don't believe our legal system so insulates politicians who defame members of the public.

Even if it is accurate and I'm not sure it is as she denys it, she is still entitled to voice an opinion without being apprehended.  She didn't threaten anyone or incite violence, but the narrative that she was racist has now taken root.   And so it shall be everytime anyone questions Dear Leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hates politicians said:

We are not allowed to slag politicians we just think we are. They are above the law and get away with everything.

That's actually not correct. Although Canadian free speech protections are considered among the weakest in the democratic West (despite the Charter, all you Charter absolutists), the right to criticize politicians has become more firmly established in jurisprudence in recent decades, grounded in the principles of fair comment and the right to comment on matters of public interest. As Quebec isn't a common law jurisdiction, these principles may apply somewhat differently there, but I suspect that where they've been delineated by the Supreme Court they apply in Quebec as well.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...