That's not sacrilege, To Anacreon In Heaven came first.
Yeah, I know, but I'm thinking how it would be interpreted by American fans. And it would force the news shows to report on the reason the hecklers chose those particular lyrics.
Lecturing at some high-class university in Central Europe will have just about as much prestige as being Liberal leader. And only slightly less prestige than being PM.
As an experiment in sacrilege, I'd like to see a stadium of Canadian fans loudly singing that with the lyrics from To Anacreon In Heaven.
"The Yellow-hair'd God and his nine fusty Maids
From Helicon's Banks will incontinent flee"
Can't find a version with the third verse on YouTube(and don't feel like reading the text on-line), but I'm guessing the aspiring artists in the man-cave would rather take inspiration from their bloke Anacreon than from a buncha geriatric old muses?
Ontario is imposing a 25% charge on electricity exports to the US.
While great politics, I feel this is on shaky constitutional ground. Provinces are expressly limited to Direct Taxes and tariffs or quasi-tarrifs are the very definition of indirect taxes. This is why provinces have been kept away from tarrif policy. Somebody is going sue and probably win.
Provinces wildcatting tariffs and foreign policy seems an ill-advised idea. I'm all for political stunts but in this case only when coordinated by the Feds and Team Canada.
My guess would be Smith's softball position is in response to pro-exporting opinion among Albertans, not part of some 4D chess strategy played in conjunction with the other provinces and the feds. Just a guess, since I've only been following the broad contours of all this.
Anyway, Ford had just suspended the 25% surcharge on Ontario energy, in exchange for getting a meeting with Luttnick in two days.
Hard ball is the only game bullies like Trump understand. I think Smith does reflect her province but somebody has to be good cop and somebody needs to be bad cop. I doubt the feds have any desire to rein Ford in.
The sense I’m getting is that they’re mostly pursuing their own agendas and priorities, but hopefully with some coordination behind the scenes so they’re not working at cross-purposes.
... I doubt the feds have any desire to rein Ford in.
The Feds couldn't if they tried.
Trudeau/Carney are useless. They are as determined to destroy Canada as Trump is.
Uh, no. Nobody who is at least commited to the continued existence of Canada is as determined as Trump is to destroy Canada, because Trump wants Canada to literally stop existing.
Now, whether the Liberal or our other parties are respectively persuing the right policies to keep Canada together, is another question.
The sense I’m getting is that they’re mostly pursuing their own agendas and priorities, but hopefully with some coordination behind the scenes so they’re not working at cross-purposes.
That was (hopefully obviously) a cross-post with Sharkshooter. I was referring to the premiers.
You seem to be an outlier on political ideology and analysis on this thread, Sharkshooter. Reminds me of one of our British shipmates.
Sharkshooter represents a slice of Ontario thought and is always interesting even if I rarely agree, somewhat like my chats with my Ottawa valley relations.
You seem to be an outlier on political ideology and analysis on this thread, Sharkshooter. Reminds me of one of our British shipmates.
Sharkshooter represents a slice of Ontario thought and is always interesting even if I rarely agree, somewhat like my chats with my Ottawa valley relations.
Actually, I find @sharkshooter's posting among the LEAST regionalist on this thread. He pretty much just expresses his opinion, unfiltered through any sense of origin or residency. You CAN, of course, find people of his worldview in Ontario, but you can find them in New Brunswick or Alberta as well.
(And this is not at all a criticism, since there is no obligation of a debator to provide the audience with local colour, and conservatism is certainly not the only ideology with a generic form spanning the country.)
So, Carney is to be sworn in as PM today. Let's see, when Parliament is recalled, whether the Singh-led NDP will keep their word and force an election at the earliest opportunity.
And, yes, I know I stand pretty much alone on this thread.
So, Carney is to be sworn in as PM today. Let's see, when Parliament is recalled, whether the Singh-led NDP will keep their word and force an election at the earliest opportunity.
And, yes, I know I stand pretty much alone on this thread.
If you’re seriously comparing Trudeau and Carney to Trump, I think you’re going to be alone pretty much anywhere…
I don’t think the politics of our little group here is quite as monolithic as it might appear… I’ve always had mixed feelings about JT which were becoming increasingly unmixed by the time he actually left. Carney comes to the job with a lot of credibility from his previous jobs though it remains an open question how things will play out with further acquaintance.
She remains standing, albeit with a less visible portfolio. Her eventual trajectory has yet to be determined. I was a bit surprised (but not shocked) that Karina Gould was left out. Both got notably low votes in the leadership poll, but this was not your typical leadership race.
I can't complain, having won a bottle on Freeland remaining in cabinet. The general practice in Canada is to give one's leading opponent a serious portfolio-- the only major exception in recent times (when Paul Martin excluded Sheila Copps) did not seem to benefit him greatly. While not winning another bottle, I will be collecting an espresso on the identity of the Jewish appointee (Rachel Bendayan), representing the growing presence of francophone Sephardic Jews in Montréal over the aging Ashkenazic component.
Looks like Carney is trying to distance himself from Trudeau while keeping key members of the Trump Response Team in place.
I would guess Freeland is not entirely enthusiastic about her new job though some time away from the centre of the kitchen might not be worst thing for her long-term prospects.
I was hoping that Carney would make Musk Transport Minister and send him into space somewhere. Like Garneau but reversing the order of operations.
So, Carney is to be sworn in as PM today. Let's see, when Parliament is recalled, whether the Singh-led NDP will keep their word and force an election at the earliest opportunity.
And, yes, I know I stand pretty much alone on this thread.
If you’re seriously comparing Trudeau and Carney to Trump, I think you’re going to be alone pretty much anywhere…
...
So, Carney is to be sworn in as PM today. Let's see, when Parliament is recalled, whether the Singh-led NDP will keep their word and force an election at the earliest opportunity.
And, yes, I know I stand pretty much alone on this thread.
If you’re seriously comparing Trudeau and Carney to Trump, I think you’re going to be alone pretty much anywhere…
...
I didn't do that.
Good to hear that, because it certainly seemed that you were.
Trudeau has been systematically destroying what was historically Canadian, because he hates what we were.
Trump is trying to restore what was historically American, because he believes what they were great.
Diametrically opposed goals, whether we agree with their premises or their chosen methodologies.
I don’t think either Trump or Trudeau has a very sophisticated understanding of his country’s history.
I suspect there is at least a part of Trudeau that believes that enlightened government in Canada began in 1982 with his father’s Charter of Rights. Which overlooks the fact that the Charter would just be words on paper without the existence of more fundamental institutions that predate it. As for Trump, the version of American history that he is embracing is one that has been fundamentally distorted by some very unattractive politics.
I just finished the new Freeland biography. Found out that work colleague came second to Freeland in her first nomination race in 2013. I now have one of his buttons from that campaign. Small world.
I suspect there is at least a part of Trudeau that believes that enlightened government in Canada began in 1982 with his father’s Charter of Rights. Which overlooks the fact that the Charter would just be words on paper without the existence of more fundamental institutions that predate it.
Well, he represents the Papineau riding(*), and is famous for quoting Wilfred Laurier on "sunny ways"(**), so he probably has at least a sketchy idea of the grittish tradition, anywst.
And FWIW, his understanding of the post-1982 constitution seems rather sketchy, as he once said that the Charter forbids any law related to abortion, but that's not actually what the SCOTUS ruled.
(*) Named for law-abiding Joseph, but these days likely dog-whistling the traitor Louis-Joseph.
(**) Which, in context, is a pretty shameful phrase, as Laurier was using it to mean he wanted to appease anti-French bigots in the west, which he cheerfully proceeded to do.
I just finished the new Freeland biography. Found out that work colleague came second to Freeland in her first nomination race in 2013. I now have one of his buttons from that campaign. Small world.
I did some peripheral work on the parliamentary campaign of Halyna Freeland, Chrystia's mother, in the 1988 election. She ran for the NDP, and came in second, behind the Tory and ahead of the Reformer. The Liberals came in fourth.
I suspect there is at least a part of Trudeau that believes that enlightened government in Canada began in 1982 with his father’s Charter of Rights. Which overlooks the fact that the Charter would just be words on paper without the existence of more fundamental institutions that predate it.
Well, he represents the Papineau riding(*), and is famous for quoting Wilfred Laurier on "sunny ways"(**), so he probably has at least a sketchy idea of the grittish tradition, anywst.
And FWIW, his understanding of the post-1982 constitution seems rather sketchy, as he once said that the Charter forbids any law related to abortion, but that's not actually what the SCOTUS ruled.
I wasn’t aware that the SCOTUS had released any decisions interpreting the Charter.
Seriously, Trudeau’s statement is a bit approximate as a reading of Morgentaler but probably accurate as to what the SCC would say if the question were put to it today.
Seriously, Trudeau’s statement is a bit approximate as a reading of Morgentaler but probably accurate as to what the SCC would say if the question were put to it today.
Probably true, but I doubt that Trudeau was trying to convey an updated alt-historical version of Morgentaler. I think he honestly didn't know what the ruling was.
The SCOC of Canada ruled in 1987 that the abortion law was too restrictive and hence unconstitutional, but explicitly stated that the government could introduce a new one and have it tested by the courts. The Commons then passed a new law, but it was defeated by a combination of pro-choicers and anti-choicers in the Senate. No government since then has introduced another
law, thus giving Canada the total legalization that Trudeau incorrectly attributed to Morgentaler.
It’s not really alt-historical - Morgentaler was the Court’s last word on the whether legislation violated the Charter, but there have been other related cases since then and it’s pretty clear what the Court would decide now if it were confronted with the same issue again. So the bottom line is basically correct though obviously I have no idea how Trudeau got there.
Trudeau has been systematically destroying what was historically Canadian, because he hates what we were.
'Hate' is a strong word in any discussion. Can you tell us why you think it is the right description here? It doesn't seem right, or even close to it, from my perspective.
I spent a fair bit of the evening reading UK Parliament Handard on the debates on the passage of the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canada Act, 1982.
I spent a fair bit of the evening reading UK Parliament Handard on the debates on the passage of the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canada Act, 1982.
I'll see your hansard, and raise you my reading yesterday of...
William Dawson LeSeur's description, from his biography of Toronto's first mayor(*), of the 1791 parliamentary debate over Constitutonal Act, 31 George III, chapter 31, providing for the constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada. Edmund freaking Burke was involved in that debate.
(*) Published in 1977 after having been legally suppressed for 70 years, as certain interested parties found it insufficiently hagiographical.
Anything interesting to report from an evening of nerding out?
Strangely, I agreed with Enoch Powell. He suggested that Westminster confine itself to giving Canada the amendment power and leaving all other changes such as the Charter for us to do through the new, patriated amendment process,
Which actually makes sense.
Secondly, various First Nations tried to sue over losing treaty rights. Lord Denning and the English Court of Appeal dismis5sed the case saying Britain no longer had any responsibility for those treaties and Canada was the proper counterparty.
Anything interesting to report from an evening of nerding out?
Strangely, I agreed with Enoch Powell. He suggested that Westminster confine itself to giving Canada the amendment power and leaving all other changes such as the Charter for us to do through the new, patriated amendment process,
Which actually makes sense.
I remember my dad picking me up at the swimming pool, and the news on the radio discussing the debate in London over the repatriation.
I assume that, contra Powell's idea, the Charter was added to the Constitution before it was officially repatriated?
Comments
As an experiment in sacrilege, I'd like to see a stadium of Canadian fans loudly singing that with the lyrics from To Anacreon In Heaven.
Yeah, I know, but I'm thinking how it would be interpreted by American fans. And it would force the news shows to report on the reason the hecklers chose those particular lyrics.
"The Yellow-hair'd God and his nine fusty Maids
From Helicon's Banks will incontinent flee"
Lecturing at some high-class university in Central Europe will have just about as much prestige as being Liberal leader. And only slightly less prestige than being PM.
Can't find a version with the third verse on YouTube(and don't feel like reading the text on-line), but I'm guessing the aspiring artists in the man-cave would rather take inspiration from their bloke Anacreon than from a buncha geriatric old muses?
While great politics, I feel this is on shaky constitutional ground. Provinces are expressly limited to Direct Taxes and tariffs or quasi-tarrifs are the very definition of indirect taxes. This is why provinces have been kept away from tarrif policy. Somebody is going sue and probably win.
You mean keep Trump off-guard by having different tariffs and levies coming from different provinces at different times?
My guess would be Smith's softball position is in response to pro-exporting opinion among Albertans, not part of some 4D chess strategy played in conjunction with the other provinces and the feds. Just a guess, since I've only been following the broad contours of all this.
Anyway, Ford had just suspended the 25% surcharge on Ontario energy, in exchange for getting a meeting with Luttnick in two days.
Trudeau/Carney are useless. They are as determined to destroy Canada as Trump is.
Uh, no. Nobody who is at least commited to the continued existence of Canada is as determined as Trump is to destroy Canada, because Trump wants Canada to literally stop existing.
Now, whether the Liberal or our other parties are respectively persuing the right policies to keep Canada together, is another question.
A curious statement. How did you reach that conclusion?
That was (hopefully obviously) a cross-post with Sharkshooter. I was referring to the premiers.
Sharkshooter represents a slice of Ontario thought and is always interesting even if I rarely agree, somewhat like my chats with my Ottawa valley relations.
Actually, I find @sharkshooter's posting among the LEAST regionalist on this thread. He pretty much just expresses his opinion, unfiltered through any sense of origin or residency. You CAN, of course, find people of his worldview in Ontario, but you can find them in New Brunswick or Alberta as well.
(And this is not at all a criticism, since there is no obligation of a debator to provide the audience with local colour, and conservatism is certainly not the only ideology with a generic form spanning the country.)
And, yes, I know I stand pretty much alone on this thread.
That would be good.
If you’re seriously comparing Trudeau and Carney to Trump, I think you’re going to be alone pretty much anywhere…
I don’t think the politics of our little group here is quite as monolithic as it might appear… I’ve always had mixed feelings about JT which were becoming increasingly unmixed by the time he actually left. Carney comes to the job with a lot of credibility from his previous jobs though it remains an open question how things will play out with further acquaintance.
She remains standing, albeit with a less visible portfolio. Her eventual trajectory has yet to be determined. I was a bit surprised (but not shocked) that Karina Gould was left out. Both got notably low votes in the leadership poll, but this was not your typical leadership race.
I can't complain, having won a bottle on Freeland remaining in cabinet. The general practice in Canada is to give one's leading opponent a serious portfolio-- the only major exception in recent times (when Paul Martin excluded Sheila Copps) did not seem to benefit him greatly. While not winning another bottle, I will be collecting an espresso on the identity of the Jewish appointee (Rachel Bendayan), representing the growing presence of francophone Sephardic Jews in Montréal over the aging Ashkenazic component.
I would guess Freeland is not entirely enthusiastic about her new job though some time away from the centre of the kitchen might not be worst thing for her long-term prospects.
I was hoping that Carney would make Musk Transport Minister and send him into space somewhere. Like Garneau but reversing the order of operations.
I didn't do that.
Good to hear that, because it certainly seemed that you were.
Trump is trying to restore what was historically American, because he believes what they were great.
Diametrically opposed goals, whether we agree with their premises or their chosen methodologies.
I don’t think either Trump or Trudeau has a very sophisticated understanding of his country’s history.
I suspect there is at least a part of Trudeau that believes that enlightened government in Canada began in 1982 with his father’s Charter of Rights. Which overlooks the fact that the Charter would just be words on paper without the existence of more fundamental institutions that predate it. As for Trump, the version of American history that he is embracing is one that has been fundamentally distorted by some very unattractive politics.
Well, he represents the Papineau riding(*), and is famous for quoting Wilfred Laurier on "sunny ways"(**), so he probably has at least a sketchy idea of the grittish tradition, anywst.
And FWIW, his understanding of the post-1982 constitution seems rather sketchy, as he once said that the Charter forbids any law related to abortion, but that's not actually what the SCOTUS ruled.
(*) Named for law-abiding Joseph, but these days likely dog-whistling the traitor Louis-Joseph.
(**) Which, in context, is a pretty shameful phrase, as Laurier was using it to mean he wanted to appease anti-French bigots in the west, which he cheerfully proceeded to do.
I did some peripheral work on the parliamentary campaign of Halyna Freeland, Chrystia's mother, in the 1988 election. She ran for the NDP, and came in second, behind the Tory and ahead of the Reformer. The Liberals came in fourth.
I wasn’t aware that the SCOTUS had released any decisions interpreting the Charter.
Seriously, Trudeau’s statement is a bit approximate as a reading of Morgentaler but probably accurate as to what the SCC would say if the question were put to it today.
Probably true, but I doubt that Trudeau was trying to convey an updated alt-historical version of Morgentaler. I think he honestly didn't know what the ruling was.
law, thus giving Canada the total legalization that Trudeau incorrectly attributed to Morgentaler.
'Hate' is a strong word in any discussion. Can you tell us why you think it is the right description here? It doesn't seem right, or even close to it, from my perspective.
I am a nerd.
I spent a fair bit of the evening reading UK Parliament Handard on the debates on the passage of the British North America Act, 1867 and the Canada Act, 1982.
I'll see your hansard, and raise you my reading yesterday of...
William Dawson LeSeur's description, from his biography of Toronto's first mayor(*), of the 1791 parliamentary debate over Constitutonal Act, 31 George III, chapter 31, providing for the constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada. Edmund freaking Burke was involved in that debate.
(*) Published in 1977 after having been legally suppressed for 70 years, as certain interested parties found it insufficiently hagiographical.
Strangely, I agreed with Enoch Powell. He suggested that Westminster confine itself to giving Canada the amendment power and leaving all other changes such as the Charter for us to do through the new, patriated amendment process,
Which actually makes sense.
Secondly, various First Nations tried to sue over losing treaty rights. Lord Denning and the English Court of Appeal dismis5sed the case saying Britain no longer had any responsibility for those treaties and Canada was the proper counterparty.
I remember my dad picking me up at the swimming pool, and the news on the radio discussing the debate in London over the repatriation.
I assume that, contra Powell's idea, the Charter was added to the Constitution before it was officially repatriated?