Chris Selley: Liberals gave anti-Israel protesters everything, but they’re still paying for it

Sadly accurate:

…The response to Sunday’s gong show has mostly been the same dispiriting, meaningless platitudes we’ve been hearing since October 2023. Adjectives are deployed: “outrageous,” “intolerable,” “un-Canadian,” even “illegal.” But to no end.

“It’s good to protest,” Freeland burbled at her campaign launch, which is an odd thing to say when lunatics are protesting you for not doing something that you couldn’t and can’t. “But it is not OK to stop others from speaking,” Freeland continued.

She’ll get no argument from me on that point … except that it clearly is OK, to the extent that no one ever suffers any consequences for doing it. It’s also not OK to protest Jewish neighbourhoods because they’re Jewish, or businesses because they’re owned by Jews. It’s not OK to fly an antisemitic terrorist organization’s flag. It’s not remotely OK, indeed it’s a national scandal, that many Jewish Canadians are very understandably scared.

But here we are. And no one in charge, or auditioning to be in charge, seems to have anything halfway resembling a plan, strategy or solution to deal with this thuggery.

Source: Chris Selley: Liberals gave anti-Israel protesters everything, but they’re still paying for it

Canada’s immigration department cutting 3,300 jobs, prompting concerns over backlogs and processing times

The federal immigration department will reduce its workforce by more than 20 per cent, sparking concerns over further backlogs and longer processing times for applications.

On Monday, immigration staff were told that 3,300 jobs are going to be eliminated and details would follow in mid-February, according to the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, which represents 35,000 employees at Immigration, Service Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and the refugee board.

“Immigration processing wait times continued to reach record-breaking backlog levels, and these cuts will only worsen an already dire situation,” Rubina Boucher, the union’s national president, said in a statement.

“Families longing to reunite, businesses grappling with critical labour shortages and a health-care system desperate for skilled workers will all suffer the consequences of this reckless decision.”

The news of the layoffs followed the Liberal government’s plan to reduce the number of new permanent and temporary residents admitted to Canada in the coming three years in its attempt to slow down the country’s population growth amid the affordability crisis.

It also came in the wake of the department’s recent decisions to significantly cut funding to organizations that assist newcomers with settlement and integration through employment-related services, language training and community support.

Between 2020 and 2023, the Immigration Department’s workforce grew from 9,207 to 13,685 — about 30 per cent of whom were contract, “casual” and students — to beef up its operational capacity to deal with backlogs created during the pandemic and meet the federal government’s then targets to raise immigration levels.

As of late November, the department had 2,267,700 permanent and temporary immigration applications in the system; more than one million of them had exceeded its own targeted processing times. Overall, 38 per cent of permanent residence applications and 54 per cent of temporary residence applications in the queue were considered backlogged.

While it’s too early to know if this would simply mean a diversion of staff to other areas of government operations such as the asylum system, Toronto immigration lawyer Rick Lamanna of the Fragomen law firm said immigration applicants to Canada should expect some processing delays moving forward. 

Source: Canada’s immigration department cutting 3,300 jobs, prompting concerns over backlogs and processing times



McWhorter: How Hollywood’s Awards Season Could Change the World (a Little)

Always interesting takes:

Hollywood’s awards shows are always closely scrutinized for signs of who’s up and who’s down, what’s in and what’s out. Lately they have also offered a clue about a trend that has nothing to do with film production or red carpet gowns. It’s about grammar. Amid all the razzle-dazzle, you may have missed the fact that last year the Golden Globes went where the Screen Actors Guild had previously led: They lauded not actors and actresses (lead, supporting or otherwise) but rather “female actors” and “male actors.”

After so many years and so many ceremonies, that was a real change for the industry, but it emerged from a long history. At least as far back as the 1980s, I’d heard calls to eliminate the use of female-marked terms such as “heroine,” “goddess,” “waitress” and “chairwoman” — and, yes, “actress.” (I for some reason have never truly internalized “flight attendant” over “stewardess,” and still have to remind myself to make the substitution.)

Such terms can seem to imply that the women who occupy these roles are somehow essentially different from — and perhaps lesser than — the men who do. Appending a female suffix positions the male version as the default, and makes the female word a mere version or variation of it.

The call to use “actor,” “hero,” “god” and “chair” to refer to women as well as men emerges from a belief that the words we use can shape our thoughts. That view was put forth most influentially by the linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf in the 1930s. The idea is that de-gendering our terms is a powerful gesture, a political act that asserts women’s equality and retrains our cultural assumptions.

A similar impulse has guided efforts to popularize inclusive language about race and gender identity or any number of other sensitive subjects. As those efforts proliferated in recent years, the consensus on what was inclusive and what was outdated seemed to shift faster and faster. It sometimes felt as if the lexical earth was shifting under our feet almost by the week — and not always for clear purpose.

Lately the tide seems to be turning against those attempts to engineer how people speak. In general, I’m glad about that. But de-gendering terms is a worthwhile endeavor that deserves an exemption from our impatience.

The problem with replacing older terms with newer, allegedly more sensitive ones is that a replacement term inevitably takes on the same negative associations that the old term had accreted. The psychologist Steven Pinker calls it the euphemism treadmill. Think of the procession from “crippled” to “handicapped” to “disabled” to “differently abled,” changes undertaken to avoid stigmatizing the people the term refers to. The constant renewal suggests that the effort has only had fitful success.

The introduction of a new term may suggest new ways of thinking, at least for some, and for a spell. But covering a hole in the roof with construction paper keeps the wind out, too, or at least some of it, and for a spell. It’s not actually a solution. The fashion of late to refer to the “unhoused” rather than the “homeless” is a useful example. “Homeless” began as a well-intended replacement of words like “bum” and “bag lady.” However, over time, the same dismissive associations those old terms engendered shifted over to “homeless person.” You can be sure that if “unhoused” becomes the default, it will need replacement in a generation or so. Truly addressing the homelessness (houselessness?) epidemic would be a much more meaningful approach to the problem than changing what we call it, and I suspect the “unhoused” would say the same.

De-gendering, however, is a different case. Unlike creating euphemisms, folding two words into one does not present a new model subject to obsolescence. “She’s an actor” simply phases out “actress” and sends it on its way, along with Studebakers, Koogle peanut butter and Red Skelton. It creates no new word poised to inherit the potentially dismissive air that “actress” implied.

Of course, changing words will hardly eliminate sexist bias. And I can’t help chuckling to recall one person I knew who years ago earnestly insisted on calling a Walkman a “Walkperson.” But to the extent that this kind of language change really can play some part in changing habits of mind, let’s form the new habit and pass it on to our kids.

Source: How Hollywood’s Awards Season Could Change the World (a Little)

Lipstadt hopes next Jew-hatred monitor is ‘barn builder, not barn burner’

Good reflections:

….Lipstadt told reporters she is proud that when she and Keyak, who are both political appointees, depart on Monday, the rest of the roughly 20 staffers—a mix of civil servants, foreign service staffers and contractors—will remain. That office structure will ensure continuity that the government previously lacked, she said.

One place that does need more change is the United Nations, according to Lipstadt.

“There are officials inside the U.N. who have engaged in overt antisemitism, but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater,” she said. “If we can start to get it to take this issue seriously, then that would be worthwhile. Its record has not been great.”

She told reporters that a long-stalled plan to fight Jew-hatred at the United Nations, which the global body worked on with Jewish groups, remains “in the works.”

“Is it serious? A plan could be serious, but it’s only a plan,” she said. “It’s what’s done to implement it.”

Lipstadt told reporters about a previously unreported exchange that she had with António Guterres, the U.N. secretary-general, at a Munich synagogue.

After thanking Guterres for meeting often with the families of hostages being held in Gaza, Lipstadt mentioned the frequent antisemitic remarks of Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur for Palestinian rights, who has drawn criticism from the U.S., German and French governments. Critics have said often that Guterres and the United Nations haven’t sufficiently denounced Albanese, who is considered an adviser to the global body and not an employee.

Lipstadt told reporters that Guterres said, within earshot of the press gaggle at the synagogue, of Albanese that “she’s a horrible person.” (JNS sought comment from Guterres.)

Fritz Berggren, a U.S. foreign service officer revealed to be the creator of a white nationalist website, is no longer a State Department employee, Lipstadt told reporters. More than 70 department employees had written to Antony Blinken, the secretary of state, in August 2021 calling for Berggren’s removal, but employment policies and laws appeared to protect Berggren.

“The legal details are not fully open, but it was an ending,” Lipstadt said. She didn’t specify if Berggren opted to leave or was fired.

Lipstadt and Keyak told reporters the person who carved a swastika into a State Department elevator in July 2021 has yet to be identified. The department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom is closely guarded by officers, but there was no camera in the area of the elevator, they said.

The envoy was asked if Jew-hatred is more prevalent at the State Department after Oct. 7. Lipstadt said that mid-level staffers, who came out publicly against the department’s positions and policies on the Israel-Hamas war, shouldn’t be seen as antisemitic.

Her office faced “some internal resistance” from “some misinformed people,” who thought that it was essentially running cover for Israel, she added. She told reporters that no one ever approached her with such concerns.

She wouldn’t comment on or endorse a successor, but said only that she hopes the next envoy “will be a barn builder, not a barn burner.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Blinken at the helm of the State Department, takes Jew-hatred seriously, according to Lipstadt. “That gives me hope on this issue,” she said.

“Some of the things I’ve done have been done quietly. Sometimes, they’ve succeeded. Sometimes, they haven’t. Speeches that were given, lines that were delivered, weren’t delivered,” Lipstadt told reporters. “I don’t want to speak out too much on everything. At some point, you’ll be dismissed as a partisan hack.”

Source: Lipstadt hopes next Jew-hatred monitor is ‘barn builder, not barn burner’

Les Québécois se sentent nord-américains et loin de la France, révèle un sondage

Of note:

Le Québec n’est pas (encore) un nouvel État des États-Unis, mais c’est à coup sûr une zone culturelle nord-américaine.

Un sondage tout récent montre qu’une très large majorité des Québécois se sentent beaucoup plus près culturellement du reste de l’Amérique que de la France.

L’enquête de la firme Léger réalisée entre le 29 novembre et le 2 décembre 2024 auprès d’un échantillon de 1002 résidents du Québec a posé la question suivante : « Vous, personnellement, vous considérez-vous comme plus proche de la culture de la France ou plus proche de la culture nord-américaine ? »

La conclusion devient imparable. Les trois quarts (73 %) des Québécois choisissent leur coin du monde, et à peine un sur six (16 %) opte pour l’Europe. Un sur dix (12 %) refuse de répondre ou ne se décide pas, peut-être faute de pouvoir répondre « les deux ».

Les résultats ne varient d’ailleurs pas beaucoup en fonction de l’âge, du genre et même de la langue ! Les non-francophones se disent plus nord-américains à 77 % et les francophones, à 71 %. Le pourcentage de Québécois parlant le plus souvent français à la maison est de 77,5 %, selon les données de Statistique Canada de 2021.

Le sondage, obtenu en exclusivité par Le Devoir, a aussi mesuré notre sentiment à l’égard de la France. Dans ce cas, une majorité de francophones (52 %) s’en disent éloignés et seulement 5 %, « très proches ». Le groupe s’identifiant à la France est plus nombreux à Montréal (19 %) et chez les diplômés universitaires (25 %).

« Nous ne sommes pas des Français d’Amérique, comme le disait le général de Gaulle : nous sommes des Nord-Américains francophones », résume le professeur Guy Lachapelle, de l’Université Concordia.

Le sondage a été commandé par le Centre d’études sur les valeurs, attitudes et sociétés (CEVAS), qu’il dirige. Un premier sondage, réalisé en 2022, arrivait en gros aux mêmes constats. Ces enquêtes s’inspiraient d’une autre menée auprès des jeunes d’ici en septembre 2002 et commanditée par le consulat général de France au Québec. Ce portrait avait déjà établi essentiellement que les jeunes Québécois s’identifiaient comme nord-américains.

Source: Les Québécois se sentent nord-américains et loin de la France, révèle un sondage

Feds call on Islamic group to cancel alarming conference while security agencies consider terrorist designation

Wonder whether any of the organizers or planned attendees are Canadian citizenship who have taken the citizenship oath without obviously meaning it. Apparently, event has now been cancelled:

The federal government is calling on members of a controversial Islamic group to cancel their conference scheduled for this weekend while Canada’s security and intelligence agencies decide if it should be listed as an official terrorist entity.

A public outcry from civic leaders and Jewish organizations have attacked plans by Hizb ut Tahrir Canada to resurrect its annual Khilafah Conference, which calls for governments to be overthrown to invoke a Muslim caliphate where everyone lives under Islamic Shariah law.

Ottawa has now added a federal reprimand to the list of concerns over the agenda and ideology of the group, which is a branch of a strict international organization that is already banned in several countries.

“Reports of the upcoming Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) conference, scheduled for January 18, 2025 in Hamilton, Ontario are deeply concerning. Hizb ut-Tahrir has a documented history of glorifying violence and promoting antisemitism and extremist ideology,” David J. McGuinty, the new minister of Public Safety, and Rachel Bendayan, associate minister of Public Safety, said in a statement posted on social media.

“Its celebration of attacks on innocent civilians, including October 7th, and its support for banned terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely contrary to Canadian values of peace, inclusion, and respect for diversity. We unequivocally condemn their activities and the holding of such a conference — and call on the organizers to cancel their booking.”

“We have been assured that law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, are monitoring the event closely and that all appropriate Canadian laws, including those pertaining to hate speech, will be enforced. Further, we can confirm that our security and intelligence agencies are currently assessing Hizb it-Tahrir (sic) for listing as a terrorist entity under Canadian law,” the statement continued.

A spokesman from Hizb ut Tahrir Canada could not immediately be reached for comment Monday evening. (The Canadian group often does not use a hyphen in its name like the international group usually does.)

The organization previously denied it was a public danger and said it was not involved in terrorist violence.

“Hizb ut Tahrir categorically rejects the use of violence or material means in its methodology. The accusations linking the party to terrorism, extremism and violent activities are fabrications aimed at tarnishing its reputation,” the group’s previous statement said.

Source: Feds call on Islamic group to cancel alarming conference while security agencies consider terrorist designation

Apple pushes back against proposal to abandon diversity programs

Of note. Along with Costco:

Apple’s board of directors recommended investors vote against a shareholder proposal to abolish the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, according to a proxy filing from the company.

The National Center for Public Policy, a conservative think-tank, submitted a proposal that the company consider abolishing its “Inclusion & Diversity program, policies, department and goals.”

The proposal cited recent Supreme Court decisions, and made the argument that DEI poses “litigation, reputational and financial risks to companies” and could make Apple more vulnerable to lawsuits.

Apple responded that it had a well-established compliance program and the proposal was unnecessary. It added that the shareholder proposal was an inappropriate attempt to micromanage Apple’s business strategy.

“Apple is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in recruiting, hiring, training or promoting on any basis protected by law,” the iPhone maker said in the filing. The news was first reported by TechCrunch.

Several major companies, including Meta and Amazon, are winding down diversity programs ahead of Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency as conservative opposition to such initiatives grows louder…

Source: Apple pushes back against proposal to abandon diversity programs

Le Devoir Éditorial | La vraie nature de Zuckerberg

Well stated:

Pendant que le comté de Los Angeles compte les morts causés par d’effroyables incendies, le président des États-Unis désigné, Donald Trump, répand ses faussetés à la même vitesse que les flammes. Sur son réseau Truth Social, le 8 janvier, il a accusé le gouverneur de la Californie, le démocrate Gavin Newsom, d’être responsable des difficultés d’approvisionnement en eau en raison de son refus « de signer la déclaration de restauration de l’eau qui lui a été présentée et qui aurait permis l’accès à des millions de litres d’eau, provenant des pluies excédentaires et de la fonte des neiges du Nord ».

Une simple mais rigoureuse vérification des faits menée par l’équipe du Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, a montré que la « déclaration de restauration de l’eau » n’existe tout simplement pas. Et que ce sont les structures de stockage des eaux, et non ses méthodes de collecte à la source, qui ont entraîné des problèmes d’approvisionnement. Pour le président désigné, proférer des mensonges de manière consciente et calculée dans le but de discréditer l’adversaire est devenu aussi naturel que respirer. Il est donc profondément troublant d’apprendre que le p.-d.g. de Meta Platforms inc. (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads), Mark Zuckerberg, s’incline devant le règne de la désinformation et proscrit l’ère de la vérification des faits.

Dans une vidéo diffusée le 7 janvier dernier sur son réseau, l’ex-étudiant de Harvard âgé de 40 ans, et dont la fortune est évaluée à plus de 200 milliards de dollars américains, a affirmé qu’il souhaitait « revenir à la source » de Facebook, créé en 2004, et redonner la voix au peuple. Concrètement, il annonce la fin de la vérification des faits par une équipe de vérificateurs au profit des notes de la communauté, à la manière du réseau X, où les citoyens réagissent au gré de leurs connaissances,a priori et intentions partisanes. Ironiquement, le programme de vérification des faits lancé par Facebook en 2016, et salué dans le monde entier, visait à contrer le flot de fake news né de la campagne du candidat républicain Donald Trump. Zuckerberg n’en est pas à son premier revirement, mais celui-ci pourrait être dévastateur.

Dans une longue entrevue-confession accordée vendredi au polémiste et partisan de Trump Joe Rogan (l’un des animateurs de podcast les plus écoutés dans le monde), Zuckerberg explique qu’il a erré en confiant à des vérificateurs « idéologiquement partiaux » le mandat de valider la véracité des idées publiées par les utilisateurs de Facebook — il y en aurait 3,2 milliards chaque mois dans le monde, une quantité non négligeable. « On va se débarrasser d’une série de restrictions portant sur l’immigration et les questions de genre », dit-il, ne cachant pas son exaspération pour des courants wokes, qui lui semblent occuper trop d’espace.

Le p.-d.g poursuit son délire : fortement mal à l’aise avec le fait d’être « un de ceux qui décident de ce qui est vrai ou faux dans le monde », il préfère mettre fin à la « censure » et milite pour une saine autorégulation. Or, la désastreuse expérience du réseau X, sous la houlette d’un autre despote de la désinformation, Elon Musk, a montré les errements vers lesquels menait un réseau gangrené par les trolls et les manipulateurs. Avec les notes de la communauté, la vérité n’est pas vainqueure.

Zuckerberg parle de censure, mais ce que les vérificateurs de faits faisaient n’avait rien à voir avec une exclusion complète de propos s’éloignant de la vérité, mais relevait plutôt d’une diminution de leur portée. Facebook est une bête qui se nourrit à l’engagement, source de ses profits mirobolants. La décision a choqué partout dans le monde, et un groupe comme l’IFCN (Réseau international de vérification des faits) a immédiatement dénoncé la prémisse de Zuckerberg, selon laquelle les vérificateurs sont idéologiquement partiaux, ce qui en fait des censeurs.

La nouvelle ne concerne pour l’heure que les États-Unis, mais Mark Zuckerberg a promis d’étendre cette mesure ailleurs. L’heure est grave : a-t-on oublié un faux pas tragique comme celui survenu en 2017 au Myanmar ? Un rapport dévastateur publié en 2022 par Amnesty International a démontré que « les systèmes d’algorithmes de Facebook amplifiaient la propagation de contenus nocifs anti-Rohingyas au Myanmar ». Des milliers de Rohingyas ont ainsi été « tués, torturés, violés et déplacés ». Avec Facebook comme caisse de résonance, la violence virtuelle s’est transposée sur le terrain.

Les nouvelles règles sur la conduite haineuse édictées par Facebook interdisent de cibler des caractéristiques mentales pour insulter des personnes, mais, de manière tout à fait outrancière, elles passeront outre auxdites allégations de maladie mentale ou d’anormalité si elles sont fondées sur le genre ou l’orientation sexuelle, et cela, « compte tenu du discours politique et religieux sur le transgenrisme et l’homosexualité ». La communauté LGBTQ+ fulmine et s’inquiète, avec raison. Voilà donc la vraie nature de Zuckerberg, qui, sous le couvert fourre-tout de la libre expression, pourrait stimuler des vagues de haine et d’intolérance sur ses réseaux sociaux.

Source: Éditorial | La vraie nature de Zuckerberg

Girard: La succession de Justin Trudeau et la neutralité religieuse

Signal of past and debates to come:

L’actualité politique et judiciaire de 2025 forcera la personne qui succédera à Justin Trudeau, à titre de chef du Parti libéral du Canada, à se prononcer sur la neutralité religieuse de l’État, et aussi sur la laïcité telle que préconisée par le Québec comme modèle du vivre-ensemble.

Cette personne devra notamment se prononcer sur la décision de la Cour suprême d’accepter ou non de revoir la décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec quant à la validité de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État. Peu importe cette décision, il en résultera un grand remous, puisque deux visions s’affrontent : le Québec privilégie une approche citoyenne pour favoriser le vivre-ensemble, tandis que le reste du Canada mise sur le multiculturalisme.

En cette période de recrudescence de crimes haineux au Canada, la succession de Trudeau sera aussi appelée à prendre position sur la demande du Bloc québécois (à travers les projets de loi C-367 et C-373), du gouvernement Legault, de même que de nombreuses organisations de la société civile, dont le Rassemblement de la laïcité et le Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes (CIJA), d’abroger l’exception religieuse du Code criminel canadien lorsqu’il est question de propagande haineuse.
Elle devra également réagir à la réponse du gouvernement Legault au rapport du Comité consultatif sur les enjeux constitutionnels du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne, qui recommande notamment de doter le Québec d’une constitution codifiée qui inclurait les lois fondamentales actuellement en vigueur, dont la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État.

De plus, elle devra être prête à réagir dans l’éventualité où le gouvernement Legault déposerait un projet de loi afin d’interdire la prière dans l’espace public ou encore pour modifier la Loi sur l’instruction publique afin de contrer le phénomène d’« entrisme religieux » observé dans certaines écoles publiques. Ces questions ne font pas l’unanimité et risquent de créer de vives réactions tant au Québec que dans le reste du Canada.

Par ailleurs, si la succession de Justin Trudeau cherche à rééquilibrer le budget, la question des privilèges fiscaux accordés aux organismes de bienfaisance enregistrés qui n’offrent aucun bénéfice social autre que de « promouvoir la religion » pourrait refaire surface. En effet, contrairement à d’autres pays du Commonwealth, le Canada a jusqu’à maintenant refusé de revoir la description des activités de bienfaisance qui donnent accès à des bénéfices fiscaux appréciables. Il préfère maintenir le flou actuel, en se basant sur une jurisprudence qui, elle, s’appuie sur une vieille loi anglaise adoptée en 1601. Ainsi, « l’avancement des religions » est toujours reconnu comme une activité de bienfaisance, ce qui comprend le financement des prêches, les services offerts conformément aux dogmes et aux doctrines religieuses, les lieux de culte, ainsi que les missions de propagation de la foi.

Enfin, tout de suite après les prochaines élections fédérales, cette personne devra aussi se prononcer sur plusieurs sujets liés à la neutralité religieuse de l’État qui sont d’importance pour les Québécois, tels que la pertinence du serment d’allégeance à Sa Majesté et gouverneur suprême de l’Église d’Angleterre, le roi Charles III, requis pour siéger au Parlement, et déjà contesté par les députés du Bloc québécois, du NPD et certains élus libéraux et conservateurs.

Ou encore la pertinence de maintenir la lecture, en début de séance, d’une prière à la Chambre des communes, et ce, bien que la Cour suprême se soit prononcée, en 2015, contre la récitation de la prière par des représentants de l’État dans le cadre de leurs fonctions. Bien que les assemblées législatives et le Parlement fédéral ne soient pas tenus de se soumettre aux décisions de la Cour suprême, ce point est régulièrement soulevé par le Bloc québécois, qui défend une plus grande neutralité religieuse de l’État.

Bien évidemment, la personne qui remplacera Justin Trudeau à titre de chef du Parti libéral du Canada devra aussi se prononcer sur d’autres sujets d’importance, comme l’immigration, l’économie et la santé. Il n’en demeure pas moins que le dossier de la neutralité de l’État doit faire partie intégrante de ses priorités.

Source: La succession de Justin Trudeau et la neutralité religieuse

 

Sears | How the federal Liberals have opened their leadership race to foreign interference

Good reminder that more work needs to be done beyond reversing the most egregious rule. Implementation and vetting:

…But there is a much larger question here. National party executives and directors are not running the Oakville Seniors’ Lawn Bowling Club. They are the governors of organizations who control who gets to compete to be prime minister. The comparison to any other civil society organization is laughable given that power. They determine who leads our government, and have this time heavily tilted the scales.

The Liberals would have risen in public esteem if they were to have set membership as restricted to 18 year old citizens, who can prove they gave their own money to become a member. And if they had taken the admitted risk of setting a fairer campaign period — I suspect that the NDP could have encouraged not to defeat the government in return for the appropriate policy concession, for example.

Finally, they could have helped erase the memory of their unbelievably lax approach to foreign interference by creating a vetting process advised by a group knowledgeable about national security warning flags.

They chose to do none of these things.

So this race remains wide open to foreign interference and closed to any candidate who is not already a front-runner. This is a blow to Canadian democracy. It will be the most rushed and nontransparent process in the choice of leaders in recent Canadian history.

Source: Opinion | How the federal Liberals have opened their leadership race to foreign interference

Conservative MP Rempel Garner made similar critiques: https://michellerempelgarner.substack.com/p/integrity-questions-loom-over-pm