EvilJoven posted:

I should move further west, I could use the increase in pay.

Faded Mars posted:

So in a move that will shock no one, the OPCs have stalled the planned Ontario minimum wage increase. To allow businesses to "catch up," lol. They will not say whether or not they will ever actually allow the raise to $15 (hint: they won't).

Powershift posted:

gently caress off, we're full




Seriously, though, beginning to see a ton of Ontario plates here in Alberta, again.

Risky Bisquick posted:

Last year there was a flood of Alberta refugees flooding into the GTA, lifted pickups as far as the eye could see.

EvilJoven posted:

If the cons kept winning it might actually mobilize people to put a stop to their bullshit.

InfiniteZero posted:

Are you seeing a lot of people mobilizing to put a stop to the PC bullshit currently happening in Manitoba? Just wondering.

large hands posted:

Seems like they're all in Victoria building condos now.

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah we're still desperately short on trades in Victoria. I've been involved in a few projects that have been put on hold or scaled back to a multi-phase project due to lack of labour.

EvidenceBasedQuack posted:

This is an excellent post. Thank you

Hand Knit posted:

I'm not flummoxed by it or anything, I just find it weird and unpleasant. I actually think that the diagnosis isn't all that complicated. The public justification for incarceration tends to flow back and forth between retribution/punishment and rehabilitation. The public justification, while affecting some characteristics of incarceration, greatly underdetermines the nature of incarceration/punishment. Rather, the nature of I/P flows much more from the nature of state power, and broader features determining the state apparatus. The state (or power in general, when incarceration is not administered by the state) is able to use the language of public justification to support whatever system that either it wants to put forward or simply emerges.

But notice the story that you give in the first two paragraphs lends itself much more to rehabilitation than punishment. A criminal is a criminal and a criminal forever — their treatment is justified by the impossibility of reforming them. Punishment is present in the language of dessert but not much more. There's nothing about retribution, nothing about tying that retribution to an act, and nothing about proportioning the retribution. Ironically, this suggests that our system could do from an increase on punishment. That whatever suffering is visited upon the offender can be no more than that which is in proportion to the crime they have committed or harm they have inflicted.

Looking at it this way, I think we can draw out an interesting point about historical wrongs (and include sexual assault under this umbrella). Rehabilitation seems like kind of a moot point. The offender has moved on, and may have grown as a person to some degree. Focusing on rehabilitation may even be insulting in some cases: imagine being told that my attack of you is somehow less bad or less deserving of action because I have become a better person for it. That there could be any justice at all in historical cases depends upon there being a substantive approach other than that of rehabilitation.

There's a lot of yadda yadda here, I guess. About how this whole story points to the fact that we (ought to) have values to orient criminal justice that supersede rehabilitation and punishment. About how prison abolition is ultimately the correct path. Whatever. My point is just that the way we seem to think about punishment and rehabilitation is hosed, and I think we've ceded some important discursive ground on punishment.

Canuckistan posted:

So it turns out that Trump really doesn't like Chrystia Freeland. Somehow that makes me feel better.

large hands posted:

Believe me, I know all about it lol

InfiniteZero posted:

I know it's vogue in this thread to label the Liberals and Conservatives as being basically the same, but I can't imagine that Scheer and whoever he'd surround himself with wouldn't just roll over for whatever Trump wants.

There are a whole lot of reasons to be disappointed to be disappointed with the Liberals but the way they've been handling Trump and the NAFTA talks isn't hard to be happy about.

Helsing posted:

Reminder Scheer owes his leadership to dairy farmers and he won't win election/re-election without Ontario.

I know that people just think the Conservatives are wanna-be Americans but you do realize that political parties are vectors for organized pressure groups to advocate for policy changes, right? There are specific organized groups like dairy farmers that co-ordinate to lobby / manipulate the Conservative party to protect their interests.

The specific industries that the Conservatives are willing to protect or abandon might be different. I don't imagine them going to bat for culture industries in the same way the Lbs have. But the idea they'd just "roll over" for Trump is pretty simplistic. They're not idiots, they rely heavily on support from some of the groups Trump is threatening, and they also understand what it means for them when 80% of Canadians who are polled express negative views on Trump.

The Conservatives suck for the same reason the Liberals suck: because they are the hand maidens of lovely business interest groups and FYGM suburbanites. It's not because they have some magical mind disease that just makes them do whatever the Republicans would want them to do.

Materialism people! Material interests! They matter! Politics is about the distribution of resources and the conflicts that result. It's not an abstract ideological argument!

vyelkin posted:

Also, as an aside, I think morally that the state should not be in the business of killing or committing violence against its own citizens, no matter who those citizens are or what they have done. Besides the technocratic arguments about the demonstrably better social outcomes of rehabilitative rather than retributive justice systems, that's my moral argument for why I think harsh prison conditions and violence as punishment are inherently wrong no matter what the crime.

Helsing posted:

Materialism people! Material interests! They matter! Politics is about the distribution of resources and the conflicts that result. It's not an abstract ideological argument!

DariusLikewise posted:

Harper probably would of conceded dairy immediately just like he did in the TPP, he also probably wouldn't give a poo poo about dispute mechanisms

Evis posted:

The state has a monopoly on the lawful use of violence. It can and should be used at times and there’s no way around that, and sometimes that’s going to include killing or violently disarming people who are clearly an active threat to others or to the government.

Post-arrest you might be right overall, but the justice system also needs to consider the thoughts and desires of the victims and their friends and families. If the system ignores these too blatantly it will lead to vigilante actions and people taking the law into their own hands, because the justice system can’t be trusted to punish offenders. (Whether it should or not is irrelevant to this argument)

Evis posted:

The state has a monopoly on the lawful use of violence. It can and should be used at times and there’s no way around that, and sometimes that’s going to include killing or violently disarming people who are clearly an active threat to others or to the government.

Post-arrest you might be right overall, but the justice system also needs to consider the thoughts and desires of the victims and their friends and families. If the system ignores these too blatantly it will lead to vigilante actions and people taking the law into their own hands, because the justice system can’t be trusted to punish offenders. (Whether it should or not is irrelevant to this argument)

Toalpaz posted:

See but that's wrong, because punishment is expensive and debilitating. The state considers the desires of victims and their friends and families in general much too highly, and we walk down a path with longer and more certain jail terms because it's politically expedient to push for 'tough on crime' laws.

Evis posted:

The first part of my post was relating to pre-arrest portions of the justice system. You can’t just get rid of the army/police’s ability to use violence. Try it (in some country I don’t live in) and see what happens. You can moderate it in some ways, but you can’t eliminate it.

It’s also expensive to turn victims into vigilantes who start wanting payback because the state won’t punish offenders for them. That’s not to say you have to severely punish people or be “tough on crime” in the traditional sense, but if you abdicate all responsibility for punishing people and release them relatively quickly I don’t think that will be an overall success story.

InfiniteZero posted:

I know it's vogue in this thread to label the Liberals and Conservatives as being basically the same, but I can't imagine that Scheer and whoever he'd surround himself with wouldn't just roll over for whatever Trump wants.

There are a whole lot of reasons to be disappointed with the Liberals but the way they've been handling Trump and the NAFTA talks is a point in their favour and easily distinguishable from the way the Conservatives deal with the USA (ex: writing love letters to the NYT).

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Yep, if the Liberals manage to isolate us from our largest trading partner and other markets, we can all finally agree they're the best conservatives. gently caress the USA, Saudi Arabia and China, take our stupid attitude towards milk and apply it to everything, Canadian is #1. The real vogue (the one with Trudeau on the cover) is that Liberals and Conservatives aren't the same, Liberals are way better at being Conservative and get more done, pipelines notwithstanding.

vyelkin posted:

One thing I would add that may help clarify my ideas here is that the people who think this way do see a real point to the punishment. It isn't just a semi-sadistic desire to see criminals suffer, though that certainly exists and anyone who has ever gone into a comments section on a story about crime knows that. But there's a second motive you often hear, especially for the death penalty, which is the supposed deterrent effect of harsh punishment. When you factor this in, the brutality of retributive prison systems becomes a feature rather than a byproduct. Again, you see this a lot in popular discourse, where people make jokes about how criminals will get raped in prison. The implication, sometimes explicitly vocalized (you see this a lot in pop culture from the 90s and 2000s, for example), is that men are afraid of committing crimes because they're afraid of going to jail because they're afraid of getting raped. Without that threat, the idea is that the person in question would be out committing all the crimes they could.

This is like a two-step understanding of crime and criminality: first, you separate humanity into criminals and citizens. As a citizen who would never commit a crime, it doesn't matter to you personally how brutal the justice system is because you don't have the innate affinity for criminality and so you would never commit a crime. In addition, you have faith in the justice system that you will not be falsely convicted and sent to prison for something you didn't do (not coincidentally, you'll find most people with these views are super white). The second step is how to think about all those people who aren't you, and the idea that a lot of people settle on is that making the penalty for committing a crime as painful as possible will deter people from committing that crime, because even criminals are rational. They might be inherently predisposed to committing crime but maybe they can still be prevented from actually doing so by making the punishment so severe that they weigh that against their desire to do crime and decide not to.

This is patently absurd, of course. People are terrible at considering the long-term consequences of short-term behaviours in general, and even less so if placed in arduous and emotionally-distressing circumstances like extreme poverty, drug addiction, or personal trauma. In the moment of deciding to commit a crime and acting on it, you'll find almost no one is thinking about what the potential punishment is for that crime, which means the idea of punishment as a deterrent is an idiotic one. Still, it exists.

So what you end up with at the end of this line of thinking is being against rehabilitation because a criminal is a criminal and can never be reformed, and for extremely brutal and harsh prison conditions and punishments because those criminals that have not yet committed crimes might be dissuaded from doing so if they're threatened with extreme violence (not coincidentally, this is very similar to the idea of posting a sign on your property saying you will shoot criminals who break in). In my opinion, both those premises are deeply flawed and fail to recognize the short-term and circumstantial nature of most motives for crime.

Also, as an aside, I think morally that the state should not be in the business of killing or committing violence against its own citizens, no matter who those citizens are or what they have done. Besides the technocratic arguments about the demonstrably better social outcomes of rehabilitative rather than retributive justice systems, that's my moral argument for why I think harsh prison conditions and violence as punishment are inherently wrong no matter what the crime.

Toalpaz posted:

See but that's wrong, because punishment is expensive and debilitating. The state considers the desires of victims and their friends and families in general much too highly, and we walk down a path with longer and more certain jail terms because it's politically expedient to push for 'tough on crime' laws.

quote:

Fists fly, and so does a megaphone, as refugee crisis inflames local politics in Toronto area
The protest was an illustration of the truism that all politics is local, and that even global crises can become ballot questions in municipal council races



From the moment a protester grabbed a counter-protester’s megaphone and hurled it into the fountain of the Markham Civic Centre, Saturday’s demonstration against illegal border crossings and their effect on suburban Toronto degenerated quickly into violence and anger.

Police arrived to separate men who had thrown a few punches, and others who seemed about to, including one man who was pushing another as he held up a sign reading “Not In My Back Yard,” according to video captured by Ming Pao Daily News.

It was a small rally of a few dozen mainly Chinese-Canadian protesters in Markham, a city northeast of Toronto, and hundreds of kilometres from any land border with the United States. Nevertheless, as the demonstration was met by a smaller group of pro-refugee protesters, it became a flashpoint in the North American refugee crisis, with Markham’s mayor, Frank Scarpitti, as the unlikely main target.

At issue was a rumour that Markham was about to agree to house as many as 5,000 asylum seekers in unused buildings, after Toronto asked for help accommodating an overflow.

“Say NO to Mayor Frank!” read several signs in identical red lettering. Others played off the recent shooting rampage in Toronto: “Do Not Let Tragedy Happen In Markham.”

“MARKHAM SAY NO TO ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSERS,” another read. “ILLEGAL FREE RIDER NOT INVITED.”

Many of the opposing, pro-refugee signs were branded with the logo of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

A woman spoke to the crowd in Mandarin, rhetorically addressing the government as she described the question of Canada’s response to asylum seekers as one primarily of public safety.

“It should not be this way,” she said, seemingly on the verge of angry tears. “You (the government) have to make sure that we’re safe.”

It was an illustration of the truism that all politics is local, and that even global crises can become ballot questions in municipal council races.

The day before, the nomination period had closed on the mayoral election in Markham, in which the incumbent Scarpitti is being challenged by four candidates who signed up at the last minute.

One of those challengers, Steven Chen, a real estate agent, said in an interview he was not at the protest and knew nothing about it until he saw the news.

“Everything illegal, that’s a problem. Not just refugees,” he said in an interview.

There is no plan to house refugees in Markham, according to the mayor’s office.

Scarpitti said in a statement that he and other Ontario mayors recently discussed the acute temporary housing shortage in Toronto caused by the increase in asylum seekers crossing from the United States. Toronto had asked for help with that problem, as well as others such as connecting people with potential employers.

“Mayors from across the province offered their support including examining existing capacity within their shelter systems, potential temporary housing sites and facilitating opportunities for seasonal and full-time employment,” the statement read. “Nothing has been finalized as options are very limited regarding any Markham locations being used for temporary housing and there is no update at this time. It is important to note that the majority of asylum seekers are well educated, employable and have found permanent accommodations within 90 days. There would be no cost to the Markham taxpayer. All costs would be the responsibility of the City of Toronto and other levels of government.”

Scarpitti also sounded a note of frustration that this issue, over which he has limited influence, is being used to criticize him.

“It is the federal government’s responsibility to evaluate and determine who is granted permission to stay taking into account Canada’s laws and international agreements. Our possible involvement in this issue is only to address the urgent request for help from the City of Toronto on their critical shortage of shelter capacity.”

quote:

Anti-immigration groups at Parliament Hill protest demand apology from Trudeau

SHAAMINI YOGARETNAM Updated: February 19, 2018

Hundreds of Asian-Canadian protesters, supported by several white, far-right, anti-immigrant groups stormed Parliament Hill on Sunday afternoon to demand an apology from the prime minister.

According to plans for the protest on voteforright.com, members of the Asian-Canadian community feel victimized by a Toronto girl’s false claim in January that an Asian man cut off her hijab and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s apparent rush to view the fictitious incident as a hate crime.

“As the real victim of the hijab hoax, our Asian community was completely ignored by PM Trudeau,” reads a statement on the website.

The group, an unlikely ally for the far right, was met with counter protesters from anti-fascist and anti-racist groups, many of whom covered their faces as they protested.

A man who identified himself as “Yuanyuan” said, “There are some out-of-town conservative Chinese racists and they are collaborating basically with some white nationalist groups here in Canada. As a Chinese Canadian, I’m pretty ashamed about that. That’s why I’m here.”

The large Asian group, with members coming from Toronto and Vancouver to join members of the Ottawa Chinese-Canadian community, chartered buses for the event.

“We want to oppose them,” Yuanyuan said. “We don’t want them on our Hill saying they get to represent Canadian values. We know that their rhetoric is basically trying to normalize violence against minorities and marginalized folk. It’s not really a discussion about whether or not multiculturalism is good or not. We know that they stand for genocide.”

About 100 anti-racist protesters — while denouncing white supremacy and chanting about how welcome Muslims are — also repeatedly screamed “f-ck the police.”

Providing security for the Asian protesters were several anti-immigration, ultranationalist groups such as Quebec’s La Meute — or Wolf Pack — and the Northern Guard. Several Proud Boys — a far-right men’s group — were also in attendance.

La Meute’s Stéphane Roch said his members — of which there are 42,000 in Quebec — were in Ottawa to support the Chinese community.
Roch called them “real Canadians” who have been in the country for hundreds of years. “The Chinese community are a very good community. Trudeau don’t listen to them.”

“The government has to work for the citizens, not for themselves,” Roch said. “The power has to go to the citizens. They have to listen to us.”

An organizer with the Chinese-Canadian community who asked a reporter to “just call me Monica” said the event was behind schedule and chose not to speak to a reporter from this newspaper.

Several Chinese-Canadian protesters were there with their children, who held signs condemning the “hijab hoax” and “fake news.” The signs urged the government not to “stir up ethnic disputes.” Multiple people approached by a reporter indicated they did not speak English.

But speakers urged respect for “human rights” and asked that all Canadians be treated equally.

Among the sea of protesters were several placards taking aim at Trudeau, not Muslims.

Evan Balgord, a journalist and researcher who is following the rise of the new far-right movement in Canada, said that what was branded as anti-Muslim is being re-purposed as anti-Trudeau rhetoric.

“They always were anti-Trudeau, anti-Liberal government, anti-multiculturalism, anti-M-103 (a motion to condemn Islamophobia in the country) but the anti-Trudeau rhetoric is coming more and more to the front.”

The RCMP said four people were arrested during the protest. All were released and issued trespass notices, which bars them from returning to the Hill for 60 days. No criminal charges were laid.

A large group of Ottawa police escorted both groups on and off the Hill.

Several Chinese-Canadian protesters were there with their children, who held signs condemning the “hijab hoax” and “fake news.” The signs urged the government not to “stir up ethnic disputes.” Multiple people approached by a reporter indicated they did not speak English.

But speakers urged respect for “human rights” and asked that all Canadians be treated equally.

Among the sea of protesters were several placards taking aim at Trudeau, not Muslims.

Evan Balgord, a journalist and researcher who is following the rise of the new far-right movement in Canada, said that what was branded as anti-Muslim is being re-purposed as anti-Trudeau rhetoric.

“They always were anti-Trudeau, anti-Liberal government, anti-multiculturalism, anti-M-103 (a motion to condemn Islamophobia in the country) but the anti-Trudeau rhetoric is coming more and more to the front.”

The RCMP said four people were arrested during the protest. All were released and issued trespass notices, which bars them from returning to the Hill for 60 days. No criminal charges were laid.

A large group of Ottawa police escorted both groups on and off the Hill.

quote:

Multiple people approached by a reporter indicated they did not speak English.

Risky Bisquick posted:

Pipelines: Harper 0, Trudope ½

Baronjutter posted:

Are you building some things in town with your large hands?

Hand Knit posted:

The vast majority of self-styled victims' rights rhetoric seems to understand victims as people who are mostly just jealous of criminals, and would jump at the first opportunity to act the same. Understood in any way that foregrounds victims' well-being and rehabilitation, Canada's support for victims of crime is piss.

Arcsquad12 posted:

Why I didn't specify white people as the sole suburban xenophobes.

Helsing posted:

Also I'm just gonna fully repost something from early August because it bares repeating that white Canadians don't have a monopoly on being horrible suburban assholes:






We're a multicultural rainbow-heued patchwork of suburban racists.

Hieronymous Alloy posted: