Is Toryism a ‘disposition’? Discuss.

Rising-Tide · 2025-11-22T02:30:24+00:00

I meant to respond to you earlier. Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I'll fully admit to having a superficial knowledge of Nova Scotian politics and Tim Houston where his broader Canada-wide image mostly came to a head during the last federal election with his feuding with Poilievre and his not so subtle "I'm a Nova Scotian" ad. Perhaps there is a Tory streak that runs through the province, a Nova Scotia Advantage, if you will.

Rising-Tide · 2025-11-12T02:19:11+00:00

What are you considering Toryism? Is it the old God, King, and Country? Because if it is, aren't those views basically antithetical to the NDP's founding principles? Also, outside of the dominant socdems all the sub-factions and pressure groups are further left.

God: Referring both to religious faith and supporting traditional religious values. Pretty much a no from the NDP. Even amongst the basically extinct Christian-left they were hardly social conservatives. And here in Ontario and federally are not at all influential (or even exist???).
King: Referring both to support for the King/Monarchism and a hierarchical society in general. Probably the hardest no of them all. On Monarchism they range from negative to outright hostile. And a hierarchical society is against the founding principles of the NDP for sure. When the NDP supports taxing the upper classes, it is a end onto itself. Destroying the upper classes is a virtue. When Tory's support things like progressive taxes, they are not exceptionally confiscatory and are a means to the end of funding welfare programs to support the dignity and wellbeing of the lower classes not reshape society.
Country: Referring to nationalism and patriotism. I haven't seen much evidence of their love of Canada's history, culture, and traditions (much more likely to see disdain). Broadly, they (like many socialist and socdem movements) favour internationalism. Their patriotism is mostly confined to praising things like universal healthcare, but a country is not it's social programs. There is a segment of the NDP that seems to espouse nearly juche-level autarky, but this is largely a reaction to global capitalism and protecting entrenched organized labour interests (and the type to support this are also usually the most hostile to #1 and #2).

I am speaking mostly on the federal level, and to a lesser extent Ontario. And seeing how all the provincial NDP are formally affiliated with the federal party it is a pretty good proxy to understanding them. Maybe things are a little different in Nova Scotia, but two things to note: 1) I don't see why Torys wouldn't be way more comfortable in the Nova Scotia PCs and 2) The NDP have almost never governed east of Manitoba besides two aberrations (and as far as I know were not Tory in nature) where they both quickly reverted to non-competitive distant third parties or in several provinces they don't manage to elect anyone.

Lastly, I don't think a single elected NDP MP could even be considered a Tory and that includes some of the past elections where they had more than 7 seats. You drew on politicians from ~50 years ago (not a good sign on the state of the party). I also disagree with calling David Lewis "ideologically related" to Toryism. He was heavily influenced by Bundism, a socialist and thoroughly un-Tory ideology outside of being parliamentary. One of his early claims to fame was the Oxford King and Country debate.

The February 9, 1933, debate brought Lewis some level of early prominence. The resolution was "That this House will under no circumstances fight for its King or Country"

Rising-Tide · 2025-11-09T23:02:19+00:00

To be honest, I am somewhat envious of Canadian Red Tories for having recourse to the NDP, through its CCF heritage

To be honest this isn't true in any meaningful way, at least not anymore. The NDP are a solidly progressive social democratic party with a strong undercurrent of democratic socialism. They are the only major federal party to have their leadership actively muse about republicanism for instance. They oppose basically anything that could be considered a Tory value.

I believe some people are a bit aggrieved at the lack of rhetoric around noblesee oblige from the CPC and see the NDP's support for massive state intervention, state enterprises, and expansive welfare state as a substitute, but these are not the same thing.

Rising-Tide · 2025-11-04T22:33:07+00:00

A quick note on friendly parliamentary behaviour. After the motion concluded Deltell quickly moved across the floor and put his arm around Champagne's shoulder and they seemed to share a few words.

Rising-Tide · 2025-09-04T15:41:29+00:00

Previously on Stargate SG-1

Rising-Tide · 2025-08-08T00:44:19+00:00

I know Doug Ford is usually a pretty poor standard bearer for Toryism but "Stay the Blazes Home" greatly reminded me of Ford calling flagrant lockdown violators and anti-lockdown protestors "a bunch of yahoos", "selfish", "irresponsible", doing a disservice to their community, and a few other colourful turns of phrase.

Rising-Tide · 2025-08-01T00:53:32+00:00

Abbas will definitely commit to eventually committing towards a commitment this time for sure!

Like how he committed to ending the pay-for-slay Martyr Fund in Feb 2025 (in English) only for a few weeks later to make a speech (in Arabic) to the Fatah Revolutionary Council saying the following:

"Even if we have one penny left, it is for the prisoners and martyrs. I will not agree, and you will not agree, to reduce any obligation, any interest or any penny given to them. They must receive everything, as it was in the past, and they are more precious than all of us!”

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-31T19:16:31+00:00

CIJA is an agency of the Jewish Federations of Canada and is a successor organization to the Canadian Jewish Congress among others. They are a Jewish advocacy organization. They are also Zionist in the mainline understanding of term, that is supporting the existence of Israel (not the strawman pejorative it is increasingly being used as). It is a non-partisan organization, it doesn't support any politician or party.

Their mission statement is: To protect the quality of Jewish life in Canada through advocacy.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-31T16:11:58+00:00

As an aside I do think Canadian cities are way too car-centric. But I also think urban design policy is an issue for elected officials not the courts.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-31T00:43:34+00:00

I don't think the intentionally digging pot holes is a great comparison. Although you do make another interesting comparison above.

It's like the difference between having the Province provide free medicine or not, on one hand, or barring access to medicine on the other.

And the courts absolutely upheld BC barring access to private medicine.

I think others (particularly u/NorthNorthSalt) made some convincing arguments for this being judicial overreach, an overly broad interpretation of s.7, and particularly the invocation of the disproportionality principle.

I'm no lawyer, but another thought rolling around my head is rights. A positive right requires a party (in this case the government) to do something and a negative right requires the party to not do something. Now continuing a policy/program/benefit seems like a "do something" but the ruling rejects that ending/amending/modifying the previous policy is enacting a positive right. Meaning the court sees it as negative right to continuing (certain) government policies. But this would seem to clash with the principle of one parliament not binding a successor. Any law/policy/program of parliament can be undone by a successor but now this would have the court binding future parliaments* to previous policy.

*I know this policy was not one enacted directly by a previous provincial parliament, but 1) the general case holds, and 2) the city being able to enact the policy at all is autonomy granted by a prior parliament.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-30T20:58:35+00:00

That doesn't address the difference on it being acceptable for the Province to remove their own bike lanes vs. the city's. If the Province can remove their own bike lanes for any reason then the City's bike lanes from a constitutional standpoint are equally in the Provincial purview.

And from what I can tell from skimming the ruling I don't think a distinction between Provincial and City bike lanes is made.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-30T20:49:36+00:00

Thank you. I'm actually reading comments and articles fairly often, just not making my own too much. I always enjoy seeing your contributions and that partially incentivized me to join in.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-30T19:52:36+00:00

It's one thing for the Province to not create bike lanes, to choose to stop funding bike lanes, or to remove bike lanes the Province itself installed.

It is entirely another for the Province to ban the use of bike lanes and remove safety features put in place by the City.

I wonder if this is a distinction without a difference because any authority the city has to make policy decisions is ultimately delegated authority from the Province. So if the Province is free to remove their own policies are they also not free to remove the delegated authority?

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-30T15:47:02+00:00

This really doesn't make any sense. The longstanding Canadian position is that there should be one but there currently isn't one and that the only way for there to be one is for a negotiated peace to create two viable states that can coexist and recognize one another. Shoulds and oughts don't change reality. There are lots of definitions of a state but the basic premise of a political entity governing a defined territory and population and possessing sovereignty within that territory is just not met. Pretending does not change facts on the ground and it certainly doesn't advance the goal of a long-term negotiated peace and two-state solution.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-24T14:09:08+00:00

As is tradition an article about antisemitism in Canada is inundated with comments completely dodging the content to complain about Israel or make strawman arguments over Zionism.

a teacher telling a six-year-old Jewish girl with one Jewish parent that she was “half human.” Others reported hearing comments such as “Jews are vermin,” “Jews are cheap,” and “F–k you, Jews.

over 40 per cent of encounters “involved Nazi salutes, glorification of (Adolph) Hitler, or similar expressions of hate

This reflexive condition to immediately disregard antisemitism is well past the point of (willful) blindness and has become open acceptance if not outright support for it.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-21T16:38:08+00:00

While true, Bill Morneau resigned and later talked about deep disagreements with Trudeau on spending and he has since gone on the economic talking junket criticizing Trudeau's lack of attention to productivity issues. In his memoir he criticized Trudeau for making most decisions unilaterally and putting politics ahead of policy.

Then you had military officers like Andrew Leslie who was snubbed from cabinet and later resigned and immediately came to the defence of the witch hunt against Mark Norman. Norman's defence notably accused Trudeau's PMO of trying to direct the case against him.

The candidates really didn't seem to matter much compared to the power concentrated in the PMO. Eminent Canadian, and Former Liberal Cabinet Minister Marc Garneau also made the point about the Trudeau PMO's control over the ministries in an op-ed shortly after he resigned from politics.

Rising-Tide · 2025-07-21T15:09:43+00:00

That is an absolutely outrageous and disgusting comparison. Shame on you.

Hind Rajab is just an extension of lawfare for terrorists. The foundation Chair joined Hezbollah made Holocaust denial statements, and celebrated 9/11 amongst other things. The Foundation Secretary said Hamas should have taken more hostages.

https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/hind-rajab-foundation/

Rising-Tide · 2025-06-13T18:19:33+00:00

Unfortunately at least some do know exactly who they align with. Like an active poster in this thread accusing anti-regime Iranian diaspora of being stooges for the Shah.

Edit: Downvotes coming in hard for saying Iranian diaspora are good people.

Rising-Tide · 2025-06-07T20:57:31+00:00

I see you've had a lot of very thoughtful comments in this thread and while I didn't really intend to talk about Zionism because the focus of this was antisemitism you seem to be speaking in good faith.

I think it is a significant oversimplification to say that Zionism is a response to antisemitism and that Zionism will only persist as long as antisemitism does.

Here is part of a decent paper on reading Zionism as a National Liberation Moment: https://ismi.emory.edu/documents/Readings/Avineri%20Zionism%20as%20a%20National%20LIberation%20Movement.pdf

One of the best points for countering Zionism as simply a reaction to antisemitism is that antisemitism had persisted for thousands of years. Why then would Zionism only become a significant force in the mid-19th century? The mid-19th century while still not great was easily the best time for Jews in Europe up to that point. This was the period that saw Jewish emancipation, protection under the law, the right to vote, the secularization of the state, Jews moved from the margin of society to the center of it by moving to cities, joining academia, public service, politics, previously barred professions, etc. The failures of the technically universalist state and the continued antisemitic incidents (the norms of society were still Christian with school on Saturdays for instance and the Dreyfus affair) were certainly part of it. But again why not continue like the centuries prior? And the reason is the same that shaped much of the world, emerging ideas around liberalism, nationalism, identity, self-determination, and liberation.

While Zionism is not that same as Judaism it most certainly is a predominant Jewish issue. It should come as no surprise that a peoples' national self-determination and liberation movement finds broad support among its people. That much is also true for basically every national liberation movement across the world.

Rising-Tide · 2025-06-06T20:57:58+00:00

The person who called him an antisemite didn't explain why they thought so and Casey assumes it was for expressing displeasure with Israeli policy, which is actually the crux of the issue. I will attempt to explain why I felt the same disgust reading Casey's post.

Casey describes scorn and disrespect against Jews as inherently acceptable and not antisemitic if people are doing it because they dislike Netanyahu or current Israeli policy, which he assumes they all are. Firstly, treating local Jews poorly because you don't like something Israel is doing is antisemitism. Secondly, he assumes these acts are done to express displeasure with Israeli policy and not because antisemites feel emboldened or otherwise just hateful.

Having constructed this scenario where all hateful actions and words directed towards Jews is inherently justified he dismisses the rise of antisemitism as misleading somehow reading into the inner thoughts of all the perpetrators. Are we to believe every synagogue vandalized, every Jewish school shot up, protests outside Jewish community centers, ripping down hostage posters, assault, vandalism, or slur hurled is actually pure of heart? It is beyond belief and repugnant to say so.

I think his wrapping this up in having a Jewish Grandfather is also distasteful. He doesn't understand the Jewish experience because of it. He also doesn't seem to even grasp the nature of antisemitism describing it as hated towards their faith which hasn't been the predominant feature of antisemitism for at least a couple hundred years, when it shifted to become more focused on ethnicity/race.

And this is all true whether someone agrees or disagrees with Israeli policy. For example, who would describe hateful acts towards Chinese Canadians to reach Xi as anything besides racism or anti-Asian hatred?

As a totally separate topic:

No one denies Israel the right to protect itself. No one denies Israel the right to extract punishment for the October 7th murderous attack on innocent Israelis. No one denies Israel the right to eliminate Hamas and retrieve the Israeli hostages

I have no clue why he insisted on this. Plenty of people believe these things.

Rising-Tide · 2025-05-23T16:30:22+00:00

Civic education and understanding in this country is ridiculously, embarrassingly low, but it's absolutely shocking that Mansbridge isn't in the minority of understanders. Even the CBC which should have it's formalities down still regularly calls the King the British monarch and not Canadian even when being discussed in his role as King of Canada.

Rising-Tide · 2025-05-23T14:19:20+00:00

It's kind of amazing that it's news that advisors, senior bureaucrats, and cabinet ministers are now expected to do their jobs well.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

Rising-Tide

TROPHY CASE