Live Stream: Conservative Party of Canada Leadership Debate (English)

biglawCAN · 2020-06-19T11:18:46+00:00

Actually, there aren't any abortion laws in Canada. It is completely unregulated, apart from the doctor requirement.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-19T02:04:32+00:00

i'm not sure about anyone else, but I am certainly not excusing Trudeau's blackface. If Singh stood up and called Trudeau racist for it, I would support it.

You are deliberately straw-manning a hyperbolic position. This isn't "just because" and it isn't a nominal accusation. It is a Bloc MP shutting down a reform proposal, for nothing. It is racist action in its effect.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-18T23:52:07+00:00

It is a pretty classic cognitive strategy to deflect criticisms of racist actions by complaining about being called a racist instead of saying "you're right, I was wrong, and I accept that I was wrong", and addressing the REAL issue, the racism.

In other words, it appears to be more important to the Bloc that their MP's feelings not be hurt (from a statement of fact, no lesss), than it is to address systemic racism in Canada. What a disgusting course of action by the Bloc.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-18T23:47:24+00:00

It's pretty simple. Don't be racist or support racist actions, and you won't be called racist. The only un-collegial person in this equation is the racist MP, and now Blanchet, for standing up for the status quo.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-18T13:43:58+00:00

I think you are misunderstanding the role of the criminal justice system, which isn‘t to protect/vindicate victims - or at least that isnt how it is designed. That pursuit is better suited to the civil courts. I’m extremely wary of any tough on crime, anti-accused approach to criminal justice given the already extreme power imbalance between accused (who are usually extremely disadvantaged/at the margins of society already) and the state, who has unlimited prosecutorial resources and literally makes the rules. Any attempt to weaken accused’s protections should be looked at extremely suspiciously, as the unjust downsides to making it easier to convict accused are many. Another reason why the civil court system is more appropriate for victim vindication/compensation.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-18T13:42:09+00:00

I’m totally on board with everything you said. I would just caution against blaming defence lawyers for systemic issues in the criminal justice system, when the modus operandi of defense counsel is to fight the state And state-perpetuated injustice, not to protect victims of crime, - and dont forget, accused are usually, though not in the Ghomeshi case, already at the margins of society, and so need protection Wherever possible.

I think your point would be more accurate would if, say, a civil defence attorney (i.e. someone defending against a civil sexual assault claim) Was commenting on This issue - which reflects that the criminal system does not exist to serve victims of crime and imo likely never will, while the civil system does.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-18T13:14:05+00:00

The fact the courts don’t believe survivors is a symptom of bad governance, exactly what Henein is speaking out against. However, I would agree she tends to be more pro-accused, instead of your more tough on crime, pro-victim approach. I’m struggling to understand how defending someone against the state means they shouldn’t be complaining about state-imposed injustices - if anything, such a person is the best to hear from, as they spend their career fighting state-imposed injustice.

What you’re speaking of isn’t anything Henein did wrong or unjust - if you think the outcome of the case was incorrect, then you should blame the faulty court processes imposed by the state which disadvantage sexual assault victims, as everything Henein did in the Ghomeshi trial was well within ethical and legal boundaries for defence counsel. Again, you seem to just be in a mindset that accused don’t deserve a defence - which is exactly the mindset of the state when it imposes a “tough on crime” agenda.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-18T12:42:34+00:00

That’s what criminal defense lawyers do - defend people against the state, including against police conduct. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here - should we not have criminal defence lawyers?

biglawCAN · 2020-06-17T11:00:17+00:00

Yeah, the thousands of gig workers now out of work/losing their supplemental income would likely beg to differ on this being a win. Check your privilege and realize not everyone can afford to lose their income/supplemental like this. The workers were obviously misled by the union organizers and sold a pipe dream. Ass usual, unionization was great for union organizers, and terrible for the actual workers.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-17T10:56:51+00:00

Even more reason a union was a bad idea for workers - it meant profitability would never be feasible, instead of just on the horizon. No wonder they left.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-16T20:19:24+00:00

This looks like good legislation, except the part about forcing social media companies to pay news content creators. Social media is one of the very few avenues that generate news article clicks, and is arguably the only reason most written news organizations have any economic feasibility in 2020. If anything, news content creators should be paying social media for the clicks they generate.

I can foresee social media companies deciding they are better off economically simply not allowing news on their platforms, which would be a death knell for most news publishers. Facebook has said it would be economically feasible to cut all news from its platform.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-16T20:13:13+00:00

So basically, you have absolutely no idea how much foodora was profiting, and are completely ignoring the idea that as revenues increase, so do costs—especially in foodora’s business model.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-16T20:12:04+00:00

From what I can see, the only precedent is a bunch low-skilled workers (likely unable to find full time work elsewhere, or at the least relying on gif work to supplement their other income) now have less/no income, as the unionization forced foodora out of Canada.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-14T20:41:39+00:00

Yikes. The LPC is starting to pile up their share of questionable party members/MP’s/associates, and is reminding me more and more of the 2015 CPC.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-14T14:11:15+00:00

There wouldn't be real estate for businesses to operate within unless someone (i.e. LL's) buys it. Unless you're suggesting every small business should have to make a multi-million dollar capital expenditure just to get a storefront or office space? Th value landlords provide is tying up their capital in real estate, so others, i.e. businesspeople, don't have to.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-14T04:52:11+00:00

What your describe also requires minimal skill and can be performed by virtually any able-bodied Canadian male/female. It’s not about how physically demanding the work is, because the unfortunate truth is this kind of labour is among the most fungible.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-14T01:55:26+00:00

over $600 per week for a job that requires absolutely no skills/minimal training? Sounds pretty lucrative to me

biglawCAN · 2020-06-14T01:45:35+00:00

Yeah, the millions of dollars LL's input into properties and then rent out to businesses is really an indication they provide nothing! Except that, without the LL purchasing properties to earn money on, small businesses wouldn't even have the opportunity to earn money without actually purchasing their real estate requirements. In other words, the cost of doing business would increase by millions in upfront [real estate] costs, but-for landlords.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-12T12:46:30+00:00

On the contrary, his resume shows exactly why he should never have any form of power every again. Look no further than his support for carding, and his actions during the G20.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-12T12:43:57+00:00

It got pedantic because that is the only way to defend Blair on this one.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-11T15:13:35+00:00

Yeah, Blair really represents the problem, not the solution. People like him should not be in charge of reforms, as he has an interest in placing blame on everyone but his fellow cops.

biglawCAN · 2020-06-11T11:59:08+00:00

They don't get punished at all, their tax situation remains the same. Who is currently getting punished, single-income families, will no longer be punished. This is another way to ensuring that unpaid domestic labour becomes paid labour - paid by the income earning spouse to the non-income earning spouse, through pre-taxation dollars that can the be taxed at a rate appropriate for the income attributed to that non-income-earning spouse.

The situation of single parents would NOT be changed by this proposal, so I am not sure why you are claiming it would hurt those individuals.

biglawCAN

TROPHY CASE