Plante sticks up for Dorais
Although opposition councillors are calling for Benoit Dorais to be sacked, Mayor Plante has the good sense to know this whole speeding ticket thing will blow over, and she’s sticking up for him. Allison Hanes also writes in Dorais’ defence, although the suburbanite bias of the paper shows in her coda: “Let he or she who has never exceeded 100 km/h on a highway cast the first stone.” Well, I never have, nor have several of my friends who haven’t driven either. But we’ll save the stones for other public figures.
Ant6n 10:06 on 2019-07-17 Permalink
As for stones, remember that Prime Minister that promised electoral reform once a elected, but then after a year or two of commissions and hearings and having whittled the problem to a choice between two candidate electoral systems, decided, for the good of the country, in heavy personal responsibility, that it’s better for Canada if the chances of his own re-election are maximized, and thus scuttled the process and the promise (which is actually still up on the liberal website).
Blork 11:20 on 2019-07-17 Permalink
I’ve mentioned it before, but it bears repeating. Highway 35 (where he was caught going 171) is not a regular highway. It is utterly hill-less, divided, and is ramrod straight for 10km, then does a wide 45-degree turn and runs ramrod straight for another hill-less, divided 8 km.
I’m just saying this for context. He deserves the fine and the demerit points, and driving at such speeds is dangerous anywhere. But if you ARE going to drive 171, that is the highway where you are least likely to cause a problem.
The only real risks are (a) if you encounter another vehicle going the same way as you and you pass them going 60 or 70 kph faster (dangerous AF); (b) if a deer or other animal bounds onto the highway causing you to lose control and go across the division and into the oncoming lanes; (c) a tire blowout or other mechanical problem that causes you to lose control and go across the divide and into the oncoming lanes.
So yes there is risk, but it’s not QUITE the same as barreling along at 171 on highway 132 through Brossard or up the 15 to Saint-Sauveur.
Blork 11:21 on 2019-07-17 Permalink
Visual:
https://goo.gl/maps/4aSG61fGGpzEMRrT6
Kate 11:22 on 2019-07-17 Permalink
Indeed, Ant6n. But my fear for October is that by declining to vote Liberal because they are not perfect, we’ll bring in another gloomy Conservative era under Scheer, much like the Americans did by not voting for Hillary because she was flawed, and look what happened there.
Blork, I did not know we had roads like that in Quebec.
ant6n 19:07 on 2019-07-17 Permalink
@Kate I hope you note the irony in your strategic voting thoughts.
Kate 08:05 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
Explain the irony, ant6n?
Chris 09:01 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
“declining to vote Liberal” what a strange notion. Why should one default to voting for crap just because there is worse crap on offer?
ant6n 09:21 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
For example, say you actually want to vote Green. After electoral reform that wouldn’t be a problem, no vote is wasted! Now Trudeau broke the promise of electoral reform, and in order to avoid a conservative government, we may actually have to strategically vote Liberal, since a vote for green is a wasted vote and strengthens the populists.
The Liberals are viewed as the lesser evil, and have to be voted for strategically in order to avoid the greater evil – this is a direct result of the Liberals not enacting electoral reform that would obviate the need for strategic voting.
I for one wouldn’t reward the Liberals for disenfranchising progressives yet again.
Kate 09:39 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
Chris, for the reasons ant6n lays out. Who would you rather for PM, Trudeau or Scheer? Because no other choice has a hope in hell. Fracturing the anti-conservative vote simply gives more power to the Tories.
Yes, in an ideal world with electoral reform this wouldn’t matter, or not as much, but let’s remember we don’t have it yet so it doesn’t make any sense to vote as if we do.
Ian 10:34 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
TBH I always vote NDP but given the fact that Singh wouldn’t be allowed to hold office in Quebec because of his religious practise, I’m pretty sure the NDP vote will be the lowest in QC that it has been in decades, pretty much guaranteeing a majority government for the Liberals or Conservatives based o riding distribution and the Liberals cancelling vote reform. While I dislike and distrust Trudeau and his disingenuous campaign-left-govern-right tactics, the spectre of Scheer running Canada for 5 days let alone an entire term is enough to make me choke back the bile that rises in my throat over the insincere cynicism of strategic voting, and vote for Trudeau. Frankly I think I’d be an idiot not to, especially since a majority government is almost certain.
But back to Hanes’ apologia for Dorais, there’s a BIG difference between going with the flow of traffic at 110-130 like most people do on a 100kmh highway depending on weather and road conditions, and doing 170. I don’t care how good your vehicle or how straight the road is, that’s just dangerously cocky. I was in an accident with a friend who was so certain of her driving skill she thought it was no big deal to go 140 on a straight stretch just outside Ottawa, then we hit black ice, bounced back and forth across the highway a few times, and came to rest facing the wrong way in the fast lane. Thankfully she reversed onto the shoulder quickly & got the 4-ways on before anyone plowed into us. The only damage was to the car, and nobody got hurt. That’s at 140. At 170 you’d be lucky not to flip over the median and go airborne, quite likely seriously injuring yourself, your passengers, and any other drivers with the misfortune of being anywhere near your stupid self. 170 km/h is about 47 metres a second, or a bit over 200 metres stopping distance. Think about that.
thomas 11:39 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
Isn’t the problem with electoral reform that no one can agree on what should replace it? The Liberals proposed a ranked ballot which was rejected by the NDP and Conservatives as this would be too favourable to the Liberals. The NDP propose proportional rep. which was rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives and the Conservatives prefer the present system. Further the consensus seems to be the electoral reform cannot happen without a referendum, but such a referendum is likely to fail. See the experience in B.C.
Ian 12:03 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
So if nobody can agree, we choose nothing? That’s not what government does.
We got the GST and NAFTA without a referendum – granted, from the Conservatives – but all the Liberal governments that came after didn’t repeal them, including Chretien who had scrapping the GST as one of his electoral platforms, and if you recall he later claimed that he actually said he would “scrape” the GST. This is a classic Liberal move.
If one of your core campaign platforms is electoral reform you sure as hell had better come through or expect to have your feet held to the fire over it. The ONLY reason the Liberals decided not to go through with it is that they had such a powerful majority against what looked like a very weak Conservative leadership campaign they figured it was worth the gamble to maintain the status quo for another electoral cycle, which has come back to haunt them.
thomas 12:21 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
During the election campaign Trudeau clearly expressed a preference for a ranked ballot system. So if the Liberals implemented a ranked ballot system as electoral reform, which would be very much to their advantage, you would be satisfied?
ant6n 13:10 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
The issue isn’t lack of consensus, it’s that politicians are deciding policy based on what’s best for them personally rather than best for the country (Liberals support instant run off voting, Conservatives support FPTP, both systems objectively fail in fair representation). Trudeau may have had a personal preference, but it’s pretty cynical that he shut down the promised _process_ once the outcome wasn’t going to be to his personal advantage.
Actually, let me rephrase that — the problem really is that people accept that politicians decide policy based on what’s best for them personally. There’s a shitload of cynicism all around, and getting fucked over again and again is somehow normal to people here. Even further, every time it’s pointed out, a bunch of people come up and say stuff like “Oh come on Ant6n, it’s just naive to think that politicians should keep their promise, of course they’re selfish.” There’s so many apologists for the corruption and deepening rot of our democracy and institutions, I have no idea how Canada (and Quebec) are ever going to drag itself out of that muck (I guess as long as it’s not as bad as in the US, people will just sit and slowly boil).
So yeah, I can’t really get myself worked up about a politician’s speeding ticket, as irresponsible as it may be on a personal level.
thomas 16:33 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
So when the NDP or Green argue for proportional representation they are also guilty of promoting policy that is biased to own personal interest?
Chris 17:28 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
Kate, I understand all that. But first, you don’t even get to vote for PM, only your MP. Second, any candidate *does* have a chance, as the orange wave showed, as long as people like you and Ian stop cynically voting for people that bring bile up your throats.
Ian 19:20 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
Do I need to be blunt? The difference between Jack Layton’s national support and Jagmeet Singh’s is that Quebec is racist and will not vote for him because he is not only not white, but a turban wearing Hindu. Quebec voted In CAQ on a majority, if you think Singh will gain seats outside of Montreal you are dreaming in technicolour. Leaving out the fact that even with the orange wave the NDP did not win, let us remember that if Quebec’s vote is split Liberal/ Conservative, that will determine the majority the rest of the country faces, depending on how the 905 region of Ontario votes. It’s been this way for many decades.
Trudeau could have stopped this infernal Liberal/Conservative ping pong game but he got cocky, and is about to be hoisted on his own petard at the expense of all of us.
thomas 20:20 on 2019-07-18 Permalink
Jagmeet Singh is Sikh not Hindu. Regardless, he is having trouble everywhere not just in Quebec. For example, the latest polling in Toronto has the Federal NDP at 12%. At those numbers they would be shut out.
Chris 14:46 on 2019-07-19 Permalink
Ian, the NDP has historically not done well in Quebec. Singh is a return to normally low support, Layton and the orange wave was the anomoly. Singh’s funny hat is irrelevant.