Updates from November, 2022 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 13:53 on 2022-11-26 Permalink | Reply  

    The Parti Québécois will be getting what it calls a bare minimum budget and not a lot of questions in the National Assembly, based on having only three seats. Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon pushed for more, based on the PQ getting 14.6% of the popular vote, while the PLQ is the official opposition on 14.3% of the vote, but 19 seats. QS has 11 MNAs and 15.4% of the vote.

    CTV adds that PSPP will get a limousine and a bodyguard. Not so bad after all.

    • Ephraim 17:37 on 2022-11-26 Permalink

      St-Chose Plamondon should be taking the bus. And they should be ashamed to ask for the people to pay for their folly. If you don’t get the vote, you don’t get the budget. The budget is to represent your constituents, not those who voted for you.

    • Ian 22:55 on 2022-11-26 Permalink

      Oh look someone else that isn’t in power that wishes we had proportional representation. Why not make it a campaign promise to enact vote reform, like all the other hypocrites. I don’t recall the PQ agitating for vote reform when they were doing well either.

    • Kate 11:23 on 2022-11-27 Permalink

      I don’t recall the PQ agitating for vote reform when they were doing well either.

      That’s the problem. It’s never in the interest of the ruling party to make a change that would cut its dominance, as we’ve seen twice recently when both Justin Trudeau and François Legault quickly abandoned the idea after promising to make changes.

      In the unlikely scenario that the PQ ever retakes power (you never know, in Quebec), watch its chief – whoever it is at that time – find an argument against vote reform pretty quickly.

    • Ian 21:11 on 2022-11-28 Permalink

      Well yes, precisely – but this is one of the core problems with a democracy based on relatively short terms, it leads to short-term thinking. Those short terms were conceived as a means to prevent too much consolidation of power of course, but in some instances like FPTP and gerrymandering the opposite emergent effect becomes evident.

  • Kate 09:44 on 2022-11-26 Permalink | Reply  

    The federal government is going to pay for 91 units of social housing in Outremont. It’s a drop in a bucket, but a nice bucket at that.

    • shawn 21:12 on 2022-11-26 Permalink

      Nice down there too at MIL de l’Université de Montréal. I quite like what they’ve done elsewhere in that new area.

    • Ian 23:56 on 2022-11-26 Permalink

      I guess it’s a course correction to make up for how much adjacent Parc Ex has been radically gentrified /s

  • Kate 09:00 on 2022-11-26 Permalink | Reply  

    Gabriel Sohier Chaput appeared in a Montreal courtroom this week, on one charge of fomenting hatred, but his lawyer held the position that we don’t know that the Nazis killed six million Jews. Transcripts of Sohier Chaput’s writings in these items are testament to Sohier Chaput’s will to foster hatred, I think. The judge will render his verdict on January 23.

    • Tim S. 09:45 on 2022-11-26 Permalink

      As far as I can tell, this is happening because the prosecutor seems incredibly lazy (overworked, maybe?) and by not bothering to prove things that are easily provable is giving the defence the chance to play games.

      From CTV: “Emmanuelle Amar, Quebec policy and research director at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs,” is correct that “”The Holocaust is the most carefully documented genocide in the world, it was documented by its perpetrators, by their victims, by bystanders; there is physical evidence, there is all kinds of evidence of the Holocaust,” she said. “It’s an undisputed fact.”

      And the prosecutor is acting like a seventh-grader to suggest: “that the judge could look in the Encyclopaedia Britannica”

      Why not get Amar to testify?

      Given that the case revolves around the defendant’s use of language I would hope that the court would want to define the words in question very carefully.

    • John B 11:26 on 2022-11-26 Permalink

      Also going from the CTV article, I don’t think the prosecutor should have to prove the holocaust was done by Nazis, and it should be “judicially noticed.” In fact, I’m kind of astounded that someone who is a judge thinks there’s enough room for discussion that he “rebuked the prosecution for not calling an expert witness to establish that the murder of Jews by the regime of Adolf Hitler was a consequence of Nazi ideology.”

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc