No one following the Conservative debate?

What's the point?

Oil, good
Conversion therapy, sure why not
Slave auctions, you betcha as long as they're followed by two sentence apologies

Liberals are jokes too so I'm not taking sides

"Econ 101"

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...ng-Demand.html

Ramifications of this will really need to be addressed!

This is not a reduction to something like Manslaughter and is a complete walk, which I don't think should be the case.

To me this is like getting near black out drunk and then driving and it hard to see how this defense cannot now be used by black out drunk drivers. In fact you may no longer have the capacity to form any intent or intend any wrong but you took reckless actions while sober (getting drunk) which lead you to that place and thus a form of manslaughter, or other non murder charges imo could be applicable if you kill someone.

Canada Supreme Court rules self-induced extreme intoxication can now be violent crime defense
By REUTERS | May 13, 2022

Canada’s supreme court has ruled that defendants accused of violent crimes such as homicide and sexual assault can use self-induced extreme intoxication as a defense, striking down a federal law supported by women’s advocacy groups.

The supreme court said on Friday a law passed by parliament in 1995 that prohibits the defense was unconstitutional and violates the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“Its impact on the principles of fundamental justice is disproportionate to its overarching public benefits. It should therefore be declared unconstitutional and of no force or effect,” writing for a unanimous supreme court...

...At issue was whether defendants accused of a violent crime in a criminal court can raise extreme intoxication – known as “non-mental disorder automatism” – as a defense.

In doing so, defendants can claim their actions were involuntary as a result of taking drugs or alcohol and, as a result, they cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions....

...women’s advocacy groups have said the law is needed to protect women and children as violence disproportionately affects them.

Four out of every five victims of intimate partner violence were women and women were five times more likely to experience sexual assault in 2019...

...The third case involved David Sullivan, who attempted suicide on 1 December 2013, by taking a prescription drug known to cause psychosis. In a psychotic state, he stabbed his mother, whom he thought was an alien. Sullivan was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after the judge said he could not use an extreme intoxication defense.

The court of appeals, however, found the extreme intoxication law unconstitutional and acquitted Sullivan on both counts. Prosecutors appealed the ruling to the supreme court, which upheld his acquittal in Friday’s ruling.

Kasirer wrote that there are other paths for parliament to achieve its goals to address extreme intoxicated violence.

In 1994, the supreme court had ruled in favor of an extreme intoxication defense by a suspect who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a wheelchair while he was drunk.

In response to the supreme court’s ruling, Canada’s parliament passed a law which prohibited defendants from using extreme intoxication as a defense in violent crime cases....

This is just nuts that you can use this as defense. Why not use it for impaired driving as well?

BE curious which party appointed our judges

A majority of the SC is appointed by Harper. However, the SC is orders of magnitude less partisan and shitty than the US case, so our knee jerk emotion about that fact given exposure to american media is likely too strong.

Or just murder the people you want while sober, quickly then get black out intoxicated and when the police arrive claim you have no recollection of what happened.

The science is not able to identify so tightly the moment of intoxication that they would know if it was right before or after the murders as far as I know?

Seems like an easy way to get away with murder as long as you survive the intoxication.

So the leadership vote in Alberta was 52% in favor of Kenney but he rightfully resigned

He will stay on till the new leader is elected. Two candidates have come forward

Brian Jean very right wing. My guess is he loses to Notley next year in a election

Danielle Smith If she wins the leadership she can win a general election.

I would vote NDP if its Jean but would vote for Smith


Justin must be loving all this upheaval in the province and federally

The current federal government wants you to travel less after just being stuck home for 2 years. Rebates though.

Fwiw, if it’s 11c per litre that prevent u to travel , u shouldn’t travel or own a car to begin with .

U have far more important things to fix first ….

What's the point of the tax then?

Where u think inflation hurts the most ?
11c per litre of carbon tax or 20-40% increase on house prices ?

The cost of a baril oil almost double in the last year and u think it’s that 11c per litre that prevents people to travel ?
Give me a break …..


But u like oil companies make huge profits ( yeah I got some shares too) but lets not talk about that and complain about government instead because u know -> 11 cent per litre ….
Hell my milk had a higher increase per litre so I guess I should complain I can’t eat cereal no more at breakfast !

Food is probably the most noticeable. It hurts. Everyone sees it every week. It's essential. People have prices close to memorized and regularly make decisions like "I'll buy deli meat if it is on sale for 2.49/100g but won't buy it for 2.99/100g" or whatever. While other things like housing probably have a bigger impact on overall budget, the thing that gives that sense that inflation is everywhere and everything going up and nothing affordable is food.

exactly.
the concept of OMG tax carbon now at 11cent is like a big concern
while everything else has just gone up way more makes absolutely no sense to me.
And then we link tax carbon to prevent travel while we shut our mouth about double prices the barrel of oil in 1 year ?

smell a lot like kenney works for oil lobbies or aiming to work for oil company pretty soon after is out of politics....

and of course people like shifty falls for it !
small politics and ideology ftw, not seeing the big picture.
whats new.....

I think you are all right . I am not sure how the single parent or family on a tight budget does it.

Uke is right that food may have the largest impact and Utilities over the winter
Montreal is right that 11 cents has less of an impact than the actual increase of fuel,food and housing
Shifty is right the Carbon tax does have an impact on budgets as you forget the tac on the utilities you use to heat your home. As well the added cost to industry gets passed on.

I like to get a coffee and breakfast sandwich and a few other things at Tims the odd morning. Used to be $6.83 about a year or so ago its $9.88 now
Meat blows me away at how much it is as well

THough you sure do not see the blame the PM game like in the USA were they blame the Pres

This is mostly false. Remember, 90% of the carbon tax gets rebated back to Canadians. Yes there are winners and losers depending on whether you live a high carbon lifestyle or a low carbon lifestyle (and if the former you should do your part to switch as much as possible to the latter!) but from a budgetary standpoint the inclusion of the carbon tax is generally not one of the big ticket inflationary items in an annual budget.

I'm getting pissed off at Poilievre and his pandering. In the right wing there is a conspiracy about the World Economic Forum. The classic expression is "you will own nothing, and you will be happy" which is passed off as some sort of dystopian global cabal going to take all your property rights. This expression has been ****ing everywhere I've looked in right wing canadian circles recently. Where did it originate? Well a number of years ago a wonky future tech ideas promo video was released by WEF that included a bunch of future ideas submitted by participants for what might happen by 2030, stuff like going to mars or eating lab grown meat, and a random danish politician submitted the idea that with things like driverless cars and drone deliveries, we might actually not physically own some of the things we use, we just call the driverless car up on our app or whatever. So that "you will own nothing and you will be happy" is literally the single sentence spot in this future tech video promo to share that idea. So anyways, obviously using this to build up any form of conspiracy theory is just hilariously stupid.

But what is frustrating me is how Poilievre keeps ****ing feeding his trolls with this. He did a speech in the house of commons making this same quote. And just now on twitter he is claims he is going to ban his cabinet members from going to the WEF. I'm not fan of the davos meeting itself - global elites hob nobbing barf - but the way he is legitimizing and pandering to his conspiracy right wing base is just gross.

This is our future PM right here everybody.

I thought the consensus is Pierre has no chance to beat the powerful Justin Trudeau? So why be worried?

JT should be happy that he will be up against Pierre and as well that Kenney is gone. Or is the reality we have a PM that has delivered on next to nothing and folks are getting tired of all his promises and how he is concerned about so many things but does nothing. Voters are seeing that life under Justin is unaffordable and if your younger owning a home isn't a reality.

I personally think Jean Charest might be the best choice but I also think Justin as leader going into the next election could lose

Well firstly, I think Pierre absolutely has a very real chance to beat Trudeau, might even be the favourite to do so. Secondly, the consensus viewpoint among political "elites" I think is also believing he has as very real chance. So yes, we need to take what he says seriously. Even if he ultimately fails in the general, words and ideas matter, so spending the next years inputting the toxic viewpoints of Pierre makes a difference in the same way that the rise of Bernier did.

Why be worried? Maybe because we don't want nonsense like that to be given a high profile national platform. Maybe because it's better for everyone if parliamentary debates aren't turned into a joke (or a bigger joke) by the opposition leader wasting time presenting stupid conspiracy theories and talking points for the worst elements of his base. Maybe because it's better for our country if there is a sane realistic alternative to JT, because at some point many people will be sick enough of him that they'll vote for whomever is likely to win.

Basically, what uke said.

Is Pierre even the favourite to win pc leader?

I'd say it is over 95% lock that he wins pc leader. Every sign shows he is way - way - out ahead.

+1
Basically ending up in a trump 2.0 era .

He'll win - look at the number of memberships sold the past year.