Justin Trudeau is muzzling two women who he put in cabinet in order to promote his own feminist, progressive credentials. He is a sanctimonious hypocrite. Justin is in effect saying “You women have nothing to say until I tell you that you can talk. I will let those good old boys Butz and Wernick say whatever they want to whoever they want though.”
The feminist who muzzles women
- Thread starter Forthedevil
- Start date
They can stand up in the House and "speak their truth" anytime they want. But they choose not to because this is all about politics.
Trudeau may not be perfect, but he's 100 times better than the ill-educated right wing asshole on the other side who palls around with racists, white supremacists and nationalists.
Trudeau may not be perfect, but he's 100 times better than the ill-educated right wing asshole on the other side who palls around with racists, white supremacists and nationalists.
I’m so sick of the bar being so low that we’re complacent in settling for “better than the other one”.
I'm happy to settle for a well-educated guy who isn't a racist and white supremacist who believes women should be paid less and men should make their reproductive choices for them.
Pretty serious accusations. Care to back them up?
They can stand up in the house and speak their truth any time they want? Care to explain how that works?
Each session of Parliament starts off with Members' business. An MP can stand, be acknowledged by the Speaker and say what he/she wants. Most of the time it's pretty mundane stuff like a Member congratulating a local sports team in their riding for winning a tourney or what not. Members can literally say anything. There are time limits granted, but a Member nonetheless has opportunity to speak their mind if they so choose.
The time limits are exactly my point. And although some say parliamentary privilege outweighs cabinet privilege there are conflicting views. If the Libs didn’t have anything to hide they would let Wilson-Raybould and Philpott speak wherever and whenever they wish.
It is somewhat creepy though that you feel the need to respond to me when I’m responding to a post from another member. Are you a stalker or just a Trudeau sycophant?
Last edited:
Cabinet confidentiality is a convention/tradition NOT a law. If you break cabinet confidentiality; you will not be arrested or face a criminal conviction. The worst thing a party can do to someone that breaks cabinet confidentiality is fire them from their cabinet position and boot them out of caucus. Both JWR and Philpott are out of cabinet already. Either one can simply call a press conference and say anything they want about cabinet meetings and the worst thing that can happen is that they are booted from caucus. The only exception would be if they spoke about classified national security matters - that would get them arrested, but not for breaking cabinet confidentiality. You clearly do not understand what cabinet confidentiality is - it is purely honour system agreement, not a criminal code violation which can lead to criminal charges.
Let me start off by saying I’m no fan of JT and definitely lean right in my politics. That said, I was horrified watching Andrew Shearer tolerate a crazy old dude lecture a crowd about the bizarre “pizzagate” conspiracy theory in a town hall meeting recently. He let this dude go on for several minutes and had every opportunity in the world to stop him and call out his garbage, but he didn’t. For those unfamiliar, pizzagate is a favourite conspiracy theory of the racist white nationalist set.
Really was an incredibly bad look for Shearer and gave me huge pause to think if I could ever vote for him.
You are being a pedantic stalker again. Let’s assume it is a convention. Should the former AG breach that convention, or should the PM release her from it?
Your knowledge of law is tenuous at best. Have you heard of Mark Norman? If he can be charged with breach of trust for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets why can’t a former cabinet member? You profess to be knowledgeable about the law. If you are actually a lawyer I feel sorry for your clients.
Whether JWR should breach or PM release is an irrelevant question. JWR has the choice to breach and speak her mind. You say she is being muzzled, I don't necessarily disagree. However; in my opinion, if she chooses not to breach given she has that choice, she is also self muzzling to a degree. And Norman was charged with breach of trust for sharing confidential government documents NOT releasing cabinet documents. Insult me if you like; but your MO is clear: attempt to ask an intelligent question, someone answers, you don't like the answer or you cannot find a logical/factual/rational fallacy in the answer and thus you resort to insults. And in none of my posts did I profess to be knowledgeable in Law as you falsely claim.
I really is an odd look to start an interesting thread, have people share their opinion in a respectful way only to have you personally attack and insult them for doing so.
You just don’t get it do you? If you are going to stake your political brand on the high road don’t take the low road.
Btw. You are completely wrong if you don’t think the same charges that apply to Norman could not apply to a former cabinet minister.
Really? I need to explain this to you? The Criminal Code apples equally to all Canadians, Cabinet Ministers, Admirals, and just us basic dumb assholes on PERB. So....if Mark Norman can be charged with breach of trust for leaking cabinet secrets, so can a former cabinet member
But he wasn't charged with breach of trust for sharing "cabinet secrets" as you claim. He shared government documents relating to naval ship procurement with Irving shipyards. Those are government documents NOT "cabinet secrets". In addition; there is no Criminal Code provision (i.e. No law) regarding "Cabinet confidentiality." Put another way; if Norman breached cabinet confidentiality or leaked "cabinet secrets" why was he not charged with breaching Cabinet confidentiality? Because the law he allegedly broke was leaking confidential Government documents. Just because a document is classified as a Confidential Government Document does not in any way mean that said document is a "cabinet document". Even if a confidential government document is reviewed/used/shared amongst Cabinet, it does not transform said document into a "cabinet document" and/or a "cabinet secret". Now; if JWR leaked the same documents as Norman did, yes, she would also likely be charged with breach of trust for releasing confidential government documents. However; our discussion related to JWR's choice/option/ability to speak about her time as MOJAG as it relates to the SNC affair. Your contention that Norman leaking confidential government documents is a similar scenario to JWR speaking about SNC is not even close to being a similar scenario.
Last edited:
