This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The PMO could plausibly do something like this via Order in Council -- in which case you'd have a similar palaver around getting somebody with an interest in the matter to bring it to the SCC. (Although I think the provinces could request a reference hearing pretty easily, assuming they administer aspects of student loans here too; I don't actually know how that works?)
For an example of how this plays out over time you need only look to the Trudeau government's recent gun banning activity; firearms (as property) legislation is plausibly not even in Federal jurisdiction, so (1990s Liberal) government found a loophole around 'public safety' which they exploited to pass incremental legislation. (Partially but not substantially reversed the next time Conservatives had power)
Next comes Trudeau, who's power is too shaky to get anything controversial through parliament -- so he issues an OIC banning various things, including ones which the previous (90s) legislation specifically sets out as 'not bannable by OIC'. (firearms with a valid hunting/sporting use case)
While this is wending it's way towards the SCC (which I give about 50/50 for finding some loophole to weasel out of obeying the 90s Act; they are very liberal but don't like to appears as totally insane puppets) the Liberal government notices that the next time Conservatives beat them they can just reverse the OIC; their solution is to try sneaking the OIC terms in to a bill mostly about handguns at the amendment stage. Their argument: "It doesn't matter that we are adding unrelated provisions to this bill after it's been debated in the House; these things are already banned by OIC."
So I guess the point is that the parliamentary system doesn't really prevent end-runs by the executive (equivalent); much as President TruSantis could reverse the Biden decision in 2024, but with no effect since the loans would be already cancelled, Pollievre (or whoever) could reverse the OIC, but it won't matter if the Liberals have got the guns into their smelter in the meantime.
Right, which makes "well these things are already banned under the OIC" an odd argument for why it's OK to tack them onto an unrelated bill in committee just before third reading!
No, they don't need a majority to reverse an OIC. (just as Trudeau didn't need on to introduce it)
The conservatives are unlikely to win a majority, and even if they do the political capital around reversing a bill (which has a bunch of other unrelated stuff that the House already debated and agreed to) is much different from just writing a new OIC.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link