On electoral reform, the Liberals are laying a beating on the Liberals

Globe editorial

 On electoral reform, the Liberals are laying a beating on the Liberals

The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Dec. 02, 2016 6:00AM EST

Last updated Friday, Dec. 02, 2016 12:13PM EST

 

‎For those joining us late, here are the results of Thursday’s Electoral Reform Cup.

 

In a shocking third period comeback, the Liberal Party, 2016 edition, came from behind to defeat the 2015 Liberal Party. The outcome was surprising since the game was refereed by Liberals, using rules drawn up by the Liberals, and played on Liberal home ice, in an arena purpose-built by the Liberals.

 

The game’s three stars, as selected by members of the Ottawa press gallery, were the New Democrats, the Greens and the Conservatives. Each recorded multiple assists. All goals were scored by Liberals, into their own net.

 

During the post-game Question Period, leading scorer Maryam Monsef, who this fall was quietly moved from Team Liberal 2015 to Team Liberal 2016, said she’d had no choice but to switch squads, after the Commons special committee on electoral reform failed to do its job. She held up a mathematical formula known as the Gallagher Index, while giving the committee the finger next to her index.

 

Analysis: Trudeau promised electoral reform, but failed to say what kind

Related: Liberals urge Trudeau to break promise on electoral reform

 

Coach Justin Trudeau was not at Question Period. He remains firmly at the helm of Team Liberal, but it is not yet known whether that’s Team 2015 or Team 2016. In the weeks leading up to the Electoral Reform Cup, he had been seen behind both benches, and neither, sometimes at the same time.

 

Low audience ratings have consistently shown that few Canadians care about the sport of electoral reform, and Ms. Monsef and Team Liberal repeatedly invoked that fact in their Thursday match again Team Liberal. A recent Angus Reid poll found that fewer than one in ten Canadians describe changing the voting system as a very high priority.

 

The vast majority are far more interested in following the National How’s The Economy Doing League, anticipating the Will My Taxes Go Up Bowl, or catching the latest highlights from the Ministerial Fundraising Open.

 

Proponents of electoral reform – the New Democrats, the Greens and, allegedly, the Liberal Party (2015) – believe this year’s controversy-packed season will be just the ticket for increasing fan interest. They may be right.

 

On Thursday, however, Canadians left the arena confused as to the outcome. Who won? What was the score? And remind us again, which team is which?

 

Last fall, Coach Trudeau led Team Liberal (2015) to electoral victory on a platform that was “committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.” He also promised to introduce legislation bringing in electoral reform “within 18 months of forming government.”

 

Critics said Mr. Trudeau had only made such an extreme promise in order to boost fan interest; at the time the pledge was made, his team was a long-shot to capture the Election Cup. Critics, including your faithful correspondent, questioned whether promising to immediately ditch something fundamental about our system of government, without knowing what would replace it, might be such a wise idea.

 

We wondered whether the status quo that had served Canada since Confederation deserved to be immediately consigned to the trash heap, even before considering the pros and cons of the alternatives. We also insisted that Canadians be given the final say on the future of the electoral system – it belongs to them, not the politicians – by means of a referendum.

 

And we and many others wondered: What’s the rush? After 150 years, Mr. Trudeau was not just proposing to study reforming first-past-the-post. He was promising to kill it, quickly, replacing it with A Player To Be Named Later. And he insisted it had to be done now, and regardless of whether Canadians wanted it. That was Team Liberal 2015’s game plan.

 

By Thursday, however, Team Liberal 2016 was wearing its critics’ colours. And the opposition NDP, Greens and Conservatives had taken to the ice wearing the sweaters of Team Liberal 2015.

The opposition majority on the electoral reform committee managed to reach a compromise, backing proportional representation, and calling for it to be approved or rejected by referendum before the next election.

 

The Liberals, for their part, came out as shocked – shocked! – by anything so rash or hasty.

 

 

Liberal (2016) MP Matt deCourcey, speaking for the five Liberal members, issued a statement dissenting from the committee’s seven-person opposition majority. It described the idea of remaking the electoral system before the next election as “rushed and too radical at this time.”

 

“The timeline on electoral reform as proposed by the majority report,” otherwise known as the timeline proposed by Team Liberal 2015, “is unnecessarily hasty and runs the risk of undermining the legitimacy of the process by racing toward a predetermined deadline.”

 

This is complicated, so we’ll spell it out again: A hasty remake of the electoral system, on a predetermined deadline, is what Liberal Party 2015 ran on. Reform, rushed and radical, is what they promised. Reform, rushed and radical, is what they are now decrying. And the electoral reform committee they are now trying to disown is their own creation.

 

What sport is this? Improv comedy? Absurdist theatre?

We don’t know. All that can be said for certain is that this year’s Liberals are laying a beating on last year’s Liberals. An absolute beating. Yes, we know they’re the same people – hey, it’s just like Fight Club.

 

And the thing is, a lot of this year’s criticism of last year’s promises is compelling. We share many of the same concerns. But you normally expect Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to be the one taking the best shots at Her Majesty’s Government.

 

So yes, on electoral reform, everything’s a bit sideways and upside down. But maybe that’s how it has to be. Why? To paraphrase a Canadian philosopher, because. Because it's 2016. Get used to it. 2015 is so last year.

END OF AN ERA that lasterd too long >> Final Statement Geert Wilders at hisTrial,

Final Statement Geert Wilders at hisTrial,

23 Nov. 2016

Wednesday, 23 November 2016 16:03

Mr. President, Members of the Court,
When I decided to address you here today, by making a final statement in this trial against freedom of speech, many people reacted by telling me it is useless. That you, the court, have already written the sentencing verdict a while ago. That everything indicates that you have already convicted me. And perhaps that is true. Nevertheless, here I am. Because I never give up. And I have a message for you and The Netherlands.

For centuries, the Netherlands are a symbol of freedom.
Who one says Netherlands, one says freedom. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition.
And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.
We, Dutch, say whatever is close to our hearts.
And that is precisely what makes our country great.
Freedom of speech is our pride.
And that, precisely that, is at stake here, today.
I refuse to believe that we are simply giving this freedom up.
Because we are Dutch. That is why we never mince our words.
And I, too, will never do that. And I am proud of that. No-one will be able to silence me.
Moreover, members of the court, for me personally, freedom of speech is the only freedom I still have. Every day, I am reminded of that. This morning, for example. I woke up in a safe house. I got into an armored car and was driven in a convoy to this high security courtroom at Schiphol. The bodyguards, the blue flashing lights, the sirens. Every day again. It is hell. But I am also intensely grateful for it.

Because they protect me, they literally keep me alive, they guarantee the last bit of freedom left to me: my freedom of speech. The freedom to go somewhere and speak about my ideals, my ideas to make The Netherlands – our country – stronger and safer. After twelve years without freedom, after having lived for safety reasons, together with my wife, in barracks, prisons and safe houses, I know what lack of freedom means.
I sincerely hope that this will never happen to you, members of the court.

That, unlike me, you will never have to be protected because Islamic terror organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS, and who knows how many individual Muslims want to murder you. That you will no longer be allowed to empty your own mailbox, need to carry a bulletproof vest at meetings, and that there are police officers guarding the door whenever you use the bathroom. I hope you will be spared this.

However, if you would have experienced it – no matter how much you disagree with my views - you might perhaps understand that I cannot remain silent. That I should not remain silent. That I must speak. Not just for myself, but for The Netherlands, our country. That I need to use the only freedom that I still have to protect our country. Against Islam and against terrorism. Against immigration from Islamic countries. Against the huge problem with Moroccans in The Netherlands. I cannot remain silent about it; I have to speak out. That is my duty, I have to address it, I must warn for it, I have to propose solutions for it.

I had to give up my freedom to do this and I will continue. Always. People who want to stop me will have to murder me first.

And so, I stand here before you. Alone. But I am not alone. My voice is the voice of many. In 2012, nearly 1 million Dutch have voted for me. And there will be many more on March 15th.
According to the latest poll, soon, we are going to have two million voters. Members of the court, you know these people. You meet them every day. As many as one in five Dutch citizens would vote Party for Freedom, today. Perhaps your own driver, your gardener, your doctor or your domestic aid, the girlfriend of a registrar, your physiotherapist, the nurse at the nursing home of your parents, or the baker in your neighborhood. They are ordinary people, ordinary Dutch. The people I am so proud of.
They have elected me to speak on their behalf. I am their spokesman. I am their representative. I say what they think. I speak on their behalf. And I do so determinedly and passionately. Every day again, including here, today.

So, do not forget that, when you judge me, you are not just passing judgment on a single man, but on millions of men and women in The Netherlands.

You are judging millions of people. People who agree with me. People who will not understand a conviction. People who want their country back, who are sick and tired of not being listened to, who cherish freedom of expression.

Members of the court, you are passing judgment on the future of The Netherlands. And I tell you: if you convict me, you will convict half of The Netherlands. And many Dutch will lose their last bit of trust in the rule of law.

Of course, I should not have been subjected to this absurd trial. Because this is a political trial. It is a political trial because political issues have to be debated in Parliament and not here. It is a political trial because other politicians from – mostly government parties – who spoke about Moroccans have not been prosecuted. It is a political trial because the court is being abused to settle a political score with an opposition leader whom one cannot defeat in Parliament.

This trial here, Mr. President, it stinks. It would be appropriate in Turkey or Iran, where they also drag the opposition to court. It is a charade, an embarrassment for The Netherlands, a mockery of our rule of law.

And it is also an unfair trial because, earlier, one of you – Mrs. van Rens – has commented negatively on the policy of my party and the successful challenge in the previous Wilders trial. Now, she is going to judge me.

What have I actually done to deserve this travesty? I have spoken about fewer Moroccans on a market and I have asked questions to PVV members during a campaign event. And I did so, members of the court, because we have a huge problem with Moroccans in this country. And almost no-one dares to speak about it or take tough measures. My party alone has been speaking about this problem for years.
Just look at these past weeks: Stealing and robbing Moroccan fortune seekers in Groningen, abusing our asylum system, and Moroccan youths terrorizing entire neighborhoods in Maassluis, Ede and Almere. I can give tens of thousands other examples, almost everyone in The Netherlands knows them or has personally experienced nuisance from criminal Moroccans. If you do not know them, you are living in an ivory tower.

I tell you: If we can no longer honestly address problems in The Netherlands, if we are no longer allowed to use the word alien, if we, Dutch, are suddenly racists because we want Black Pete to remain black, if we only go unpunished if we want more Moroccans or else are dragged before the penal court, if we sell out our hard-won freedom of expression, if we use the court to silence an opposition politician, who threatens to become Prime Minister, then this beautiful country will be doomed. That is unacceptable, because we are Dutch and this is our country.
And again, what on earth have I done wrong? How can the fact be justified that I have to stand here as a suspect, as if I robbed a bank or committed murder?

I only spoke about Moroccans on a market and asked a question on an election night meeting. And anyone, who has the slightest understanding of politics, knows that the election night meetings of every party consist of political speeches full of slogans, one-liners and making maximum use of the rules of rhetoric. That is our job. That is the way it works in politics.
Election nights are election nights with rhetoric and political speeches; not university lectures, in which every paragraph is scrutinized 15 minutes long from six points of view. It is simply crazy that the Public Prosecutor now uses this against me, as if one would blame a football player for scoring a hattrick.

Indeed, I have said on the market in the beautiful Hague district of Loosduinen “if possible fewer Moroccans.” Mark that I did so a few minutes after a Moroccan lady came to me and told me she was going to vote PVV because she was sick and tired of the nuisance caused by Moroccan youths.
And on election night, I began by asking the PVV audience “Do you want more or fewer EU,” and I did also not explained in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because we need to regain our sovereignty and reassert control over our own money, our own laws and our own borders. I did not do that.

Then, I asked the public “Do you want more or fewer Labour Party.” And, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because they are the biggest cultural relativists, willfully blind and Islam hugging cowards in Parliament. I did not say that.
And, then, I asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans” and, again, I did not explain in detail why the answer might be fewer. Namely, because people with a Moroccan nationality are overrepresented in the Netherlands in crime, benefit dependency and terror. And that we want to achieve this by expelling criminals with also the Moroccan nationality after denaturalizing them of their Dutch nationality and by a stricter immigration policy and an active voluntary repatriation policy. Proposals which we have made in our election manifesto from the day I founded the Party for Liberty.

I explained this in several interviews on national television, both between the statement on the market and election night, as well as on election night a few moments after I had asked the said questions. It is extremely malicious and false of the Public Prosecutor to want to disregard that context.
Disgusting – I have no other words for it – are the actions of other politicians, including the man who for a few months may still call himself Prime Minister. Their, and especially his, actions after the said election night constituted a real persecution, a witch hunt. The government created an atmosphere in which it had to come to trial.

Prime Minister Rutte even told small children during the youth news that I wanted to expel them and then reassured them that this would not happen. As if I had said anything of that kind. It is almost impossible to behave viler and falser.

But, also, the then Minister of Security and Justice, who, it should be noted, is the political boss of the Public Prosecutor, called my words disgusting and even demanded, he demanded that I take them back. A demand of the Minister of Justice, you do not have to be called Einstein to predict what will happen next, what the Public Prosecutor will do, if you do not comply to the demand of the Minister of Justice.

The Interior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, too, both from the Labour Party, expressed themselves similarly. In short, the government left the Public Prosecutor no option than to prosecute me. Hence, in this trial, the Officers of Justice are not representatives of an independent Public Prosecutor, but accomplices of this government.

Mr. President, the elite also facilitated the complaints against me. With preprinted declaration forms. Which were brought to the mosque by the police. In which, it has to remarked, the police sometimes said that they, too, were of the opinion that my statements were inadmissible.
And a sample made by us showed that some complaints were the result of pure deception, intimidation and influence. People thought they were going to vote, they not even know my name, did not realize what they were signing or declared that they did not feel to be discriminated against by me at all.
Someone said that, at the As Soenah mosque after Friday prayers alone, 1,200 complaints had been lodged because it was thought to be an election. There were parades, led by mayors and aldermen, like in Nijmegen, where CDA mayor Bruls was finally able to show off his deep-seated hatred of the PVV. The police had extra opening hours, offered coffee and tea, there were dancing and singing Moroccans accompanied by a real oompah band in front of a police station, they turned it into a big party.

But meanwhile, two representative polls, one commissioned by the PVV, the other commissioned by De Volkskrant, showed that, apart from the government and media elite, 43% of the Dutch people, around 7 million people, agree with me. Want fewer Moroccans. You will be very busy if the Public Prosecutor is going to prosecute all these 7 million people.

People will never understand that other politicians – especially from government parties – and civil servants who have spoken about Moroccans, Turks and even PVV members, are being left alone and not prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor

Like Labour leader Samsom, who said that Moroccan youths have a monopoly on ethnic nuisance.
Or Labour chairman Spekman, who said Moroccans should be humiliated.
Or Labour alderman Oudkerk ,who spoke about f*cking Moroccans.
Or Prime Minister Rutte, who said that Turks should get lost.
And what about police chief Joop van Riessen, who said about me on television – I quote literally: “Basically one would feel inclined to say: let’s kill him, just get rid of him now and he will never surface again”?
And in reference to PVV voters, van Riessen declared: “Those people must be deported, they no longer belong here.” End of quote. The police chief said that killing Wilders was a normal reaction. That is hatred, Mr. President, pure hatred, and not by us but against us. And the Public Prosecutor did not prosecute Mr. Van Riessen.

But the Public Prosecutor does prosecute me. And demands a conviction based on nonsensical arguments about race and on concepts that are not even in the law. It accuses and suspects me of insulting a group and inciting hatred and discrimination on grounds of race. How much crazier can it become? Race. What race?

I spoke and asked a question about Moroccans. Moroccans are not a race. Who makes this up? No-one at home understands that Moroccans have suddenly become a race. This is utter nonsense. Not a single nationality is a race. Belgians are no race, Americans are no race. Stop this nonsense, I say to the Public Prosecutor. I am not a racist and my voters are neither. How do you dare suggest that? Wrongly slandering millions of people as racists.
43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans, as I already said. They are no racists. Stop insulting these people. Every day, they experience the huge problem with Moroccans in our country. They have a right to a politician who is not afraid to mention the problem with Moroccans. But neither they nor I care whether someone is black, yellow, red, green or violet.
I tell you: If you convict someone for racism while he has nothing against races, then you undermine the rule of law, then it is bankrupt. No-one in this country will understand that.

And now the Public Prosecutor also uses the vague concept ‘intolerance’. Yet another stupidity. The subjective word intolerance, however, is not even mentioned in the law. And what for heaven’s sake is intolerance? Are you going to decide that, members of the court?

It is not up to you to decide. Nor to the Supreme Court or even the European Court. The law itself must determine what is punishable. We, representatives, are elected by the people to determine clearly and visibly in the law for everyone what is punishable and what is not.
That is not up to the court. You should not do that, and certainly not on the basis of such subjective concepts which are understood differently by everyone and can easily be abused by the elite to ban unwelcome opinions of the opposition. Do not start this, I tell you.


Mr. President, Members of the Court,
Our ancestors fought for freedom and democracy. They suffered, many gave their lives. We owe our freedoms and the rule of law to these heroes.

But the most important freedom, the cornerstone of our democracy, is freedom of speech. The freedom to think what you want and to say what you think.
If we lose that freedom, we lose everything. Then, The Netherlands cease to exist, then the efforts of all those who suffered and fought for us are useless. From the freedom fighters for our independence in the Golden Age to the resistance heroes in World War II. I ask you: Stand in their tradition. Stand for freedom of expression.
By asking a conviction, the Public Prosecutor, as an accomplice of the established order, as a puppet of the government, asks to silence an opposition politician. And, hence, silence millions of Dutch. I tell you: The problems with Moroccans will not be solved this way, but will only increase.
For people will sooner be silent and say less because they are afraid of being called racist, because they are afraid of being sentenced. If I am convicted, then everyone who says anything about Moroccans will fear to be called a racist.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, I conclude.
A worldwide movement is emerging that puts an end to the politically correct doctrines of the elites and the media which are subordinate to them.

That has been proven by Brexit.
That has been proven by the US elections.
That is about to be proven in Austria and Italy.
That will be proven next year in France, Germany, and The Netherlands.
The course of things is about to take a different turn. Citizens no longer tolerate it.
And I tell you, the battle of the elite against the people will be won by the people. Here, too, you will not be able to stop this, but rather accelerate it. We will win, the Dutch people will win and it will remember well who was on the right side of history.
Common sense will prevail over politically correct arrogance.
Because everywhere in the West, we are witnessing the same phenomenon.
The voice of freedom cannot be imprisoned; it rings like a bell.
Everywhere, ever more people are saying what they think.
They do not want to lose their land, they do not want to lose their freedom.
They demand politicians who take them seriously, who listen to them, who speak on their behalf. It is a genuine democratic revolt. The wind of change and renewal blows everywhere. Including here, in The Netherlands.


As I said:
I am standing here on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens.
I do not speak just on behalf of myself.
My voice is the voice of many.
And, so, I ask you.
not only on behalf of myself,
but in the name of all those Dutch citizens:
Acquit me!
Acquit us!

Ottawa -Vanier EASTVIEW The 11th month of the 11th hour at 11 minutes 11seconds 2016

 Videos et photos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

‘To kill or not to kill, that is the question’

Human From The Moment Of...: ‘To kill or not to kill, that is the question’ http://humanfromthemomentof.blogspot.com/2016/06/to-kill-or-not-to-kill-that-is-question.html?spref=tw

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau physically manhandled 2 MPs in the House of Commons today prior to a key vote on Liberals planning to take control of the House.

Shifting gears into federal politics, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau physically manhandled 2 MPs in the House of Commons today prior to a key vote on Liberals planning to take control of the House.

Is this acceptable behaviour for a Prime Minister?

From the article: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was accused of "manhandling" Opposition whip Gord Brown and elbowing NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau in the House of Commons as MPs gathered for a vote on the government's assisted-dying bill Wednesday afternoon.

In video from the House, Trudeau is seen walking toward Brown in a crowd of MPs in the Commons aisle, taking his arm in an apparent effort to move Brown toward his seat. While doing so, he encountered Brosseau, who was also standing in the aisle and was seen physically reacting after the contact.
---------------------------------------------------------
THE STORY DOES NOT END THERE
 

Tory whip Gord Brown: It’s time to get past Trudeau’s elbow incident

Brown says he was trying to get past NDP MPs before the PM crossed the aisle, calls conspiracy theory “a stretch on a good day.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/28/tory-whip-gord-brown-its-time-to-get-past-trudeaus-elbow-incident.html

By Tonda MacCharlesOttawa Bureau reporter

11:52 AM, Sat., May 28, 2016

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/28/tory-whip-gord-brown-its-time-to-get-past-trudeaus-elbow-incident.html
VANCOUVER—Conservative whip Gord Brown believes Justin Trudeau’s political reputation took a hit when the prime minister crossed the Commons floor, swearing, and dragged him out of a knot of Opposition MPs.

In an interview with the Star and Canadian Press at the Conservative convention, Brown said the appropriate sanction is now up to a Commons committee.

“The prime minister has apologized. I think that he has suffered some hit to his credibility, and that’s something he has to deal with. I think Canadians see him in a different light than they did a week ago. I think they were surprised at what happened. But that’s up to the committee.”

He said the committee may call NDP MP Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, him and even Trudeau, but added, “He did apologize. I think most Canadians think we should move on from this.”
Brown said he hopes tempers in Parliament have cooled in the week since Trudeau the incident, but he rebutted suggestions that the Conservatives and the NDP had coordinated a delay of the vote to limit debate on assisted suicide that night.

“I was the one that actually said to Andrew Leslie, ‘Let’s go.’ And before I knew it I was surrounded by the New Democratic Party members.”

He said that usually, when he and Liberal whip Andrew Leslie begin to walk up the aisle prior to a vote, NDP MPs milling about “scurry into their seats.”

“I honestly did not see that coming. I said to them, ‘I need to get through. Now let me go through.’ If you see the video, I’m trying to get through.”

“And I was nearly through when the Prime Minister, I see him charging towards us and then … he grabbed me and I told him to let go of my arm. I said, ‘Let go of me, now.’ He had no business grabbing my arm.” Brown said Trudeau “grabbed my arm as if he was trying to get me through.

“It was an extraordinary situation. The prime minister should not have been on the other side of the House. There’s a reason why the parliamentary tradition is two sword-lengths apart between the Opposition and the government.”

He said he didn’t walk around the NDP members, because “I figured they were going to move out of the way. So I got in the middle of it and I tried to get through.”

Brown said he did not realize at the time that Trudeau had elbowed NDP MP Brosseau, because “he did pull me through and we all know what he said. I heard him telling the NDP members to get the f- out of the way. That’s pretty clear.”
Brown said he has not spoken personally to Trudeau since that night. When MPs immediately raised Trudeau’s behaviour with the Commons Speaker, Trudeau yelled across the aisle at Brown.

“He was yelling across to me, ‘You know I was trying to help you.’ I think he realized at that point that he was in some trouble, and so I just said to him, ‘You know you shouldn’t have been out of your seat.’”

Brown called the social media backlash blaming Brosseau “really unfortunate” and said he, too, had received similar comments. “I was just doing my job. There’s only two members of Parliament who should have been on the floor at that time. That was myself and the government whip, Andrew Leslie.”

“For someone to suggest that I conspired with the New Democrats behind the scenes to concoct a situation where the Prime Minister would come charging out of his seat? C’mon. Let’s get serious. That’s a stretch on a good day.”

Brown said the deterioration in relations between the parties happened the week before the incident over Liberal attempts to limit debate on C-14, the assisted suicide bill.

Before that there was “great cooperation” and “great relations” between the Conservative and Liberal House leaders and whips, Brown said.

They’d agreed to “vote pairing,” a longstanding tradition that had ended during the Stephen Harper era, where the government and Opposition mutually agree to allow a travelling MP or minister to miss a vote without penalty because a member from the other side would abstain.
The government communicated with the Opposition what bills they would bring forward, and Brown said even the Liberals’ use of time allocation in some cases, as on budget measures, was “their right.”

But he said the argument over whether the House should sit around the clock to debate the assisted suicide bill — a matter of conscience that all parties were giving MPs a free vote on — created political acrimony that hadn’t existed before that. Conservatives opposed the Liberal offer of all-night sittings.
Brown said the Liberal House leader Dominic Leblanc “seems very reasonable” and had worked well with Conservatives in the past, but after the Liberals nearly lost an unrelated vote on Air Canada’s maintenance facilities, things changed. “I think he was given direction to shut this debate down and make it go as quickly as possible.”

Brown said the past week when Parliament didn’t sit was a helpful cooling-off period.
“I think there’s been a big change, a sea change since last week.”

He said the Liberal government’s “climb-down” and withdrawal of a motion to unilaterally control the parliamentary agenda “is a positive sign, and hopefully we can get back to working cooperatively.”

The New Terrorist ..will Terrorize HER and will Terrorize HIM #

The New Terrorist ..will Terrorize HER and will Terrorize HIM

 

Doctors on steroids (brainless) licensed to kill ..Mandated by the Supreme Court ,delivered to a home near you by your own Member of Parliament ...is the Canadian Society ready for this ...Are you ready for this ...Write, tell, demonstrate, take a stand Now!  Contact your Member of Parliament .."Because its 2016" no more innocent white coats.

 

I say ..if your member of Parliament Your Representative. votes for this he/she better start training to administer the deed him/her/self.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/  Do not hesitate the guy below will not..

 

 

Social media data could be goldmine for predicting mental illness

a little research....
For pictures see b https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1067&bih=510&q=mental+illness&oq=mental+illness&gs_l=img.12..0l10.1601.5626.0.7102.14.10.0.4.4.0.128.914.7j3.10.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..0.14.925.t4iP3wDEC94#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=mental+illness+art
For articles about mental illness see: 
 https://anaischarles.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/productive-bodies-human-worth-in-the-era-of-capitalism/
http://www.popsci.com/tags/mental-illness

SCARRY CHECK out the video at the bottom of this page http://www.douglas.qc.ca/section/social-psychiatry-research-and-interest-group-spring-336?locale=en



CDC Report: Mental Illness Surveillance Among U.S. Adults   www.cdc.gov/mentalhealthsurveillance/

Do we need a diagnostic manual for mental illness?  www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/10/diagnostic-manual-mental-illness

Social media data could be goldmine for predicting mental illness

Posted on Tuesday, Mar 1, 2016

 

A team of researchers from France and Canada led by Diana Inkpen of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Engineering will explore the use of social media data to help detect and monitor individuals potentially at risk of mental health issues. The project has received a three-year grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Social media is everywhere. Internet users are posting, blogging and tweeting about almost everything, including their moods, activities and social interactions.

 Using novel algorithms, Inkpen and her team, which includes scientists from uOttawa, the University of Alberta and the Université de Montpellier (France), will take the massive data generated through social media and apply social web mining and sentiment analysis methods to detect those at-risk and their mental state.

“We will investigate one application scenario for our predictive model, which will be used to identify at-risk individuals in online communities. The model will also be used by psychologists and psychiatrists to identify variables related to major mental illness,” explains Inkpen.

The algorithms developed in this project can be adapted for other uses, such as identifying at-risk youth or high school bullying victims. 

 The research team will partner with the Canadian company Advanced Symbolics, which will collect and sample social media data. Both have expertise in natural language processing, data mining, social media processing and medical informatics, in both English and French.

This is a rare asset, as most current research focuses uniquely on English.

Read the NSERC press release   (test this link too)
Media inquiries
Danika Gagnon
Media Relations Officer
Cell: 613-863-7221
danika.gagnon@uOttawa.ca

Fotos