Mediaboss Marketing

Its a bit rich for Liberals to be accusing Conservatives of doing something wrong by appearing in the American media, talking about a live Canadian political issue. The issue is the governments $10.5-million payout to Omar Khadr; last week, after several Conservative MPs aired their criticisms in The Wall Street Journal and on Fox News, senior Liberals cried foul, suggesting that in criticizing the Khadr deal in front of the neighbours, the Conservatives were undermining Canadas bargaining position in the NAFTA negotiations, and even putting Canadian jobs in jeopardy.

Oh come on.

One of the Liberal Partys preferred methods of generating memorable coverage of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canadian media and especially social media aside from staging photo-ops of him just happening to pop up shirtless at a wedding or jogging by a high-school prom is to get his face on an American TV show, or his photo in a U.S. magazine. Softball interview or fashion spread, either will do. Call it the Go American strategy.

The Liberal brain trust understands that, given the nature of Canadians media habits, whats shown in America does not stay in America, but immediately enters the Canadian media space, usually in a highly privileged position. The PM will never get coverage as admiring in the Canadian press so going stateside is a great way to generate positive, laudatory and highly Facebookable news.

The Liberals are experts at using Go American, and sometimes Go Global, for building Mr. Trudeaus brand and amplifying his partys message in Canada. The Conservatives are merely learning from the masters.

On the substance of the Khadr case, the Conservatives could not be more wrong and well come back to that in a moment. But they have every right to criticize the governments decision, whether its because thats what they genuinely believe, or because they see political advantage in it. They even have the right to talk about it outside of Canadas borders.

The Conservatives arent bringing up the Khadr settlement in order to cause the NAFTA negotiations to fail. The only people making the Khadr-NAFTA linkage are Liberals. Theres simply no sign that the Conservative Party is using the Khadr case to undermine the existing pact or any hopes for renegotiation.

Conservatives are criticizing the Khadr settlement because they disagree with it, as is their right. It would be helpful, honest and a winning strategy if the Liberals, instead of trying to change the subject by casting aspersions on critics, would simply defend the Khadr arrangement, on its merits. Because the Trudeau government is right on the merits. And the Conservatives are dead wrong.

The government did the right thing in agreeing to compensate Mr. Khadr. A lot of Canadians may not see it that way, but the governments decision has the law and the facts on its side. So does Mr. Khadr.

Reasonable people can debate whether the amount paid is too much, but its impossible to argue that Mr. Khadr would have lost in court. He had a Supreme Court ruling in his favour, saying that his constitutional rights had been grossly abused by the Canadian government. (Note: A previous Liberal government.) How many plaintiffs launch a lawsuit with that kind of evidence on their side?

Even though all of the lengthy, extensive and illegal torture he was subjected to happened while he was a guest of Uncle Sam, the Canadian government was partly complicit in those abuses; he was at one point subjected to days of sleep deprivation in order to soften him up for an interrogation by Canadian officials. The Supreme Court said as much.

As a result, it was certain that his lawsuit would ultimately be decided in his favour. The Conservatives are essentially saying the government should have spent thousands or millions of dollars in lawyers fees to fight a case it was bound to lose.

And leaving utilitarian questions aside, the Conservatives are wrong on the cases legal and moral issues. Mr. Khadrs conviction comes from a U.S. military tribunal of questionable legality; even the charge against him does not appear to be legal. Given the torture he was subjected to; given that he was a child at the time of his capture, having been placed in an impossible position by his parents; and given that the chief evidence against him was a coerced confession, its impossible to imagine that he could have been convicted under Canadian law. For the Conservatives to continue calling Omar Khadr a convicted and self-confessed terrorist, as they do on the KhadrQuestions.ca website, is just wrong.

It would be good if the Liberals, having finally made the right decision, would stick to defending it on its merits. And it would be nice if the Conservatives, allegedly the party of individual liberties, could see the Khadr affair for what it is: An example of what happens when when a giant government bureaucracy is untethered from the constraints of law. It crushes people.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

Here is the original post:
Globe editorial: Liberals and Conservatives, playing politics with Khadr and NAFTA - The Globe and Mail

Tony Abbott at the NSW Liberal Party Futures convention at Rosehill Racecourse in Sydney. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

A motion championed by Tony Abbott to introduce one member one preselection voting has passed at the Liberal partys New South Wales convention.

NSW Liberals voted for the Warringah motion with a 61% majority on Sunday afternoon, following brief delays after the electronic voting system went down.

There were 784 votes from a total pool of 1,224 cast in favour of the first Warringah motion.

A vote for a second Warringah motion was also passed, 769-423, according to the former MP Ross Cameron, a supporter of the changes, who tweeted the empire is imploding.

The motion is for one vote to be given to all MPs and office-bearers in the NSW Liberals during preselections. Current rules give votes to branch representatives and central party officials.

Abbott said the NSW Liberal party would no longer be an insiders club after the convention.

We didnt like the insiders club, the closed shop which the NSW Liberal party has been for too long, he said. We will do even greater things now that weve got this mandate to be a genuine peoples party.

A key proponent of the reforms, the Warringah electoral conference president and powerbroker Walter Villatora, said the party membership had clearly spoken on Sunday. He said the reforms would make NSW the most democratic division in Australia.

Abbott described the reforms as true democracy versus the fake democracy proposed by the partys moderate and soft right factions, which wanted to restrict the party members influence.

Villatora said: Somewhere up above in Liberal party heaven Robert Menzies is looking down and smiling.

The era of brutal factionalism is over. I want to thank the hundreds of members whove made this happen. I especially want to thank the prime minister and the premier for their clear support for democratic reform.

The motions still need to be ratified by the state council. Villatora said he expected that to take place in three months.

Another reform proponent, retired major general Jim Molan, received loud applause in moving the motions on Sunday.

Other motions, proposed by Liberal MP Alex Hawke, were proposed to temper the reforms. Hawkes motions would protect sitting members from the new system with a grandfather clause and place eligibility criteria on voting members, including activity tests and waiting times.

Hawkes motions were voted down.

There were a large number of motions yet to be debated when the meeting concluded on Sunday. It is currently unclear what will happen to the remaining motions.

A how-to-vote card issued by backers of the so-called Warringah motions called on members at the special convention to vote yes only to the two motions, and no to the dozens of others, which have yet to be voted on. Stop the factions, stop the stacking, take control of your party, the card reads.

One NSW Liberals member, Kevin Brennan, tweeted before the debate: If the one member one vote motion doesnt get passed in the NSW Liberal party convention today then the election is lost + the party finished.

About 1,500 members had registered to attend the NSW Liberal Futures convention.

Two sources told AAP the electronic voting system went down just before 3pm as members were about to vote on the motion to introduce plebiscites to select candidates for state and federal parliament. The online voting system can be accessed via smartphones, tablets and computers.

A party insider told AAP it was likely several of the motions could get a majority of votes on the floor, and it would then be up to party officials to weave them together into what has been described as a modernisation plan.

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, spoke in favour of plebiscites at the convention on Saturday as a way of giving more power to members and building the partys membership base.

He described plebiscites as a fundamental element of party democracy.

However there are differences of views over the checks and balances in the system, including a minimum period of membership of the party.

Abbott, who has been criticising the direction of the government under Turnbull, said the victory wasnt about him but about the party.

Now we can go forward as one united party, he said.

Abbott told reporters on Saturday those who oppose his one member one vote motions were advocating fake democracy.

Cameron and a fellow Warringah backer, the former NSW president John Riddick, warned the moderates against trying to stymie the changes by bogging it down at state council.

You cannot ignore the will of the people that has been so clearly demonstrated today, Riddick told reporters outside the meeting. If they dont ratify it in three months, they are risking a terrible war of ratification.

Moderates put on a brave face, with Mackellar MP Jason Falinksi hailing the vote as the beginning of a new start for the party that would allow it to reform and address external challenges.

I think this conference today will be a unifying moment in the history of the Liberal party in NSW, the factional powerbroker told reporters.

When asked if it was a win for Abbott, he said it was a win for all Liberals wherever they may be.

I dont believe it will be a shift to the right, he said as he was heckled by Cameron in front of reporters.

The current preselection practice involves a combination of branch-elected local delegates and central electors from outside the seat.

It is understood Turnbull did not support part of the Warringah motions.

Visit link:
Tony Abbott-backed motion for NSW Liberal preselections wins party support - The Guardian

Liberals don't just hate President Trump; lots of them don't even like the idea of being in the company of his supporters.

That's the big takeaway from a new Pew Research Center survey, which is just the latest indicator of our remarkably tribal and partisan politics. And when it comes to Trump, it's difficult to overstate just how tribal the left is and how much distaste he engenders. Indeed, that distaste apparently extends even to people who decided they would like to vote for Trump.

The poll shows almost half of liberal Democrats 47 percent say that if a friend supported Trump, it would actually puta strain on their friendship. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters more broadly, the number is 35 percent. White and more-educated Democrats are more likely to feel that it's tough to even be friends with a Trump supporter.

And while partisanship and tribalism are pretty bipartisan things in American politics today, Democrats are actually substantially less able to countenance friends who supported the wrong candidate: Just 13 percent of Republicans say a friend's support of Hillary Clinton would strain their relationship.

Part of the reason for the imbalance is likely that liberals tend to live in more homogeneous places and don't even associate with conservatives. Another Pew study last year showed a whopping 47 percent of people who planned to vote for Clinton didn't have any close friends who were Trump supporters. By contrast, 31 percent of Trump supporters said they didn't have any friends who backed Clinton.

Because of the way our population is sorted, with liberals clustered in urban areas and Republicans more spread out, Democrats tend to be more insulated from dissenting political voices. So perhaps it's no surprise that they don't hear and don'twantto hear those voices coming from their friends' mouths.

The prevalent belief on the left that Trump isn't just a bad president or person, but is also racist, xenophobic and misogynistic is undoubtedly at play here too. And at one point during the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton even suggested half of Trump's supporters were deplorables who were also racist or xenophobic or misogynistic. (Her campaign later clarified that she meant only people at Trump's rallies. But still.)

Despite that, it's noteworthy just how many people think supporting the nominee of a major American political party reflects poorly upon the people they know. Fully 46 percent of Americans who voted for president chose Trump, and that isn't really an acceptable position for a friend to take for half of liberal Democrats.

One final data point from the new Pew study: 68 per cent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters say they find it stressful and frustrating to talk to people who have a different opinion of Trump. About half 52 percent of Republican and GOP-leaning voters say the same.

When people ask why politicians in Washington can't get along, this is why: Americans can't even talk to each otherabout politics anymore without getting flustered.

Washington Post

Continued here:
Nearly half of US liberals don't want to be in the same room as Trump supporters, finds survey - The Independent

Almost half of liberal-leaning Democrats said that a friendship would be strained if they found out their friend had voted for President Trump, a new Pew Research Center poll found.

The survey, released Thursday, found that 47 percent of liberal Democrats said their relationships would be strained if they found out a friend backed Trump.

Fifty-nine percent of Americans said it is stressful and frustrating to talk with those who have a different opinion about Trump. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters said so, while52 percent ofRepublicans and Republican-leaning respondents agreed.

Voting for Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonTrump Jr. adds to legal team ahead of Senate meeting Trump: Democrats, Russians laughing at 'phony Russian Witch Hunt' Scaramucci makes Sunday shows debut with vow to stop WH leaks MORE was far less likely to impact a friendship, with just 13 percent of Republicans saying that a friend voting for the former Democratic presidential candidate would strain their friendship.

The Pew Research poll surveyed 2,505 American adults by phone from June 27 through July 9, and has a margin of error of 2.2 percent.

Continued here:
Poll: Nearly half of liberals say friend supporting Trump would hurt friendship - The Hill (blog)

Canadas Liberal government has removed condemnation of barbaric cultural practices like Muslim honor killings and female genital mutilation from the study guide used to complete the Canadian citizenship exam.

The Canadian Press has obtained a copy of the soon-to-be-released guide and noted extensive revisions.

Theres also a new chapter on the evolution of LGBTQ rights in Canada and a section on how the country has historically discriminated against everyone from Japanese-Canadians to disabled Canadians.

The reference to getting a job as an obligation of Canadian citizenship has also been excised. The previous Conservative government reworked the document in 2011 when Jason Kenney was immigration minister

Kenney, who has since left the federal scene to lead the Alberta Conservative party, included large portions of Canadian military history that emphasized the countrys contributions to major wars and not just to peacekeeping as Liberal governments have tended to focus on. The passage that reminded potential citizens that female mutilation and honor killings are a crime in Canada was criticized by some because they felt it was anti-Muslim.

The new Liberal citizenship guide offers a different set of expectations in tune with the partys ideological positions: mandatory obligations for potential Canadian citizens now include respecting Indigenous Peoples and treaties negotiated with native bands, paying income tax and completing all of the questions asked on the federal census.

The section that describes how Canada embraces the rights of LGBTQ groups was first proposed by government bureaucrats in the previous Conservative government but Kenney specifically overruled them, opting instead for one reference to same-sex marriage being legal in Canada.

Former Liberal Immigration Minister John McCallum said redesigning the study guide was a top priority when he assumed the office in 2015. While redacting references to female genital mutilation, the War of 1812 and working for a living, the new document also divides a citizens responsibilities between voluntary and mandatory obligations.

Voting, speaking both official languages, and upholding the human rights of others are voluntary responsibilities; obedience to the law, jury duty, filing income taxes. and respecting Indigenous treaties are mandatory.

Today, Canadians, for example, can own their own homes and buy land thanks to treaties that the government negotiated, the draft document suggests. Every Canadian has responsibilities under those treaties as well. They are agreements of honor.

The guide doesnt ignore one of Prime Miniser Justin Trudeaus favorite expressions: Canada has learned how to be strong not in spite of our differences, but because of them. The slightly altered phrase can be found in the introduction.

Follow David on Twitter

See the original post:
Trudeau Liberals Remove 'Barbaric Cultural Practices' From Citizenship Test - The Daily Caller