Mediaboss Marketing

The televised hearings addressing the violence that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were nothing short of riveting and disturbing.

The House committee has been gathering information and investigating the attempted act of sedition for more than a year, amassing at minimum 140,000-plus documents and investigating more than 1,000 witnesses.

The committee learned all sorts of appalling facts, including that former President Donald Trump flippantly said his former vice president, Mike Pence, deserved to be hung after hearing rioters were reciting hang Mike Pence.

Newly released footage and original testimony nullified the pathetically disingenuous remark made by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who equated the behavior of violent insurrectionists to that of a normal tourist visit.

Several capitol police officers and other witnesses provided testimony to the committee, all of whom were riveting and captivating to listen to.

Engaging commentary notwithstanding, the highlight of the evening was Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., whose performance was nothing short of a tour de force.

She put her MAGA Republican counterparts to shame, exposing them for both their cowardice and their dereliction of duty. Among her most deliberate comments (one of many) was when Cheney stated President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

For the record, I am not a political supporter of Cheney. Her politics differ dramatically from mine.

Despite Cheneys honorable and arguably courageous stance in challenging a sizable segment of her Republican colleagues for their habitually untoward behavior, the truth is that she is a right of center conservative who overwhelmingly supported much of Trumps agenda during his presidency.

Considerable partisan allegiance aside, when it came time to stand up for the protection and preservation of democracy, Cheney disregarded so-called party loyalty and aligned herself with the virtues of truth and honesty. For this, she deserves accolades.

Among other facts, the initial night of the hearings revealed that many of those around Trump were well aware of the fact that he had lost the election to President Joe Biden.

Trumps attorney general, Bill Barr, testified that he dismissed the claim that the 2020 election was stolen as bullshit. Interestingly, Trumps daughter, Ivanka, concurred with Barrs assessment.

Notably, numerous Republican lawmakers, such as Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., frantically sought pardons from Trump for their role in attempting to overturn the election. It goes without saying that people convinced of their innocence dont seek to be pardoned, and its old news now that many Republicans in Congress who knew better perversely embraced Trumps election lies.

There are a number of historical parallels to draw from as it relates to this horrid event. One that seems most evident is the fact that a large percentage of the anarchists who journeyed to the nations capital on Jan. 6, 2021, are rabid white supremacists.

These were men and women who were inspired and motivated by a fellow white supremacist who was unable to garner the votes of most nonwhite citizens, failed to successfully win re-election and thus, sought to overthrow the government and dismantle democracy.

There has been a long history of this sort of activity in America.

Perhaps Cheneys most iconic statement made during the opening night of the hearings was the following: I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible, there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

She spoke truth to power here.

Elwood Watson Ph.D. is a professor of history, black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee. He is also an author and public speaker, and his column is syndicated through Cagle Cartoons. Click here for previous columns. Follow him on Twitter: @bleachbred. The opinions expressed are his own.

Read this article:
Elwood Watson: In Liz Cheney, Liberals Find a Conservative They Can Laud - Noozhawk

Last month, David Pocock became the first Independent senatorto represent the ACT.

His victory was improbable but not entirely unexpected: the former rugby union star hasan international profileand many Canberrans volunteered to help him.

In the weeks before his election, his main opponents showed signs they were nervous about his growing support.

Labor invested significantly more effort (and money) than it usually does to rally support for its senator, Katy Gallagher.

Advance Australia, a Liberal-aligned lobby group, spent even more it told Canberrans repeatedly that Senator Pocock was an extremist who was disguising his Greens sympathies.

Look back at how the 2022 Australian federal election unfolded

Ultimately, Senator Gallagher was re-electedbut with Labor's lowest-ever vote in the ACT.

And the Liberals' Zed Seselja became Australia's first territory senator to lose their seat at an election.

The ABC has analysed every ballot cast in the ACT Senate race.There were some surprising results and not just Senator Pocock's victory.

It took three-and-a-half weeks to formally declare the ACT Senate results,but the outcome was obvious on election night.

While Senator Pocock's party had significantly fewer first-preference votes than the Liberals(21.1 per cent to 24.8 per cent), his victory was a fait accompli.

Below is a simplified view of how the votes flowed, over dozens of preference distributions, to elect two senators.

Collectively, Labor's two candidates had more votes than the quota required for election in the ACT, which isone third of all votesplus one (or about 33.3 per cent).

However, Senator Gallagher fell 313 votes short. For the first time, an ACT Labor candidate needed to rely on preferences to be elected.

Mr Seselja's vote also dropped to a record low. And, as expected, only a trickle of preferences from minor parties went to the Liberals.

Senator Pocock's first-preference haul was not unprecedented: the Greens have done better twice (Kerry Tucker in 2007 and Lin Hatfield-Dodds in 2010).

The difference this time was that otherchallengers the Greens' Tjanara Goreng Goreng and independent Kim Rubenstein also polled well.

Ultimately, Senator Pocock won easily as he was the preferred choice of minor-party voters, who were more influential this election than in any other.

Senator Pocock was always seen to be targeting Mr Seselja's seatrather than Senator Gallagher's.

So it was a surprise when ACT Labor became so spooked by Senator Pocock's campaign that it significantly ramped up efforts to secure votes.

While Labor was never close to losing, perhaps its fear was reasonable.

This chart shows that the vast majority of Senator Pocock's supporters, when pressedto choose a major party, opted for Labor or the Greens rather than the Liberals.

Only one in six preferenced Mr Seselja above Senator Gallagher and Dr Goreng Goreng.

This suggestsSenator Pocock convinced more Labor voters to switch to him than Liberal voters.

There may be other explanations for example, he might have attracted large numbers of "tactical" voters, whose loyalty is still with Labor.

Either way, Senator Pocock's supporters are generally progressive rather than conservative.

Similarly, Professor Rubenstein who, like Senator Pocock, had the support of the Climate 200 advocacy group was of almost no interest to conservative voters.

Professor Rubenstein's "Kim for Canberra" campaign attracted a not-insignificant 4.4 per cent of first preference votes.

Analysis of those ballot papers suggests only one in eightof them supported the Liberals.

The 2022 election was a clear success for left-of-centre candidates.

But while the progressive vote expanded, it also fractured.

Senator Pocock's election and the rise of minor parties more broadly poses electoral challenges for Labor and the Greens.

How? That's best explained by looking at a hypothetical election in which Senator Pocock did not stand.

This year's federal election was always going to be difficult for the Canberra Liberals.

The Morrison governmenttanked across the country (except in Tasmania), and local debate centred on Mr Seselja's unpopular opposition to territory rights.

Yet while federal Greens leader Adam Bandt called the national outcome a "greenslide", this was untrue of the ACT.

This chart maps which major parties Canberrans preferred in 2019 and 2022.

Underlying support for the ACT Greens did not budge at all, despite the "greenslide", Mr Seselja's unpopularity and a deep swing against the Coalition nationally.

In fact, Mr Seselja would likely have beaten Dr Goreng Goreng to the second Senate seat had Senator Pocock pulled out of the campaign.

How do we know? The ABC re-ran the ACT Senate election, using Canberrans' ballots as a guide but filtering out preferences for Senator Pocock's party.

Senator Gallagher coasted in, and Mr Seselja pipped Dr Goreng Goreng for the final seat (34 per cent to 30.5 per cent).

Of course, there are limits to this hypothetical exercise: Canberrans might have voted very differently in a campaign with different candidates.

But the results suggest that Mr Seselja didn't lose the election Senator Pocock won it.

If Senator Pocock fares poorly over the next three years, or decides against running for re-election, the Canberra Liberals will be very well placed to regain a senator.

The question for them now and all other Liberal branches is: what kind of Liberal do Canberra voters want?

The ACT Greens, meanwhile, face their own challenge. How do they mobilise the kind of support that Senator Pocock did?

Posted6h ago6 hours agoSun 19 Jun 2022 at 8:45pm, updated1h ago1 hours agoMon 20 Jun 2022 at 1:58am

Visit link:
Which Canberrans voted for David Pocock, and what does this mean for the Liberals' future? - ABC News

Innovation, Science and Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne speaks in the House of Commons, in Ottawa, on June 2.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

The federal Liberals introduced privacy legislation Thursday to give Canadians more control over their personal data, impose fines for non-compliant digital platforms and introduce new rules for the use of artificial intelligence.

The bill, presented by Innovation Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, aims to fulfill his mandate to advance the federal digital charter, strengthen privacy protections for consumers and provide clear rules for fair competition in the online marketplace.

Bill C-27, or the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022, revives some aspects of a previous bill, introduced by the Liberals in late 2020, that did not become law.

Under the umbrella of the bill, a new Consumer Privacy Protection Act would aim to increase Canadians control over their personal information and how it is handled by digital platforms.

It would limit the information companies can collect on minors, and give Canadians the ability to request that digital platforms permanently delete their data.

Innovation Minister Franois-Philippe Champagne has introduced a privacy bill that sets out rules on the use of Canadians' personal data by digital platforms. It also creates new safeguards around the development of artificial intelligence.

The Canadian Press

It would also give the Privacy Commissioner of Canada order-making powers to encourage compliance via a new tribunal.

Those powers would include the ability to fine non-compliant companies up to five per cent of their global revenue or $25-million, whichever amount is greater, for certain serious offences.

A proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act would create new rules around the creation and deployment of new AI technologies.

It would create an AI and Data Commissioner with the power to order third-party audits of companies activities.

It would also outline criminal offences and penalties related to the use of illegally-obtained AI data, the reckless deployment of AI and its use with any intent to cause substantial economic loss.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said in a statement Thursday that the changes are a welcome but long overdue development.

The law has not kept up with the pace of change, nor with Canadas international competitors, the organizations senior vice-president, Mark Agnew, said.

The so-called lines between `digital and `traditional business no longer exist and Canadas laws must be equipped for this reality, or else our businesses risk falling behind their international counterparts.

With the House of Commons soon rising for a summer break, it is unlikely the bill will see much debate until the fall.

For subscribers: Get exclusive political news and analysis by signing up for the Politics Briefing.

Continue reading here:
Liberals introduce privacy bill that would set out rules on use of personal data and AI - The Globe and Mail

OTTAWA - The federal Liberals tabled a bill Friday that seeks to eliminate self-induced extreme intoxication as a legal defence for violent crimes, after the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in May.

Bill C-28, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, would add new language to the Criminal Code that creates criminal liability when a person who commits a violent crime is in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.

For a person to be found liable for their actions under the drafted update of Section 33.1 in the code, prosecutors would need to establish that they were criminally negligent.

The court would need to consider whether a reasonable person in that situation could have foreseen the risk that ingesting intoxicating substances could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person.

The specific circumstances of the case would factor into the analysis, such as the substance itself and the quantity that was consumed, the persons state of mind at the time and anything they may have done to mitigate such a risk.

Extreme intoxication is defined in the bill as intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour.

It is not a presumed defence, meaning that the test would only apply if a defendant specifically raises it.

This has only ever happened a handful of times, Lametti said.

It would not apply to the vast majority of cases where drugs or alcohol are involved and almost never in situations where only alcohol was consumed.

This is not about being really drunk or really high, he said, repeating several times: Being drunk or high is not a defence for committing criminal acts like sexual assault.

Marci Ien, the Liberal minister for women and gender equality and youth, told reporters the government has been increasingly concerned about online misinformation suggesting that the recent Supreme Court decision meant that being drunk could be a defence for sexual assault.

She cited social media posts with hundreds of thousands of likes and views, including one that suggested rape is now legal if youre intoxicated.

Lametti said one of the motivations for closing the gap in the law so quickly was to address some of the rising fear and confusion around the decision.

You dont want someone to think, Oh, I can have a few drinks and do whatever the blank I want, he quipped.

In its unanimous May ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that being drunk will never get someone off the hook for a violent crime.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the decision that under the previous wording of Section 33.1, convicting someone for how they behave in a state of automatism, or when they are too intoxicated to stay in control of themselves, violates principles of fundamental justice.

The wording had been added by the Liberal government of Jean Chrtien in 1995, in response to a 1994 Supreme Court decision that acquitted a man of sexual assault because he was blackout drunk at the time of the offence.

But it failed the constitutional test because a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that they acted voluntarily or that they ever intended to commit a crime even though a guilty action and a guilty mind must ordinarily be present for someone to be found criminally responsible.

On that basis, the court upheld two acquittals of men who committed violent acts after voluntarily consuming drugs, and ordered a new trial in a third, similar case.

Some groups expressed concern about the court ruling, with Kerri Anne Froc of the National Association of Women and the Laws steering committee urging action to rectify a gap in the criminal justice system and protect women and children, often the victims of these crimes.

The court suggested Parliament could enact new legislation to update the language of the Criminal Code in such a way that extremely intoxicated people could still be held accountable for their violent crimes.

Lamettis office reacted with what he called lightning speed, consulting with stakeholders, court interveners and members of Parliament to come up with a solution that could get broad support.

Pam Hrick, the executive director and general counsel of the Womens Legal Education and Action Fund, appeared alongside ministers at Fridays news conference and praised the governments thoughtful, nuanced and constitutional response.

Asked whether he expects the bill to be passed by unanimous motions before the House of Commons and Senate rise next week for a summer break, Lametti said he is optimistic.

There is a point of agreement here, and I hope we can move this forward.

The NDPs justice critic, Randall Garrison, said in a statement that his party will push to have the bill passed quickly.

The Conservatives say they are still reviewing the legislation.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 17, 2022.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Anyone can read Conversations, but to contribute, you should be registered Torstar account holder. If you do not yet have a Torstar account, you can create one now (it is free)

Sign In

Register

Visit link:
Liberals table bill responding to Supreme Court decision on 'extreme intoxication' - Toronto Star

The clock is ticking for the government to deliver on its ambitious promise to the New Democrats to deliver a dental care program for low- and middle-income uninsured kids by the end of the year, while cost estimates have nearly doubled.

The pledge is a key element of the Liberal government's deal with the NDP to stave off an election until 2025. The Liberals promised to provide coverage by the end of the year for children living in a household with an income of less than $90,000, expanding it next year to include under 18-year olds, seniors and persons living with a disability.

The plan is to fully implement the program by 2025.

Our award-winning journalists bring you the news that impacts you, Canada, and the world. Don't miss out.

The government has just over six months to launch a completely new program, but still appears to be in the consultation phase of the planning and hasn't settled on the most basic question: what form will this program take?

One option is for the program to be delivered as a federal transfer to provinces, which would either administer it alongside existing dental programs or amalgamate them together.

But the NDP have always pitched the program as a stand-alone federal dental insurance plan, administered by federal staff to fill the gaps in the patchwork of provincial and private programs across the country.

A third option to contract the program out to a private company is also on the table, according to several stakeholder groups who've been in talks with government officials but aren't able to speak publicly.

Each available path has its own pitfalls and would likely take more than six months to traverse, and it's not clear what concessions the NDP are willing to accept to get a federal dental-care program in place.

"We are driving dental care forward and are intent on delivering the stated goals. We believe weve found an excellent national model that meets expectations," said NDP health critic Don Davies in a statement Thursday.

The government's 2022 budget suggested the plan would cost $5.3 billion over the next five years, starting with a modest investment of $300 million this year to kick-start the kids program.

But in a legislative costing note, the PBO says the total cost of the program, if delivered as a transfer to provinces, could be closer to $9 billion, and the government would have to spend $939 million this year to get it going.

The PBO's report underscores just how complicated the government's task is in setting up a new dedicated program, the Canadian Dental Program said in a statement.

While we fully support efforts by all levels of government to improve Canadians oral health, were concerned that the timeline previously announced may be exceedingly ambitious given the complexity of this issue," said Dr. Lynn Tomkins, the association's president.

The government has so far held several one-on-one and roundtable meetings with a large slate of stakeholders, including those with an interest in health care, oral health and insurance.

A task force has been stood up to navigate the various options. The executive director of that task force, Lindy Van Amburg, was not available for an interview.

Instead, Health Canada issued a statement to say that coverage will be provided for children this fiscal year, suggesting the government may be offering itself slightly more breathing room by giving itself until the end of March to fulfil its deal with the NDP.

"The government of Canada is committed to respecting the timelines that have been set out for this program, and will provide more information as the design of the program moves forward," the statement read.

Still, the timeline is ambitious. If, as the PBO interpreted, the government decides to download its dental care ambitions onto the provinces, it will need to get buy-in from 13 provinces and territories with a myriad of existing programs and their own unique industry landscape.

The dental association prefers this option because it would support existing programs that need funding, be less disruptive to the insurance sector and pose a lower risk of people going without coverage during the transition.

The Liberals went through a similar process to realize its cost-cutting goals for child care last year, but it took nearly a year to get all provinces and territories to agree.

The politics of signing new provincial and territorial dental care deals may also be complicated by the fact that several provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia, have emphatically requested more money from the federal health transfer with less political meddling from Ottawa.

Contracting out a federal program comes with its own headaches. Some stakeholders have told the government it could offer best value for money, but transparency and accountability could be lost in the event a private company takes over the coverage.

Awarding a multi-billion-dollar procurement process would normally take upwards of a year. Companies need time to prepare a bid, government officials need to carefully go through each one, and that's all before the winning company is able to start working on the program.

It's anyone's guess how long it would take to launch a federal bureau with dedicated government staff.

The government will need to pick an option before it can even begin delving into the arguably much more challenging and detailed work of deciding which services will be covered, how much reimbursement the plan will offer and how it will impact the industry at large.

It's also difficult to know precisely how much the program will cost. If, as some groups fear, provincial and employee insurance plans drop coverage and refer patients to the federal program, the Liberals' promise to the NDP could become much more costly, very quickly.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2022.

See more here:
Liberals still dithering over dental care delivery to satisfy promise to NDP - Canada's National Observer