Jody Wilson-Raybould & Jane Philpott: Where do they go politically from here?

277 posts / 0 new
Last post
robbie_dee

I would assume the Nanaimo Ladysmith result may have been enough to scare off JWR and Philpott from joining the NDP. Will they join the Greens? IDK. I think JWR could probably win her seat as a Green, or as an independent for that matter. She just has to decide what fits best with her long term strategy.

I'm not so sure about Philpott in Markham. She might be better off switching to provincial politics, or for that matter just leaving politics for a while and going back into medicine. After the Liberals are defeated this fall and Trudeau is ousted as leader, doors in the Liberal Party may open again.

Misfit Misfit's picture

JWR is a Liberal. She could just wait out this election and when the Liberals are defeated and a new leadership opens up, JWR can return to politics.

robbie_dee

If JWR's long term goal is to return to the Liberal Party and possibly become leader, she could still run as an "independent Liberal" this election and probably win her riding. There's still probably a lot of people in that party who are pissed off at her though who would stand in her way. If JWR joins the Greens they might make her leader right now. But she probably won't see a cabinet position again, much less the PM's chair, unless its as part of a coalition government.

Pondering

She could spend some time learning French. Take over after Trudeau. He may last another 4 or 8 years but very unlikely farther than that. 

robbie_dee
Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:
I thought Pondering's point was pretty straightforward. She said, "JWR isn't entirely against as she has used it." - referring to A-G directives to prosecutors. Not a very profound point IMHO, but she made her point. I don't recall JWR (or anyone on her behalf) professing that all directives by A-Gs to prosecutors are unacceptable. But certainly, the impression has been left by some partisans that any order from any cabinet minister (who also happens to be an A-G) to any crown counsel would constitute improper interference in the judicial process. Pondering has simply confirmed that that is not the case.

The issue raised by Pondering is a red herring.

IMO the only relevant issue in Lavscam is that the actions of Trudau, Butts, Wernick et all comstituted a violation of "independent" role of the A-G.

On legal matters where the A-G is to make a decision, others in government should not try to influence the decision of the A-G in any way. That they did is the scandal.

That Trudeau's preferred decision may be doable in no way negates the scandalous nature of his interference in a legal decision by the A-G!

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I thought Pondering's point was pretty straightforward. She said, "JWR isn't entirely against as she has used it." - referring to A-G directives to prosecutors. Not a very profound point IMHO, but she made her point. I don't recall JWR (or anyone on her behalf) professing that all directives by A-Gs to prosecutors are unacceptable. But certainly, the impression has been left by some partisans that any order from any cabinet minister (who also happens to be an A-G) to any crown counsel would constitute improper interference in the judicial process. Pondering has simply confirmed that that is not the case.

The issue raised by Pondering is a red herring.

IMO the only relevant issue in Lavscam is that the actions of Trudau, Butts, Wernick et all comstituted a violation of "independent" role of the A-G.

On legal matters where the A-G is to make a decision, others in government should not try to influence the decision of the A-G in any way. That they did is the scandal.

That Trudeau's preferred decision may be doable in no way negates the scandalous nature of his interference in a legal decision by the A-G!

It was not a red herring. Trudeau and the rest are guilty. There is no doubt. There is no need to continue trying to convince anyone of it. They are guilty. It is not a red herring to look at the actions of the other participants. I had previously wondered if JWR was against using that power in general. When I discovered she has used it in the past I posted to show it wasn't so. 

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

JKR

Maybe a new thread should be started titled “using racist settler language as an insult”?

Debater

I don't see Wilson-Raybould or Philpott ever having a future in the Liberal Party.  When you get removed from caucus not just because of the leader but because a majority of your own colleagues think you have damaged the party, it's very difficult to come back.  I don't think they will ever run for Liberal leader.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

No, I brought it into the conversation because it seems that JWR actions and words must not be examined or questioned in any way even if it is prefaced by a statement of Trudeau's utter and complete guilt. I think if JWR were a white man his actions would be up for discussion. I don't believe people should be penalized for their race or their sex and indeed deserve special protection but not to this extent. 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

No, I brought it into the conversation because it seems that JWR actions and words must not be examined or questioned in any way even if it is prefaced by a statement of Trudeau's utter and complete guilt. I think if JWR were a white man his actions would be up for discussion. I don't believe people should be penalized for their race or their sex and indeed deserve special protection but not to this extent. 

Pondering, I'm against Trudeau removing JWR from the Liberal caucus for taping the Michael Wernick convo because IMO the Michael Wernick convo should never have happened. It was part and parcel of the inappropriate interference  into the independence of the A-G. And I would feel the same way even if JWR was a white man.

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

No, I brought it into the conversation because it seems that JWR actions and words must not be examined or questioned in any way even if it is prefaced by a statement of Trudeau's utter and complete guilt. I think if JWR were a white man his actions would be up for discussion. I don't believe people should be penalized for their race or their sex and indeed deserve special protection but not to this extent. 

Pondering, I'm against Trudeau removing JWR from the Liberal caucus for taping the Michael Wernick convo because IMO the Michael Wernick convo should never have happened. It was part and parcel of the inappropriate interference  into the independence of the A-G. And I would feel the same way even if JWR was a white man.

I agree. That makes Trudeau guilty, Wernick guilty, Butts guilty. It doesn't make JWR a saint.  One has nothing to do with the other. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

It made her a target for standing her ground. And Pondering, your remark was racist and irrelevant to the discussion.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering JWR has served at a national level in elected positions both in the H of C and in the Assembly of First Nations. I find it quite objectionable to say that one must state that the women in this story is not a saint. She is deserving of our respect for standing up to improper advances by powerful men. In your opinion if we don't denounce her as less than a pillar of virtue then we are doing a disservice to all those privileged white men

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

It made her a target for standing her ground. And Pondering, your remark was racist and irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, it made her a target for standing her ground. No one is claiming otherwise. Everyone from Trudeau and his entire team are guilty.

I believe that in this thread JWR is practically being deified. I think that is happening not only because she is indigenous, but also because she is female and comes from an illustrious family. I agree that she is a wonderful person. Has done fabulous things. I don't care if she is the Queen of England or a Goddess or the Prime Minister. No one should be immune from questioning. 

PS to make sure I am understood, I was referring to her position literally. She is indigenous nobility in more ways than one. Not only by birth to a chief but also by her own achievements as an indigenous woman who is automatically working against the odds. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

PS to make sure I am understood, I was referring to her position literally. She is indigenous nobility in more ways than one. Not only by birth to a chief but also by her own achievements as an indigenous woman who is automatically working against the odds. 

Pondering put the fucking shovel down you are just digging your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the particulars of her culture is on full display. Please do some basic research before you make such outrageous statements. Also the idea that a successful indigenous woman is such a rarity that it makes them "nobility" is the most full on racist statement I have read on this board in a very, very long time. Your noble savage bullshit is disgusting.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

PS to make sure I am understood, I was referring to her position literally. She is indigenous nobility in more ways than one. Not only by birth to a chief but also by her own achievements as an indigenous woman who is automatically working against the odds. 

Pondering put the fucking shovel down you are just digging your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the particulars of her culture is on full display. Please do some basic research before you make such outrageous statements. Also the idea that a successful indigenous woman is such a rarity that it makes them "nobility" is the most full on racist statement I have read on this board in a very, very long time. Your noble savage bullshit is disgusting.

 

I believe I have been on this board long enough to be judged sincere.  This isn't something I could look up by googling racism. You are so stuck-up it is no wonder the right is on a winning streak. You are your own worst enemies. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I did not question your sincerity and in fact I tried to be nice. Your statement is racist and feeds into some of the prevalent stereotypes of indigenous women. You might want to reflect on your privilege as a settler and think twice about talking about the most discriminated against group in Canadian society until you educate yourself, lack of education is no excuse for being ignorant.

NorthReport

Philpott and Wilson-Raybould and the Liberals are done with each other.

Unless she secures the Conservative nomination I doubt Philpott will get re-elected in her riding. And regardless, do you really think these 2 women want to sit in the opposition back benches? They are probably done with federal politics. They both have bigger fish to fry in their respective lives than spin their wheels in a no-win situation for them.

Pondering

I do think it is much more difficult for women and for indigenous people to have careers as illustrious as JWR's. Intersectionality acknowledges how people can be doubly handicapped. Some people have to work a lot harder to make it than others due to prejudice and other factors. For that reason when people from those communities make it big their communities consider them role models and are protective of them. I'm surprised you don't know about that. 

No community or group considers David Lametti a role model in the way JWR is for indigenous women. If it were David Lametti who did what JWR did all the while declaring himself a Liberal people here would be questioning his role. 

Earlier in this thread I questioned if JWR was against using the power she had in all cases or if it was only this particular case because if it was that she was against the directive power in general then that wouldn't be a valid reason to refuse it for SNC. I had wondered this because she said specifically that she didn't want her name in the Gazette over it. 

I discovered that she has used the directive in a different case therefore she isn't against directives in general so I came back to say so. 

In both cases I've been attacked not because it is so outrageous to question the actions of a Liberal Justice Minister but because that minister is an indigenous woman. Just my opinion of course. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

If it were David Lametti who did what JWR did all the while declaring himself a Liberal people here would be questioning his role. 

Earlier in this thread I questioned if JWR was against using the power she had in all cases or if it was only this particular case because if it was that she was against the directive power in general then that wouldn't be a valid reason to refuse it for SNC Lavelin.

I discovered that she has used the directive in a different case therefore she isn't against directives in general so I came back to say so. 

In both cases I've been attacked not because it is so outrageous to question the actions of a Liberal Justice Minister but because that minister is an indigenous woman. Just my opinion of course. 

 

Point One: No one would question any AG because the AG in SNC Lavelin did nothing wrong.  Quit reducing this to a race and gender issue!!! And quit imagining how people would react to this if it were not JWR.

point two: it was never appropriate to use the directive for SnC Lavelin. People have submitted all kinds of articles which discuss this very issue and you are stuck on refusing to avknowledge that reality.

Most people herr on babble try to learn from what other people say and share. You live in a little bubble and no one can reach you. You are a stuck record that refuses to grow. 

 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If it were David Lametti who did what JWR did all the while declaring himself a Liberal people here would be questioning his role. 

Earlier in this thread I questioned if JWR was against using the power she had in all cases or if it was only this particular case because if it was that she was against the directive power in general then that wouldn't be a valid reason to refuse it for SNC Lavelin.

I discovered that she has used the directive in a different case therefore she isn't against directives in general so I came back to say so. 

In both cases I've been attacked not because it is so outrageous to question the actions of a Liberal Justice Minister but because that minister is an indigenous woman. Just my opinion of course. 

 

Point One: No one would question any AG because the AG in SNC Lavelin did nothing wrong.  Quit reducing this to a race and gender issue!!! And quit imagining how people would react to this if it were not JWR.

point two: it was never appropriate to use the directive for SnC Lavelin. People have submitted all kinds of articles which discuss this very issue and you are stuck on refusing to avknowledge that reality.

Most people herr on babble try to learn from what other people say and share. You live in a little bubble and no one can reach you. You are a stuck record that refuses to grow. 

 

As far as I know people on babble didn't discuss JWR's reasoning with her so I don't see how anyone here can speak for her. Their case is still being considered. They may yet get a DPA. Lametti certainly knows more than anyone on this board so I think I will take his legal opinion over the opinion of posters. 

It's just an opinion, but I don't agree with you on this not being a race and gender issue. I can't imagine any other politician being immune from being asked questions about an event they were and are central to. It is ridiculous. I haven't even accused her of anything other than being a Liberal which she loudly professed herself.