Re: [OT] Liberal MP proposes turning in his Conservative rival to China for a bounty

On 4/1/2025 2:51 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 1, 2025 at 7:53:53 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 4/1/2025 12:52 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Mar 31, 2025 at 2:55:42 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 3/31/2025 5:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    On Mar 31, 2025 at 2:02:23 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
   

    On 3/31/2025 2:57 PM, Rhino wrote:

      On 2025-03-31 1:51 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

      Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>

      A Liberal MP made a very controversial statement recently that has him
      in hot water, at least with the opposition, during the current federal
      election.

>

      Paul Chiang, a sitting Liberal MP running for re-election, wrote a
      comment in Chinese media, that his Conservative opponent, Joe Tay, a
      city councillor, should be turned in to the Chinese consulate in Toronto
      for a bounty. Tay is originally from Hong Kong where he ran afoul of the
      local authorities for his anti-Beijing activism.

>

      https://vancouversun.com/news/federal_election/transnational-
      repression-jenny-kwan-weighs-in-on-liberal-mps-chinese-bounty-quip

>

      Liberals are apparently insisting that Chiang's remark was just a joke
      but the opposition parties, Conservative and NDP alike, are calling for
      Chiang to step down and get replaced by another candidate. Mark Carney,
      the new Liberal leader, has the power to dump candidates but is
      resisting demands to dump Chiang.

>

      Given the media's love of Liberals, I'm expecting this story to die
      quickly. I was surprised to learn that Chiang was a cop for 28 years.

>
      Ok. I'm a defender of the use of off-color jokes and bitter sarcasm in
      public speech to make a point, and condemn those who infer racist or
      hate speech, taking the remarks out of context.
>
      If he were contrasting Canada as a free society with China, he could
      have said that he'd be subject to arrest in China, but in Canada, he's
      perfectly free to run against an incumbant.
>
      But a bounty? I can't imagine a scenario in which that's funny. He needs
      to apologize. What a jerk.

            Proposing to turn in Tay to the Chinese, when his native Hong Kong
      actually HAS a bounty on him of $153K for his pro-democracy activism is
      pretty damned ominous in my opinion.
            Apparently Chiang *has* apologized and that's enough for Carney but not
      for the opposition parties. I'm not sure it's enough for me either. The
      opposition parties may well be pushing this to see if it can hurt Chiang
      and/or Carney. I'm concerned that Chiang may actually be serious.
            Personally, many of us here are concerned about foreign powers
      manipulating our elections by helping candidates they favour and making
      it more difficult for candidates that they see as hostile to them. I
      don't want our MPs chosen by the CCP, Putin or the USA!
            We had a major inquiry into this matter just a year or two back,
      although I never heard a final report. I don't know if the inquiry is
      still mulling things over or if the guilty parties have somehow kept it
      from reporting. Maybe I just missed the news when it came out.

>
    You're concerned he might seriously try to bounty-hunt his opponent?
>
    Seriously?

        Were you concerned that Sarah Palin was seriously planning to have a
sniper
    shoot Democrat congressional candidates in the districts her website
labeled
    with crosshairs?

>
  Ummm ...no?

    Well, most of the Democrat establishment certainly claimed to be after the
  Loughner shooting.

>
The same "establishment" who claimed Dick Cheney didn't miss?

 Perhaps. But even to this day, Democrats like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claim
Loughner was inspired by the bullseyes on Palin's website to commit his crime,
despite all the independent law enforcement investigations into the incident
showing that Loughner was not political in any way.
 So do you believe the Democrat mantra that "violent speech and imagery
inspires violence against politicians" or are the Democrats full of shit?

I believe that "violent speech and imagery against politicians" doesn't help, but that's it's far from being a critical factor (though I can't say the same for a general normalization of gunplay).  Meanwhile, are you really asking if Democrats, like Republicans, are full of shit?