I have never understood the infatuation with Freeland (Canada's answer to Kamala Harris) and the fact she has been willing to remain a close confidante of Junior after all these years is most definitely NOT a point in her favour. (JWR, Jane Philpott, Joel Lightbound and Morneau are the only cabinet ministers who served under Junior and who deserve any respect, that for having the integrity to tell him to get stuffed and leave the cabinet rather than continuing to tolerate his incompetence and authoritarianism – semi shout-out to Marc Garneau.) Freeland has also been an absolute abomination as Finance Minister which was entirely predictable as there is nothing in her background which suggested any sort of ability to do the job.
As for PP, the fact he will not engage in ritual pieties is, I believe, his single greatest selling point – which I know does not say much for his likely policy positions. After what will be ten years of relentless pieties accompanied by accusations of [insert phobia/ism] at every turn, not to mention the occasional genocide chaser, it will be a relief to be free from the non-stop pieties of the current Prime Minister. My word, the bar is SO LOW in this Country.
Ive been struggling to understand Freeland’s endurance as well. She doesn’t seem to be a sycophantic quota queen like half of Junior’s cabinet. And her maternal grandfather being head of Nazi antisemitic propaganda in a German-occupied country during WW II doesn’t seem to have hurt her either.
I hate "boomer" as a catch phrase for "people older than me." Biden is of the "silent generation," Trump just barely makes the cut for boomer, and Trudeau is a Gen X. Trudeau has done more damage to our country than any boomer. I'd love to see him go into early retirement.
Trudeau is staying to run in the next Fed election- this is just the neutering of Carney, Freeland & possibly Joly! JT cannot find a “place” post-PM as large as his ego - so he is staying to “fight”! Liberal is nothing more than a personality cult & “outta touch” where most Canadians live - not a comms problem!
Fargo indirectly nailed the whole Canadian "niceness" thing.
Milligan: I like you. Met another fella from Minnesota yesterday. Big guy. Sheriff I think. I liked him too.
Solverson: We're a very friendly people.
Milligan: No, that's not it. Pretty unfriendly, actually. But it's the way you're unfriendly. How you're so polite about it, like you're doing me a favor.
On the Alice Munroe thing, I think it's rather silly if the Canadian art world is having a "reckoning". Good grief, the answer to "can we separate the art from the artist?" is an emphatic "yes of course we obviously can, don't be so stupid!".
Tchaikovsky was a pervert who groomed his own nephew from an early age, but only a moron would think that listening to Swan Lake and recognizing Tchaikovsky's greatness as a composer is an endorsement of his obsession with his own nephew.
But I do take issue with one thing Jen Gerson said... specifically that art is about transgressing moral limits and if you're looking for morality in art, you're not looking for art, you're looking for propaganda.
FALSE. Art **can** be about transgressing moral limits and art **may or may not** contain morality. That much of the "high brow" art that the government funds in Canada falls into the category Jen describes doesn't mean that's all there is to art.
Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale definitely contains a moral message. It's not neutral on the morality of theocracy as a form of government. And that's just from the 1980s. Go farther back and much of the bulk of "high brow" art was very much about morality and virtue.
Jen's not wrong that one can see some moralizing art as "propaganda"... it can indeed be that. But then so to can the "transgressive" art be alternately seen as nothing more than propanda for a more nihilistic or hedonistic worldview.
Clarification: to the best of my knowledge, Biden's name isn't on any ballots yet. It can't be, because he's not actually the Democratic nominee yet for this fall and won't be until the convention (which is right around the corner).
It's very logistical possible for Biden to step aside in favour of his Vice President right now. There is *just* enough runway for that to work, and I think Biden's getting a ton of internal pressure to do just that.
It could realistically go several ways here, but if I was forced to bet, I'd bet on Biden refusing to step down, continuing to cognitively disintegrate between now and November, and then either stepping down far too late or losing to Trump outright.
Ya, I'm not 100% sure, but that part of the podcast sounded off. Even if states just looked at the convention as a technicality and wanted to finalize ballots earlier, how could they already be finalized when we don't even know the Republican VP candidate?
The name can be finalized if state law says it's finalized. The law doesn't have to be sensible overall or a good idea, it just has to be possible to do what the law says, (i.e. put a name on the ballot)... and it is.
I'm just paraphrasing Sarah Isgur from the Advisory Opinions podcast, but the US doesn't really have one Presidential election. It has 50 separate state elections for electors and each one of them has different rules. And if state law says that person X who won the state primary in the spring WILL be the name on the ballot, then that's who it's going to be because that's what the law says and it's possible to do it.
There are some weird scenarios to consider, so if this interests you, I highly recommend their lates episode. Like what if Joe Biden wins the election, but then something happens to him before he takes the oath of office and he's incapacitated, but not still alive? The Americans have (to my way of thinking) an over-complicated and silly system and the obviously good idea isn't necessarily what would happen.
I’m not sure dumping Freeland is going to work out the way Trudeau thinks it will. She is more popular among their voters than he is. It may drive Liberal voters back to the NDP.
It's very rare for Poilievre to make himself respectfully accessible to a crowd that isn't an excitable mob of anti-Trudeau haters. I know what tough questions I would ask of the man if I could...
"Under the Harper government, you voted for time allocation on legislation roughly 100 times. What would you do to maintain a respectful atmosphere towards the opposition as Prime Minister?"
"You previously voted for omnibus budget bills that amended the Indian Act and many environmental laws in a rushed manner within a single package. Will you promise that as Prime Minister that you would not introduce omnibus budget bills that change environmental laws or which specifically affect the governance of Indigenous treaties within those same bills?"
I used the word "hater", not "critic". It would be hard to find a crowd without any Trudeau critics, but for almost anyone besides Poilievre it would be easy to find a crowd that doesn't feel emotional or angry about the man.
Yes, if I chat with my female boomer and above left-wing friends who live in Toronto, I find a lot of Trudeau lovers. But I can go to a random event in my neighbourhood on the West Coast, meet new people, and find out at one point in the evening that nobody in attendance likes Trudeau. And I don't live in a Conservative riding. It's NDP. I found Trudeau to be a charlatan right from day 1. It's nice to no longer be alone :-)
I always had some cynicism towards Trudeau the moment I heard his 2012 leadership announcement speech and heard him choose to repeat his party's lie about the NDP's statements regarding alleged Dutch Disease.
That being said, he has not led a particularly consequential government. You say he's a "total jerk", but he hasn't given the middle finger to the opposition parties the way Harper did with 100+ motions of time allocation. Most of Trudeau's worst legislation passed with little fanfare. He's less of a figure who mocks his critics and more of a figure who's asleep at the wheel to the point of barely even comprehending that his critics actually exist.
In his first couple of years as Prime Minister he apologized more than Harper ever did in the latter's whole tenure as Prime Minister. But since then he apologizes for no personal mistakes at all. Trudeau did a better job than Harper at setting high expectations, but then did worse at meeting those very expectations.
It's part of being civic-literate. You're trying to promote ignorance in your fellow citizens by encouraging them to hate a politician while being clueless about what he does and why he does it. Every government in power in part reacts to the circumstances left by its predecessor, even though an incumbent government has full self-agency. Ignoring that context means you don't know what you're talking about.
> but he hasn't given the middle finger to the opposition parties the way Harper did with 100+ motions of time allocation.
Being a "total jerk" is a matter of perspective in politics, but I do remember that Stephen Harper didn't start his political career by publicly announcing that the problem with Canada is that people from Quebec are in charge. By contrast Justin Trudeau did start with a public declaration that the problem in Canada was that Albertans were in charge.
For all the "sunny ways" stuff, Mr. Trudeau has been dipping into the well of "good Canadians vs. evil Canadians" from the beginning, although it did get a little more pointed as time went on.
I think whether or not he's worse than others will depend to some degree on how much sympathy we have for the targets.
"By contrast Justin Trudeau did start with a public declaration that the problem in Canada was that Albertans were in charge."
When and where? Conservatives have been very unscrupulous in mischaracterizing Trudeau, so I would need to see the wording of whichever statement you are referring to in order to judge.
In actual fact, in his leadership campaign announcement speech in 2012 Trudeau repeated his own party's lie that the NDP's Dutch Disease comments were anti-Alberta (they were not).
"I think whether or not he's worse than others will depend to some degree on how much sympathy we have for the targets."
Prime Ministers are consequential for how they shape policy, not for whatever comments they may or may not make. If all the accusations of "divisiveness" by the Prime Minister concern comments he made and not the actual real-life formulation of policy, then Trudeau's "divisiveness" simply isn't nearly as consequential as the torrent of willfully-ignorant legislation that Harper put forward.
(Of course the Liberals have put forward stupid legislation of their own, but being too stupid to be aware of criticisms of your bills is less harmful than being ignorant to the point of spiting all critics of your bills.)
I think longer. I think we are stuck with cussing while listening, skipping if you can - i listen often on my back, and will not move - and adding mildly sarcastic and mildly derogatory comments for the Line editors to read. I will not give up The Line for one ad, but I probably will if one more different vendor ad appears. The ads make a jarring dent in the episode.
My ad:
The best and cleanest and most pleasant tobacco that I ever smoked was sold in pouches for hand-rollies - late 1960's, I was a teenager - at a gas station somewhere in the mountains of the Bosnian republic of Yugoslavia, by a Serb farmer who came down into the valley to sell his various produce. He got me to smell the tobacco in the pouch, later I came to regret that I bought only one, it was wonderfully fragrant and pleasant to smoke.
Yeah, $50/yr is $4.16/mo ... btwn the 2 of them. (Hardly raking in our big bucks given that there’s a podcast & all that entails, their written pieces, plus guest columnists, who I’m certain don’t do it for free.)
The business model has to pay the freight on its existence, nevermind the long hours. I couldn’t imagine anyone daring to expect me to do & oversee all that for $4.16/mo. Lol omg, now there would be a convo!
Keep up the great effort Matt & Jen - you ARE appreciated.
I am a paid subscriber so that they can make a living. However, with the ads, there is a delicate balance between keeping subscribers and losing subscribers. Some paid readers/listeners may settle for the free content.
Some may, and so far a few have, and that's okay! We respect all our readers and recognize that everyone's preferences and priorities are different. But as noted above (with my thanks), we are a business, and we're here to make a living. We aren't subtle about encouraging people to sign up, and many have -- God bless 'em -- but others haven't, and we need to monetize those, too. We are aware there are other models and that many of you have strong views on what you'd prefer we do, but for now, we're still experimenting and growing the business, and we hope you all continue to support us!
I'm not sure if this is something you've considered, but it might make sense to offer an (alternate) private feed through Substack for paid subscribers that removes the ads and maybe contains some bonus content. That would both reduce complaints from paid listeners while also hopefully offering a bit of an incentive for free listeners to convert - although I understanding producing a second version of the feed isn't zero effort.
The ads are actually really bad. They are long and repetitive. That said, I don't care if the Line makes money off ads, no matter how bad the ads are. At least they are using normally voices and not signing little jingles.
I think we’re in for another politically rough period with respect to First Nations. First Nations were beneficiaries of the political surge of the progressive/wood movement over the past 10-15 years. There have been continuing failures with respect to things like water supplies, but First Nations have gained a tremendous amount of power over development, land, and water through governments and the courts. There’s also been the cultural markers like land acknowledgments, the frequent genuflection about past sins of colonial Canada, and increasing use of aboriginal names written in an alphabet that’s unintelligible to the average person.
The problem is that a lot of this was the product of progressive overreach at a moment they temporarily possessed the cultural and political high ground; a lot more people went along with it for that reason, and the populist right has been outraged by it. However, First Nations believed it and believe that it’s just a starting point for what they’re entitled to. There’s going to be an incredible tension and conflict as the political/cultural pendulum swings towards the political right, and the courts are also going to be right in the middle of it all. The cold reception of Pierre Poilievre at the AFN is just the start…
Good listening as usual. When it comes to commenting on or trying to interpret First Nations actions to Pollieve I suggest stopping where the comment was made to ask for First Nations commentary and invite that voice to speak.
I have never understood the infatuation with Freeland (Canada's answer to Kamala Harris) and the fact she has been willing to remain a close confidante of Junior after all these years is most definitely NOT a point in her favour. (JWR, Jane Philpott, Joel Lightbound and Morneau are the only cabinet ministers who served under Junior and who deserve any respect, that for having the integrity to tell him to get stuffed and leave the cabinet rather than continuing to tolerate his incompetence and authoritarianism – semi shout-out to Marc Garneau.) Freeland has also been an absolute abomination as Finance Minister which was entirely predictable as there is nothing in her background which suggested any sort of ability to do the job.
As for PP, the fact he will not engage in ritual pieties is, I believe, his single greatest selling point – which I know does not say much for his likely policy positions. After what will be ten years of relentless pieties accompanied by accusations of [insert phobia/ism] at every turn, not to mention the occasional genocide chaser, it will be a relief to be free from the non-stop pieties of the current Prime Minister. My word, the bar is SO LOW in this Country.
Ive been struggling to understand Freeland’s endurance as well. She doesn’t seem to be a sycophantic quota queen like half of Junior’s cabinet. And her maternal grandfather being head of Nazi antisemitic propaganda in a German-occupied country during WW II doesn’t seem to have hurt her either.
I hate "boomer" as a catch phrase for "people older than me." Biden is of the "silent generation," Trump just barely makes the cut for boomer, and Trudeau is a Gen X. Trudeau has done more damage to our country than any boomer. I'd love to see him go into early retirement.
Trudeau is staying to run in the next Fed election- this is just the neutering of Carney, Freeland & possibly Joly! JT cannot find a “place” post-PM as large as his ego - so he is staying to “fight”! Liberal is nothing more than a personality cult & “outta touch” where most Canadians live - not a comms problem!
I’ve alway secretly hoped he’d move on to being an extra in Hollywood, or at least in a few CBC series.
Fargo indirectly nailed the whole Canadian "niceness" thing.
Milligan: I like you. Met another fella from Minnesota yesterday. Big guy. Sheriff I think. I liked him too.
Solverson: We're a very friendly people.
Milligan: No, that's not it. Pretty unfriendly, actually. But it's the way you're unfriendly. How you're so polite about it, like you're doing me a favor.
Exactly. Politeness and conflict avoidance are more valued than honestly and transparency.
👏👏👏
On the Alice Munroe thing, I think it's rather silly if the Canadian art world is having a "reckoning". Good grief, the answer to "can we separate the art from the artist?" is an emphatic "yes of course we obviously can, don't be so stupid!".
Tchaikovsky was a pervert who groomed his own nephew from an early age, but only a moron would think that listening to Swan Lake and recognizing Tchaikovsky's greatness as a composer is an endorsement of his obsession with his own nephew.
But I do take issue with one thing Jen Gerson said... specifically that art is about transgressing moral limits and if you're looking for morality in art, you're not looking for art, you're looking for propaganda.
FALSE. Art **can** be about transgressing moral limits and art **may or may not** contain morality. That much of the "high brow" art that the government funds in Canada falls into the category Jen describes doesn't mean that's all there is to art.
Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale definitely contains a moral message. It's not neutral on the morality of theocracy as a form of government. And that's just from the 1980s. Go farther back and much of the bulk of "high brow" art was very much about morality and virtue.
Jen's not wrong that one can see some moralizing art as "propaganda"... it can indeed be that. But then so to can the "transgressive" art be alternately seen as nothing more than propanda for a more nihilistic or hedonistic worldview.
Art can be many things.
Clarification: to the best of my knowledge, Biden's name isn't on any ballots yet. It can't be, because he's not actually the Democratic nominee yet for this fall and won't be until the convention (which is right around the corner).
It's very logistical possible for Biden to step aside in favour of his Vice President right now. There is *just* enough runway for that to work, and I think Biden's getting a ton of internal pressure to do just that.
It could realistically go several ways here, but if I was forced to bet, I'd bet on Biden refusing to step down, continuing to cognitively disintegrate between now and November, and then either stepping down far too late or losing to Trump outright.
Ya, I'm not 100% sure, but that part of the podcast sounded off. Even if states just looked at the convention as a technicality and wanted to finalize ballots earlier, how could they already be finalized when we don't even know the Republican VP candidate?
The name can be finalized if state law says it's finalized. The law doesn't have to be sensible overall or a good idea, it just has to be possible to do what the law says, (i.e. put a name on the ballot)... and it is.
I'm just paraphrasing Sarah Isgur from the Advisory Opinions podcast, but the US doesn't really have one Presidential election. It has 50 separate state elections for electors and each one of them has different rules. And if state law says that person X who won the state primary in the spring WILL be the name on the ballot, then that's who it's going to be because that's what the law says and it's possible to do it.
There are some weird scenarios to consider, so if this interests you, I highly recommend their lates episode. Like what if Joe Biden wins the election, but then something happens to him before he takes the oath of office and he's incapacitated, but not still alive? The Americans have (to my way of thinking) an over-complicated and silly system and the obviously good idea isn't necessarily what would happen.
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/who-has-the-pen/
I’m not sure dumping Freeland is going to work out the way Trudeau thinks it will. She is more popular among their voters than he is. It may drive Liberal voters back to the NDP.
It's very rare for Poilievre to make himself respectfully accessible to a crowd that isn't an excitable mob of anti-Trudeau haters. I know what tough questions I would ask of the man if I could...
"Under the Harper government, you voted for time allocation on legislation roughly 100 times. What would you do to maintain a respectful atmosphere towards the opposition as Prime Minister?"
"You previously voted for omnibus budget bills that amended the Indian Act and many environmental laws in a rushed manner within a single package. Will you promise that as Prime Minister that you would not introduce omnibus budget bills that change environmental laws or which specifically affect the governance of Indigenous treaties within those same bills?"
To be fair, it's really hard to find people who aren't anti-Trudeau these days. Keep fighting the good fight Stefan :-D
I used the word "hater", not "critic". It would be hard to find a crowd without any Trudeau critics, but for almost anyone besides Poilievre it would be easy to find a crowd that doesn't feel emotional or angry about the man.
Yes, if I chat with my female boomer and above left-wing friends who live in Toronto, I find a lot of Trudeau lovers. But I can go to a random event in my neighbourhood on the West Coast, meet new people, and find out at one point in the evening that nobody in attendance likes Trudeau. And I don't live in a Conservative riding. It's NDP. I found Trudeau to be a charlatan right from day 1. It's nice to no longer be alone :-)
Trudeau deserves the hate he gets. He's been a total jerk to a lot of people, both in government and outside of it.
I always had some cynicism towards Trudeau the moment I heard his 2012 leadership announcement speech and heard him choose to repeat his party's lie about the NDP's statements regarding alleged Dutch Disease.
That being said, he has not led a particularly consequential government. You say he's a "total jerk", but he hasn't given the middle finger to the opposition parties the way Harper did with 100+ motions of time allocation. Most of Trudeau's worst legislation passed with little fanfare. He's less of a figure who mocks his critics and more of a figure who's asleep at the wheel to the point of barely even comprehending that his critics actually exist.
In his first couple of years as Prime Minister he apologized more than Harper ever did in the latter's whole tenure as Prime Minister. But since then he apologizes for no personal mistakes at all. Trudeau did a better job than Harper at setting high expectations, but then did worse at meeting those very expectations.
Have you noticed that no one can ever defend Trudeau without comparing him to someone they perceive to be worse? Harper’s been gone for a decade. 😂
It's part of being civic-literate. You're trying to promote ignorance in your fellow citizens by encouraging them to hate a politician while being clueless about what he does and why he does it. Every government in power in part reacts to the circumstances left by its predecessor, even though an incumbent government has full self-agency. Ignoring that context means you don't know what you're talking about.
> but he hasn't given the middle finger to the opposition parties the way Harper did with 100+ motions of time allocation.
Being a "total jerk" is a matter of perspective in politics, but I do remember that Stephen Harper didn't start his political career by publicly announcing that the problem with Canada is that people from Quebec are in charge. By contrast Justin Trudeau did start with a public declaration that the problem in Canada was that Albertans were in charge.
For all the "sunny ways" stuff, Mr. Trudeau has been dipping into the well of "good Canadians vs. evil Canadians" from the beginning, although it did get a little more pointed as time went on.
I think whether or not he's worse than others will depend to some degree on how much sympathy we have for the targets.
"By contrast Justin Trudeau did start with a public declaration that the problem in Canada was that Albertans were in charge."
When and where? Conservatives have been very unscrupulous in mischaracterizing Trudeau, so I would need to see the wording of whichever statement you are referring to in order to judge.
In actual fact, in his leadership campaign announcement speech in 2012 Trudeau repeated his own party's lie that the NDP's Dutch Disease comments were anti-Alberta (they were not).
"I think whether or not he's worse than others will depend to some degree on how much sympathy we have for the targets."
Prime Ministers are consequential for how they shape policy, not for whatever comments they may or may not make. If all the accusations of "divisiveness" by the Prime Minister concern comments he made and not the actual real-life formulation of policy, then Trudeau's "divisiveness" simply isn't nearly as consequential as the torrent of willfully-ignorant legislation that Harper put forward.
(Of course the Liberals have put forward stupid legislation of their own, but being too stupid to be aware of criticisms of your bills is less harmful than being ignorant to the point of spiting all critics of your bills.)
I want a cigarette.
And a blindfold 🤪?
Made me laugh. Skip the blindfold, just the hand rolled cig out of honest homegrown Balkan tobacco.
You can still find home grown tobacco in Bosnia if you know someone who knows someone. They usually will take some good šljivovica in payment.
I hate those guys so much already and it’s been what? Four weeks?
I think longer. I think we are stuck with cussing while listening, skipping if you can - i listen often on my back, and will not move - and adding mildly sarcastic and mildly derogatory comments for the Line editors to read. I will not give up The Line for one ad, but I probably will if one more different vendor ad appears. The ads make a jarring dent in the episode.
My ad:
The best and cleanest and most pleasant tobacco that I ever smoked was sold in pouches for hand-rollies - late 1960's, I was a teenager - at a gas station somewhere in the mountains of the Bosnian republic of Yugoslavia, by a Serb farmer who came down into the valley to sell his various produce. He got me to smell the tobacco in the pouch, later I came to regret that I bought only one, it was wonderfully fragrant and pleasant to smoke.
Matt and Jen need to make a living. I’m glad they have subscribers and advertisers. Their work isn’t free.
Yeah, $50/yr is $4.16/mo ... btwn the 2 of them. (Hardly raking in our big bucks given that there’s a podcast & all that entails, their written pieces, plus guest columnists, who I’m certain don’t do it for free.)
The business model has to pay the freight on its existence, nevermind the long hours. I couldn’t imagine anyone daring to expect me to do & oversee all that for $4.16/mo. Lol omg, now there would be a convo!
Keep up the great effort Matt & Jen - you ARE appreciated.
That’s why you and I pay for a subscription.
Thinking people should pay to listen to an ad is just rude.
I am a paid subscriber so that they can make a living. However, with the ads, there is a delicate balance between keeping subscribers and losing subscribers. Some paid readers/listeners may settle for the free content.
Some may, and so far a few have, and that's okay! We respect all our readers and recognize that everyone's preferences and priorities are different. But as noted above (with my thanks), we are a business, and we're here to make a living. We aren't subtle about encouraging people to sign up, and many have -- God bless 'em -- but others haven't, and we need to monetize those, too. We are aware there are other models and that many of you have strong views on what you'd prefer we do, but for now, we're still experimenting and growing the business, and we hope you all continue to support us!
I'm not sure if this is something you've considered, but it might make sense to offer an (alternate) private feed through Substack for paid subscribers that removes the ads and maybe contains some bonus content. That would both reduce complaints from paid listeners while also hopefully offering a bit of an incentive for free listeners to convert - although I understanding producing a second version of the feed isn't zero effort.
Well these “unsmoke” ads keep coming and I keep skipping, but Matt is right so far…. I do keep paying.
But yeah, I’m definitely against whatever they’re for.
Yeah I’m a little vindictive about this, but in my defence really hate ads and they’re the ones that came to bother me not the other way around.
Plus these ads have a greasy “guy selling something but dresses it up as activism to sell more” vibe.
I’m reminded of the creeps convincing kids that vaping is “less harmful”.
The ads are actually really bad. They are long and repetitive. That said, I don't care if the Line makes money off ads, no matter how bad the ads are. At least they are using normally voices and not signing little jingles.
I think we’re in for another politically rough period with respect to First Nations. First Nations were beneficiaries of the political surge of the progressive/wood movement over the past 10-15 years. There have been continuing failures with respect to things like water supplies, but First Nations have gained a tremendous amount of power over development, land, and water through governments and the courts. There’s also been the cultural markers like land acknowledgments, the frequent genuflection about past sins of colonial Canada, and increasing use of aboriginal names written in an alphabet that’s unintelligible to the average person.
The problem is that a lot of this was the product of progressive overreach at a moment they temporarily possessed the cultural and political high ground; a lot more people went along with it for that reason, and the populist right has been outraged by it. However, First Nations believed it and believe that it’s just a starting point for what they’re entitled to. There’s going to be an incredible tension and conflict as the political/cultural pendulum swings towards the political right, and the courts are also going to be right in the middle of it all. The cold reception of Pierre Poilievre at the AFN is just the start…
Not everyone gave him a cold reception.
Good listening as usual. When it comes to commenting on or trying to interpret First Nations actions to Pollieve I suggest stopping where the comment was made to ask for First Nations commentary and invite that voice to speak.
I’m looking forward to those columns on Alice Munro and generational turnover. Politics is deadly dull in summer.