What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social and Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
'We trusted you'
No you didn't. Trust is a partnership. One that recognizes that humans are fallible and sees people work together to look out for each other for the betterment of the group.
Trust would have seen someone also take a look at the person and, upon realizing his background, point out "This person is not who you think he is." and the speaker realizing "Oh shit, you're right. We had better cancel these ceremonies."
Who are you asserting had prior knowledge of this and said nothing?
I appreciate the trust that has formed here – with you calling attention to something that may have been miscommunicated. Can you point to where you got the idea that someone did have prior knowledge so that I can correct it? There was no such intent.
Trust would have seen someone point out “This person is not who you think he is.” and the speaker realizing “Oh shit, you’re right. We had better cancel these ceremonies.”
My interpretation of this is that someone would have had to know that this person is not who he thought he was, and given him the heads-up.
With trust, parties look out for each other for the betterment of the group. Just like you have done here – having recognized that something wasn't quite right and brought it to my attention. (And on that note I have attempted to make that statement more clear on your recommendation. I do hope I have succeeded this time.)
I assume absolutely nobody took the time to look at the honouree. Most likely because nobody actually gives a rat's ass about his background. If there was trust, it could have been broken if the group pointed out that this person is not worthy of being honoured and the speaker went ahead with it anyway, but to do nothing and then throw him under the bus because nobody cared means there was no trust to begin with.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Speaker of the House is the individual chosen by their fellow members to preside over their business, check their behaviour, protect their privileges and represent the institution.
The Speaker is the officer in robes overlooking the proceedings from his throne, the one responsible for dealing with problems and demanding apologies from MPs who can't restrain themselves — for protecting and upholding the reputation of Parliament.
Rota sounded choked up a moment later after Government House Leader Karina Gould, who is Jewish and whose grandfather was imprisoned at Auschwitz, expressed her disappointment.
In fact, it would raise serious questions about the sovereignty of Parliament if the government was able to exert such control over access to the parliamentary precinct and the House of Commons.
But in their zeal to damage the prime minister, the Conservatives spared Rota from facing a united front of all opposition parties — representing a majority of MPs — on Monday.
He then oversaw the transition to virtual and hybrid sessions — an innovation that may prove to be a permanent part of how the House of Commons conducts its business.
The original article contains 1,023 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Alas, that's an incoherent summary