An ML posting to a CA sub with a right-wing news article that talks about Carney's actions only in the first three paragraphs, never includes a direct quote of what the guy said, but a couple paragraphs later, leads a statement with

The Carney government has taken no formal position on the notion of secularism in the law

then buries it by finishing the sentence with

but objects to how Quebec and other provinces are using the Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to override Charter rights pre-emptively.

and spends several paragraphs talking about the notwithstanding clause, some stuff about how restricting what women can choose to wear is somehow liberating to women because religion - what happens if a middle-eastern woman decides one day that a headscarf would look nice with her outfit and gets kicked out of parliament?

Still no quote directly from Carney, but the last paragraph is

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada continue Wednesday and Thursday. A final decision from the court is unlikely for several months.

So, the (right-wing media) Star makes a story mentioning a thing the PM said, lacking either a quote or context of the statement, then yaps a bunch about the law itself and provinces' use of the notwithstanding clause...

Then at the end says "Oh, BTW, the Supreme court hasn't made any decisions, this is just testimony"

A less biased version

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

[–] Corvid_Moon@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So why post something that claims the PM did or say something that he never actually said or did? To spread misinformation, or?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It doesn't claim that the PM did or say something he never said or did. Seems that you didn't actually bother reading the article in the submission. The 'less biased' version Omgpwnies linked basically says the same thing as the article I linked. Hence it's just pearl clutching.

[–] Corvid_Moon@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Except that I did read the article you posted and it does make claims about the PM. I also did read the CBC article linked above and it contains precisely zero mention of Mark Carney whatsoever.

Also, this whole "omg ur pearl clutching" silliness doesn't help at all, either.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Correct, the article published in The Star covers the specific national prayer breakfast event that Carney attended. The CBC article does not cover this event, the parts it does cover match what The Star reports. Here's the video of the event itself. Are you going to claim that the video is fabricated now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MISUFPHP-po

[–] Corvid_Moon@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The article you posted made the very serious assertion that the PM:

declared religious values can and should frame how politicians act.

He never did any such thing.

In the 2 hour video you linked, he spoke for about 10 minutes between 50:00 - 60:00 into the video. In it, he merely gave thanks to certain values like generosity and kindness, made quotes that weren't even really religiously-charged, if at all, and that was it; his speech was over.

So unless he said in French what your initial article asserts he did (because I don't speak the language yet and there was no translator), then I'm going to have to say your initial article (and headline) is quite misleading.

It almost had me fooled too, if Omgpwnies hadn't pointed out the discrepancy, which made me actually look into it further.

The PM has his faults, I don't dispute that, but we shouldn't be adding unnecessary visceral into the public discourse. This kind of division brought by misinformation is not what we need in this country right now.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He's literally quoting the bible at a religious event, in his post as a Canadian official, and saying that these are his guiding values. The fact that you're trying to spin this as anything else is frankly incredible.

[–] Corvid_Moon@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, he was quoting from religious trash, but the point remains, he did not:

declare religious values can and should frame how politicians act.

That is a very different argument and not something he actually said or did.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except that he does exactly that by stating that he gets his values from religion. Perhsaps you don't understand the difference between characterization and quoting?

[–] Corvid_Moon@lemmy.ca -1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I've also noticed you seem to be a (pro-Russian) American, based on your post history. You have a long-standing history of posting in the Canada space here being hyper critical about anything that happens in this country, and you do so with suspicious frequency. Readers can draw their own conclusions from this.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 22 hours ago

Oh, there it is. Right on schedule. When you people run out of actual arguments, you just rifle through someone's history to piece together a little personal smear. It's truly the only play in the liberal handbook, isn't it? It's always this performative pearl-clutching and desperate deflection into ad hominem attacks. Do you ever get tired of this routine? It's so transparent. Just say you have no substantive rebuttal and be done with it.