Thank-you for that work, though I admit I skimmed and trusted you on the ways of measuring feels and opinions and their gaps. The overall result is certainly clear: the population is being continuously propagandized.
People wouldn't believe things at wide variance to the truth out of nowhere: they are being told this really is the truth, and quite consistently and often, or it would wear off.
I'm afraid it's actual scientific support for the case that the news media, presumably owned by very conservative people, continuously offer a picture of Canada, and Alberta, at wide variance to the actual truth.
It's hard to lie about ascertainable facts of programs, problems, crimes and costs. It's easy to lie about "feelings" - to promote the notion that certain solutions (or problems) are popular or unpopular, by just choosing news priorities, highlighting some stories, and giving minimal mention to others.
If the province isn’t nowhere near as Conservative as they believe they are then WHY do they vote for the most Right wing political party in almost EVERY election in my lifetime?
How did something like supervised consumption sites become labelled “progressive” in the first place, and opposition to these sites in favour of other models become “conservative”?
If I think supervised consumption sites are riddled with problems, based on the evidence, am I suddenly a “conservative”?
This shouldn’t be political. Let science and evidence lead the way.
Absolutely it should not be political. Unfortunately conservative politicians have made it political when decided they know better than people who spend their entire careers studying these issues. Not sure where you stand on this as you said “if I oppose based on evidence “ but to the extent of my knowledge on the evidence, the direction of the effect is pretty clear . The Supreme Court agrees.
“In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada decided Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, which established that the Minister of Health's failure to provide an exemption to allow Insite to continue to operate threatened the health and the lives of injection drug users in the Downtown Eastside. The Court held that the Minister's decision violated drug users' constitutional right to life and security of the person. The Court concluded that, "Where, as here, the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption." [para 152].
It’s always been interesting that Calgarians have for years elected relatively liberal mayors. Nenshi now leads the NDP. Bronconnier was a former Liberal candidate federally. I believe Al Duerr was more of a liberal.
Thank-you for that work, though I admit I skimmed and trusted you on the ways of measuring feels and opinions and their gaps. The overall result is certainly clear: the population is being continuously propagandized.
People wouldn't believe things at wide variance to the truth out of nowhere: they are being told this really is the truth, and quite consistently and often, or it would wear off.
I'm afraid it's actual scientific support for the case that the news media, presumably owned by very conservative people, continuously offer a picture of Canada, and Alberta, at wide variance to the actual truth.
It's hard to lie about ascertainable facts of programs, problems, crimes and costs. It's easy to lie about "feelings" - to promote the notion that certain solutions (or problems) are popular or unpopular, by just choosing news priorities, highlighting some stories, and giving minimal mention to others.
If the province isn’t nowhere near as Conservative as they believe they are then WHY do they vote for the most Right wing political party in almost EVERY election in my lifetime?
How did something like supervised consumption sites become labelled “progressive” in the first place, and opposition to these sites in favour of other models become “conservative”?
If I think supervised consumption sites are riddled with problems, based on the evidence, am I suddenly a “conservative”?
This shouldn’t be political. Let science and evidence lead the way.
Absolutely it should not be political. Unfortunately conservative politicians have made it political when decided they know better than people who spend their entire careers studying these issues. Not sure where you stand on this as you said “if I oppose based on evidence “ but to the extent of my knowledge on the evidence, the direction of the effect is pretty clear . The Supreme Court agrees.
“In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada decided Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, which established that the Minister of Health's failure to provide an exemption to allow Insite to continue to operate threatened the health and the lives of injection drug users in the Downtown Eastside. The Court held that the Minister's decision violated drug users' constitutional right to life and security of the person. The Court concluded that, "Where, as here, the evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption." [para 152].
https://www.pivotlegal.org/harper_government_moves_to_ban_supervised_injection_services_for_drug_users_in_canada
It’s always been interesting that Calgarians have for years elected relatively liberal mayors. Nenshi now leads the NDP. Bronconnier was a former Liberal candidate federally. I believe Al Duerr was more of a liberal.