Canada Election 2021

[Grey Fox]

While folks often use Quebecs secularism laws as a bludgeon for Quebec bashing, it is possible to make good faith arguments that those laws are in fact racist without bashing Quebec, yes?

I think that can be done, yes. A useless thing to do but possible. Maybe Scholars could.

The Quebec bashing aspect of the question in the debate last night was about the timing (opening with it) and appropriateness (it's not really relevant to the Federal election) rather than the question itself, right?

Yes that's a big aspect of it. RoC politicians & pundits have no floor to stand on to argue any of it.

Or is it your view that the secularism laws are racist inherently Quebec bashing, full stop?

When a RoC pundit/politicians says so yes. It is willful ignorance of what has lead to Quebec adopting laws that strengthen secularism while weakening religiousness for the purpose of marking points on the look how much better than them we are front.

[Zoupa]

She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

[Zoupa]

The Quebec bashing aspect of the question in the debate last night was about the timing (opening with it) and appropriateness (it's not really relevant to the Federal election) rather than the question itself, right?

It was the timing, appropriateness but MOSTLY the question itself. Imagine this question "Ms Paul, why do you support apartheid against Palestinians?"

[crazy canuck]

She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

[crazy canuck]

... and because noone wanted to be talked about as the guy who spoke over the only woman on stage.

Anyways, I disagree with you about leaving "the Quebec guy" out. The BQ has a large number of seats in Parliament, they absolutely should be heard. If you don't like their policies and priorities, that's no reason to exclude them.

Personally, I think it's good to have the smaller parties there. The whole FPTP system is already heavily rigged against alternative voices being heard, I don't think the debates should stifle them further.

As for the debates being about debating policies, which debate has been the best at achieving that in previous elections, in your view?

The principle should be that only parties contending to form government should be permitted to appear.  The BQ guy said that is not his goal and of course it isn't.

[Jacob]

Thanks Grey Fox and Zoupa. That makes sense.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks Grey Fox and Zoupa. That makes sense.

A discriminatory law never makes sense.  If it was happening in the US you would be all over it. 

[Rex Francorum]

She called them "discriminatory laws" not once but twice. The question wasn't "Do you think those laws are discriminatory?", it was "Why do you support those discriminatory laws?"

Pretty outrageous for a moderator and thoroughly unprofessional. She injected her personal view (negative of course).

The context, the loaded question, the fact it has pretty much nothing to do in a Federal election makes it Qc bashing.

The statement is factual.  The Quebec Superior Court has ruled that the law is discriminatory and would have been struck down in its entirety if the Quebec government had not invoked the notwithstanding clause.  As it is only parts, not protected by the notwithstanding clause related to english schools, were struck down.

And as to Jacob's question.  It is not bashing to suggest that the Quebec government made the political judgement that it could get away with protecting discriminatory legislation because the majority of Quebec would support the legislation. That is again fact.

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

Yeah the secularism law is discriminatory, but it is not the purpose of it to be discriminatory. It is just that secularism is viewed as more important as religious freedom when employee represents the State. And I am very fine with the idea of discriminating people at work to fulfill that higher idea of separation of Church and State. It is a debate of collective rights vs individual freedom. When both are against each other, I usually prefer the collective rights.

[Josquius]

Is there any political appetite in Canada for fixing the electoral system at all?
Or is it similar to the UK and US where things are broken but any thought of change is madness?

[Rex Francorum]

Is there any political appetite in Canada for fixing the electoral system at all?
Or is it similar to the UK and US where things are broken but any thought of change is madness?

There are discussion to add more proportional results because third parties are consistently under representated in parliaments, but I think Trudeau broke his promise. In Québec, the implementation of a proportional rule is postpone to the 2026 election.

[Jacob]

A discriminatory law never makes sense.  If it was happening in the US you would be all over it.

I wanted to understand why our Quebec posters thought asking the question was Quebec bashing, and I understand that better now. This country has a long history of anti-French discrimination and prejudice, and the effects of that are still felt today. As such, I think it's important to understand the perspectives of Quebecois and other French-Canadians. If the population of Quebec broadly - as exemplified by our posters here - viewed the question as Quebec bashing then I want to understand why, and you saying essentially "it wasn't because the question was TRUE" helps exactly nothing in achieving that.

I do believe Quebec's secularity laws are discriminatory, as I understand them. It's a discussion we've had here more than once and I'm sure we'll have it again. Maybe we'll even have it right now if you find any takers. Personally I don't think anything has changed particularly on that front recently and I don't think it's particularly topical in this federal election either, so I'm going to pass.

[Josephus]

Is there any political appetite in Canada for fixing the electoral system at all?
Or is it similar to the UK and US where things are broken but any thought of change is madness?

No. Trudeau promised he would look at it. But didn't. Strangely no one's bringing that up now.

Here's the thing, no elected governemnt will ever want to change the system that got it elected in the first place.

[Oexmelin]

A discriminatory law never makes sense.  If it was happening in the US you would be all over it.

Laws always discriminate, by creating categories of licit and illicit behavior, some of which may indeed be claimed as core to one's identity - as the current debate over vaccines illustrates well, or debates around, say, the necessity of wearing a hard hat on construction sites. The issue at stake is whether this particular discrimination, around matters of religious clothing, ought to happen or not.

As Jacob mentions, it's a real debate - and so it ought to be treated as such, which is to say: an issue where one could perhaps acknowledge that the other party may have valid points. In this context, the role of the moderator isn't to already embed the conclusion in her question - but rather, to offer the opportunity to discuss the point. This isn't what happened. My particular beef about the debate isn't too much that Law 21 was brought up, because the federal government could have a role to play in challenging it, or not. But the moderator's intervention and tone was yet again another iteration of making Quebec the convenient "Other" of Canada:  "help us understand why you are so racist".

Let's imagine an equivalent question to Erin O'Toole: "For those of you outside of Alberta, help us understand why your party is such a welcoming home for men who wish to control women's bodies".

[viper37]

Quebecers don't like being called on to explain their support for something that is discriminatory, but again, that is just a fact.

It is as discriminatory has any law of the land.  Laws restricting tobacco and marijuana use inside public buildings discriminate against smokers.  All the covid laws are discriminatory as they burden the healthy to protect the unhealthy.  But we do accept them because we see the bigger context.

[Jacob]

I did appreciate that each of the five leaders of the parties from the debate shot a video promoting vaccination. Good to see vax vs anti-vax is not turning into a partisan issue in the election.