Canada Election 2021

[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.

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.

:shrug:

[Jacob]

I see the Conservative Party is going on the record as being against mandatory vaccinations.

Have the other parties made definitive statements in favour or against, or are they leaving it unaddressed?

[Barrister]

I see the Conservative Party is going on the record as being against mandatory vaccinations.

Have the other parties made definitive statements in favour or against, or are they leaving it unaddressed?

Against my better judgment I'll respond.

I don't believe any party has come out in favour of "mandatory vaccinations", as in mandating vaccination for all citizens (absent legit medical conditions).  Where the debate has been is over vaccine passports, or mandating vaccinations for certain jobs or positions.

[Jacob]

Thank you.

[Josephus]

I see the Conservative Party is going on the record as being against mandatory vaccinations.

Have the other parties made definitive statements in favour or against, or are they leaving it unaddressed?

Define mandatory vaccinations? No one is going to force people to have vaccines, no.

The Liberals recently legislated that you will require to have a vaccine to board national transports, such as planes and VIA trains. They have ensured vaccinations across the federal public service
O'Toole is against this.

Most provinces already have rules on that. In Conservative Ontario, for instance, starting next month you will require a vaccine passport to go to movies, concerts, etc.

[Jacob]

Define mandatory vaccinations? No one is going to force people to have vaccines, no.

The Liberals recently legislated that you will require to have a vaccine to board national transports, such as planes and VIA trains. They have ensured vaccinations across the federal public service
O'Toole is against this.

Most provinces already have rules on that. In Conservative Ontario, for instance, starting next month you will require a vaccine passport to go to movies, concerts, etc.

I think that's what was meant when it was stated that the "Conservatives don't support mandatory vaccinations", but what in what I saw it reported (IIRC it was an Alberta or Saskatchewan MP up for reelection making the statement) it wasn't defined in more detail.

[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.

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.

I appreciate the way you are approaching this.   You have explained the arguments justifying a discriminatory law.  That is the answer that could have been given during the debate.  However, what we got was a denial that the law is discriminatory.  You and I will disagree over the whether the law as currently drafted strikes the appropriate balance to achieve its objective.  But at least we would would be discussing the question directly rather than some who become outraged at the suggestion that the law is in fact discriminatory.

[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.

:shrug:

Are you in the group of people who deny the fact the law is discriminatory or do you accept it is discriminatory and justify having a discriminatory law on some basis?

[crazy canuck]

Define mandatory vaccinations? No one is going to force people to have vaccines, no.

The Liberals recently legislated that you will require to have a vaccine to board national transports, such as planes and VIA trains. They have ensured vaccinations across the federal public service
O'Toole is against this.

Most provinces already have rules on that. In Conservative Ontario, for instance, starting next month you will require a vaccine passport to go to movies, concerts, etc.

I think that's what was meant when it was stated that the "Conservatives don't support mandatory vaccinations", but what in what I saw it reported (IIRC it was an Alberta or Saskatchewan MP up for reelection making the statement) it wasn't defined in more detail.

And this ambiguity is what the Conservative position depends on.  But I think it is really a moot point Federally.  All the important mandate requirements come at the provincial level - where imo, it should be.  The main concern I have with vaccine mandates from the federal parties is that a Conservative government would not help fund the extra expenses associated with the provinces implementing vaccine mandates.

[Grey Fox]

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.

I appreciate the way you are approaching this.   You have explained the arguments justifying a discriminatory law.  That is the answer that could have been given during the debate.  However, what we got was a denial that the law is discriminatory.  You and I will disagree over the whether the law as currently drafted strikes the appropriate balance to achieve its objective.  But at least we would would be discussing the question directly rather than some who become outraged at the suggestion that the law is in fact discriminatory.

That's only because Rex & you agree on that interpretation of discriminatory. I suspect Blanchet doesn't.

[crazy canuck]

That's only because Rex & you agree on that interpretation of discriminatory. I suspect Blanchet doesn't.

Those who do not acknowledge it is discriminatory are operating on the level of Trumpian alternative facts.  The Quebec Superior Court has already ruled that it is discriminatory.  As I noted before, the only reason the law is still on the books is because Quebec invoked the Notwithstanding clause.

[Grey Fox]

It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

[Barrister]

It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

"Anglo-saxon based law"?  You seem to be saying that this ruling was forced upon Quebec from outside.

But no, it was the Quebec Superior Court that ruled Bill 21 violated the Charter of Rights, in a decision by Justice Marc-André Blanchard.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-21-religious-symbols-ban-quebec-court-ruling-1.5993431

[crazy canuck]

It is a philosophical question more than a question of fact. Of course the anglo-saxon based law apparatus found it discriminatory. That's how it defines discrimination.

It is not akin to whether Biden won Arizona or not.

That the law has already been found to be discriminatory is a certain objective fact.  The Rule of Law still means something.  Trump did much to destroy it.  And we are seeing the effects reverberate, including a leader of a political party becoming outraged at a question which is entirely factual. 

There are arguments that can be made for justifying the discriminatory effect of the law - which Rex eloquently summarized.  If that is what you mean by philosophical, then fine.  But if one wishes to sweep the troublesome question under the rug by ignoring the discriminatory effect, that is intellectually dishonest.

[Grey Fox]

The Charter is from outside, like the constitution it is attached to.