Canada Election 2021

[Oexmelin]

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

And the CPC has about half its MPs from Alberta, which reliably delivers the overwhelming majority of its MPs to that single party. And yet, I am pretty sure people within the CPC, and within Alberta, exist somewhere alongside a spectrum about what we ought to do about the environment. My point has little to do with the reality of O'Toole personally, and more about the sort of asumptions embedded in the moderator's question.

[crazy canuck]

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

The question asked how he could justify a law which is discriminatory - that seems a fair framing and asks the same question as whether the Notwithstanding clause was appropriate.

The issue of whether the question should have been asked at all is different.  I think it detracted from what the debate should have been about - national issues.

Your analogy would be more accurate if the question directed to O'Toole asked him to justify his policy on climate change - and the roll back of targets, with the implication that it was harmful.  And in fact that is the question that was asked of him. 

[crazy canuck]

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing   And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

Except that asking a question that collapses the "high level" with the naked expression of contempt isn't usually desirable from the moderator of a political debate.

To use a different example - at a high level, we may all be in agreement that a blatant disregard for the environment may harm the future of Canadian children. But the moderator would never have thought of asking a question like: "Mr. O'Toole, help us understand why Albertans do not care about the future of Canadian children?".

If you want to ask a tough question about the notwhistanding clause, frame it as such.

This is the second time you've raised a hypothetical about Erin O'Toole having to defend something happening in Alberta.

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

O'Toole is the leader of a party which derives a significant amount of its political and financial support from the province of Alberta.  Where he was born and where he lives as an individual does not change that fact.

[Oexmelin]

I can only tell you how the question was received here - and there is a pretty wide consensus, including between people both for and against Bill 21.

[Barrister]

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

And the CPC has about half its MPs from Alberta, which reliably delivers the overwhelming majority of its MPs to that single party. And yet, I am pretty sure people within the CPC, and within Alberta, exist somewhere alongside a spectrum about what we ought to do about the environment. My point has little to do with the reality of O'Toole personally, and more about the sort of asumptions embedded in the moderator's question.

Last elections the Conservatives elected 121 MPs, 33 of which were from Alberta.

I feel like this tangentially says more about your own assumptions.  Bill 21 is a specific law that Blanchet has specifically supported.  It is thus fair game to ask him about it.  You can argue how the question was asked (I didn't watch the debate).

O'Toole is responsible for the things he has said, and the policies of the party he leads.  But he's not responsible for answering things that happen in Alberta.

[crazy canuck]

I can only tell you how the question was received here - and there is a pretty wide consensus, including between people both for and against Bill 21.

Perhaps that had more to do with the tone in which she asked the question - a discernable sneer in the moderator's voice.  Rather than the content of the question. 

This goes to a fundamental problem I had with the whole thing - the moderator and media personalities brought on stage were not there to facilitate a discussion amongst the candidates, they were there to put the spotlight on themselves.  And boy did the moderator do that with the opening question.  I think we need to nuke that format from orbit just to be sure.

If the question "Please explain why your party supports a law which is discriminatory" had been posed in a way that anticipated there was a valid answer for consideration and discussion, I think that would have created a much more interesting and meaningful debate.

[crazy canuck]

Erin O'Toole was born in Montreal and lives in Ontario, and is the MP for Durham.

And the CPC has about half its MPs from Alberta, which reliably delivers the overwhelming majority of its MPs to that single party. And yet, I am pretty sure people within the CPC, and within Alberta, exist somewhere alongside a spectrum about what we ought to do about the environment. My point has little to do with the reality of O'Toole personally, and more about the sort of asumptions embedded in the moderator's question.

Last elections the Conservatives elected 121 MPs, 33 of which were from Alberta.

I feel like this tangentially says more about your own assumptions.  Bill 21 is a specific law that Blanchet has specifically supported.  It is thus fair game to ask him about it.  You can argue how the question was asked (I didn't watch the debate).

O'Toole is responsible for the things he has said, and the policies of the party he leads.  But he's not responsible for answering things that happen in Alberta.

But the Federal Conservative party has supported the Alberta constitutional challenge to overturn the carbon tax.  It has also expressly agreed with the Alberta position that the carbon tax should be scrapped.  I am not sure how one can claim that O'Toole is not tied to the climate change policies of Alberta.

[Zoupa]

Well, it's a political debate. A careful considerations of philosophical points, it is not. And a neutral expression of fact by the moderator, it wasn't either. Context, and tone, is important. By framing her intervention under the rubric of "racism", it was clear she did not intend to discuss the merit of relative discriminatory clauses, but was rather using it in the commonsensical meaning of "bad, bad thing", as in, "why are you in favor of this bad, bad thing?".

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing.  And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

It all depends on context doesn't it. Laws and customs evolve. Laws discriminate and rein in people's freedoms in a zillion ways. Discriminatory has a very negative connotation in English, yet we never hear it applied to anti-smoking laws or speed limits.

I don't even know why the BQ leaders participate in the English debates to be honest. What's the point?

[garbon]

But at a high level, are we not in general agreement that a discriminatory law is a bad bad thing.  And if so is it not fair to ask a political leader to justify their support for it?

It all depends on context doesn't it. Laws and customs evolve. Laws discriminate and rein in people's freedoms in a zillion ways. Discriminatory has a very negative connotation in English, yet we never hear it applied to anti-smoking laws or speed limits.

I don't even know why the BQ leaders participate in the English debates to be honest. What's the point?

Can you clarify? I'm not sure "discriminatory" anti-smoking laws or speed limits are best examples of why it may not be problematic for a law to discriminate.

[Zoupa]

Well since cc went all semantic, Merriam-Webster defines discriminatory as making or showing an unfair or prejudicial distinction between different categories of people or things.

Calling something discriminatory implies that the treatment is unfair and/or prejudicial. I don't think Bill 21 is unfair, fairness is subjective. As for prejudice, I don't see it either but then again I'm not a lawyer. If people want a particular job, they can remove their cross/kippah/hijab/pasta strainer during work hours. Is that really prejudicial?

[Grey Fox]

Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

[HVC]

Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

Like say stop speaking a language?

[Grey Fox]

Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

Like say stop speaking a language?

Yes, like those.

[Josephus]

Can a law creating a rule to stop people from doing something they can stop at any moment inherently discriminatory?

[Barrister]

Calling something discriminatory implies that the treatment is unfair and/or prejudicial. I don't think Bill 21 is unfair, fairness is subjective. As for prejudice, I don't see it either but then again I'm not a lawyer. If people want a particular job, they can remove their cross/kippah/hijab/pasta strainer during work hours. Is that really prejudicial?

The kippah or the hijab are seen as religious requirements - their faith demands them to wear them.  In a country that guarantees freedom of religion it is unfair and prejudicial to force someone to violate their religious faith if they want to work in a government job.  In particular because there is no evidence that such signs of religious devotion impact the ability of someone to do their job.

I've mentioned before my colleague who is a practicing sikh and wears his turban to court (and everywhere else).  Doesn't impact his ability to do his job in the slightest.