Canada Election 2021

[Grey Fox]

O'Toole and the Conservative party have, apparently, sent a letter to Premier Legault saying that while they will scrap the Liberal child care plan, they will negotiate to keep Quebec's money on the table.

Sorry, RoC. No affordable Child care for you.

... if the Conservatives win. But we know that. We'll be getting an anemic tax credit plan instead.

Yes but we won't. We'll still get the money.

[Jacob]

Yes but we won't. We'll still get the money.

[Neil]

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

The Anglo vote in Montreal?

[Oexmelin]

Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this - but I fear this may not be the thread to do so.

[Jacob]

Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this - but I fear this may not be the thread to do so.

The Canada Politics Redux thread is a bit all over the place right now. Might be an okay place for Bill 21 discussion...?

[crazy canuck]

Let's not get carried away. The color of one's skin doesn't seem that comparable to a piece of clothing - and not all government jobs are concerned by Bill 21, but the authority-yielding ones - teachers, judges, commissioners.

The law expects people to abandon their religious beliefs to work. The analogy is apt.

I'd be happy to continue to discuss this - but I fear this may not be the thread to do so.

I would enjoy that. 

As Jacob suggested, let's reconvene in Josephus' general Canadian Politics thread.

[Barrister]

Exciting announcement made by Jagmeet Singh today!

https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1437909278006910981

That's right - the NDP is launching their very own island in Animal Crossing!  Text the NDP to get access today.

[Zoupa]

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

The Anglo vote in Montreal?

Not sure if serious...

[Jacob]

I'm guessing they participate in the Anglo debate generally because parts of it will get covered in Francophone media, and that's typically a good thing during a campaign. More specifically, because it's a great opportunity to emphasize how they stand up for Quebec interest against the ignorant ROC (as the discussion about Quebec bashing in this thread exemplifies).

It's a great opportunity for Blanchet to say things like "yesterday O'Toole/ Trudeau said such-and-such in French, I wonder if he is willing to make the same statement tonight in English", which makes the BQ look like they're doing great work keeping the other parties honest in terms of what they say in French.

Also I think Blanchet takes a certain amount of personal pleasure in baiting Alberta once in a while.

[Barrister]

Also I think Blanchet takes a certain amount of personal pleasure in baiting Alberta once in a while.

As well he should.

[viper37]

On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

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?

"Tell Mr Singh, can you explain why terrorism is so popular among the Sikh and Muslim communities?".

Sure, it can be debated...

[viper37]

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?

Isn't mandatory vaccination discriminatory?  Actually, simply requiring it for non essential purposes is discriminatory.  I can't seem to recall you defending the freedom of anti-vax.  Why not? Because you are personally concerned over this situation?

[viper37]

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.

Link me to that judgement please.

[Barrister]

On Quebec bashing - Zoupa, Grey Fox - just to make sure I'm clear on where you're coming from.

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?

"Tell Mr Singh, can you explain why terrorism is so popular among the Sikh and Muslim communities?".

Sure, it can be debated...

Despite Jagmeet Singh's appearance at a pro-Khalistan rally in 2015 where posters and banners of a Sikh terrorist were displayed, Singh has been quite vocal that he is opposed to terrorism in all forms and that should be good enough for everyone.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jagmeet-singh-sikh-independence-rally-1.4575762

[crazy canuck]

Actually, simply requiring it for non essential purposes is discriminatory.  I can't seem to recall you defending the freedom of anti-vax.  Why not? Because you are personally concerned over this situation?

You are attributing a meaning to the word discriminatory that is seems to be rather unique.