[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

What would be unreasonable is the state telling businesses they cannot prefer non drinking customers.  This argument is becoming a proxy for the argument about the religious symbol ban in Quebec.  You deem the actions of the restaurant to be unreasonable because it interfered with the dominant cultural value whereas I deem protection of the minority to be not only reasonable but laudable.

There are two things here. One, is the idea that a BYOB reflects a preference for not serving alcohol, which is a curious one, and one that is not aligned with the experience of a BYOB in Quebec. Otherwise all the BYOBs would keep their status as such quiet, and alcohol would be a tolerance, rather than an actual selling point. For me, it reflects a preference for not going through an expensive bureaucratic process, not some sort of attitude towards alcohol. 

But the whole issue is that of using the law as a proxy for morality. I don't wish the state to tell businesses that they cannot prefer non drinking customers. But, yes, I do find the attitude unreasonable. The whole point about tolerance is that I don't care if observant Muslims don't drink alcohol. And I do care, and find it unreasonable, that they use the power of their numbers to pressure an owner into policing the behavior of others *who have not interfered with them in any way*. If they wanted to reserve the restaurant all for themselves, that's fine. But they did not. A situation reversed, where xenophobic Quebecers would insist that observant Muslims dining in a restaurant have alcohol delivered to their table would rightly be denounced.

Ultimately, this goes to our conception of the public sphere, and this is where the law is not a great guide. To live in a democratic society is to agree to interact with people whose behavior, ideas, and customs will be different from ours. It is to afford them the dignity of considering them as full persons nonetheless. It is in that public sphere of multitude that we invest the value of our political system. It is in the name of these same principles that we have agreed to let groups who *actually refuse such a conception* to live out their fantasies of total isolation to a great extent. But such a fantasy is a rejection of pluralist democratic ideals. We should be able to denounce it as such, while at the same time recognizing that most legal remedies are not desirable. 

Lastly, I think situations like this also show the limits of the law as guide in situations of power. Power is not a quality that is held, or withheld at any one moment. It can be exercised by minority groups for a variety of reasons, and in a variety of ways, in varying circumstances. Here, you had circumstances which afforded greater power to a group of observant Muslims, which they used to police the behavior of others who did not share in their beliefs but actually did not interact with them in any way, except by sharing space. To reduce that to an owner's choice, or to defer judgment to an eventual sanction from the free market, is to abdicate politics in favor of force. It may be an easier choice on the moment, than a complicated and contested discussion. But I think we pay the price down the line. 

I think we should be careful that, in our promotion of the value of difference, we do not make a virtue of indifference to one another.

By saying that this should be defined as something occurring in the public sphere, isn't that another way of saying the state should prevent the restaurant owner form making that choice?

[Malthus]

Because the expectation is that a BYOB is still a functioning restaurant and does not make that determination alcohol/no alcohol on the spot and at the whim of some of the patrons.

And so if they choose that path and they lose customers as a result, then they'll go out of business.

Sure, but the market doesn't solve everything. Plus that's an after the fact solution.

Why not educate folks as to what is Cool^tm and Not Cool^tm instead? Wouldn't that solve the issue before it even happens?

Those against booze will simply claim booze is "not cool". While I think they are wrong and that booze is not harmful when used responsibly (and so is "cool"), this is not an argument that is solvable - those claiming it is not cool will simply argue it's a harmful and addictive substance and that a certain number using it will always end up addicted. So the fall-back will always be "well, that's my choice to take the risk, and none of anyone's business", which I think is fair enough; then those who think it is not cool will argue "it's my choice to take my business elsewhere,  not to eat in a place that enables your behaviour".

[Oexmelin]

By saying that this should be defined as something occurring in the public sphere, isn't that another way of saying the state should prevent the restaurant owner form making that choice?

God no. The moment we equate the public sphere with the state we are headed towards a world of problems. The public sphere emerged (slowly) in our democratic regimes as a space of critique against the state. But it also emerged as an idealized space where people would engage critically as citizens, not simply as private individuals doing their private individual things. It's inevitably a political space, and political spaces can't be conflated to either property, or existing laws.

I don't have a good solution. But I think it should be possible to both say, "that owner was wrong to cave", "the observant Muslims were wrong to require", without immediately defaulting to "we should regulate". And I think it should be possible to say this when in possession of good political capital. Otherwise, political debates are relegated to management details, and major issues are deferred to courts. I think, for quite some time since the demise of the USSR, the "West" has not had to defend nor articulate any core values tied to its regime. It leaves us unprepared to challenges, either from authoritarians within our midst (for whom debate is always a waste of time), from apologists of wealth (why would China not be a good model to follow?), or from people who would claim that "society does not exist".

To give a different side of the same problem - and one we discussed previously in the context of academia - the increasing privatization of spaces of political expressions, which we deem acceptable because tied to private property. Facebook can censor whomever it wants, because it's not accountable to anyone. This makes us stumped whenever we want to both claim that Facebook is an important space of political expression (and therefore open to public claims), yet at the same time a private space .

[Oexmelin]

Those against booze will simply claim booze is "not cool". While I think they are wrong and that booze is not harmful when used responsibly (and so is "cool"), this is not an argument that is solvable - those claiming it is not cool will simply argue it's a harmful and addictive substance and that a certain number using it will always end up addicted. So the fall-back will always be "well, that's my choice to take the risk, and none of anyone's business", which I think is fair enough; then those who think it is not cool will argue "it's my choice to take my business elsewhere,  not to eat in a place that enables your behaviour".

The Cool/Not Cool thing here, I believe, is not about alcohol at all, but rather, that you would require other patrons sitting at different tables to abide by the rules you want to follow for your meal.

In short, if you go to a BYOB, other patrons will drink alcohol. It's in the nature of a BYOB. It is unreasonable to demand, as a patron, that they ought not. If I go to a steakhouse, I cannot require that everyone in the room abide by my veganism, even as I order a salad. If I am an observant Jew, and am keeping kosher and go to a restaurant, I should not be able to require that everyone in the restaurant keep kosher. For all three cases, there were some perfectly good options to not be placed in the presence of offending food: go to a dry restaurant; go to a vegan place; go to a strict kosher place - or don't go at all.

Does it require a law? I hope not. But it does require a robust denunciation of such demands as unreasonable.

[Malthus]

Those against booze will simply claim booze is "not cool". While I think they are wrong and that booze is not harmful when used responsibly (and so is "cool"), this is not an argument that is solvable - those claiming it is not cool will simply argue it's a harmful and addictive substance and that a certain number using it will always end up addicted. So the fall-back will always be "well, that's my choice to take the risk, and none of anyone's business", which I think is fair enough; then those who think it is not cool will argue "it's my choice to take my business elsewhere,  not to eat in a place that enables your behaviour".

The Cool/Not Cool thing here, I believe, is not about alcohol at all, but rather, that you would require other patrons sitting at different tables to abide by the rules you want to follow for your meal.

In short, if you go to a BYOB, other patrons will drink alcohol. It's in the nature of a BYOB. It is unreasonable to demand, as a patron, that they ought not. If I go to a steakhouse, I cannot require that everyone in the room abide by my veganism, even as I order a salad. If I am an observant Jew, and am keeping kosher and go to a restaurant, I should not be able to require that everyone in the restaurant keep kosher. For all three cases, there were some perfectly good options to not be placed in the presence of offending food: go to a dry restaurant; go to a vegan place; go to a strict kosher place - or don't go at all.

Does it require a law? I hope not. But it does require a robust denunciation of such demands as unreasonable.

That would be a perfectly reasonable line for the owner to take, and if they had, they would have my agreement. However, the owner decided not to do so. In effect, the owner agreed that the restaurant was going to go boozeless if someone complained about it.

Those affected by that decision definitely have a legitimate beef with the owner, in that their meal was disrupted - in effect, they have been mislead by the owner. If they choose not to pay, because they had not been offered a byob experience that the restaurant claimed to provide, I'd agree with them, too.

Evidently the owner came to the conclusion that going boozless if anyone complained about it was the right business move. They may well be wrong about that. If so, customers will vote with their wallets and the owner will regret it. 

[Zoupa]

What about the observant muslims' demand? Do you think it's ok for them to make that demand?

[Josephus]

So Canadians, how would you rate your premier and the PM in this crisis?

As you may know, I'm not a Conservative, and have been very anti-Doug Ford. But I have to admit, he's been strong, and showing good leadership skills. I think, unlike say Trump, he really shines in this sort of crisis. He was a bit late to start, encouraging people to have fun on Family Day, when there were already some signs it was starting to spread here, but he's been strong. He stood up well to Trump over the 3M thing. I give him 4 out of 5.

Trudeau? I aslo think he's been good. His daily press conferences from self-isolation were warm, he has that unique ability to give you doom and gloom in a very calm-non panic monotone. Although some conservatives must be freaking over all the money he's spending (even I as a tax and spend guy knows this is going to be very painful down the road), these are necessary measures to prevent a complete breakdown of the economy. I thought when he first shut the borders he should have gone all the way and stop American travellers as well. Also 4 out of 5.

[PRC]

Jason Kenney's handling of the Covid19 crisis itself has been fine. 

It's all the stuff on the periphery of it that highlights what a disgraceful failure he and the UCP have been.

Health minister Tyler Shandro, less than two weeks ago went to the house of a doctor in his neighbourhood and demanded the doctor take down a facebook post that was critical of Shandro.  Shandro and his wife run a private health insurance company and are set to benefit from UCP healthcare cuts that he oversees. 

Kenney and the UCP are going forward with detrimental changes to the healthcare system, ending the master agreement with doctors on April 1st, in the midst of this healthcare crisis.  Many doctors are outraged over this and it will result in detrimental healthcare delivery to Albertans, even without the ongoing Covid19 pandemic.

The UCP And Kenny have touted the Telus Health Babylon service as a way for Albertan's to "access a doctor online".   But there was no privacy review of the app and it will put the healthcare status of Albertan's in the hands of for-profit corporations for substandard care delivery.

He appeared to blame Dr. Deena Hinshaw our chief medical officer, who made the call to close down schools, for some 25,000 education staff layoffs that he initiated. 

He's doubling down on Oil during all this as well, saying we can't afford the 130-ish million for those education jobs, but at the same time putting 7.5 billion towards the Keystone XL pipeline and still letting the total fucking embarrassment that is the Canadian Energy Center live.  A $30 million a year joke of a propaganda wing for the oil & gas lobby, at a time when oil & gas is at unprecedented lows.

[crazy canuck]

The BC Premier has done a very good job of just staying out of the way.  The Health Minister has been at all the media briefings but he too has done a very good job of just reinforcing what the Provincial Health Officer has been saying.  Dr. Henry is the real star - she has an active fan club.

Very different here from what PRC has described in Alberta.

The Province has also made some small but important moves to ensure health sector morale stays high.  For example nurses get a premium if they work a certain number of hours in a week.  It would be administratively burdensome and perhaps impossible to track that in this chaos and a reasonable assumption to make is that all nurses are working at least that much, so all of them are now getting the wage premium as their base salary.  Small gestures like that make a big difference.

[PRC]

The BC Premier has done a very good job of just staying out of the way.  The Health Minister has been at all the media briefings but he too has done a very good job of just reinforcing what the Provincial Health Officer has been saying.  Dr. Henry is the real star - she has an active fan club.

Very different here from what PRC has described in Alberta.

To be fair to Kenney, staying out of the way is a good way to describe the job he has done so far, other than going forward with the ill-thought and ill-timed healthcare system changes.  He has been supportive of Dr. Deena Hinshaw, other than that hiccup with the blame for education layoffs.  She has also been greeted as the real leader during this crisis and she has an active fan club on the go out here too.

[Barrister]

I think PRC gave a very partisan take on how Kenney has been doing.  You'll note none of his complaints have to do with Covid-19 itself.

Where to start...

The incident with Minister Shandro.  The doctor in question was a long time friend of Shandro, been on the same PC Board of Directors for years.  He didn't just go up to some random stranger.  Yeah, I might be upset too if I saw someone I thought was a friend sharing negative posts on Facebook.

Changes to the master agreement with doctors.  All of which was announced before the pandemic, and discussed here.

Layoffs of educational staff.  These are not teachers - they are educational aids.  It's not clear to me what they'd be expected to do right now without classes going on. 

The UCP, despite being elected on a very explicit platform of fiscal prudence, is in fact spending very freely during the pandemic (and for understandable reasons).  But what hasn't really been touched on is how badly our finances are being torched right now.  Price of oil has pretty much gone to zero.  Those EAs, by being laid off, can now go on EI, and their salaries will be paid by the Feds, not the province.

As for "doubling down on oil"... it's the backbone of our entire economy.  You can say that yes long term we should try to pivot away, but you can't do that immediately in the midst of a massive global recession.  Keystone XL is an investment, which will lead to Alberta oil being able to get to market in the US and attract higher prices for a generation or more.  It's also a literal investment - we get an equity share.

I didn't think much of the Canadian Energy Centre, and it hasn't done muc either, but it's only $30 million, and again it was an explicit promise made during the election, so Kenney had every mandate to go through with it.


Kenney has appeared from time to time alongside Dr. Hinshaw at her daily briefing, but I see today there's no daily briefing, and instead Kenney will make a public announcement at 6pm.  I don't expect good news.

[Barrister]

The BC Premier has done a very good job of just staying out of the way.  The Health Minister has been at all the media briefings but he too has done a very good job of just reinforcing what the Provincial Health Officer has been saying.  Dr. Henry is the real star - she has an active fan club.

Very different here from what PRC has described in Alberta.

To be fair to Kenney, staying out of the way is a good way to describe the job he has done so far, other than going forward with the ill-thought and ill-timed healthcare system changes.  He has been supportive of Dr. Deena Hinshaw, other than that hiccup with the blame for education layoffs.  She has also been greeted as the real leader during this crisis and she has an active fan club on the go out here too.

I don't think Dr. Hinshaw will ever have to pay for a meal ever again in this province.

[crazy canuck]

The BC Premier has done a very good job of just staying out of the way.  The Health Minister has been at all the media briefings but he too has done a very good job of just reinforcing what the Provincial Health Officer has been saying.  Dr. Henry is the real star - she has an active fan club.

Very different here from what PRC has described in Alberta.

To be fair to Kenney, staying out of the way is a good way to describe the job he has done so far, other than going forward with the ill-thought and ill-timed healthcare system changes.  He has been supportive of Dr. Deena Hinshaw, other than that hiccup with the blame for education layoffs.  She has also been greeted as the real leader during this crisis and she has an active fan club on the go out here too.

I don't think Dr. Hinshaw will ever have to pay for a meal ever again in this province.

[Razgovory]

This whole thing must have been an enormous scandal that shook Canada to its core.  Weird that the only people in the US who covered this crisis was some psycho Trumpists.

I know you get frothy at the mouth the moment Quebec is mentioned, but I think you have a better chance of grasping the situation in Missouri, and the potential to do something there, rather than make ill-informed pronouncements of virtue and vice about a place you clearly don't understand very well.

What is the situation in Missouri?  Have you spent a great deal of time here?

[Oexmelin]

What is the situation in Missouri?  Have you spent a great deal of time here?

I know the situation in Missouri.