[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The problem is that racism appears to be something that straddles sone sort of moral divide. Obviously it is immoral to be "racist" in the sense of being a KKK member. Is it immortal to be an agent of "systemic racism"? Is it immoral to disagree with the extent to which "systemic racism" is the primary concern in a particular situation? Does disagreement make you "racist" in the sense of being immoral?

It may not grant immortality, but yes, being part of a systemically racist society without acknowledging that fact is, if not immoral, the main thing that keeps that society from becoming something else.  Which is probably why conservatives want to deny that we live in such a society in the first place.

edit: or you can just spout idiotic statements like Yi just did, same same.

[viper37]

It's basically the discussion we have been having here on Languish re: systemic racism, heightened by a very common "lost in translation" feature of Canadian politics.

For Singh, it's obviously been a very personal topic, and he's the product of a political environment where matters of systemic racism have been discussed.

Thérien's rejection of the motion mirror a widespread reluctance by many (throughout Canada) to acknowledge the concern. For many different reasons, that reluctance has been more openly voiced in Quebec.

And now, true to form, the usual "No surprise it's the Bloc/Quebeckers" comments have been popping up.

There's a committee/inquiry studying systemic racims in the RCMP.
By voting this motion, the House of Commons would declare the conclusion before the inquiry is done.

It's cardassian justice at its best: find the verdict first, then give supporting evidence to reassure the public's faith in the system.

I disagree with the Bloc on a number of issues, I really don't like (euphemism, here) Blanchet, but for once, they did the right thing.

The Commissionner of the RCMP has already said there wasn't systemic racism guiding RCMP's policies.  She was then forced to retract under political pressure.  This is a disgusting behaviour by our Prime Minister and I'm not surprised the left is jumping in on this.  Disgusting and a cheap shot from Singh.  Who has in fanclub of cheerleaders joining him, as usual, in a latest round of Quebec bashing.

[viper37]

It's basically the discussion we have been having here on Languish re: systemic racism, heightened by a very common "lost in translation" feature of Canadian politics.

For Singh, it's obviously been a very personal topic, and he's the product of a political environment where matters of systemic racism have been discussed.

Thérien's rejection of the motion mirror a widespread reluctance by many (throughout Canada) to acknowledge the concern. For many different reasons, that reluctance has been more openly voiced in Quebec.

And now, true to form, the usual "No surprise it's the Bloc/Quebeckers" comments have been popping up.

Well, the entire sovereignist movement has always had a conflict between whether it is to appeal to all Quebecers, or to appeal to the pure laine Quebecers... and lets not forget "except for money and the ethnic vote" line.

One drunk dude makes a silly comment that no one approves of = obvious signs of racism among the sovereignists.
One sober dude makes a well thought comment about "too much French in Ottawa" while the Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition are both francophones, but that does not reflect racism.
His entire party flirts with Heritage Front, hires them for security at their political rallies, but nope, that is not a sign of racism at all.

Did we ever talked about the double standards of English Canada?  I can't remember... 

But Singh is in the wrong here.  The Bloc later put out a statement simply saying that a Parliamentary Committee was studying the issue of systemic racism, and they should wait for that report.  Not exactly stirring, but defensible.  I don't know if he  was just personally offended, or just wanted to be seen to be calling others racist, but he shouldn't have done it.  He should have taken the win, and not focused on the one vote against.

Singh is appealing to his base, simply.  Like Donald Trump does in his own way.  Just like Trump, he has a lot of cheerleaders to support him.

[viper37]

A person who is subjected to racism talking about racism is real.

racism <> systemic racism.
Instutional racism

When terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of proper food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.

There was an interesting example of this systemic racism in Quebec, provided by a black activist (Webster), darling of the left, who never shy of denouncing Quebec's racism and remembering everyone how we were a slaver's society just like the Old US South.

Black Quebecers are systemically discriminated by being forced to attend a dilapidated school, with classes too small for the needs of the community and that's an obvious sign of racism for French speaking Quebecers since the blacks living in the English part of the city have it better, education-wise.
As usual, leftist activists conveniantly forget the whole facts, those that would disprove their point.

This school was attended mainly by French-white-Quebecers in the 60s, before the area changed due to mass immigration from the Haitian community in the 80s.  Back then, the schoolboard were organized by religion, this what was left to the Catholics, the WASP certainly did not want any frenchies or catholics in their backyard, and they lobbied extensively to appropriate a disproportionate portion of the education funds to their schools.
Right now, as the French schools lack space and the English schools have a surplus, the English School board are fighting the government tooth and nail to keep their priviledges, among others half empty schools, instead of merging some of their schools and freeing some space for the French speaking communities.

But we are the racist ones.

Leftism 101.  When in doubt, blame the majority group.

Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people

Would supporters of systemic racism say French Canadians face systemic racism in this   country?  I wonder if the NDP would vote on such a motion...  (that was rethorical, Singh would never offend his base this way, nor would Trudeau, he'd risk losing the next election for stating the obvious).

[viper37]

I don't know.  I said it appeared he either just lost it, or that it was a political stunt.  Neither reflected well on him.

Or perhaps the revelation of character of the person who thinks it can only be one of those two options.  And you are the reasonable wing of your party.

Yeah, sure, the dude who's told his turban doesn't make him look canadian and smiles for it will suddenly lose his cool because an MP simply vote against his silly motion.  Perfectly understandable.  From a certain point of view.

[viper37]

About the only way you can avoid the label is calling everyone else racist.

I absolutely agree with Yi.  Prime examples in this thread.

[viper37]

edit: or you can just spout idiotic statements like Yi just did, same same.

hmm...

At one point you may realize your posts are not merely awkward and tone deaf but borne from a world view that should perhaps be questioned.

Or perhaps the revelation of character of the person who thinks it can only be one of those two options.  And you are the reasonable wing of your party.

Say again?

[HVC]

So your problem isn't that black people are discriminated against? its that they should be more discriminated against than francophones? I mean I guess gandhi would be proud at least.

[crazy canuck]

Say again?

Ok, the fact that BB entirely discounts that a person of Sihk heritage might, just might, be genuinely talking about racism in this country is a significant revelation of character.

[Barrister]

Say again?

Ok, the fact that BB entirely discounts that a person of Sihk heritage might, just might, be genuinely talking about racism in this country is a significant revelation of character.

I have lots of time for Singh to tell me about how racism has affected his life.

My objection is for him to label another MP as a racist for merely not voting in favour of a resolution.

[crazy canuck]

Say again?

Ok, the fact that BB entirely discounts that a person of Sihk heritage might, just might, be genuinely talking about racism in this country is a significant revelation of character.

I have lots of time for Singh to tell me about how racism has affected his life.

My objection is for him to label another MP as a racist for merely not voting in favour of a resolution.

What astounds me is the only two possibilities you allowed involve bad faith.   

[Barrister]

Say again?

Ok, the fact that BB entirely discounts that a person of Sihk heritage might, just might, be genuinely talking about racism in this country is a significant revelation of character.

I have lots of time for Singh to tell me about how racism has affected his life.

My objection is for him to label another MP as a racist for merely not voting in favour of a resolution.

What astounds me is the only two possibilities you allowed involve bad faith.

No, I said maybe he lost his cool.

[crazy canuck]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

[Valmy]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

Um CC he said maybe...

[crazy canuck]

Oh, great.  Much better.   It doesn't even cross your mind that there is another explanation.

Um CC he said maybe...

Um yeah, maybe that and maybe it was a stunt.  Those are the two options BB proposed.  This is how it works folks.  A guy you like talks shit and you excuse it.  Well screw that.