[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Quebec politician would not have intervened had not this taken political shape with accusation of racism and intolerance flying from English Canada...  Marois would have looked like a moron trying to politicize the issue... but as it was already done, she had nothing to lose, and in effect didn't.  Nor did she gain anything, but that's beside the point.

If you ban something like turbans, you are going to get accusations of racism and intolerance thrown at you. Are you telling me that no such accusations came flying from French Canada?

[Barrister]

You will also note that no provincial politicians of any shape got involved in defending the turban ban.

Quebec politician would not have intervened had not this taken political shape with accusation of racism and intolerance flying from English Canada...  Marois would have looked like a moron trying to politicize the issue... but as it was already done, she had nothing to lose, and in effect didn't.  Nor did she gain anything, but that's beside the point.

She could have, you know, done the right and obvious thing and said 'the ruling of the Quebec Soccer Association is wrong and I urge them to change their minds', instead of trying to score political points over it.

[Grallon]

If you ban something like turbans, you are going to get accusations of racism and intolerance thrown at you. Are you telling me that no such accusations came flying from French Canada?

None.

Those who disagreed with the ban know very well it wasn't racism... But then again Canadians like nothing better than to scrounge for any shreds of 'evidence' to comfort their own prejudices about Quebecers.  *shrug*

I've explained what it's about - but in the current cavalcade of self justification from Malthus & co nobody is remotely interested in facts.


G.

[Malthus]

If you ban something like turbans, you are going to get accusations of racism and intolerance thrown at you. Are you telling me that no such accusations came flying from French Canada?

None.

Those who disagreed with the ban know very well it wasn't racism... But then again Canadians like nothing better than to scrounge for any shreds of 'evidence' to comfort their own prejudices about Quebecers.  *shrug*

I've explained what it's about - but in the current cavalcade of self justification from Malthus & co nobody is remotely interested in facts.


G.

I must have missed your explaination.

What, exactly, am I (and co.) supposed to be "self justifying" here?

[Jacob]

None.

Those who disagreed with the ban know very well it wasn't racism... But then again Canadians like nothing better than to scrounge for any shreds of 'evidence' to comfort their own prejudices about Quebecers.  *shrug*

In this case, the evidence is fairly compelling if - as you say - no French voices were raised against this whatsoever.

Accusations of racism and intolerance would have flown in English Canada if it had happened there - and indeed, they have flown in the past. That no such criticism was raised in Quebec whatsoever - as you say - that is more of an indictment than anything the English language press could raise.

[Neil]

If you ban something like turbans, you are going to get accusations of racism and intolerance thrown at you. Are you telling me that no such accusations came flying from French Canada?

None.

Those who disagreed with the ban know very well it wasn't racism... But then again Canadians like nothing better than to scrounge for any shreds of 'evidence' to comfort their own prejudices about Quebecers.  *shrug*

I've explained what it's about - but in the current cavalcade of self justification from Malthus & co nobody is remotely interested in facts.

I must have missed your explaination.

What, exactly, am I (and co.) supposed to be "self justifying" here?

He's lying.  Charles-André Marchand certainly saw it as a sign that racism might indeed be a problem in Quebec.

Actually, lying is probably a strong word.  But he's seeing things through his particular set of blinkers.  I would imagine that a fair bit of the news media he consumes is through the sovereigntist equivalent of Fox News.

[Jacob]

... or alternately, as Neil shows, a sign that you only listen to a limited set of French voices.

[viper37]

In this case, the evidence is fairly compelling if - as you say - no French voices were raised against this whatsoever.

Disagreement were voiced.  Many articles and op-ed were written on this, the split was close to 50-50 in the medias.  But no french speaking québécois accused the federation of racism and intolerance.  Even the english medias from Quebec did no such accusation.

One such is here:
http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/rima-elkouri/201306/13/01-4660845-derive-enturbannee.php
Disagree with the ruling, strongly against accusation of racism.  When it comes to Quebec, everything is overblown in English Canada.

There were many others in various medias.

[Malthus]

No-one in Quebec made accusations of racism? It's all just comming from English Canada?

Now, my French is not the greatest, but still.

http://fr-ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogues/camarchand/turbans-et-crise-identitaire-200657200.html

[Grallon]

I was talking about mainstream media.  And for your information Neil - I make a point to read La Presse - the most federastic newspaper in Quebec - daily.  And le Devoir - sovereignist - and the Gazette - which no one can accuse of secret separatist alliegances.

As for the explanation you missed Malthus - it has to do with our collective allergic reaction to public religious display.  We've lived through centuries of oppressive religiosity - we finally got rid of most of it - we won't have it return through the back door of multikulti sponsored minorities whose only purpose should be to assimilate anyway.



G.

[Malthus]

I was talking about mainstream media.  And for your information Neil - I make a point to read La Presse - the most federastic newspaper in Quebec - daily.  And le Devoir - sovereignist - and the Gazette - which no one can accuse of secret separatist alliegances.

As for the explanation you missed Malthus - it has to do with our collective allergic reaction to public religious display.  We've lived through centuries of oppressive religiosity - we finally got rid of most of it - we won't have it return through the back door of multikulti sponsored minorities whose only purpose should be to assimilate anyway.



G.

Overall hatred of anything religious, no matter who = not prejudiced.

Telling minorities their only purpose should be to assimilate, and acting as if this was true = prejudiced.

[Valmy]

Telling minorities their only purpose should be to assimilate, and acting as if this was true = prejudiced.

Minorities /= immigrants unless Grallon thinks the native Americans need to become good Quebecois.

And anyway the proper attitude is just to expect immigrants will eventually assimilate and just make sure to make sure no artificial roadblocks to that develop.

[Malthus]

Telling minorities their only purpose should be to assimilate, and acting as if this was true = prejudiced.

Minorities /= immigrants unless Grallon thinks the native Americans need to become good Quebecois.

And anyway the proper attitude is just to expect immigrants will eventually assimilate and just make sure to make sure no artificial roadblocks to that develop.

"Minorities" is the term he used in his post. Why are you taking issue with my use of it?

To my mind, the Quebec attitude *is* a roadblock, as (ironically enough) people from Quebec never cease to demonstrate - adding symbolic "humiliations" against a person's self-identity is the most certain way to get them to cling to it.

[Valmy]

To my mind, the Quebec attitude *is* a roadblock, as (ironically enough) people from Quebec never cease to demonstrate - adding symbolic "humiliations" against a person's self-identity is the most certain way to get them to cling to it.

Yep.  That is why they fail.

Though I bet they actually are succeeding despite their best efforts.

"Minorities" is the term he used in his post. Why are you taking issue with my use of it?

I believe I said 'Grallon' and not 'Malthus' in my post.

[crazy canuck]

Though I bet they actually are succeeding despite their best efforts.

At what?