[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

I didn't say it was bad. I merely noted that it was happening again and posited, primarily from the lack of brouhaha surrounding it, that it's basically an accepted part of parliamentary manoeuvring at this point.

So, what you're saying is that Harper has been our Prime Minister since 1867?  Look here:
"that it's basically an accepted part of parliamentary manoeuvring at this point."

this is imply that is something new, while in fact it is not.  Facts support this.  Yet, you seem to consider this a new way to do politics in Canada, wich would be different than the old.  I don't get that.  I don't get that you seem disturbed by the fact there's no outrage over this.

[Jacob]

Viper - I'm not disturbed by the lack of outrage. Your skills at reading my level of outrage and upset are really quite low.

You are reading way more into what I'm saying that what I'm actually saying. A while back, there was some (quite possibly silly) outrage over prorogation; this time there is not.

I noted this and concluded that prorogation is now (as opposed to the first time Harper did it) seemingly simply an accepted parliamentary maneouvre (without implying anything about governments or prorogation or procedures prior to the Harper government in any shape or form).

That's all.

So basically, you read between the lines to conclude that I was disturbed about something I'm not disturbed about, added some reasoning and logic predicated on that (erroneous) interpretation, and threw out some silly hyperbole about suggesting that Harper was PM in 1867.

It's this pattern that makes it difficult to discuss politics with you. In the separatism discussion this was exacerbated by your hyperbole and reasoning referencing people and situations that I had no clue who or what they were in the first place.

[viper37]

It's this pattern that makes it difficult to discuss politics with you. In the separatism discussion this was exacerbated by your hyperbole and reasoning referencing people and situations that I had no clue who or what they were in the first place.

As I pointed, Quebec/French bashing is widely recognized, and even Graham Fraser has mentionned it.  That you have no clue about it is simply a reflection that it's not an issue for you, wich is understable, you're not really concerned.  If it was Dane bashing, or Vancouver bashing, you'd likely notice it, more than something about some people 3000km away with wich you have no contact outside the virtual world.

There's nothing wrong with it, it's the same for most people.  If you're not confronted to an issue, you don't really notice it. 

[Jacob]

Who is Graham Fraser?

[crazy canuck]

It's this pattern that makes it difficult to discuss politics with you. In the separatism discussion this was exacerbated by your hyperbole and reasoning referencing people and situations that I had no clue who or what they were in the first place.

As I pointed, Quebec/French bashing is widely recognized, and even Graham Fraser has mentionned it.  That you have no clue about it is simply a reflection that it's not an issue for you, wich is understable, you're not really concerned.  If it was Dane bashing, or Vancouver bashing, you'd likely notice it, more than something about some people 3000km away with wich you have no contact outside the virtual world.

I did give you a prime example, wich you hadn't noticed before.  You agreed it was a pretty racist piece.  Things like that aren't unique, but most don't see it.  CC calls this type of editorial a valid criticism of Quebec's policies, after all.  If Quebec newspapers kept referring to Ottawa as a nazi-like government... I'd just wonder what kind of movement we'd see in Canada.

To be clear Viper, you said that comments regarding political issues within quebec were like racial slurs.  I disagreed but, having had the benefit of understanding the separatist position a bit better and the way in which you seem to equate comments regarding poltics as comments regarding a kind of racial identity I understand your position better.  I dont agree with it for a whole number of reasons, but at least I understand it better.

[viper37]

Who is Graham Fraser?

<sigh>
http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/index_e.php
His annual reports don't get much attention in english Canada, sadly.

[Jacob]

<sigh>
http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/index_e.php
His annual reports don't get much attention in english Canada, sadly.

<sigh>
Thank you.

[viper37]

To be clear Viper, you said that comments regarding political issues within quebec were like racial slurs. 

I gave you examples of what I'm talking about.  Editorialists/columnists calling us nazis.  Authors saying the english speaking population suffer human rights violation.  You answered it was comments regarding political issues.

When I hear morons comparing Israel or the US to the Nazis defending themselves by saying they're just "political" critics, I call them morons.

[Maximus]

Who is Graham Fraser?

<sigh>
http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/html/index_e.php
His annual reports don't get much attention in english Canada, sadly.

I can't imagine why someone whose job is protecting language rights would proclaim that language rights need protecting.

[viper37]

Yeah, we should get rid of the officie.  General auditor too, btw.  No good can come out of these people, they're only there to protect their job.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, we should get rid of the officie.  General auditor too, btw.  No good can come out of these people, they're only there to protect their job.

Not really Max's point.

[Jacob]

Yeah, we should get rid of the officie.  General auditor too, btw.  No good can come out of these people, they're only there to protect their job.

There you go again, calling all anglophones liars.

[Grey Fox]

Good going, Max.

[viper37]

Yeah, we should get rid of the officie.  General auditor too, btw.  No good can come out of these people, they're only there to protect their job.

There you go again, calling all anglophones liars.

Nope. Never did say that either.
Max point is that the Commissionner to the Official Languages is overblowing the issue because it is his job, not really because it is happening for real.
The same could be said for any government office, General Auditor included.  It could be said or private corporations like insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, oil industry, etc, etc.

I find this kind of reasoning disconcerting from sane people.

It's not a lobby group. One, it's a former respected journalist.  Two, the reports, no matter who's in office, are mostly the same, year to year, no matter wich government.  They are lenghty and they provide numerous details.

I have a problem with rejecting the reports out of hand without even reading them however.

[viper37]

Trudeau has admitted to smoking pot more than once.
He's gonna be our next Prime Minister for sure, now.