[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I disagree.  About mid campaign this was the Conservatives election to win.  If the Conservatives had just run on their economic agenda they may well have ended up with another majority.  Whoever decided to go ugly on the social policy side will have a lot of explaining to do.

That's not really a "disagreement". I agree that if the Cons had put out as the main messaging a positive vision ("we are wise economic managers of the Canadian economy") they may well have succeeded ... though the concerns with them being basically worn out would remain.

They went negative, and that allowed Trudeau his opening to go positive and articulate his vision - and gave that vision traction. 

[crazy canuck]

Ezra Levant now runs this site:

http://www.therebel.media/


No chance I am touching that link.

It's not a virus thing..if that's your concern.

No, I just didn't want to give it an additional click so that he could claim more traffic to his site

[crazy canuck]

I disagree.  About mid campaign this was the Conservatives election to win.  If the Conservatives had just run on their economic agenda they may well have ended up with another majority.  Whoever decided to go ugly on the social policy side will have a lot of explaining to do.

That's not really a "disagreement". I agree that if the Cons had put out as the main messaging a positive vision ("we are wise economic managers of the Canadian economy") they may well have succeeded ... though the concerns with them being basically worn out would remain.

They went negative, and that allowed Trudeau his opening to go positive and articulate his vision - and gave that vision traction.

Fair point

[Malthus]

Heh remember that crack about this being a "Wizard of Oz" election - that Harper has no heart, Mulcair has no courage, and Trudeau has no brain?

What going negative on social issues has done, is throw Harper's weakness (no heart) into the forefront, and allow Trudeau - who without question has heart - to demonstrate his superiority in this arena. 

[crazy canuck]

Heh remember that crack about this being a "Wizard of Oz" election - that Harper has no heart, Mulcair has no courage, and Trudeau has no brain?

What going negative on social issues has done, is throw Harper's weakness (no heart) into the forefront, and allow Trudeau - who without question has heart - to demonstrate his superiority in this arena. 

Yep.

That was actually a lot of the conversation around the CC extended family thanksgiving dinner discussion.  We rarely agree on matters political - family members are all over the spectrum.  But this one turned into a very harmonious conversation largely because of that.

[Berkut]

Your argument was that such laws would not prevent woman abuse, so why have it anyway?  My argument is that you could say the same for every laws.

But that is not true.

Just because 8+7=15, does not mean that X+Y=15.

Just because two arguments have broadly similar forms does not mean that they have the same conclusions.

The details matter.

[viper37]

I can't think on any kind of ban on clothing I particularly support, no. Do you have anything particular in mind?

Anything associated with a criminal organization, like a biker's club colours would be forbidden.  Wearing that lands you in jail for being associated with a criminal organization.

In the US, they decided to remove a silly piece of cloth from some places.  And I'm betting a new citizen dressed in a Confederate flag might be asked to dress in a more appropriate manner during a citizenship ceremony nowadays.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Or they could be wrong by associating a simple piece of cloth with the oppression of a group.

I mean, I see the argument for restricting displays of gang colours in some contexts, especially when worn by members of actual organized crime groups. But it's not something I'm particularly attached to. And I don't have problems with "dress formally" dress codes for private establishments.

It was done to fight against the ascendant they had on society, the way lots of people thought of it as "cool".  And it worked, to some degree.

But I'm not sure why you conclude that "of course I won't" support government not banning clothing choices.

You can't walk naked in most cities.  That is a dressing code, in itself.  And nobody is preventing a women to wear what she wants.  But under certain circumstances, she has to remove her veil.

You don't get mentalities to evolve by cuddling to extremists.  By permitting extremists to force a burqa on women anytime they chose, you are sending a powerful message: the State will not only respect your extremist attitude toward religion, it will give you all the space you need to grow it.

If you were to encourage racist behaviors, as they were in the past, they would grow back to what they were in the early 20th century.  You do the same by encouraging extremists to poison the lives of the moderates in their community.

Okay, you have your reasons. Obviously local Quebec politics matter more to you, but they're pretty remote where I'm at.

Yet, you did not hesitate to call me racist because of my choices.  From where I am, not only is cuddling to extremists beyond silly, but it is also pretty remote where I'm at.  I mean, it's not like there are veiled women in my village, so I guess I shouldn't care at all, and adopt the same position as you do.

[viper37]

Your argument was that such laws would not prevent woman abuse, so why have it anyway?  My argument is that you could say the same for every laws.

But that is not true.

Just because 8+7=15, does not mean that X+Y=15.

Just because two arguments have broadly similar forms does not mean that they have the same conclusions.

The details matter.

No law or policy would ever be 100% effective.  And they do nothing to prevent the victims from suffering.  The fact that there are laws against murder does not change anything for the dead person.  Once dead, you don't care much about anything.  But, we hope that by regulating certain behavior, we avoid the worst of it, we hope it prevents other crimes of being committed.

And so it is the same with religious extremism.  You either let them do as they please, the Liberal&NDP way, then accept the consequences as more&more of your citizens join the Jihad abroad or commit terrorist action on this soil, or you try to regulate it, to not make it easy for this radicalization to take place.  Just as we did with the biker gangs, to reduce the impact they may have had on some community as presenting these behaviours as totally "normal" and acceptable.

The veil covering the entire face (burqa, niqab) is just the beginning of where these extremists go.  You need to make it stop there, not wait until it is out of proportion. 

Canadian muslims are calling for help, but their voices are drowned by these radicals. 
And people like the Liberal Party and NDP supporters want to take the moral high ground by listening to these agents of radicalization instead of helping the real victims.  They are like the Republicans defending Kim Davis on the grounds of freedom of religion.  It's a really bad idea to wait until the problem becomes unmanageable like that to act.  Having political leaders do silly things to get a few more vots is already bad, but when they manage to convince otherwise moderate people that tolerating extremists is in fact "tolerance" and even that these radicals are the victims of an unfair society, like a neo-nazi would be a victim of intolerance because his favorite flag no longer sits on top a courthouse or state congress.

[viper37]

Heh remember that crack about this being a "Wizard of Oz" election - that Harper has no heart, Mulcair has no courage, and Trudeau has no brain?

What going negative on social issues has done, is throw Harper's weakness (no heart) into the forefront, and allow Trudeau - who without question has heart - to demonstrate his superiority in this arena. 

If I had a choice between having no heart and having no head, I'd lose the heart.
Emotions are a very bad guide to making public policies.
For all the bad&silly things the Cons have done and are proposing to do, Harper remains the only one with a functionning brain.

[crazy canuck]

The veil covering the entire face (burqa, niqab) is just the beginning of where these extremists go.  You need to make it stop there, not wait until it is out of proportion. 

Next they will want to be able to walk down the street without being verbally or physically abused.  Where will this madness end?

[Jacob]

Anything associated with a criminal organization, like a biker's club colours would be forbidden.  Wearing that lands you in jail for being associated with a criminal organization.

I didn't realize those laws were on the books. I could've sworn I saw a full HA patch the other day.

By permitting extremists to force a burqa on women anytime they chose, you are sending a powerful message: the State will not only respect your extremist attitude toward religion, it will give you all the space you need to grow it.

You're kind of excluding the middle there. How about we let women wear what they want, but crack down on extremists attempting to force women to wear what the extremists want?

Yet, you did not hesitate to call me racist because of my choices.  From where I am, not only is cuddling to extremists beyond silly, but it is also pretty remote where I'm at.  I mean, it's not like there are veiled women in my village, so I guess I shouldn't care at all, and adopt the same position as you do.

So you're so vehemently against veiled women, even though they aren't around you and you don't know any?

I didn't, by the way, call you racist. I said that Harper's actions and pronouncements on the niqab are clearly calculated to get racists to vote for him.

[viper37]

Next they will want to be able to walk down the street without being verbally or physically abused.  Where will this madness end?

Of course, let us assimilate two different issue together and create a non existent link to justify a silly idea.

[Jacob]

Of course, let us assimilate two different issue together and create a non existent link to justify a silly idea.

That seems to be the Conservative approach to this, yes.

[viper37]

So you're so vehemently against veiled women, even though they aren't around you and you don't know any?

I do not know of any rapist. But I am strongly against rape.
I am not aware of anyone I know having committed, or at least having been accused of sexual harassment, however, I am aware it is a problem for many women in some places and I believe the men caught doing that deserved their punishment in court, be it civilian, criminal or military, depending on the incidents.  I even believe it is a huge problem in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as in many traditionally male dominated area, and I think the appropriate authorities should act on this in those areas where it is concerned.

I didn't, by the way, call you racist. I said that Harper's actions and pronouncements on the niqab are clearly calculated to get racists to vote for him.

CC called me intolerant:
Viper, your post is more evidence the Conservatives are pandering to the intolerant extreme in our country[/img]

Your post singled BB and Harper:
When people - like Harper and BB - who have never given a crap about misogyny and whose policies are indifferent (at best) towards issues of misogyny start throwing the word around to harass specific ethnic and religious minorities for electoral gain, you resolve it by dismissing it as calculated racism.
But I have similar opinions on the issue of letting islamo-fascists have their way in Canada.  Where I differ from them is that I want all religious extremismto be banned from our society, the same way we banned racism from public discourse a long while ago.  It's still there, but it's no longer trendy.  It doesn't have such a huge influence on people's lives as it used to be.

And even though you did not name me, I feel this part was adressed to me:

If the Harperites and anti-clericalists are concerned about groups enforcing modes of dress on women in an oppressive fashion, why are they silent on how women dress in Hutterite communities? On how they are expected to dress in Mennonite communities? On how ultra Orthodox Jewish women are dressed?

Again, I know of only the ultra orthodox jews.  And I don't want them to be happy with their ways here.  I don't want them to have their own religious schools where they teach their unwestern values to kids with the benediction of my government.  To be more precise: I do not mind that they teach their religion and values, I do mind that this would be the only thing these kids are exposed to.  Just as I would not want a neo-nazi group have their own school were their kids are exclusively taught to hate Jews, Blacks, Muslims and whomever it is they hate.

And this bit here was pretty insulting, as you clearly mean that most if not all Conservatives voters are racists:

But when Harper brings out the racist dog-whistles he's going to get called on the racist dog-whistles - and they are just that. Witness how effectively they've rallied grallon to his side - someone who straight up owns up to disliking Muslims.

The reality being that Cons have barely made any gains in polls (3%), and of course, this supposed guilt by association could be directed to Liberal and NDP supporters as well, for different issues.

So yeah, you didn't call me racist. You strongly implied it.

[Razgovory]

I do find it contemptible that people who don't normally give a shit about women's rights, get themselves up in a righteous rage about Muslim clothing.  Presumably any clothing can be "a form of oppression".  A guy could make his girlfriend wear a tank top to show off to the world what a hot gal he "owns".  A father could beat his daughter who becomes a feminist and burns her bra.  I've seen feminists argue that pornography is a form of oppression, so I suppose that is something we can ban as well.