[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I think that is rather judgmental.

Sure it is.  I have a strong opinion about people who advocate for cultural differences to be outlawed.

[Valmy]

I think that is rather judgmental.

Sure it is.  I have a strong opinion about people who advocate for cultural differences to be outlawed.

Well I think it is misguided but the intentions are not necessarily nefarious. They are trying to preserve something they think is on the path to extinction.

Many people consider one of the primary roles of government is to advocate for, preserve, and protect the local culture.

[crazy canuck]

I think that is rather judgmental.

Sure it is.  I have a strong opinion about people who advocate for cultural differences to be outlawed.

Well I think it is misguided but the intentions are not necessarily nefarious. They are trying to preserve something they think is on the path to extinction.

Many people consider one of the primary roles of government is to advocate for, preserve, and protect the local culture.

I don't ascribe nefarious intention to Viper either.  But I also do not think that trying to preserve something is a good excuse for persecuting the vulnerable in our society either.

[Josephus]

So the Globe just endorsed the Conservatives---without Harper . Wishy washy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/

[Barrister]

So the Globe just endorsed the Conservatives---without Harper . Wishy washy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/

Yeah, that's pretty weak.  You endorse the parties and leaders you have, not the parties and leaders you wish you had.

[Malthus]

So the Globe just endorsed the Conservatives---without Harper . Wishy washy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-tories-deserve-another-mandate-stephen-harper-doesnt/article26842506/

Interesting, it parallels the discussion I had with CC upthread.

[viper37]

I think that is rather judgmental.

Sure it is.  I have a strong opinion about people who advocate for cultural differences to be outlawed.

Well I think it is misguided but the intentions are not necessarily nefarious. They are trying to preserve something they think is on the path to extinction.

Many people consider one of the primary roles of government is to advocate for, preserve, and protect the local culture.

I don't ascribe nefarious intention to Viper either.  But I also do not think that trying to preserve something is a good excuse for persecuting the vulnerable in our society either.

so, by your definition, if you were Americans, you would be against forcefully removing symbols such as the Confederate flag, because you would be targetting a vulnerable group of your society?  You guys have a weird definition of "vulnerable".
I guess someone swearing an oath of citizenship with a nazi t-shirt or SS uniform would be acceptable.  Since racists are in minority in our country, they would need to be somehow protected in their retarded beliefs?

[viper37]

I see your confusion.  In some provinces (maybe just BC and Alberta?) there is no direct connection between the Federal and Provincial parties. 

Same in Quebec, although the people helping/working for some provincial party will often work for the similar party in Ottawa: PQ/Bloc, Liberal Party of Quebec/Liberal Party of Canada, Québec Solidaire/NDP.  Although some party leaders gave their support to a specific party in the past, they usually advocate neutrality, more or less openly.  For example, Quebec's Premier has forbidden for active Liberal MPs and anyone on the party's payroll to work in the Federal election.  In the past, it was a simple recommendation from the Premier.

[Berkut]

I think that is rather judgmental.

Sure it is.  I have a strong opinion about people who advocate for cultural differences to be outlawed.

Well I think it is misguided but the intentions are not necessarily nefarious. They are trying to preserve something they think is on the path to extinction.

Many people consider one of the primary roles of government is to advocate for, preserve, and protect the local culture.

I don't ascribe nefarious intention to Viper either.  But I also do not think that trying to preserve something is a good excuse for persecuting the vulnerable in our society either.

so, by your definition, if you were Americans, you would be against forcefully removing symbols such as the Confederate flag,

Forcefully removing? From where?

The confederate flag is not illegal in the US or anything, and I don't think there is any credible discussion even about making it illegal to display.

[Valmy]

Oh but that doesn't stop an avalanche of right wing memes claiming it is being banned while we hypocritically continue to allow shirts with Che Guevara on it to be sold 

[viper37]

Its funny that you still say that a woman who chooses for herself to wear a Niqab is a radical islamist.   

When you read the papers and you read about a religious sect that committed mass suicide, do you feel it was a conscious decision reached in total liberty, something for which the State, even if it had prior knowledge of the facts should not intervene in, for fear of breaking our religious tolerance of vulnerable communities?

You might want to reflect on the fact that this kind of overblown hyperbole distracts people from identifying what you might more reasonably consider a radical.

What are the countries that let women freely chose the veil?  Saudi Arabia has no laws on this, women are "free" to adopt the veil.
Most gulf countries are in the same spot.  No official laws forceing the niqab/burka.
When the EI invades a territory and firmly establish its authority, what's the 2 first things that appears? Women are veiled and men are forced to let their beard grow.

Quebec had these discussions a while ago.  Still not solve.  But anyway, let me tell you a story.
The ADQ started talking about religious based accomodations and how we, as a society, were tired to answer all capricious things made in the name of religion.
There were stories of abuse against veiled women, especially in Quebec city where ADQ support was strong.
Many good willed people, hand on the heart talked of tolerance and how we were targetting vulnerable people.  These same "good willed" people would later rally behind the PQ proposing a total ban of religious symbols for all government employees and service providers for the governement saying immigrants had to adapt, but that is beside the point, they hypocrisy of the left is well known.
So, back to the abuse.
Veiled women being harassed and threatened in Quebec city.
Well, it turns out, this was all bullshit.  When some medias decided to investigate, they found 2 women wearing the veil in Quebec city.  One was from Montreal and moved back there shortly after the election.  Despite her claims of innocent victims, she was simply there as an agent of radicalization, trying to pressure the muslim community of Quebec city to follow their practices.  But Quebec city isn't Montreal, unlike those big cities, "flashing"* isn't as popular, be it for the small gay community, the english community or the few artists living there, most prefer a discrete life and go about their daily lives like 99% of the population without the need for a special t-shirt with your cause du jour on it.  So, anyway, she went back to montreal rapidly after the election, when there were no more debates to be had.  No witnesses could be found of her supposed harrassment.

The other one was a women living in Quebec for a while, well established.  When the media started digging her story and pushing for questions, it turns out that no witnesses could be found of her agression, in the places specifically where she claimed she was harassed, no one noticed anything.  And then media learnt that she didn't start wearing a niqab until very recently.  And when the controversy regarding religious accomodations where gone, the media went to interview her again and she was no longer wearing the veil.

Simply put, no one tolerated their bullshit, and they abandonned their practice.  Far from being vulnerable, they were deliberately trying to provoke, trying to incite muslims to feel persecuted and fall back on their extremist way of practicing religion. And that is what would have happenned in the people of the city had cuddled them.  But they didn't and it stopped.

So, when you make claims that people like me are supporting harassment of veiled women, let me laugh a bit.  Of course I am insulted when you insinuate such a thing, but I know most of these claims are pure bullshit by radicals who find a welcome hear in many people.  The religious right in the US has used such a technique for a while now, crying about religious persecution because abortion is not illegal everywhere, because gays are allowed in the army or allowed to marry.  And since they find a welcome ear, they keep doing it.

But I thank you for these discussions.  Your views helped me determine how serious the harm might be if the policies the conservatives were proposing were actually enacted.

C'mon.  Ever since the campaign started, you're searched for a reason to vote Liberal instead of Conservative, without sacrificing your vote.  Now that they have a shot at power, you find whatever hold you can pull to justify your decision.  But it's ok, we all have our delusions.  It's sad that it's Quebec who will again pay for your choices, mostly.



*Flashing in Quebec slang is different than the typical english signification.  It signifies you want to be noticed, that you crave for such notification.

[viper37]

re: the harrassment.
Because you guys like to read racism everywhere, I'll add a few more things.  I do believe there may have been a few isolated incidents.  I have no doubts that some people act like morons in the face of difference, I am no English Canadian, after all, I know what it is to be told to "speak french or go home".  I have, however, serious doubt that these kinds of behaviour are as widespread as the media says and I do not believe for an instant that they are brought about by any kind of discourse the Conservatives made.  I do not deny that there are still racism in our society, anti-muslim and anti-jewish propaganda will resurface the moment there is something on the news: Israel at war with Palestine (like, every 3-4 years), immigration questions, debate on religious freedoms.

And on a general principle, I will add that I am not a libertarian, I have never been nor ever will be a philosopher dealing in abstract imaginary world.  I believe that some individual freedoms need to be restrained in order for a society to properly function.  These actions need to be, of course, taken lightly and design to minimize incomfort, but they are an unfortunate necessary.  A neo-nazi can not freely express his hatred of Jews or Muslims for fear of landing in jail for his hate speech.  That is a restriction in his freedom of expression, a liberty we all enjoy.  Yet, I feel it is necessary to prevent holocaust denial in this country.  It's a small price to pay to let most of the people live in peace.

It is exactly the same thing with religious freedoms.  The niqab is imposed by the religious authorities, by social pressure, let's not kid ourselves about that.  A woman does not wake up one day and tell herself "oh, I'm gonna cut myself entirely from society to be closer to God" no more than a man wakes up one day and tell himself "I'm gonna kill myself today to be closer to God".

[viper37]

I think that is rather judgmental.

Sure it is.  I have a strong opinion about people who advocate for cultural differences to be outlawed.

Well I think it is misguided but the intentions are not necessarily nefarious. They are trying to preserve something they think is on the path to extinction.

Many people consider one of the primary roles of government is to advocate for, preserve, and protect the local culture.

I don't ascribe nefarious intention to Viper either.  But I also do not think that trying to preserve something is a good excuse for persecuting the vulnerable in our society either.

so, by your definition, if you were Americans, you would be against forcefully removing symbols such as the Confederate flag,

Forcefully removing? From where?

The confederate flag is not illegal in the US or anything, and I don't think there is any credible discussion even about making it illegal to display.

it's been removed from some public places and some stores stopped selling it.  Lots of people were against the move, I remember someone saying "that flag never hurt anyone" or something like that.
Should it be restored?  Should someone wearing a Confederate cap be allowed to swear his oath of citizenship in the US?  Could you visit the White House arriving in your General Lee, wearing a Confederate flag on your cap and t-shirt?  I have doubts...  Not that it is forbidden or anything, but I'm guessing, that currently, it wouldn't feel appropriate.

And in a way, the South Carolina Congress did forcefully remove the Confederate flag.  There are no laws banning the flag anywhere, such as there are no laws banning a niqab in Canada.  But in certain government instances, some symbols are judged inapropriate.

[Valmy]

it's been removed from some public places and some stores stopped selling it.  Lots of people were against the move, I remember someone saying "that flag never hurt anyone" or something like that.
Should it be restored?  Should someone wearing a Confederate cap be allowed to swear his oath of citizenship in the US?  Could you visit the White House arriving in your General Lee, wearing a Confederate flag on your cap and t-shirt?  I have doubts...  Not that it is forbidden or anything, but I'm guessing, that currently, it wouldn't feel appropriate.

The stores all started selling it again. Indeed the fans of the flag have been bringing it out in large numbers. A white supremacist shoots up a black church? Time to bring out my Confederate Flag.

I am fine with people waiving it around to show their allegiance to the Slave Power. I just do not want the Slave Power celebrated on public property, except as a historical reference. So future generations can go 'Holy Shit this place used to be so fucked up.'

[Jacob]

The niqab is imposed by the religious authorities, by social pressure, let's not kid ourselves about that.

This is the crux of the disagreement right here. You think you know better than the the people who are actually affected by this, and you want to use the law to enforce it on the people who actually live with this against their wishes.

A woman does not wake up one day and tell herself "oh, I'm gonna cut myself entirely from society to be closer to God"

Yet the woman who took her citizenship oath says that she chose to wear the niqab of her own volition, over the protests of her male relatives. Perhaps she doesn't see it the way you do.