[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Too bad the Conservatives are going all out Trumpist on climate change.

I keep thinking they will finally see the ligth on this issue...

But it's not like Trudeau has any plan, or is doing anything more than the Harper government did.
Oh, yeah, that's right, the government is going to tax us, than give back the money.

A carbon tax in itself does not solve anything.  Quebec has had a "green fund" for a few years, a special tax on gaz and oil of 3 cents a liter.  I think it applies to propane gaz too, I'm not sure.

Anyway.  That was a waste of money.  We pay taxes to subsidize big corporations for projects that have nothing to do with reducing ghg emissions.  It will be the same with Trudeau's tax.

Doesn't data show that Quebec's emissions are going down. It doesn't really matter where the money goes, only reduction of use does.

[Malthus]

Interesting article in the National Post

National Post: Barbara Kay: What the anglo media misses about Quebec's religious law.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-what-the-anglo-media-misses-about-quebecs-religious-law

This sentence is the problem:

Let's just say it's complicated. Bill 21 is a law rooted in a vision of society — complete separation of church and state in state-sponsored civic life — that affects all religions equally.

This isn't true, because not all religions require any sort of visual symbolism - the majority ones in Canada don't: you don't have to wear a visible cross to be a Christian in most Christian denominations, for example. So the prohibition will not affect Christians in the same way as it will affect Sikhs, all of whom, if male, are supposed to wear turbans.

The law will not be one that "affects all religions equally"; even though it doesn't say it affects only minorities, those are who will feel its impact. This is a perfect example of the old adage about allegedly "equal" laws with unequal impact: "the laws are absolutely even-handed: they impartially prohibit both the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges".

[Grey Fox]

Interesting article in the National Post

National Post: Barbara Kay: What the anglo media misses about Quebec's religious law.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-what-the-anglo-media-misses-about-quebecs-religious-law

This sentence is the problem:

Let's just say it's complicated. Bill 21 is a law rooted in a vision of society — complete separation of church and state in state-sponsored civic life — that affects all religions equally.

This isn't true, because not all religions require any sort of visual symbolism - the majority ones in Canada don't: you don't have to wear a visible cross to be a Christian in most Christian denominations, for example. So the prohibition will not affect Christians in the same way as it will affect Sikhs, all of whom, if male, are supposed to wear turbans.

The law will not be one that "affects all religions equally"; even though it doesn't say it affects only minorities, those are who will feel its impact. This is a perfect example of the old adage about allegedly "equal" laws with unequal impact: "the laws are absolutely even-handed: they impartially prohibit both the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges".

Should that means that we do nothing?

[crazy canuck]

The law would be more defensible if it had bona fide occupational requirement type language similar to Human Rights laws - and the government could then define in the legislation what those bona fide occupational requirements might be.

It is interesting to note that the article references a challenge to similar restrictions in the EU, which were upheld.  I wonder how the EU legislation compares to what is being proposed in Quebec.

[grumbler]

That's probably true in some cases yeah. Religion is a straightjacket for the brain in most religious people worldwide. I yearn for a global scientocracy.

Appeal to pathos poorly disguised as an appeal to logos.

You suck at this.

[Malthus]

Should that means that we do nothing?

Is there a need to do something?

My position is usually that rights should be infringed by the government only where some reasonable concern is identified that can only be addressed by infringing rights, and the infringement should be limited to that necessary to addressing that concern.

What concern is raised by (say) a teacher or cop wearing a turban?

[grumbler]

Is there a need to do something?

My position is usually that rights should be infringed by the government only where some reasonable concern is identified that can only be addressed by infringing rights, and the infringement should be limited to that necessary to addressing that concern.

What concern is raised by (say) a teacher or cop wearing a turban?

A cop in a turban offends GF's religious sensibilities.

It's always fun to watch the fundamentalist secularists spout their religious beliefs and insist that they are based on pure logic.  They sound just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, only they don't go door to door and they DO try to use the power of the state to promote their religion.

[dps]

Should that means that we do nothing?

Is there a need to do something?

My position is usually that rights should be infringed by the government only where some reasonable concern is identified that can only be addressed by infringing rights, and the infringement should be limited to that necessary to addressing that concern.

Careful, Raz will accuse you of being a Libertarian. 

[Razgovory]

Should that means that we do nothing?

Is there a need to do something?

My position is usually that rights should be infringed by the government only where some reasonable concern is identified that can only be addressed by infringing rights, and the infringement should be limited to that necessary to addressing that concern.

Careful, Raz will accuse you of being a Libertarian. 

Nah, I'm okay with it.  I do believe in the separation of church and state, but that means state can't interfere in the practice of a religion unless it's something actively harmful.  If the there was a religion that mandated throwing venomous snakes at people that would be a real problem.  I don't see wearing a hat as a real problem.

[dps]

Should that means that we do nothing?

Is there a need to do something?

My position is usually that rights should be infringed by the government only where some reasonable concern is identified that can only be addressed by infringing rights, and the infringement should be limited to that necessary to addressing that concern.

Careful, Raz will accuse you of being a Libertarian. 

Nah, I'm okay with it.  I do believe in the separation of church and state, but that means state can't interfere in the practice of a religion unless it's something actively harmful.  If the there was a religion that mandated throwing venomous snakes at people that would be a real problem.  I don't see wearing a hat as a real problem.

Yeah, I was just kidding Malthus.  I think most of us except GF agree with the position you state.

[viper37]

Too bad the Conservatives are going all out Trumpist on climate change.

I keep thinking they will finally see the ligth on this issue...

But it's not like Trudeau has any plan, or is doing anything more than the Harper government did.
Oh, yeah, that's right, the government is going to tax us, than give back the money.

A carbon tax in itself does not solve anything.  Quebec has had a "green fund" for a few years, a special tax on gaz and oil of 3 cents a liter.  I think it applies to propane gaz too, I'm not sure.

Anyway.  That was a waste of money.  We pay taxes to subsidize big corporations for projects that have nothing to do with reducing ghg emissions.  It will be the same with Trudeau's tax.

Doesn't data show that Quebec's emissions are going down. It doesn't really matter where the money goes, only reduction of use does.

Data 1990-2015.  Page 8.  There was a tendancy to go down from 2008 until 2014, during the recession.

But it seems I misread the news:
GES: Le Québec pourrait rater sa cible

Our total emissions are down 9.1%, but transport is up 21% (mostly heavy trucks up 171%) and we might still miss our 2020 target of -20%, unless something drastic changes.

Thanks to electricity production, we are still at the top of Canadian provinces to reduce our carbon footprint.

But I'd be curious to see the real data for 2018.

[viper37]

It is interesting to note that the article references a challenge to similar restrictions in the EU, which were upheld.  I wonder how the EU legislation compares to what is being proposed in Quebec.

Unless mistaken, the EU legislation does not override local laws about religious signs.  France still forbids burqa, niqab and other full face covering veils or masks.

[crazy canuck]

That data from BC shows that the carbon tax did reduce emissions from what they would have been absent the tax.

A review of the existing research on the tax's efficacy published in 2015 in the journal Energy Policy found that up to that point all the studies indicated a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of around nine per cent and that gasoline sales had dropped anywhere between seven per cent and 17 per cent. One study found that commercial demand for natural gas had plunged a whopping 67 per cent since the initiation of the tax (coal is not used to any significant degree in B.C.).

These decreases occurred in spite of the fact the province saw slightly higher annual economic growth than Canada as a whole in the years immediately following the 2008 financial crisis as well as steady population growth.

It's important to remember that even a revenue-neutral carbon tax can still function as a tax increase for a significant emitter of CO2. The government hasn't committed to making sure no one pays more in taxes. Only that all the money generated by the tax gets returned to the public in one way or another.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/11/BC-Carbon-Tax-Success-Explained/

[viper37]

but that means state can't interfere in the practice of a religion

Like having a 10 commandment poster in your court room.  That does not affect anything, and as an atheist, I would feel totally confident this judge would treat me fairly.

Or a civil clerk refusing to deliver a mariage certificate to a gay couple because it is against her religion.  That too would be fine, it is a simple exercise of religious freedom, just like bakers refusing to make cake for a lesbian couple, or a Tim Horton refusing to serve muslims because the manager believes they are tools of Satan.  Religious freedom is totally fine.  It does not lead to any excesses.

[Zoupa]

Interesting article in the National Post

National Post: Barbara Kay: What the anglo media misses about Quebec's religious law.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-what-the-anglo-media-misses-about-quebecs-religious-law

This sentence is the problem:

Let's just say it's complicated. Bill 21 is a law rooted in a vision of society — complete separation of church and state in state-sponsored civic life — that affects all religions equally.

This isn't true, because not all religions require any sort of visual symbolism - the majority ones in Canada don't: you don't have to wear a visible cross to be a Christian in most Christian denominations, for example. So the prohibition will not affect Christians in the same way as it will affect Sikhs, all of whom, if male, are supposed to wear turbans.

The law will not be one that "affects all religions equally"; even though it doesn't say it affects only minorities, those are who will feel its impact. This is a perfect example of the old adage about allegedly "equal" laws with unequal impact: "the laws are absolutely even-handed: they impartially prohibit both the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges".

Your analogy is poor. The destitute don't have much choice about where to sleep, while a turban is a piece of cloth that can be removed.