[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Er, no, it's not. It's a spin that suggests that leftists are suspicious of Catholics in power, just like Protestants were once.

Leftists are not concerned about the pope, and are not concerned about Catholics following orders of a foreign power - which was the Anglo Protestant fear. They are concerned about people who want to limit or ban access to abortion or repeal same-sex marriage. It's an equal opportunity concern, which targets evangelicals, lutherans, greek orthodox, copts, baptists, muslim fundamentalists, aka, anyone who would suggest to reopen this debate, and whether they obey the Pope, a TV personality, their kind pastors, a thick book, or voices in their heads. It also suggests that the only Catholics are the ones who obey the pope on all matters - if that is the case, someone should forward the memo to US Catholics, who are fixated on abortion, and somehow a lot more reluctant to amplify the current Pope's critique of capitalism, for instance.

Oh no, my observation isn't only limited to catholics.

The modern left is suspicious of anyone who hold to traditional religious values, much like protestants were suspicious of catholics 50 years ago.  Whether they be catholic, evangelical, muslim, sikh or whatever.

[ulmont]

Leftists are not concerned about the pope, and are not concerned about Catholics following orders of a foreign power - which was the Anglo Protestant fear. They are concerned about people who want to limit or ban access to abortion or repeal same-sex marriage. It's an equal opportunity concern, which targets evangelicals, lutherans, greek orthodox, copts, baptists, muslim fundamentalists, aka, anyone who would suggest to reopen this debate, and whether they obey the Pope, a TV personality, their kind pastors, a thick book, or voices in their heads. It also suggests that the only Catholics are the ones who obey the pope on all matters - if that is the case, someone should forward the memo to US Catholics, who are fixated on abortion, and somehow a lot more reluctant to amplify the current Pope's critique of capitalism, for instance.

Oh no, my observation isn't only limited to catholics.

The modern left is suspicious of anyone who hold to traditional religious values, much like protestants were suspicious of catholics 50 years ago.  Whether they be catholic, evangelical, muslim, sikh or whatever.

Oex's response isn't only limited to Catholics, either, as you can tell by the "equal opportunity" phrase...

[Josquius]

Er, no, it's not. It's a spin that suggests that leftists are suspicious of Catholics in power, just like Protestants were once.

Leftists are not concerned about the pope, and are not concerned about Catholics following orders of a foreign power - which was the Anglo Protestant fear. They are concerned about people who want to limit or ban access to abortion or repeal same-sex marriage. It's an equal opportunity concern, which targets evangelicals, lutherans, greek orthodox, copts, baptists, muslim fundamentalists, aka, anyone who would suggest to reopen this debate, and whether they obey the Pope, a TV personality, their kind pastors, a thick book, or voices in their heads. It also suggests that the only Catholics are the ones who obey the pope on all matters - if that is the case, someone should forward the memo to US Catholics, who are fixated on abortion, and somehow a lot more reluctant to amplify the current Pope's critique of capitalism, for instance.

Oh no, my observation isn't only limited to catholics.

The modern left is suspicious of anyone who hold to traditional religious values, much like protestants were suspicious of catholics 50 years ago.  Whether they be catholic, evangelical, muslim, sikh or whatever.

Because those with traditional religious views are suspicious of those with non-traditional lifestyles.
I think this is something that goes both ways.
Assuming here we're talking about the mainstream left and mainstream religious people of course. You do get cunts on both sides.

[crazy canuck]

So I watched this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KitLiKbIsSU&t=464s by a guy in Van with irritating hair.  TLDNW: the bilingualism requirement is crap.

My question is, for jobs that have a bilingualism requirement, how are they tested?

There are written tests to demonstrate proficiency for lower positions that require bilingual proficiency but practically suitability for higher level positions is demonstrated during the interview stage.

[Grey Fox]

I don't have a problem per se with Scheer having dual citizenship.

It is, however, especially hypocritical considering what the CPC did to Ignatieff, Mulcair & Dion.

Dude's an American Pro-lifer, is that what you want leading us RoC?

Apparently, Scheer is lie ing about his degree from UofR & UofO. So Republican-lite, always with the lies, always with the spin.

[crazy canuck]

Is it really that hard to learn one additional language than the one you were born with? Especially one where about half of its vocabulary is shared by your native language? I mean it is not like you have to learn Finnish here.

Is having to learn skills to get jobs some kind of crazy foreign concept to Canadians?

Edit: Also I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you really do not have to be some great orator or poet in French either, just not shitty enough to be able to do basic communication and read and writing. Is that right? Which I guess is Yi's question

No, it is not difficult and especially in the federal government where there are courses employees can take which are paid for by the government and which are taken while on paid leave. 

regarding your edit, it depends on the position, for the senior positions they should be more at the orator level - SCC appointments for example.  Also senior bureaucrats need to be able to communicate and think about complex issues in both languages.

I had some qualms about all SCC appointments needing to be bilingual because I thought it might reduce to pool of able potential appointees.  But to my pleasant surprise it has had the opposite effect - judges who think they might have a reasonable chance of being considered have started studying french and so the policy has had positive side effects.

   

[crazy canuck]

If you needed more evidence that Andrew Scheer is full of it:

He does make a decent argument that the carbon tax is set too low and should be raised.  Although I suspect that was not his intention.

And the story of why it did not keep getting raised by 5 bucks per year is a cautionary tale.  People need to remember that the carbon tax was brought in under a right wing government in BC.  Creating the carbon tax was a political masterstroke that kept the party in power because it divided the left. For some strange reason the NDP opposed the carbon tax and so the environmental left supported the Liberals (again note, a right wing party.  Not the provincial wing of the federal party - long story).

It was supposed to go up every year until 2021 at which point it would have been at $50.  Then it would be assessed.  So what changed?  The leader of the Liberals had to retire from politics shortly after winning another election after bringing in another unpopular tax - harmonizing the sales tax with the Feds so that there would only be one tax at points of sale.  In came a new leader who became Premier.  She was on the left of the party (being an actual federal liberal) and had no support from cabinet.  Ironically she is the one who froze the carbon tax and likely for the same reason Scheer cannot have a meaningful climate change policy - appeasing the right wing rural vote.

edit: Now it turns out Scheer is simply dishonest on a Trumpist fake news level on this issue.  He is reduced to talking about the Liberals having two planes.

The maddening thing is Scheer could have taken a page out of the BC right wing play book and gone all in on the carbon tax to have the same electoral success it brought the right wing in BC.  But instead he went the route of the second failed leader. 

[Barrister]

The maddening thing is Scheer could have taken a page out of the BC right wing play book and gone all in on the carbon tax to have the same electoral success it brought the right wing in BC.  But instead he went the route of the second failed leader.

The story you tell is of classic triangulation.  It's Clinton backing welfare reform.  It's Nixon going to China.  It can be very effective: but it opens you up to an attack from your own side.

In this case, Scheer backing a carbon tax would A: open him up to attacks from Bernier and the PPC, and B: be seen as "me-too-ism", since Trudeau already introduced a carbon tax.

A lot of the Conservatives moves can be seen through the lens of A.  He can't move too much to the middle, or else risk the light leaving them.

[Camerus]

Er, no, it's not. It's a spin that suggests that leftists are suspicious of Catholics in power, just like Protestants were once.

Leftists are not concerned about the pope, and are not concerned about Catholics following orders of a foreign power - which was the Anglo Protestant fear.

Disagree.  You focus too much on the specific wording used, rather than the actual meaning behind the phrasing.  Yup, today's leftists would likely never use the phrase "follow the orders of the Pope", seeing as it's an antiquated bumper-sticker phrase associated with right-wing anti-Catholic opposition in the JFK era and earlier.   However, that phrase was meant to illustrate a fear among right-wing people of that time that Catholic office-holders' alleged willingness to "follow the Pope" (a metonym for the Catholic Church and its teachings and structures), posed a threat because "the Pope" was alleged to be politically regressive, anti-democratic, and contrary to the American project.  Today's leftists tend to be suspicious of potential Catholic office-holders because, as Catholics, their views are alleged to be.... politically regressive, anti-democratic, and contrary to the American project.

Thus the result is the same - namely that being suspicious of Catholics qua Catholics was in America once a right-wing phenomenon with "Know-Nothing" roots, but which is now frequently seen on the left.

Look, for example, at the grilling Catholics seeking public office received by Democrats in the US Senate, as described in this Washington Post article from January 2019: 

Anti-Catholic bigotry is alive in the U.S. Senate

By
Michael Gerson
Columnist
Jan. 17, 2019 at 3:59 p.m. MST

Those who want to understand how Democrats manage to scare the hell out of vast sections of the country need look no further than the story of Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and the Knights of Columbus.

In considering the confirmation of Brian Buescher to a federal judgeship last month, Harris and Hirono submitted written questions that raised alarms about his membership in "an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men." "Were you aware," Harris asked, "that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman's right to choose when you joined the organization?" And: "Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women's reproductive rights?" And: "Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?"

....

So is it fair to say that Harris, Hirono and Feinstein would want judicial nominees to quit religious organizations that hold "extreme positions" or recuse themselves from all matters of morality that the senators regard as tainted by religious dogma? That sounds like an exaggeration. But here is a question that Hirono asked both Buescher and Paul Matey, another appeals court nominee: "If confirmed, will you recuse yourself from all cases in which the Knights of Columbus has taken a position?

...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-catholic-bigotry-is-alive-in-the-us-senate/2019/01/17/e0ad0a14-1a8f-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

The notion that being a member of the Knights of Columbus, which has been a staple of North-American Catholic life and Catholic charity for generations, has within the past few years come to be held up as something potentially disqualifying for office is a perfect example of this.  Thus any potential Catholic office-holder must either first be forced to explain why she does NOT in fact hold the traditional views of his faith, or else simply not hold office.   

They are concerned about people who want to limit or ban access to abortion or repeal same-sex marriage. It's an equal opportunity concern, which targets evangelicals, lutherans, greek orthodox, copts, baptists, muslim fundamentalists, aka, anyone who would suggest to reopen this debate, and whether they obey the Pope, a TV personality, their kind pastors, a thick book, or voices in their heads.

Yes, I agree that the Leftist suspicion of Catholicism has come to include certain other traditional forms of Christianity - although the notion that, on average, leftists are as willing to criticize Islam as willingly as Catholicism is certainly a debatable one (as evidenced in just a small way by your very post in which you affix "fundamentalist" to "Muslim" in your above phrasing, rather than simply listing the name of the faith as you do for the other groups, suggesting suspicion is the default reading of Christian sects, but for Islam one needs to append "fundamentalist" to distinguish from the default "good" Muslim reading).

But in any case, if you posit a worldview where being a member of a traditional Christian faith (in this instance Catholicism), requires a willingness to denounce its traditional teachings (and then never, ever bring the faith up again) as a prerequisite for holding office, surely you are fostering a worldview whose effects are very similar to those on the right who once challenged JFK's fitness for office as a Catholic - thus illustrating Beeb's observation.

[Valmy]

The specific issue in that article is about the judicial battle over abortion concerning specifically judicial appointments. But let's ignore that context and pretend that Democrats just want to weed out all Catholics, sure.

That is ridiculously dishonest. I don't think vast sections of the country are terrified that the Democrats are in favor of abortion rights, they have been for 40+ years.

[PRC]

Here is a longform CBC investigates article on the alleged voter fraud scam that had Jason Kenney win the UCP leadership. 

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/inside-jason-kenney

[Valmy]

Yes, I agree that the Leftist suspicion of Catholicism has come to include certain other traditional forms of Christianity - although the notion that, on average, leftists are as willing to criticize Islam as willingly as Catholicism is certainly a debatable one (as evidenced in just a small way by your very post in which you affix "fundamentalist" to "Muslim" in your above phrasing, rather than simply listing the name of the faith as you do for the other groups, suggesting suspicion is the default reading of Christian sects, but for Islam one needs to append "fundamentalist" to distinguish from the default "good" Muslim reading).

But in any case, if you posit a worldview where being a member of a traditional Christian faith (in this instance Catholicism), requires a willingness to denounce its traditional teachings (and then never, ever bring the faith up again) as a prerequisite for holding office, surely you are fostering a worldview whose effects are very similar to those on the right who once challenged JFK's fitness for office as a Catholic - thus illustrating Beeb's observation.

I just want to point out if I were to take the idea that we cannot challenge or be suspicious of bad religious ideas in our politics or be considered bigots, it would greatly assist Muslims with traditional ideas in growing stronger in our political system. So be careful advancing that idea if that is a concern of yours. The kind of argument you are using here could easily be used to label people who oppose bad Islamic ideas as "Islamophobic".

I don't get this Muslim strawmanning anyway. Are you implying leftists do not actually care about abortion rights or LGBTQ issues and are just dishonestly using it to advance their true anti-Christian agenda? Because otherwise what is the point of this little Muslim aside?

[Malthus]

Yes, I agree that the Leftist suspicion of Catholicism has come to include certain other traditional forms of Christianity - although the notion that, on average, leftists are as willing to criticize Islam as willingly as Catholicism is certainly a debatable one (as evidenced in just a small way by your very post in which you affix "fundamentalist" to "Muslim" in your above phrasing, rather than simply listing the name of the faith as you do for the other groups, suggesting suspicion is the default reading of Christian sects, but for Islam one needs to append "fundamentalist" to distinguish from the default "good" Muslim reading).

But in any case, if you posit a worldview where being a member of a traditional Christian faith (in this instance Catholicism), requires a willingness to denounce its traditional teachings (and then never, ever bring the faith up again) as a prerequisite for holding office, surely you are fostering a worldview whose effects are very similar to those on the right who once challenged JFK's fitness for office as a Catholic - thus illustrating Beeb's observation.

I just want to point out if I were to take the idea that we cannot challenge or be suspicious of bad religious ideas in our politics or be considered bigots, it would greatly assist Muslims with traditional ideas in growing stronger in our political system. So be careful advancing that idea if that is a concern of yours. The kind of argument you are using here could easily be used to label people who oppose bad Islamic ideas as "Islamophobic".

I don't get this Muslim strawmanning anyway. Are you implying leftists do not actually care about abortion rights or LGBTQ issues and are just dishonestly using it to advance their true anti-Christian agenda? Because otherwise what is the point of this little Muslim aside?

A conflict between two different positions typically held by some on the left, I assume. A bit of cognitive dissonance.

Religion = bad.

On the other hand, being seen to be against traditionally oppressed religious minorities (whose members are mostly non-White in this nation) also = bad.

[Valmy]

I get that and it has some ridiculous outcomes like some very conservative Muslims have to pretend to be feminist and pro-LGBTQ in order to please their allies. But it will not last. Also Muslims are not yet out there advancing conservative political points in positions of power yet.

I get all that. I just do not get it in this context. It is not like if some Muslim judge was out there taking on Roe v Wade or trying to roll back gay marriage the Left wouldn't lose their shit over it.

Also unless they are marxists or atheist activists "religion = bad" is certainly not something most leftists in the US embrace. Though it probably wouldn't hurt as woo-woo nonsense sure infects it.

[Barrister]

The specific issue in that article is about the judicial battle over abortion concerning specifically judicial appointments. But let's ignore that context and pretend that Democrats just want to weed out all Catholics, sure.

That is ridiculously dishonest. I don't think vast sections of the country are terrified that the Democrats are in favor of abortion rights, they have been for 40+ years.

It isn't that the left is anti-catholic, or at least they don't think of themselves as anti-catholic.  But that's the effect of their arguments.  I mean honestly - if you're going after membership in the Knights of Columbus as being disqualifying for being a judge...