[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[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.

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...

Again the context here couldn't be more extreme. You wouldn't believe the kind of crazy shit that comes up in these judicial hearings though.

[Malthus]

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.

The real issue, as it were, is that some folks on the left tend to feel compelled to adjust their standards by the level of perceived oppression of the actors. In the US right now, Catholics are not oppressed, though they have been historically. Therefore there is a bit of a double standard by which Muslims are not judged as harshly for having the same, or worse, attitudes towards whatever social topic of concern. To those who do not buy into the mindset of the left, it then appears that their concern over whatever social issue is under discussion isn't very sincere. This leads to the thought - if their concern isn't very sincere, why are they pressing 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.

Some nuance tends to get lost when reducing complex issues to two words and a symbol, yes.  Perhaps substitute 'the social and ethical aspects of most traditional religions', since leftists are by no means immune from woo.

[Valmy]

The real issue, as it were, is that some folks on the left tend to feel compelled to adjust their standards by the level of perceived oppression of the actors. In the US right now, Catholics are not oppressed, though they have been historically. Therefore there is a bit of a double standard by which Muslims are not judged as harshly for having the same, or worse, attitudes towards whatever social topic of concern. To those who do not buy into the mindset of the left, it then appears that their concern over whatever social issue is under discussion isn't very sincere. This leads to the thought - if their concern isn't very sincere, why are they pressing it?

It is a weird double standard though. It is not like they are really saying "hey homophobia is great so long as it is Islamic" rather they just pretend Islam has no homophobic ideas that are traditionally part of it or is only really an issue for a very extreme fringe.

Some nuance tends to get lost when reducing complex issues to two words and a symbol, yes.  Perhaps substitute 'the social and ethical aspects of most traditional religions', since leftists are by no means immune from woo.

Well there is also the issue that most leftist politicians associate themselves with a traditional religious congregation. Well it is not an issue...it is just a factual thing.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Yep in other words he is nothing but someone who has played at politics all his life. We don't need this kind of political maneuvering.

[Barrister]

Yep in other words he is nothing but someone who has played at politics all his life. We don't need this kind of political maneuvering.

It's not like electing leaders with little to no political experience works out very well though...

[crazy canuck]

Yep in other words he is nothing but someone who has played at politics all his life. We don't need this kind of political maneuvering.

It's not like electing leaders with little to no political experience works out very well though...

Another reason not to elect Scheer 

[Barrister]

Yep in other words he is nothing but someone who has played at politics all his life. We don't need this kind of political maneuvering.

It's not like electing leaders with little to no political experience works out very well though...

Another reason not to elect Scheer 

He's been in Parliament since 2004.

[Barrister]

I was raised catholic. I have no problems with them. His reply should be "My personal position has always been open and consistent. I am personally pro-life but I would never infringe on someone's right to choose" or something along those lines. Not wanting to reopen the debate is afar cry from defending someone right. There's where my hang up lies.

Apparently that answer is no longer good enough.

In 2011 that's what Trudeau said his position was 'personally pro-life, but supported a woman's right to choose'.

Now he's "evolved" his position, and thinks as a man he has no right to have an opinion on the subject.

[viper37]

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.   

totally agree with you on this.

But I'm not worried about the Conservatives trying to reopen those issues on the domestic front.
I'm worried they would redefine foreign aid to frame it under this narrative, though, as Harper did.

[viper37]

Yep in other words he is nothing but someone who has played at politics all his life. We don't need this kind of political maneuvering.

That would exclude, Trudeau, Singh and Blanchette (well, there's no Bloc candidate outside of Quebec, but that is a theoritical option for me ).  Both Trudeau and Singh use a double language.  Tough talk against Quebec in English, soft, compassionate talk in French.  Blanchette likes to take credit for the sun rising up, plus all the other stuff.

The Green Party might not be so bad, but I feel they were very amateurish in their platform, like they don't expect to have to defend their ideas because of virtue&all.  I don't get a good vibe from them.

[viper37]

Now he's "evolved" his position, and thinks as a man he has no right to have an opinion on the subject.

I'm always torn on this issue.  If my neighbour decides to get an abortion, it's no concern of mine.
If I am father to a teenage girl, shouldn't I have the right to know what my little girl is doing?  Advise her on the subject?
If I am a potential father of the baby and the mother is just unsure who's the father... Don't I have the right to know too?  Be part of the decision too?

Ultimately, it's a woman's choice.  In my 2nd example, if I'm not the father and the other potential father don't want anything to do with it...  She's screwed... So, I'm always torn on this issue.

Of course, it ain't the same at all, but to parallel something like euthanasia, a person who chooses this will consult with his/her family, his/her close ones...

And with abortion, I still think that it's too often seen as a contraception measure by some women, and more sexual education would be warented.  But of course, the same people opposing abortion will also oppose contraception (I believe the Catholic church to be still opposed to that...) and sex-ed classess.

[Camerus]

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.

I think you need to chill, bud.  Sure, one's views on abortion are relevant in a judicial confirmation hearing, but the wording of the Senators' words, the suggestion that merely being a member of the KoC is a disqualifying thing that warrants explanation if not disqualification, etc. is suggestive of what I am illustrating and very relevant.  Nothing dishonest about pointing that out.

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? 

Ironic that you accuse me of "strawmanning," when you then rephrase my position as being that "that we cannot challenge or be suspicious of bad religious ideas in our politics or be considered bigots" which is probably one of the more ridiculous interpretations one could possibly have of what I wrote.  Obviously, as I think Malthus got, my point in that aside was just about about a certain level of cognitive dissonance involving Islam sometimes seen on the left (FWIW, I am not concerned much if it all about Islam in North America).

Not sure what got you all huffy about this topic.

[dps]

If I am father to a teenage girl, shouldn't I have the right to know what my little girl is doing?  Advise her on the subject?

I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in the US we've basically gotten to the point that an abortion is the only non-emergency medical procedure that can be performed on a minor without either parental consent or a court order.

[PRC]

I was able to attend a call to the bar ceremony for a colleague today in the Province of Alberta.  I found it interesting that Alberta was the only (that's what I inferred based on the Judge's comments) province that does individual calls.  Must eat up a lot of court time, but did convey the gravity of the role on the individual in question.

[Barrister]

I was able to attend a call to the bar ceremony for a colleague today in the Province of Alberta.  I found it interesting that Alberta was the only (that's what I inferred based on the Judge's comments) province that does individual calls.  Must eat up a lot of court time, but did convey the gravity of the role on the individual in question.

Yeah, it's a very neat ceremony.  I know when I went through with it it really meant a lot to me.

When I was called to the bar in Yukon I signed a book.  That was it.  Now that book didn't quite go back to the gold rush but it was really old in its own way, but that was the extent of the ceremony.