[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Oexmelin]

Check your PMs.... 

Seen and sent.

[viper37]

So....I guess it's all over?

more or less.

There's always the risk of a 2nd wave, but for now, numbers in all province has constantly diminished, and everything is gradually, carefully reopening.  There are still physical distanciaton measures everywhere though.  Until there's a vaccine, it ain't truly over, and we'll see where it goes from here.

Public health of each province will monitor the situation and make adjustements accordingly.

[Barrister]

Here's a weird little political story.

NDP introduces a motion recognizing systemic racism within the RCMP.  The motion receives near-unanimous support - but one Bloc member votes no.  NDP leader Jagmeet Singh then stands up and labels that member (who hadn't said anything) a racist.  Speaker asks Singh to apologize, he doesn't, Singh gets kicked out for a day.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-jagmeet-singh-rota-racist-therrien-1.5616661

[Oexmelin]

It's basically the discussion we have been having here on Languish re: systemic racism, heightened by a very common "lost in translation" feature of Canadian politics.

For Singh, it's obviously been a very personal topic, and he's the product of a political environment where matters of systemic racism have been discussed.

Thérien's rejection of the motion mirror a widespread reluctance by many (throughout Canada) to acknowledge the concern. For many different reasons, that reluctance has been more openly voiced in Quebec.

And now, true to form, the usual "No surprise it's the Bloc/Quebeckers" comments have been popping up.

[Barrister]

It's basically the discussion we have been having here on Languish re: systemic racism, heightened by a very common "lost in translation" feature of Canadian politics.

For Singh, it's obviously been a very personal topic, and he's the product of a political environment where matters of systemic racism have been discussed.

Thérien's rejection of the motion mirror a widespread reluctance by many (throughout Canada) to acknowledge the concern. For many different reasons, that reluctance has been more openly voiced in Quebec.

And now, true to form, the usual "No surprise it's the Bloc/Quebeckers" comments have been popping up.

Well, the entire sovereignist movement has always had a conflict between whether it is to appeal to all Quebecers, or to appeal to the pure laine Quebecers... and lets not forget "except for money and the ethnic vote" line.

But Singh is in the wrong here.  The Bloc later put out a statement simply saying that a Parliamentary Committee was studying the issue of systemic racism, and they should wait for that report.  Not exactly stirring, but defensible.  I don't know if he  was just personally offended, or just wanted to be seen to be calling others racist, but he shouldn't have done it.  He should have taken the win, and not focused on the one vote against.

[crazy canuck]

No reason to doubt this is a real issue for Singh.  One would have to accept opposition to systemic racism is simply a ploy to suggest what you just did.

At one point you may realize your posts are not merely awkward and tone deaf but borne from a world view that should perhaps be questioned.

[Barrister]

No reason to doubt this is a real issue for Singh.  One would have to accept opposition to systemic racism is simply a ploy to suggest what you just did.

At one point you may realize your posts are not merely awkward and tone deaf but borne from a world view that should perhaps be questioned.

One can be deeply opposed to systemic racism, and still try to pull a political stunt.

[PRC]

No reason to doubt this is a real issue for Singh.  One would have to accept opposition to systemic racism is simply a ploy to suggest what you just did.

At one point you may realize your posts are not merely awkward and tone deaf but borne from a world view that should perhaps be questioned.

One can be deeply opposed to systemic racism, and still try to pull a political stunt.

It was a political stunt then?

[crazy canuck]

No reason to doubt this is a real issue for Singh.  One would have to accept opposition to systemic racism is simply a ploy to suggest what you just did.

At one point you may realize your posts are not merely awkward and tone deaf but borne from a world view that should perhaps be questioned.

One can be deeply opposed to systemic racism, and still try to pull a political stunt.

A stunt is the Conservative party candidates debating in garbled French.  A person who is subjected to racism talking about racism is real.

[Grey Fox]

God, that was horrific & I've only read transcript of it.

[Barrister]

No reason to doubt this is a real issue for Singh.  One would have to accept opposition to systemic racism is simply a ploy to suggest what you just did.

At one point you may realize your posts are not merely awkward and tone deaf but borne from a world view that should perhaps be questioned.

One can be deeply opposed to systemic racism, and still try to pull a political stunt.

It was a political stunt then?

I don't know.  I said it appeared he either just lost it, or that it was a political stunt.  Neither reflected well on him.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know.  I said it appeared he either just lost it, or that it was a political stunt.  Neither reflected well on him.

Or perhaps the revelation of character of the person who thinks it can only be one of those two options.  And you are the reasonable wing of your party.

[Malthus]

Having a political figure call another racist for "dismissively" failing to vote on a measure they want is simply a political Rorchsach test in which everyone sees what they are predisposed to see.

Progressives will naturally see this as yet another example of the very systemic racism that the motion was intended to address.

Non-progressives will naturally see it as a breach of parliamentary decorum.

The interesting thing, to me, is that the term "racism" has become so very amorphous in meaning. It is at one and the same time something people are supposed to be deeply ashamed of, *and* something one can do completely unconsciously - it is sort of like the religious notion of original sin. To non-progressives, it can sometimes appear that anything other that full-blooded acceptance of a progressive agenda is "racist" in at least the second sense of the word, if not the first.

The problem is that racism appears to be something that straddles sone sort of moral divide. Obviously it is immoral to be "racist" in the sense of being a KKK member. Is it immortal to be an agent of "systemic racism"? Is it immoral to disagree with the extent to which "systemic racism" is the primary concern in a particular situation? Does disagreement make you "racist" in the sense of being immoral?

[Admiral Yi]

I was thinking much the same thing Malthus.

For some racism is axiomatic.  About the only way you can avoid the label is calling everyone else racist.

[garbon]

About the only way you can avoid the label is calling everyone else racist.