[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

A little Edmonton city politics for you.

The City wants to give names to the 12 civid ward boundaries - the areas that each city councillor represents.  Currently they just use numbers: 1-12.  Originally they were going to use fairly generic names: Northwest, Central, etc.  But then someone suggested they should give them all First Nations names.

Now I'm not opposed to the idea - can't be any worse than using numbers.

But here's the name they want to give to my ward:

Ipiihkoohkanipiaohtsi

  (though to be fair that's probably the worst of the lot)

And also - a lot of the words are in languages spoken far, far from here.  Like Mohawk or Inuk.  Crazy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/city-council-wards-vote-1.5733305

[Zoupa]

If you want to govern Canada in a semi-regular basis, you need at least 20 seats in Qc. You will never get that if you don't drop the whole 1950s bullshit about "social issues", ie read abortion.

This new O'Toole fellow seems to agree with you completely.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7296846/erin-otoole-conservative-party-future/amp/

Uh-uh.

"He also voted in support of Bill C-225 in 2016, which sought to make it a criminal offence to "cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman."

The bill failed and was widely criticized as a backdoor attempt to impart legal rights on a fetus, which critics warned would have the effect of granting a legal foothold for broader efforts to restrict abortion."

[Zoupa]

If you want to govern Canada in a semi-regular basis, you need at least 20 seats in Qc. You will never get that if you don't drop the whole 1950s bullshit about "social issues", ie read abortion.

Not entirely true.  In 2011 Conservatives won far less than 20 seats in QC (googling says 5).

But you do need to be competitive in Quebec.  If you just write off the province, that's a terrible sign for the rest of English-speaking Canada, and will cost you votes elsewhere.

And given Quebec's issues over the hijab, I hardly think the province can be throwing stones over "social issues".

You mean requiring gvt employees in positions of authority to not display religious symbols? How barbaric of Qc lol.

[Barrister]

You mean requiring gvt employees in positions of authority to not display religious symbols? How barbaric of Qc lol.

Indeed.

In fact we've seen how with widespread mask use just how motivated by anti-religious sentiment that law was.

[Zoupa]

You mean requiring gvt employees in positions of authority to not display religious symbols? How barbaric of Qc lol.

Indeed.

In fact we've seen how with widespread mask use just how motivated by anti-religious sentiment that law was.

You're making no sense. The State and it's representatives should not be displaying religious signs, kind of a basic tenet of the separation of religion and state in my book.

No idea what that has to do with wearing masks during a pandemic? The issue was never "I need to see your face".

[Barrister]

The State and it's representatives should not be displaying religious signs, kind of a basic tenet of the separation of religion and state in my book.

Why?

A colleague of mine (actually he's a manager now) is a very capable and effective Crown Prosecutor.  The fact he wears a sikh turban does nothing to take away from his capabilities.  And certainly no one is going to be confused living in Alberta thinking we live in some kind of sikh theocracy!

[crazy canuck]

You mean requiring gvt employees in positions of authority to not display religious symbols? How barbaric of Qc lol.

Indeed.

In fact we've seen how with widespread mask use just how motivated by anti-religious sentiment that law was.

You're making no sense. The State and it's representatives should not be displaying religious signs, kind of a basic tenet of the separation of religion and state in my book.

No idea what that has to do with wearing masks during a pandemic? The issue was never "I need to see your face".

There is a very strong argument that the law is not neutral but is the State stating a preference for employees who have beliefs that do not require outward displays of belief.  Such as a turban for a Sikh man.

People who are not adversely affected tend to look past that effect.

[Malthus]

You mean requiring gvt employees in positions of authority to not display religious symbols? How barbaric of Qc lol.

Indeed.

In fact we've seen how with widespread mask use just how motivated by anti-religious sentiment that law was.

You're making no sense. The State and it's representatives should not be displaying religious signs, kind of a basic tenet of the separation of religion and state in my book.

No idea what that has to do with wearing masks during a pandemic? The issue was never "I need to see your face".

There is a very strong argument that the law is not neutral but is the State stating a preference for employees who have beliefs that do not require outward displays of belief.  Such as a turban for a Sikh man.

People who are not adversely affected tend to look past that effect.

The good old "law completely impartially prohibits the wealthy and the poor alike from sleeping rough under bridges" effect. 😄

[Malthus]

If you want to govern Canada in a semi-regular basis, you need at least 20 seats in Qc. You will never get that if you don't drop the whole 1950s bullshit about "social issues", ie read abortion.

This new O'Toole fellow seems to agree with you completely.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7296846/erin-otoole-conservative-party-future/amp/

Uh-uh.

"He also voted in support of Bill C-225 in 2016, which sought to make it a criminal offence to "cause injury or death to a preborn child while committing or attempting to commit an offence against a pregnant woman."

The bill failed and was widely criticized as a backdoor attempt to impart legal rights on a fetus, which critics warned would have the effect of granting a legal foothold for broader efforts to restrict abortion."

He agrees with you that his party can't win by promoting anti-abortion as an issue now. Doesn't mean he personally is against that issue (though it seems he is perfectly willing to vote either way on it for political advantage).

That's the point though - he has no ideological commitment to it, meaning he's likely to pragmatically avoid the issue, because in today's Canada it's a loser for him.

[Grey Fox]

@Zoupa, In my experience from other more progressive parts of the internet that RoC anglos cannot, or refuse to do so, differentiate between ethnicity & religious identity.

[viper37]

John Turner died.

He wasn't such a bad Liberal, compared to the other bunch.

[viper37]

The State and it's representatives should not be displaying religious signs, kind of a basic tenet of the separation of religion and state in my book.

Why?

A colleague of mine (actually he's a manager now) is a very capable and effective Crown Prosecutor.  The fact he wears a sikh turban does nothing to take away from his capabilities.  And certainly no one is going to be confused living in Alberta thinking we live in some kind of sikh theocracy!

In the RBG thread, you set the bar pretty low for religion mixing with politics and law.  I'm not sure I should believe you anymore about your colleague.   

[viper37]

There is a very strong argument that the law is not neutral but is the State stating a preference for employees who have beliefs that do not require outward displays of belief.  Such as a turban for a Sikh man.

People who are not adversely affected tend to look past that effect.

Yes.  Having a judge whose decisions are guided by her faith is such great news.  We should seek to emulate our Southern neighbours more often.  Next: The 10 commandements in the Supreme Court's halls.  And bring back that swearing on the Bible.  Everyone knows that when you're not ready to swear by God, you're a filthy immoral liar.

[viper37]

@Zoupa, In my experience from other more progressive parts of the internet that RoC anglos cannot, or refuse to do so, differentiate between ethnicity & religious identity.

of course they can't.  They have no problem with a religious figure as their Head of State.  And a quarter of the country believes their own religious morals should prime over everyone else.  And when they do feel threatened, then they simply elect anti-French parties that seek to reduce the rights of our minority.  To the general indifference.  They even vote for guys that seek to undermine bilinguism in the country and try to tell us it's for the Greater Good.

[Barrister]

And bring back that swearing on the Bible.

It never went away.

You can also swear on a Koran or a sacred eagle feather.