[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

BB, I don't understand how this is an example of stupid politics?

It's an issue that has nothing to do with French vs English, but Quebec politicians are inserting the French vs English dynamic into it.

There is always a FvE dynamic.

Speak White

[crazy canuck]

I would pay to see BB and CC face off in a courtroom some day.

Alas if CC took on a criminal case I would clean his clock, whereas if I took on an employment case I would similarly have my timepiece free from marks.

I would happily argue a constitutional case outside the criminal context. 

[Malthus]

This just invites the Ontario legislature to stick their spoon into Quebec's business.

Which it has done, many times. Some of it is fair game; some of it, less so. Somewhat recently, the Ontario's legislature went much further than simple comments from the PM about Quebec's Bill 21, for instance - which, for the record, I think was fair game. But here, it's not really Legault meddling in Ontario's business: it's Legault condemning decisions by an autonomous body, the University of Ottawa. If Legault wanted to meddle, he'd ask for Ford to provide some sort of legal framework for Ontario universities.

Absolutely the government of Ontario has done it - and the government of Quebec is annoyed by it every time. Because each province jealously guards its autonomy over internal matters, and dislikes politicians from other provinces saying how they ought to govern.

I disagree that this is by definition not meddling - it is impliedly critiquing how Ontario's government is governing the university, in that Ontario has apparently allowed the university to get out of hand. In the article the Legault is quoted as saying he will "speak to Ford about this", which reasonably means he'll be telling Ford his opinion of what Ford ought to do about it (as if Ford, a hard conservative, would be defending political correctness at a university! 😄). It could be, as noted, a simple call to a united front on the issue; but it could also be seen as meddling, and probably would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Hence in the article the Quebec politicians are "defending" their involvement - because they realize it requires defence.

[crazy canuck]

Alberta government thinks Residential schools were just an example of harsh schooling. 

An advisory panel appointed by the United Conservative Party government has presented the Education Minister with a package of recommendations, published Wednesday by the CBC, for the kindergarten-to-Grade 4 social studies curriculum. The document argues that information about residential schools should not be taught to children in Grade 3.

Instead, the document says that material should wait until students are older, potentially in Grade 9, and with residential schools presented as one example of "harsh schooling."

"The ugliness of Dickensian schooling, boarding schools, 19th-century discipline methods, and residential schooling that applied to some Indigenous kids can probably best be saved for later when learners are more mature and are less emotionally vulnerable to traumatic material," the document says.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-senator-criticizes-alberta-proposal-to-shield-younger-students-from/

[Barrister]

Alberta government thinks Residential schools were just an example of harsh schooling. 

An advisory panel appointed by the United Conservative Party government has presented the Education Minister with a package of recommendations, published Wednesday by the CBC, for the kindergarten-to-Grade 4 social studies curriculum. The document argues that information about residential schools should not be taught to children in Grade 3.

Instead, the document says that material should wait until students are older, potentially in Grade 9, and with residential schools presented as one example of "harsh schooling."

"The ugliness of Dickensian schooling, boarding schools, 19th-century discipline methods, and residential schooling that applied to some Indigenous kids can probably best be saved for later when learners are more mature and are less emotionally vulnerable to traumatic material," the document says.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-senator-criticizes-alberta-proposal-to-shield-younger-students-from/

Education Minister LaGrange said yesterday that no matter what the panel suggests, learning about residential schools in K-6 is "non-negotiable".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/learning-about-residential-schools-in-elementary-grades-non-negotiable-education-minister-says-1.5772176

[crazy canuck]

This just invites the Ontario legislature to stick their spoon into Quebec's business.

Which it has done, many times. Some of it is fair game; some of it, less so. Somewhat recently, the Ontario's legislature went much further than simple comments from the PM about Quebec's Bill 21, for instance - which, for the record, I think was fair game. But here, it's not really Legault meddling in Ontario's business: it's Legault condemning decisions by an autonomous body, the University of Ottawa. If Legault wanted to meddle, he'd ask for Ford to provide some sort of legal framework for Ontario universities.

Absolutely the government of Ontario has done it - and the government of Quebec is annoyed by it every time. Because each province jealously guards its autonomy over internal matters, and dislikes politicians from other provinces saying how they ought to govern.

I disagree that this is by definition not meddling - it is impliedly critiquing how Ontario's government is governing the university, in that Ontario has apparently allowed the university to get out of hand. In the article the Legault is quoted as saying he will "speak to Ford about this", which reasonably means he'll be telling Ford his opinion of what Ford ought to do about it (as if Ford, a hard conservative, would be defending political correctness at a university! 😄). It could be, as noted, a simple call to a united front on the issue; but it could also be seen as meddling, and probably would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Hence in the article the Quebec politicians are "defending" their involvement - because they realize it requires defence.

Except the Ontario government does not "govern" the university.  Oex was quite right.  It is autonomous from government.  That is why the Charter does not apply to universities. *



* Well except for Alberta but that is a whole other issue.

[crazy canuck]

Alberta government thinks Residential schools were just an example of harsh schooling. 

An advisory panel appointed by the United Conservative Party government has presented the Education Minister with a package of recommendations, published Wednesday by the CBC, for the kindergarten-to-Grade 4 social studies curriculum. The document argues that information about residential schools should not be taught to children in Grade 3.

Instead, the document says that material should wait until students are older, potentially in Grade 9, and with residential schools presented as one example of "harsh schooling."

"The ugliness of Dickensian schooling, boarding schools, 19th-century discipline methods, and residential schooling that applied to some Indigenous kids can probably best be saved for later when learners are more mature and are less emotionally vulnerable to traumatic material," the document says.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-senator-criticizes-alberta-proposal-to-shield-younger-students-from/

Education Minister LaGrange said yesterday that no matter what the panel suggests, learning about residential schools in K-6 is "non-negotiable".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/learning-about-residential-schools-in-elementary-grades-non-negotiable-education-minister-says-1.5772176

That is good to know.

[Malthus]

This just invites the Ontario legislature to stick their spoon into Quebec's business.

Which it has done, many times. Some of it is fair game; some of it, less so. Somewhat recently, the Ontario's legislature went much further than simple comments from the PM about Quebec's Bill 21, for instance - which, for the record, I think was fair game. But here, it's not really Legault meddling in Ontario's business: it's Legault condemning decisions by an autonomous body, the University of Ottawa. If Legault wanted to meddle, he'd ask for Ford to provide some sort of legal framework for Ontario universities.

Absolutely the government of Ontario has done it - and the government of Quebec is annoyed by it every time. Because each province jealously guards its autonomy over internal matters, and dislikes politicians from other provinces saying how they ought to govern.

I disagree that this is by definition not meddling - it is impliedly critiquing how Ontario's government is governing the university, in that Ontario has apparently allowed the university to get out of hand. In the article the Legault is quoted as saying he will "speak to Ford about this", which reasonably means he'll be telling Ford his opinion of what Ford ought to do about it (as if Ford, a hard conservative, would be defending political correctness at a university! 😄). It could be, as noted, a simple call to a united front on the issue; but it could also be seen as meddling, and probably would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Hence in the article the Quebec politicians are "defending" their involvement - because they realize it requires defence.

Except the Ontario government does not "govern" the university.  Oex was quite right.  It is autonomous from government.  That is why the Charter does not apply to universities. *



* Well except for Alberta but that is a whole other issue.

So, in your opinion, what exactly does Legault have to "speak to Ford" about?

It is obviously the case that the Ontario government can exercise considerable influence over a university, whether or not that university is "autonomous".

[crazy canuck]

This just invites the Ontario legislature to stick their spoon into Quebec's business.

Which it has done, many times. Some of it is fair game; some of it, less so. Somewhat recently, the Ontario's legislature went much further than simple comments from the PM about Quebec's Bill 21, for instance - which, for the record, I think was fair game. But here, it's not really Legault meddling in Ontario's business: it's Legault condemning decisions by an autonomous body, the University of Ottawa. If Legault wanted to meddle, he'd ask for Ford to provide some sort of legal framework for Ontario universities.

Absolutely the government of Ontario has done it - and the government of Quebec is annoyed by it every time. Because each province jealously guards its autonomy over internal matters, and dislikes politicians from other provinces saying how they ought to govern.

I disagree that this is by definition not meddling - it is impliedly critiquing how Ontario's government is governing the university, in that Ontario has apparently allowed the university to get out of hand. In the article the Legault is quoted as saying he will "speak to Ford about this", which reasonably means he'll be telling Ford his opinion of what Ford ought to do about it (as if Ford, a hard conservative, would be defending political correctness at a university! 😄). It could be, as noted, a simple call to a united front on the issue; but it could also be seen as meddling, and probably would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Hence in the article the Quebec politicians are "defending" their involvement - because they realize it requires defence.

Except the Ontario government does not "govern" the university.  Oex was quite right.  It is autonomous from government.  That is why the Charter does not apply to universities. *



* Well except for Alberta but that is a whole other issue.

So, in your opinion, what exactly does Legault have to "speak to Ford" about?

It is obviously the case that the Ontario government can exercise considerable influence over a university, whether or not that university is "autonomous".

Political leaders can act as role models - as odd as that sounds in the age of trump.  There is much a premier of a province can do to diffuse conflict and promote better understanding.  There is also much a premier can do to inflame - which might be a good reason to have an initial talk with Ford so as to make sure he is on track to do the former rather than the latter.

edit; and as someone who advises universities, it is not really that obvious to me how the province of Ontario would wield the influence you are talking about in this case.

[Josephus]

I would pay to see BB and CC face off in a courtroom some day.

Alas if CC took on a criminal case I would clean his clock, whereas if I took on an employment case I would similarly have my timepiece free from marks.

I didn't necessarily say a criminal case.

Maybe a neutral case...say a divorce hearing.

[Barrister]

I would pay to see BB and CC face off in a courtroom some day.

Alas if CC took on a criminal case I would clean his clock, whereas if I took on an employment case I would similarly have my timepiece free from marks.

I didn't necessarily say a criminal case.

Maybe a neutral case...say a divorce hearing.

What would be the point of that?  It would be like Michael Phelps challenging Lance Armstrong to a ski race.

[Oexmelin]

I would pay to see BB and CC face off in a courtroom some day.

Alas if CC took on a criminal case I would clean his clock, whereas if I took on an employment case I would similarly have my timepiece free from marks.

I didn't necessarily say a criminal case.

Maybe a neutral case...say a divorce hearing.

What would be the point of that?  It would be like Michael Phelps challenging Lance Armstrong to a ski race.

Who would be the cheater?

[Josephus]

I would pay to see BB and CC face off in a courtroom some day.

Alas if CC took on a criminal case I would clean his clock, whereas if I took on an employment case I would similarly have my timepiece free from marks.

I didn't necessarily say a criminal case.

Maybe a neutral case...say a divorce hearing.

What would be the point of that?  It would be like Michael Phelps challenging Lance Armstrong to a ski race.

See I'd pay to see that.

[viper37]

Politics in this country can be so profoundly stupid.

So there's this case of a part-time professor at University of Ottawa.  She used the n-word in class - apparently as an example of a word that has been reclaimed by the marginalized group it is being used against.  Predictably the students complained and social media rose up against the professor, causing her to be suspended.  Even worse was when some of the professor's colleagues wrote a letter in defence of the professor, those letter-writers were denounced too.

(And look, as an aside, I've been against "cancel culture" for awhile now and I think what happened was ridiculous)

But... despite this taking place in Ontario, all stripes of Quebec politicians are speaking out about this because the professor is French-Canadian.  And while they are speaking out in defence of free speech... they're also pointing to this as an example of prejudice against francophones. 

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/quebec-minister-wades-into-n-word-controversy-at-ottawa-university

English Canadian media at their best, reporting an incomplete story

It's a class about the representation of sexual minorities in visual arts.

The exact context was that she presented the word "Queer" that was used as a slur in the past, and has now been reappropriated by the community to empower themselves.

It's called resignifications and subversive transformations and she then told the students we were seeing the same thing happening in the US withe n*word being reappropriated by blacks themselves.

One student later complained that this word should never be pronounced by a white person.  She appologized for her used of the word and then asked their student to reflect on the matter:
« Je vous invite à aborder la question la semaine prochaine afin de réfléchir à ce qui convient pour traiter ce mot. Vaut-il mieux ne pas le prononcer parce qu'il est sensible ? Le silence ne mène-t-il pas à l'oubli et au statu quo ? »


I invite you to approach the subject next week to reflect on how we should correctly treat this word.  Should we abstain from using this word because it's a sensible one?  Does not the silence leads to forgetfulness and status quo?

That was the last straw.  Asking university students to reflect on something was just too much for the hard left.

So they sent her death threats, revealed her address online, constantly harrassed her - and it was coming from people outside of her class.

The university declined to protect her, chastized her, suspended her (how dare you ask your students to think for themselves!?).

A group of teachers came to her defense.  And they were assaulted with a bunch of francophobic comments & slurs.  But since French bashing is Canada's 2nd national sports after hockey, it was still all fine for everyone.

The university held a "trial" for the teacher.  She was forbidden from defending herself from her accusers because they needed their safe space from micro-agressions.  Both are bullshit concepts that you now apparently embrace.  :roll:  The university condemned the teacher and declared it was not up to them to determine what was a valid micro-agression or not.  More bullshit.

So Quebec politicians, leader of the opposition included, a black woman, condemned the attack and the cowardice of the university for refusing to defend&protect their teacher.

English teachers doubled down on the easy target, joining the students in their attacks, and the Canadian medias are having a field day reporting an incomplete story, as always.

And now, this forum most rightwing Canadian is making common cause with he hard left instead of seeking facts for himself.  And francophobia is a myth in this country.  Yeah right.

I am disapointed. Very disapointed.

There's the double discourse: using queer or nigger in academic context to talk about its specific use is a micro-agression that has no place on campus grounds, but attacking French speaking teachers because they are French speaking is a-allright.

And again, for the second time in a week, you're on this side of the fence.

There's the other cultural factor: nigger became an insult after the US civil war, in the context of segregation.  Canada has no such war where a part of the country seceded to protect slavery and the other invaded them to force them back into the Union.  Canada had no segregation and only Ontario and Nova Scotia had chattel slavery with farms/plantations similar to US for a short while after conquest. 

I think only a few plantations remained in Ontario by the time the British Empire abolished slavery, Nova Scotia had pretty much abolished it on its own and Quebec never had a lot of black slaves to begin with (apparently Louis XIV did plan to ship boatloads of slaves to help develop the colony just before he entered in the War of Spanish succession, but it never materialized).

Different story, different context.

Also, nègre (nigger) comes from latin niger for black.  Most of Quebec blacks today origined from immigrants arrived in the 70s-80, when Quebec began to control its own international relations and invite French speaking immigrants to live here.

Again, different cultural context.

And yes, it's all about language & culture, again. English speaking teacher are probably more attuned to the controversies surrounding such subjects from their cultural proximity to the US.

[viper37]

It could be, as noted, a simple call to a united front on the issue; but it could also be seen as meddling, and probably would be if the shoe was on the other foot. Hence in the article the Quebec politicians are "defending" their involvement - because they realize it requires defence.

speaking with someone in private about some issue is not meddling.  If your kid breaks my window and I tell you about it, it ain't meddling.  If I see your kid smoking pot with my kid and I talk to you about it, it ain't meddling.

Expecting you to disown and renegate your kid for smoking pot would be meddling.  And ridiculous knowing the father

Also, speaking to everyone in the neighbourhood about how you should raise your kid would be meddling.  But a private discussion about a particular incident?  Discussing a common issue? Nah.