[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

That said, I don't think Northern Gateway should foot much of the bill for studies to improve weather forecasting on the West Coast. But it seems fair that they should pitch in for the studies on how to effectively clean up a potential bitumen spill.

[crazy canuck]

That said, I don't think Northern Gateway should foot much of the bill for studies to improve weather forecasting on the West Coast. But it seems fair that they should pitch in for the studies on how to effectively clean up a potential bitumen spill.

I dont agree.  But in any event that is not how the legislation currently reads.  If May's point is that she thinks that should be done now then she doesnt understand the concept of retrospective or retroactive effects of leglislation (assuming the legislation was changed to reflect your view) all of which is generally unenforceable except for a few exceptions.

To the larger policy question you raise of whether legislation should be drafted to pass on the costs of government research to applicants - the government gets its fair share in taxes and royalties.  If you also caused potential applicants to be bound to pay for research the government might wish to conduct which is unkown and perhas unknowable at the beginning of the process that would be a signficant chilling effect on anyone wishing to do business here.

[Neil]

It's Elizabeth May.  I don't really care what she has to say about anything.  I wasn't inclined to trust her to begin with, but after the way she humiliated herself in the televised debates, she made it pretty clear that she had nothing to offer.

[Barrister]

The federal government has allegedly spent $120M to facilitate the building of the Northern Gateway pipeline: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/04/elizabeth-may-northern-gateway-harper_n_3868343.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

How likely is this allegation to be factual?

If it is factual, how big a deal is it?

COuld well be true.  Personally, I don't really like corporate support for business, but this is hardly the first or last time it'll happen.  I vote for "not a big deal".

[Jacob]

I dont agree.  But in any event that is not how the legislation currently reads.  If May's point is that she thinks that should be done now then she doesnt understand the concept of retrospective or retroactive effects of leglislation (assuming the legislation was changed to reflect your view) all of which is generally unenforceable except for a few exceptions.

To the larger policy question you raise of whether legislation should be drafted to pass on the costs of government research to applicants - the government gets its fair share in taxes and royalties.  If you also caused potential applicants to be bound to pay for research the government might wish to conduct which is unkown and perhas unknowable at the beginning of the process that would be a signficant chilling effect on anyone wishing to do business here.

A reasonable counter argument.

I'll default to "money spent on research on oil clean up and weather forecasting seems fair enough" unless something else comes up.

[crazy canuck]

From an article in the Globe.

Ms. Marois made it clear that she wants to prevent government employees from wearing veils, stating it has a "connotation in regards to the equality between men and women, a form of submission." She said that a veiled educator, for example, has authority over children and could incite them to practice her religion.

She said that a full-time teacher who wears a hijab would receive help to transition and live within the rules adopted by the Quebec society.

A veiled educator could "incite" people to practice her religion?  I hope there is a translation issue here.

[garbon]

"Help to transition"?

[crazy canuck]

"Help to transition"?

Yeah, that too.  The re-education camps cant be far off.

[Malthus]

"Help to transition"?

"Here, let me help you with that ..." riiippp.

[Neil]

Is it really all that surprising that a group of ultranationalists are racist?

[Grallon]

From an article in the Globe.

Ms. Marois made it clear that she wants to prevent government employees from wearing veils, stating it has a "connotation in regards to the equality between men and women, a form of submission." She said that a veiled educator, for example, has authority over children and could incite them to practice her religion.

She said that a full-time teacher who wears a hijab would receive help to transition and live within the rules adopted by the Quebec society.

A veiled educator could "incite" people to practice her religion?  I hope there is a translation issue here.

So I see you're back to your usual sin of 'ascribing motivations' that aren't there?  How Canadian of you.


Of course an individual in a position of authority can influence his/her charges by wearing - and justifying the reasoning behind it - a symbol of slavery.  He or she (usually a 'She') can genuinely believe it merely denotes a private devotion.  But anyone with a brain that isn't clouded by the toxic multiculturalism dogmas so prevalent in Canada will recognize that her headscarf is nothing but a slave collar - and thus - carries the message that females are slaves.





G.

[crazy canuck]

From an article in the Globe.

Ms. Marois made it clear that she wants to prevent government employees from wearing veils, stating it has a "connotation in regards to the equality between men and women, a form of submission." She said that a veiled educator, for example, has authority over children and could incite them to practice her religion.

She said that a full-time teacher who wears a hijab would receive help to transition and live within the rules adopted by the Quebec society.

A veiled educator could "incite" people to practice her religion?  I hope there is a translation issue here.

So I see you're back to your usual sin of 'ascribing motivations' that aren't there?  How Canadian of you.

No, I am back to trying to figure out what a separatist polician means and giving her the benefit of the doubt that she was mistranslated or that she made a poor use of words in English because what she is reported as having said makes no sense at all.

[garbon]

Of course an individual in a position of authority can influence his/her charges by wearing - and justifying the reasoning behind it - a symbol of slavery.  He or she (usually a 'She') can genuinely believe it merely denotes a private devotion.  But anyone with a brain that isn't clouded by the toxic multiculturalism dogmas so prevalent in Canada will recognize that her headscarf is nothing but a slave collar - and thus - carries the message that females are slaves.

G.

Yes because, in general, we should always adopt a paternalistic approach and assume that people don't know the real reasons for assuming cultural symbols.

[garbon]

Btw, I was reading about this idea of banning religious symbols and I thought it so laughable that Quebec was like but we won't take down the crucifix in the national assembly as that is part of our history.

[Grey Fox]

The Charter of Values : the proposal.

http://nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en#minister Click it, it's in English(not it's in entirety).

This is mostly what France in a couple different laws, the oldest from 1805.