[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

It's stupid idea but they are in fact historical.

Well, people wearing kippah and turbans (for example) are pretty historical too.

[Grey Fox]

Bah.

Talking about the economy ad nauseum is boring, plus they can't do anything but raise our already high taxes. Atleast while they are arguing this they aren't raising the TVQ to 20%.

When I want entertainment, I go to the circus to see the clowns. 

Yes, the ROC has made it pretty clear that we are the circus.

[crazy canuck]

Bah.

Talking about the economy ad nauseum is boring, plus they can't do anything but raise our already high taxes. Atleast while they are arguing this they aren't raising the TVQ to 20%.

When I want entertainment, I go to the circus to see the clowns. 

Yes, the ROC has made it pretty clear that we are the circus.

That is, I suspect, what the PQ wants.  Why else would they be putting up the circus tents in this way?

[Malthus]

No religion in public - there's no rocket science involved here...

Unless of course they are accepted by the government as being "historical".

It's stupid idea but they are in fact historical.

I agree it is historical.  But the exception simply illustrates that religious symbols can be important to people for all kinds of reasons other than the tokens of slavery the PQ ascribes to them.

The funny part is that the cross in the legislature isn't particularly "historical". It was installed by premier Maurice Duplessis in 1936!   

People have been wearing kippahs and turbans longer than that. Hell, people in Quebec who are still alive have been wearing kippahs and turbans in Quebec longer than that!

[Malthus]

Bah.

Talking about the economy ad nauseum is boring, plus they can't do anything but raise our already high taxes. Atleast while they are arguing this they aren't raising the TVQ to 20%.

When I want entertainment, I go to the circus to see the clowns. 

Yes, the ROC has made it pretty clear that we are the circus.

I was referring more to your legislature. But your reaction proves that, to an extent, the tactics of 'passing absurd laws to promote riducule by outsiders, thus promoting an 'us versus them' mentality' is working.

[Jacob]

I was referring more to your legislature. But your reaction proves that, to an extent, the tactics of 'passing absurd laws to promote riducule by outsiders, thus promoting an 'us versus them' mentality' is working.

Your reaction as well.

[crazy canuck]

No religion in public - there's no rocket science involved here...

Unless of course they are accepted by the government as being "historical".

It's stupid idea but they are in fact historical.

I agree it is historical.  But the exception simply illustrates that religious symbols can be important to people for all kinds of reasons other than the tokens of slavery the PQ ascribes to them.

The funny part is that the cross in the legislature isn't particularly "historical". It was installed by premier Maurice Duplessis in 1936!   

People have been wearing kippahs and turbans longer than that. Hell, people in Quebec who are still alive have been wearing kippahs and turbans longer than that!

I dont begrudge the ability of the people of Quebec to identify what importance a religious symbol might have for them.  I do object to the government of Quebec trying to tell others what religious symbols mean for those others.

[Malthus]

I was referring more to your legislature. But your reaction proves that, to an extent, the tactics of 'passing absurd laws to promote riducule by outsiders, thus promoting an 'us versus them' mentality' is working.

Your reaction as well.

Huh? Is different from your reaction, how? 

[Jacob]

Huh? Is different from your reaction, how? 

Good point. Our reaction.

[Malthus]

No religion in public - there's no rocket science involved here...

Unless of course they are accepted by the government as being "historical".

It's stupid idea but they are in fact historical.

I agree it is historical.  But the exception simply illustrates that religious symbols can be important to people for all kinds of reasons other than the tokens of slavery the PQ ascribes to them.

The funny part is that the cross in the legislature isn't particularly "historical". It was installed by premier Maurice Duplessis in 1936!   

People have been wearing kippahs and turbans longer than that. Hell, people in Quebec who are still alive have been wearing kippahs and turbans longer than that!

I dont begrudge the ability of the people of Quebec to identify what importance a religious symbol might have for them.  I do object to the government of Quebec trying to tell others what religious symbols mean for those others.

Agreed, but "historical" implies something more than "important to us". It implies that the symbol has, as it were, been in place for a very long time, and has become part of the landscape because of its lengthy history, and so has lost its original "important" meaning.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed, but "historical" implies something more than "important to us". It implies that the symbol has, as it were, been in place for a very long time, and has become part of the landscape because of its lengthy history, and so has lost its original "important" meaning.

As Oex and others have explained to us, the history of Quebec is closely linked to its Catholic history.  The symbol itelf may not have been there for a long time but the history it represents is, it seems to me, unquestionable.

[Malthus]

Huh? Is different from your reaction, how? 

Good point. Our reaction.

Point is, though, that heaping deserved ridicule on an absurd law (and on the politicians who proposed it) isn't exactly the same thing as heaping ridicule on the province.

The fact that many can't, or won't, understand this difference appears to be what the PQ is counting on.

[crazy canuck]

Huh? Is different from your reaction, how? 

Good point. Our reaction.

Point is, though, that heaping deserved ridicule on an absurd law (and on the politicians who proposed it) isn't exactly the same thing as heaping ridicule on the province.

The fact that many can't, or won't, understand this difference appears to be what the PQ is counting on.

I think you are right about that.

[Malthus]

Agreed, but "historical" implies something more than "important to us". It implies that the symbol has, as it were, been in place for a very long time, and has become part of the landscape because of its lengthy history, and so has lost its original "important" meaning.

As Oex and others have explained to us, the history of Quebec is closely linked to its Catholic history.  The symbol itelf may not have been there for a long time but the history it represents is, it seems to me, unquestionable.

Sure, but the issue is about a particular oversized cross hanging in the legislature, not Catholicism generally.

[Neil]

It's stupid idea but they are in fact historical.

Well, people wearing kippah and turbans (for example) are pretty historical too.

But not our history.