[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

increase even further massive immigration.  That cannot be allowed to happen or we're doomed.

An odd sentiment.

But perfectly consistent for Grallon.

Though, you'd expect he'd be pleased; Grallon seems to positively get off on gloom, doom, and inevitable disaster.

[garbon]

increase even further massive immigration.  That cannot be allowed to happen or we're doomed.

An odd sentiment.

But perfectly consistent for Grallon.

Though, you'd expect he'd be pleased; Grallon seems to positively get off on gloom, doom, and inevitable disaster.

Yeah on both accounts.

[crazy canuck]

Viper, we need owed up to it, not deny it.

Yeah, we're racist, so fucking what? Fuck you!

What Viper has to own up to is that a goverment policy that adversely affects only minority immigrant populations while protecting majority interests through an exemption in the law

you mean like Ontarian court taking part in jewish religious marriage?  or like British Columbia denying adequate fundings for French schools?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

[Grey Fox]

Viper, we need owed up to it, not deny it.

Yeah, we're racist, so fucking what? Fuck you!

What Viper has to own up to is that a goverment policy that adversely affects only minority immigrant populations while protecting majority interests through an exemption in the law

you mean like Ontarian court taking part in jewish religious marriage?  or like British Columbia denying adequate fundings for French schools?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

You disagree that those things are akin?

[crazy canuck]

Viper, we need owed up to it, not deny it.

Yeah, we're racist, so fucking what? Fuck you!

What Viper has to own up to is that a goverment policy that adversely affects only minority immigrant populations while protecting majority interests through an exemption in the law

you mean like Ontarian court taking part in jewish religious marriage?  or like British Columbia denying adequate fundings for French schools?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

You disagree that those things are akin?

I have no idea what Jewish marriage has to do with what we are talking about.  I also have no idea what the constitutional question before the BC court has to do with what we ar talking about.

What we are talking about is a piece of legislation which prohibits muslims from being observant in the guise of secularism.

One need only read the ranting of our very own bigot Grallon earlier in this thread in support of the leglislation to see its true audience and its true purpose.

[Jacob]

You disagree that those things are akin?

Yup.

One is maximizing the amount of religious freedom without letting people unduly fuck over other people (the Jewish divorce thing).

The other is penny pinching which may or may not be unconstitutional (French school funding).

The last is an explicit message to tell non-Christians that they are unwelcome and to cater to people like Grallon's xenophobia (Charter of Values).

As for where I stand on this, I think the court thing is fine, the French schools should get their funding and control whether it's a constitutional requirement or not, and that the Charter of Values is bigoted.

[Malthus]

You disagree that those things are akin?

Yup.

One is maximizing the amount of religious freedom without letting people unduly fuck over other people (the Jewish divorce thing).

The other is penny pinching which may or may not be unconstitutional (French school funding).

The last is an explicit message to tell non-Christians that they are unwelcome and to cater to people like Grallon's xenophobia (Charter of Values).

As for where I stand on this, I think the court thing is fine, the French schools should get their funding and control whether it's a constitutional requirement or not, and that the Charter of Values is bigoted.

Yup, pretty much. Though personally, I subscribe to the theory that the Charter is in part a cynical ploy to stir up trouble between Quebec and the RoC, in order to make seperatism look more appealing to people in Quebec, who apparently have weakness for reading any criticism of their government as hatred for their people - or at least, so the PQ is counting on. 

[Jacob]

Though personally, I subscribe to the theory that the Charter is in part a cynical ploy to stir up trouble between Quebec and the RoC, in order to make seperatism look more appealing to people in Quebec, who apparently have weakness for reading any criticism of their government as hatred for their people - or at least, so the PQ is counting on.

Agreed.

Listening to Viper it seems like it might be working - I guess the upcoming election will be the true indication.

[Grallon]

...

One need only read the ranting of our very own bigot Grallon earlier in this thread in support of the leglislation to see its true audience and its true purpose.

Thus confirming Viper's assessment that you put all Quebecers in the same bag since I am (according to you) a bigot, and the legislation (which hasn't been published yet) is intended for all inhabitants of Quebec - then it follows all Quebecers are bigots.

Thank you for making our point for us.



G.

[Grallon]

I would further add that the fact our Canadians cannot grasp the difference between bigotry or racism and the legitimate desire of a majority to define, through its legally elected representatives, what the norm in social behavior should be for all citizens of the polity shows how profoundly alienated they've become under the aegis of their state religion.

Democracy is *not* the will of 9 individuals sitting in judgement over the charter of rights like priests over a holy book.

Democracy *is* the will of the majority as expressed, in a Westminster regime, by the Parliament.  And if Parliament cannot decide then through a referendum.




G.

[Grey Fox]

You disagree that those things are akin?

Yup.

One is maximizing the amount of religious freedom without letting people unduly fuck over other people (the Jewish divorce thing).

The other is penny pinching which may or may not be unconstitutional (French school funding).

The last is an explicit message to tell non-Christians that they are unwelcome and to cater to people like Grallon's xenophobia (Charter of Values).

As for where I stand on this, I think the court thing is fine, the French schools should get their funding and control whether it's a constitutional requirement or not, and that the Charter of Values is bigoted.

Those things are things done to a minority by the majority tho.

[Malthus]

I would further add that the fact our Canadians cannot grasp the difference between bigotry or racism and the legitimate desire of a majority to define, through its legally elected representatives, what the norm in social behavior should be for all citizens of the polity shows how profoundly alienated they've become under the aegis of their state religion.

Democracy is *not* the will of 9 individuals sitting in judgement over the charter of rights like priests over a holy book.

Democracy *is* the will of the majority as expressed, in a Westminster regime, by the Parliament.  And if Parliament cannot decide then through a referendum.




G.

A democracy without constitutional protections of rights is the "democracy" of three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[viper37]

What we are talking about is a piece of legislation which prohibits muslims from being observant in the guise of secularism.

Not all muslisms and not only muslims.  Not all muslims have decided their women must wear a veil to be a pure woman.  Christians can't wear a cross above their shirt while working for the State either, as it is.

One need only read the ranting of our very own bigot Grallon earlier in this thread in support of the leglislation to see its true audience and its true purpose.

And people like Grallon were certainly happy to hear to our Federal government restrict immigration for some people, especially for family reunion. Or restrict visas for Mexicans and Czech.  Or other various measures.   Funny, I don't recall you saying our Federal government was run by racists?

[Malthus]

Well, this is odd.

Allegedly, the PQ Minister for Montreal is saying that he may dismiss whoever is elected as Mayor for Montreal if they keep saying they don't support the Charter ... or am I reading this wrong?

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/pq-to-mayoral-candidates-you-don-t-understand-montreal-1.1492043

He also suggests that the provincial government will be allowed to dismiss whoever is elected Mayor as not having a valid mandate.

Sounds bizzare. I'm willing to be persuaded it is a mis-reading.

[viper37]

Yup.

One is maximizing the amount of religious freedom without letting people unduly fuck over other people (the Jewish divorce thing).

Oh, no, it's about restricting religious freedom for some poeple becaus their behavior are considered undesirable in our society.

Wich is about half the charter, really, but it applies to everyone, instead of going piece by piece.  It saves time in court, it let problems be solved quickly, without the need for costly lawyer time.

The other is penny pinching which may or may not be unconstitutional (French school funding).

But hardly unique in English Canada since the provinces were forced to offer French education and control of the school boards to francophones.

The last is an explicit message to tell non-Christians that they are unwelcome and to cater to people like Grallon's xenophobia (Charter of Values).

That's because Christians in Quebec are mostly secular.  Although we've seen a rise of various sects,  Evangical Christians and Ultra-Catholics groups, they still remain insignificant.  But they are growing and that worries more than the muslim "invasion" Grallon talks about. 

However, let's not kid ourselves here, the veil is an oppresive measure, and it is designed to remind women of their place in society, as inferior to men.  The immigrant opposition to the Charter mainly comes from groups affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.  I may not see eye to eye with Grallon on everything, but I'd sure pick him on my side before the MB.

And of course the government doesn't want to piss off those people, people like the Saguenay mayor, so it hasn't removed the crucifix yet, even if it only dates from the 50s (Duplessis' time, to remind everyone they were subordinate to the Church).  I'm pretty sure this will be gone.  As it is, they can't get it passed because the opposition is against.

and that the Charter of Values is bigoted.

but wich part?  The general principle of laïcité?  The part about religious signs? The part about equality of men and women?  The part about no visible religious signs?  The wording "Quebec values"? The obligation for women to remove their veil when receiving services from the State (elections, driver's license, healthcare, witness in a trial, etc)?  No creationism tought in a public school or subsidized private school? No more doctors pressured to deliver certificate of virginity? All of it?

As I said, I agree with the general principle of the Charter, laicité + seperation of Church and State.  I disagree with parts of it, and I think we're not doing enough to root out the few Catholic extremists left in our society.  But otherwise, there's part of it that I really like.  Even if I don't consider myself xenophobic, even if I don't see a clear and present danger from muslim immigration. 

But I do see a looming danger from muslim extremists trying to infiltrate our society and pushing our boundaries one step at a time.  I do worry about forced marriage in certain cultures, and I want the message to be clear to everyone that we do not tolerate this kind of behavior.

If that pisses off some immigrants and sends them to Ontario, so be it.  I remember the shit storm we had in 2000 when we learnt that Ahmed Ressam had been living in Montreal.  Oh, the horror.  Quebec is growing terrorists.      Yet, not much on Kadhr.  Not much on those canadians fighting abroad for Al-Queida.  If people like Chiheb Esseghaier do not feel welcome here, I'll be fucking happy.  If that makes me a xenophobe, a racist and a bigot, I will assume it.  Give then thousand muslims like my university friends, but not one of those bastards.

By imposing secularity, I hope we will attract secular immigrants, muslim or christians who will feel welcome here, rather than those bloody fanatics.  It may be that we will piss off a few good immigrants, but I feel it is a small price to pay.

But for that to happen, we need to change to something.  We need to send a clear message that we don't tolerate everything under the guise of multiculturalism.  Now, the Charter may be going to far in some place, and not far enough elsewhere.  It's like everything else the PQ has done, total bullshit aiming in all directions without hitting.  But it's a framework under wich a sensible policy could be developped, outside of the hands of the PQ. 

And yeah, it will attrack the xenophobic vote, that's a given.  Harper has attracted the far right vote: anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-secular, anti-abortion, anti-science, etc.  Does any supporter of the PCC here feel like they are mixing with the wrong crowd?  I don't.  The Reform party attracted the far right vote in his days.  Do you think BB is a racist and a bigot?  I sure don't.  There is a difference between having a racist platform like the european far right political parties and attracting the xenophobic&racist vote with some measures.  The first is clearly racist, the other simply populist.