[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

We have a rule in court that you must stand when the judge enters the courtroom.  But one of my colleagues is a quadriplegic, confined to a wheelchair.  You get where I'm going with this - we make an exception for him to the rule of "you must stand when the judge enters".  Why?  Because the rule is just a formality, and it should bend when there is a legitimate reason to bend it.

Come on.  Be serious please.  Your quadriplegic could not stand, even if he wanted to.  There is a mega-huge difference between an handicap that prevents you of doing something and a choice.

But the "no hats" rule doesn't actually impact on how the court system works.  It's just a formality.  So when it comes up against his religious imperative to wear a turban, we make an exception.

but why not allow hats for everyone then?  Why allow someone to testify or vote completely veiled?

Because to a devout Sikh, the "no hats" rule is as non-optional as the "must stand when the judge enters" rule is for my quadriplegic colleague is.

And testifying / voting while veiled is a different kettle of fish.  Now we are no longer talking about mere custom - we're talking about the integrity of the whole system.  So I have no problem with some kind of verification happening if someone wants to vote or testify while veiled (perhaps a female clerk can do so in private).  But none of the obvious problems of potential fraud apply to someone who is doing their job when fully identifiable while wearing a turban.

[viper37]

Because to a devout Sikh, the "no hats" rule is as non-optional as the "must stand when the judge enters" rule is for my quadriplegic colleague is.

And testifying / voting while veiled is a different kettle of fish.  Now we are no longer talking about mere custom - we're talking about the integrity of the whole system.  So I have no problem with some kind of verification happening if someone wants to vote or testify while veiled (perhaps a female clerk can do so in private). 

But it's more than verification.  It's also about a lawyer or a defender seeing the witness' non verbal reactions
when they answer the questions.

But none of the obvious problems of potential fraud apply to someone who is doing their job when fully identifiable while wearing a turban.

What I think will happen, is that if you allow religious symbols for one individual, you will have to allow it for others.

See, a recent case, Chiheb Esseghaier.  At the end of his day in court, he refused that a woman handcuff him.  The officers complied.  Imho, it shouldn't be so.  It's clearly sending a message that women and men are not equal.

Another case?  According to Canadian law, a veiled woman could vote without removing her veil for identification.  It is stupid, imho.  But according to the Canadian Charter, it seems possible.

Kirpan.  A knife.  In schools and in tribunals.  Isn't it a bit... too much?  I know they aren't supposed to use it, and it's a great dishonor to do so.  Yet, it is a knife.  In potentially dangerous situations.

The moment we start making exceptions based on religious grounds, we have to agree to almost anything.  Or drag the cases in court one by one.

[Barrister]

The moment we start making exceptions based on religious grounds, we have to agree to almost anything.  Or drag the cases in court one by one.

The classic "slippery slope" argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It ignores the obvious though - that just because you make some accomodations to religious belief, that you have to make every accommodation.  I already mentioned one that might not be accommodated - head coverings while voting.

I'll just repeat - just because my very smart colleague wears a turban while prosecuting does not mean A: that he is convincing people of the righteousness of Sikhism; and B: that it will automatically mean women will testify while wearing the veil.

[Grallon]

...

I'll just repeat - just because my very smart colleague wears a turban while prosecuting does not mean A: that he is convincing people of the righteousness of Sikhism; and B: that it will automatically mean women will testify while wearing the veil.

You want to believe this - go right ahead.  We in Quebec have a different definition of what social ... hygiene should be.  I'll grant you Sikhs *may* not strive towards social recognition of female submission.  But some Muslims certainly do.

All this would be made so much simpler by filtering the kind of immigrants we allow within our borders.




G.

[viper37]

Umm, it's an electoralist ploy because it's anti-immigrant (or at least anti-muslim)...

But they don't need 30% more votes, and they ain't getting it either.

To quote myself with some date from the latest poll:
Numbers on page 4
1st table:
1st column: numbers as they are
2nd column: will not vote / I don't know / Did not answer split 1/3 PLQ, 1/3 PQ and the rest split between all other parties.

That gives 30% raw for the PQ, 34% with the "did not answer" split.  Looking at only the raw data, that's 2% less than the last election.  And looking at the 3rd column, only 41% of the French speaking Québécois would vote for them...  Less than half.

They did however gain 5% from the previous poll of this firm, wich was their historic low.  This could be an effect of the charter or more likely, the effect of seeing the PQ in the news.

Also keep in mind 2 things:
1- Léger Marketing methodoly is strictly internet votes.  It has a tendancy to over-evaluate PQ supporters. 
2- At the last election, there was, IIRC, a 3% gap between the polls and the final results.  The PLQ finished much higher than anyone predicted.

What that means is that despite appealing the most basic populist instinct, the fear of the unknown, the mistrust of the "other", the PQ still can't hope to be a majority govn't if they hold election soon (despite their own law on fixed date election, without even the possibility that the other parties could defeat them).

[Josephus]

Not to change the subject, but to change the subject, looks like the press council agrees with me:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/16/press_council_ford_crack_video_story_passed_threepart_test_for_responsible_reporting.html

[crazy canuck]

fyi, the "responsible journalism test" is a pretty low bar.  If a journalist cant even meet that low threshold it means the piece is defamatory.  Not exactly the measure of stellar reporting.

[Grey Fox]

Looks like the Rest of Canada is going to get government mandated A la carte channels from CableCos.

You'll like it.

[crazy canuck]

Looks like the Rest of Canada is going to get government mandated A la carte channels from CableCos.

You'll like it.

I have mixed feelings about that.  On the one hand I hate having to bundle channels that I will never ever watch.  On the other hand I also get to watch channels that very few others in Canada would choose.

[Grey Fox]

Looks like the Rest of Canada is going to get government mandated A la carte channels from CableCos.

You'll like it.

I have mixed feelings about that.  On the one hand I hate having to bundle channels that I will never ever watch.  On the other hand I also get to watch channels that very few others in Canada would choose.

Like what?

Currently, I have the CRTC mandated base package & 15 additional channels. It's actually a little more than that since Sportsnet count has 1 but is 4 channel, same for TSN & TSN2.

[crazy canuck]

Like what?

I like getting Bold for shows like the Borgias.  I like getting the Science, National Geographic and History and Documentary channels.  There is also a new channel that is going to be showing Reign.  I am skeptical that the majority of Canadians share my tastes in entertainment and that all that will be left after the lowest common denominator has spoken are the sports, news and reality TV along with AMC until the walking dead series wraps.

[Grey Fox]

It's a fair worry.

I don't know if there is any figures & statistics about change in subscription in Quebec under the A la Carte system that are available publicly.

[viper37]

Like what?

I like getting Bold for shows like the Borgias.  I like getting the Science, National Geographic and History and Documentary channels.  There is also a new channel that is going to be showing Reign.  I am skeptical that the majority of Canadians share my tastes in entertainment and that all that will be left after the lowest common denominator has spoken are the sports, news and reality TV along with AMC until the walking dead series wraps.

I think Reign is on CW.  It's on a channel were I watch something, that's for sure, I keep seeing the ads.

[viper37]

Like what?

Currently, I have the CRTC mandated base package & 15 additional channels. It's actually a little more than that since Sportsnet count has 1 but is 4 channel, same for TSN & TSN2.

I'd like it very much if I wasn't forced to subscribe to these non-HD channels in order to get the high def ones.   

[Grey Fox]

You are not. You are subbing to HD channels, You have the non-HD as a gift.