[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

It is not racism, it is anti-clericalism.

I am sorry - the way this argument is being played is totally, at best, xenophobia, at worst, fucking racism.

Oex,

It's great to have you back.  I have been wondering what your view would be.

[Barrister]

How do you resolve the misogynistic thing tho?

When people - like Harper and BB - who have never given a crap about misogyny and whose policies are indifferent (at best) towards issues of misogyny start throwing the word around to harass specific ethnic and religious minorities for electoral gain, you resolve it by dismissing it as calculated racism.

Hey, Fuck you too Jacob.

I'm sorry, I missed the time in our 10+ years of political discussions here where you've shown any concern for misogyny politically, or indeed any political concern whatsoever for women's issues of any kind.

Now, you're a decent guy and all, but using this new found political concern with misogyny as a justification for pandering to anti-muslim bigots is pretty damn weak-sauce. I was dismayed to see it from Harper, but I'm genuinely surprised to hear it from you.

Not sure where to start...

First of all I already said the Conservatives stance on the Niqab is pandering.  It's a total non-issue, I really could care less about what someone wears in a completely symbolic citizenship ceremony.  I believe I've also been involved in debates where I defended the right of women to wear the Niqab when giving evidence in court (to shorten a long argument - the ability to read people's faces as a means of truth-telling is wildly overblown).

Where I differ from crazy canuck is that I frankly expect politicians to pander during elections.  Harper is right on all the big issues, and if this issue gets him some more votes then you gotta do what you gotta do.

As for "I've never cared about misogyny"... On the one hand I don't buy in to a lot of the modern white feminist talking points.  However working in the trenches these last ten plus years in issues of sexual assault and domestic violence have deeply touched me on how anti-woman sizable segments of our society can be.

But I don't want to get involved in a Berkutian "attack what you say the poster believes, and not what the poster is saying"" kind of debate, because there can be no winning such a debate.  If you want to write off anything I say because you think I'm not actually anti-misogynist, well then, I'll stick with

Hey, Fuck you too Jacob.

[Jacob]

First of all I already said the Conservatives stance on the Niqab is pandering.  It's a total non-issue, I really could care less about what someone wears in a completely symbolic citizenship ceremony.  I believe I've also been involved in debates where I defended the right of women to wear the Niqab when giving evidence in court (to shorten a long argument - the ability to read people's faces as a means of truth-telling is wildly overblown).

Okay, this is all fair enough.

Where I differ from crazy canuck is that I frankly expect politicians to pander during elections.  Harper is right on all the big issues, and if this issue gets him some more votes then you gotta do what you gotta do.

I guess the difference is whether pandering to bigots is crossing a line or not, and whether covering it up with insincere statements that it's about fighting misogyny makes

As for "I've never cared about misogyny"... On the one hand I don't buy in to a lot of the modern white feminist talking points.  However working in the trenches these last ten plus years in issues of sexual assault and domestic violence have deeply touched me on how anti-woman sizable segments of our society can be.

This is also legitimate.

I'm intrigued by you not buying into the "modern white feminist talking points" - especially in the context of the anti-women attitudes you have seen in the trenches - since it implies that there are some (non-white?) feminist viewpoints that you find more persuasive.

But I don't want to get involved in a Berkutian "attack what you say the poster believes, and not what the poster is saying"" kind of debate, because there can be no winning such a debate.  If you want to write off anything I say because you think I'm not actually anti-misogynist, well then, I'll stick with

My apologies, I see that including you in the original statement was in error. I mistook your comments on the misogyny of the niqab as being a sincere argument for Harper's recent direction on this when it appears it was merely a tangent. Rather it seems we agree that it is pandering, and merely differ on how odious it is.

Out of curiosity, where would you draw the line on this sort of stuff? How far would a party have to go to alienate you on bigotry if they otherwise lined up with you better than on other issues?

[Barrister]

Well... the Niqab is deeply misogynistic though.  It's all about owning women, about walling them off from the rest of society.  That part is completely true.

Where I differ is that attempts to ban it are generally counter-productive.  It's going to just shut those women off further from society, and not encourage them to engage with the wider civil society.

And when it comes to pandering, you seem to draw a bright line at pandering to anything that could be seen as racist, but have zero problems with Liberal/NDP efforts at pandering to classist sentiments such as "make the rich pay their fair share".

As for "when do you draw the line"?  To quote the USSC "I'll know it when I see it".

[Rex Francorum]

Though I guess GF invited this upon himself by claiming it had something to do with misogyny.

The hijab, niquad & Burka are misoginistic clothing items. The women wearing them were coerce into wearing them. Those that claim to do it out of their own will are deluding themselves. Islam is an anti-women religion.

High heels are misoginistic clothing items. The women wearing them were coerce into wearing them. Those that claim to do it out of their own will are deluding themselves. Fashion statements like that are anti-women.

High heels are not required by any male driven religion, afaik. It is not the same.


Have you picked a party to vote for CC? I think I am going to give every other Quebecer on this board an heart attack & vote Liberal.

C'est réussi.

[Valmy]

I don't know man. A woman wearing to many clothes is oppressing her, if she doesn't wear enough clothes she is being objectified. She has to reach this important sweet spot of truth and justice in the middle where she can both be subjectified and liberated.

Or maybe we make too much about women's clothes.

[Jacob]

Well... the Niqab is deeply misogynistic though.  It's all about owning women, about walling them off from the rest of society.  That part is completely true.

So if a woman says she's doing it of her own volition, over the protests of her male relatives then what? It's internalized misogyny?

Where I differ is that attempts to ban it are generally counter-productive.  It's going to just shut those women off further from society, and not encourage them to engage with the wider civil society.

On this we agree. If you want assimilation, the best thing is to leave people be and seduce them with consumer culture and giving them no reason to feel defensive.

And when it comes to pandering, you seem to draw a bright line at pandering to anything that could be seen as racist, but have zero problems with Liberal/NDP efforts at pandering to classist sentiments such as "make the rich pay their fair share".

I think the rich paying their fair share is sound economic policy, so it's not pandering as far as I'm concerned

I do think that there's a point where taxation policy is counter productive, but where that lies is technocratic rather than ideological IMO and should be ideally be determined practical grounds.

I'll concede that some individuals get a little too carried away with conspiracy theory laden anti-banker and anti-corporate sentiments, but those are individual crackpots rather than any kind of party or politician statements. If I ever see a candidate - especially a leader - advocating confiscating individual property from specific rich individuals to rouse populist sentiments or confiscating the assets of corporations without adequate compensation and overriding national interest then a very clear line has been crossed IMO; but not even the local Marxist candidates are going for that so it'll be a while before we're there.

As for "when do you draw the line"?  To quote the USSC "I'll know it when I see it".

Keep me posted

[Valmy]

On this we agree. If you want assimilation, the best thing is to leave people be and seduce them with consumer culture and giving them no reason to feel defensive.

This is the North American way. We only fuck it up when we trip over our own dicks. Stupid racism.

[Syt]

I'm putting this here: is Ezra Isaac Levant a relevant journalist in Canada?

I have a few Facebook "friends" who share a German translation of his video criticizing Merkel's refugee policies - the English original (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_8kc19DL70&feature=youtu.be) is part of Rebel Media, so I'm in inclined to not put much stock in it. The video is titled Did Merkel just "read out Germany's suicide note"?

Ezra Levant of TheRebel.Media reports that Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, said there should be no limits for immigration from the Muslim Middle East to Germany. With that, she started the stampede. No application forms, no proof - anyone who can make it gets thousands of dollars plus access to Germany's existing welfare state.

But you have to see this incredible video of a German woman who looks like a progressive liberal, and she's asking: Aren't you putting our own country at risk?

If you dare to ask questions like that, you're called a Nazi -- which, in Germany, tends to shut people up.

Merkel's logic seems to be: Sure, jihadists are evil, but who are we to speak? Don't forget how evil we were in the past.

But that's not a sound public policy. That's personal therapy.

This is Angela Merkel's world view: Germany doesn't belong to the Germans. Germans don't deserve Germany. Foreigners fresh off a train do and just shut up if you disagree — don't you know that Germany is guilty, guilty, guilty?

I disagree. I'm a Jew. Hatred for the Nazis was taught to me from childhood but I know that Germany today is not Nazi; they're liberal.The grandchildren of the Nazis are not guilty by birth. And even if they were, the solution, the punishment, would not to be to let in a million Muslim men, including amongst them today's Nazis, those from radical Islam.

Angela Merkel just read out Germany's suicide note. The fact that this video is so under-reported tells me that most media, frankly, agree.

[crazy canuck]

No, he is on the fringe. He recently worked for a cable news network in Canada that tried to emulate Fox News.  The enterprise failed miserably.  Iirc his headline show attracted only about 3k viewers.

[Grey Fox]

I don't know who that is.

Altho to be fair, I cannot name you any non-sports Anglo Canadian journalists.

[Barrister]

Ah, Ezra.  I remember him well from my Reform Party youth days.  He's an entertaining character to be sure.  But he's always had a flair for over-the-top drama.

Is he relevant?  He's fairly effective at getting media attention, so in a certain sense he is relevant.  But he's not a mainstream journalist to be sure.

[crazy canuck]

Well... the Niqab is deeply misogynistic though.  It's all about owning women, about walling them off from the rest of society.  That part is completely true.

While it is politically expedient for the Conservatives to assert that it is true.  And while it may well help your conscience voting for a party which tries to appeal to the very worst in Canadians, it most certainly is not "completely" true.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/i-used-to-dislike-the-niqab-harper-showed-me-how-wrong-i-was/article23580767/

[crazy canuck]

Ah, Ezra.  I remember him well from my Reform Party youth days.  He's an entertaining character to be sure.  But he's always had a flair for over-the-top drama.

Is he relevant?  He's fairly effective at getting media attention, so in a certain sense he is relevant.  But he's not a mainstream journalist to be sure.

A flair for making the most extreme idiotic arguments yes.  It is the only way he ever gets attention so I guess he has to go with what works for him.  Not at all surprising he was once a Reformer. 

[viper37]

And you're seriously comparing wearing a niqab to sexually abusing children?

Because a comparison is automatically akin to =.  You guys are weird when you want to.

Your argument was that such laws would not prevent woman abuse, so why have it anyway?  My argument is that you could say the same for every laws.

The victim of a pedophile is not protected by laws.  He/she is a victim.  The fact that the agressor may be sent to jail after the fact has done nothing to protect the victim.  It is the same with murder, rape, just about anything can be used with your silly argument.

However, by making laws to protect children against sex absuse, we have raised public awareness.  100 years ago, nobody would have raised an eyebrow learning that there were 14 year old prostitutes in the local brothel.  Today, such things would be reported to police if they were to be known.  Child molestation and rape cases are investigated and prosecuted, and most judges would punish the rapist, not accuse the victim.  Laws like that made these changes possible.

So, a law that would remove the acceptance of the niqab/burqa from official government business would not solve the problem of a woman being abused by her husband.  It would not magically transform cultural practices based on the inferiority of a women and make these people as westerners as we are.  It would however delegitimize the practice.  It would relegate it to a weird cultural practice, enforced by a few old timers, clinging to long lost traditions, instead of making it mainstream, instead of pushing it as the cultural norm.  And that's what numerous muslims, heck, the majority of them are asking.  Maybe you should listen to them instead of the Muslim Brotherhood.