[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

The first test is whether he can obtain the confidence of Parliament.

A significant number of Liberal and NDP voters would be severely disappointed if they provided a confidence vote to a Conservative minority. I'm not sure if that's something they'd do.

[Josephus]

The first test is whether he can obtain the confidence of Parliament.

A significant number of Liberal and NDP voters would be severely disappointed if they provided a confidence vote to a Conservative minority. I'm not sure if that's something they'd do.

They won't.

How many seats the Bloc gets can be significant here.

[crazy canuck]

You are both assuming it is a confidence vote that will bring down the government.  It isn't.  The first step is convincing the GG that he has the necessary confidence of Parliament to form a government.

Now, this is a scenario that likely won't play out but if it does I don't think Harper will be able to convince the GG he can govern given the statements of the other parties that they will not support the Conservatives under any circumstances.  The Parliamentary conventions are not that the person with the most seats gets to govern unless that person does have a majority.  After that it is all about their ability to form a government.

[crazy canuck]

Here is a post I made about this upthread

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4648.msg916065.html#msg916065

[Josephus]

Those of you on twitter: #moreglobeendorsements

some are funny

[Jacob]

Those of you on twitter: #moreglobeendorsements

some are funny

Those of you not on twitter can still see them if you google "#moreglobeendorsements twitter".

[Jacob]

Rumours that Andrew Coyne may have resigned from the National Post: http://canadalandshow.com/article/andrew-coyne-v-national-post

[Jacob]

Another inside perspective on the niqab ugliness: http://canadalandshow.com/article/my-culture-seen-barbaric

[viper37]

Niqab woman working for radical islam organisation (french)]http://www.journaldequebec.com/2015/10/16/la-femme-au-niqab-uvre-au-sein-dune-organisation-radicale]Niqab woman working for radical islam organisation (french)

English summary of above text
Also of note: after medias began asking questions, her Facebook page was scrubbed of all mentions of this group.
"Innocent victim" my ass.  She's a radical working to promote her agenda and incite division among the community.

The Real story about the niqab
Describes how a woman previous "freely" wearing a niqab was asked to remove it for a few minutes, the time to take her citizenship oath.  She heartily agreed, only for her husband to make a scene and protest.

As I said, you are playing in the hands of extremists.

Under the guise of protecting "vulnerable minorities", some of you are voting Liberal.  Not only are you cuddling extremists, but this party has proven itself the decisive factor in French canadians assimilation outside of Quebec since it's first run at power. And right now, Trudeau has declared himself (twice, even though he claimed "it was a mistake" the first time) opposed to the dual education system of many provinces, the only significant gain by French communities outside of Quebec, the only thing that let them have their own school and their own financing, even though some, like in BC, still struggle to get that basic right.  No other party has divided canadians more than the Liberals, English vs French, Canada vs Quebec, East vs West, yet, supposedly, the Cons are the ones dividing Canada, by supporting something 82% of Canadians agree with.

As always, the Liberals favour a bilingual society, according to Justin.  French-English biliguism, English-something bilinguism is usually what they mean.

Food for thought.

[Razgovory]

Do you oppose other forms of "soft oppression" of women?  Such as pornography?

[Valmy]

Do you oppose other forms of "soft oppression" of women?  Such as pornography?

Is there a culture that demands that all women do pornography? If there is than I would.

Also: only women do pornography? That has to be bummer for some of our posters.

[viper37]

Do you oppose other forms of "soft oppression" of women?  Such as pornography?

See Valmy's answer, I am of the same opinion.

[viper37]

No, not in any way. They took it down. There was nothing particularly forceful about it, nor does it have anything to do with individuals rights to wear/display it.

The gov't of SC took it down after a racist dude killed a few blacks proclaiming they were threatening his way of life.
They took it down because of the symbolism it had, not because the colors did not fit with the new paint job.

So, it would seem, some symbols do have power.  And some government will not accept some symbols in the government.

Now, if you want to argue that the Canadian Parliament should not show up to work wearing head scarves, then I guess this bizarro analogy might make some shred of sense.

The particular issue is about taking your oath of citizenship with your face covered, for one, but also for the symbolism it represents, just like the Confederate flag or Nazi flag or other symbols.  I would favour extending it to government employees providing services to the public: face uncovered for giving and receiving gov't services.  If I have to renew my driver's license, I have to remove my hat so I can have my picture taken.  Just because someone is religious does not mean she should have her face covered on her ID. 
But that is provincial matters.  For federal matters, it concerns passport ID, voting identification and oath of citizenship, mainly.

[Razgovory]

Do you oppose other forms of "soft oppression" of women?  Such as pornography?

Is there a culture that demands that all women do pornography? If there is than I would.

Also: only women do pornography? That has to be bummer for some of our posters.

Not sure why that's relevant since Canada does not require this.  If the existence of Pornography is a form of oppression, then we should outlaw it right?

[Razgovory]

No, not in any way. They took it down. There was nothing particularly forceful about it, nor does it have anything to do with individuals rights to wear/display it.

The gov't of SC took it down after a racist dude killed a few blacks proclaiming they were threatening his way of life.
They took it down because of the symbolism it had, not because the colors did not fit with the new paint job.

So, it would seem, some symbols do have power.  And some government will not accept some symbols in the government.

Now, if you want to argue that the Canadian Parliament should not show up to work wearing head scarves, then I guess this bizarro analogy might make some shred of sense.

The particular issue is about taking your oath of citizenship with your face covered, for one, but also for the symbolism it represents, just like the Confederate flag or Nazi flag or other symbols.  I would favour extending it to government employees providing services to the public: face uncovered for giving and receiving gov't services.  If I have to renew my driver's license, I have to remove my hat so I can have my picture taken.  Just because someone is religious does not mean she should have her face covered on her ID. 
But that is provincial matters.  For federal matters, it concerns passport ID, voting identification and oath of citizenship, mainly.

You really don't understand the difference between a state actor and a private actor do you?