[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Valmy]

The US government's boldness must be an inspiration then 

[Jacob]

On another note, I was reading up the other day on some of the cabinet members and I was particularly struck by the resume of the new Defense Minister - who apparently had successful careers as a police detective before having a decorated career in the army, rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. Seems a vey strong choice.

One detail struck me as amusing, given the whole "reasonable accommodation" debates we have seen off and on again (and of course in the election). The new Minister is a practicing Sikh, with the turban and facial hair that sect requires. Allegedly, the typical army gas masks don't work with a beard - so this fellow went out and invented one that did. Got it patented, too. So he can add "inventor" to his list of accomplishments. 

In the United States, there are roughly 1.4 million active-duty members of the military. Only three of them are Sikh men, and they all serve in noncombat roles. Except under very rare circumstances, the Pentagon prohibits active-duty service members from having facial hair and wearing religious headwear. Sikh leaders in the United States have long pushed for reforms to policies they say deter Sikh men, whose beards and turbans are considered nonnegotiable articles of faith, from joining the military.

One reason the Pentagon prohibits Sikhs from wearing beards is because they argue they are not compatible with gas masks. But while serving in the Canadian military, Sajjan created his own version of the gas mask, which he later patented, in order to keep his beard. In 2011, when he served as an advisor to U.S. Lt. Gen. James Terry in Afghanistan, he noted the paradox of his situation.

"It's ironic," he said. "There I was advising the top generals, and the U.S. Army doesn't allow Sikhs [in turbans] to join."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/05/canadas-new-defense-minister-made-his-own-gas-mask-to-work-with-his-sikh-beard/

The high school the Mr. Sajjan went to is in our catchment, and is a few blocks from our house. Back then, the area was pretty rough. I read recently that Mr. Sajjan was at that school at the same time as Bindy Johal (a pretty notorious gangster), and that he embraced Sikhism less out of religious motives and more for cultural reasons and to serve as a means to steer clear of trouble - and that he'd later be arresting and investigating several of his peers who'd gone down the crime route instead.

[Malthus]

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election.

It depends on how you mean by "played much of a role". I think the declaration that the Liberals were going to run deficits for three years struck a cord in a number of ways.

It was fairly bold in the face of the prevailing austerity currents flowing in public discourse worldwide, so it came across as leadership. It also, I expect, helped with the various voter groups who felt their priorities were being fiscally starved - be arts people, gov't workers, health care, or and a number of other areas.

It may not have been the main focus of the rhetoric, but I think it helped the Liberals beat the NDP on the left, and I think it helped define the Liberals positively.

Seemed to me that what helped the Libs against the NDP more than anything was the Con's use of identity politics as a wedge issue in Quebec.

Way the election looked to me was that a large number of voters were voting "against Harper" (rather than "for" any particular party). These voters were, basically, seeing which of the two alternatives - Libs and NDP - were emerging as the likely front-runner, and initially it looked like that was going to be the NDP. Hence, the NDP moved sharply towards the middle. As you may recall, the NDP had excellent polling numbers early on and looked like the party to beat, not the Libs.

However, the Cons, growing more alarmed by the NDP, and thinking that their "he's not ready" messaging already had bite against Trudeau, decided to jig in the direction of trotting out foolish gimmicks like the 'snitch line' and making a big deal about the Muslim head-covering as wedge issues, all to demolish the NDP in Quebec, which was the NDP's stronghold.

This largely worked, in bashing the NDP down - but, ironically, it made the Libs more attractive to the anti-Harper vote. That concentrated the anti-vote into one party, leading to Con defeat.

The whole thing could very easily have gone the other way, had the Cons not indulged in what must have seemed, in the heat of some election back room, like a brilliant idea. Though I suspect that what would have happened, is that the vote would have gone 'all NDP' instead of 'all Liberal', and right now we would have been discussing the great wisdom of the NDP's move into 'fiscal responsibility'. 

[Malthus]

On another note, I was reading up the other day on some of the cabinet members and I was particularly struck by the resume of the new Defense Minister - who apparently had successful careers as a police detective before having a decorated career in the army, rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. Seems a vey strong choice.

One detail struck me as amusing, given the whole "reasonable accommodation" debates we have seen off and on again (and of course in the election). The new Minister is a practicing Sikh, with the turban and facial hair that sect requires. Allegedly, the typical army gas masks don't work with a beard - so this fellow went out and invented one that did. Got it patented, too. So he can add "inventor" to his list of accomplishments. 

In the United States, there are roughly 1.4 million active-duty members of the military. Only three of them are Sikh men, and they all serve in noncombat roles. Except under very rare circumstances, the Pentagon prohibits active-duty service members from having facial hair and wearing religious headwear. Sikh leaders in the United States have long pushed for reforms to policies they say deter Sikh men, whose beards and turbans are considered nonnegotiable articles of faith, from joining the military.

One reason the Pentagon prohibits Sikhs from wearing beards is because they argue they are not compatible with gas masks. But while serving in the Canadian military, Sajjan created his own version of the gas mask, which he later patented, in order to keep his beard. In 2011, when he served as an advisor to U.S. Lt. Gen. James Terry in Afghanistan, he noted the paradox of his situation.

"It's ironic," he said. "There I was advising the top generals, and the U.S. Army doesn't allow Sikhs [in turbans] to join."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/05/canadas-new-defense-minister-made-his-own-gas-mask-to-work-with-his-sikh-beard/

The high school the Mr. Sajjan went to is in our catchment, and is a few blocks from our house. Back then, the area was pretty rough. I read recently that Mr. Sajjan was at that school at the same time as Bindy Johal (a pretty notorious gangster), and that he embraced Sikhism less out of religious motives and more for cultural reasons and to serve as a means to steer clear of trouble - and that he'd later be arresting and investigating several of his peers who'd gone down the crime route instead.

The quote I see repeated from him is this:

"It wasn't really a religious thing. It was an identity thing. I needed the commitment because I knew it would keep me on the right path. I found the true meaning of Sikhism and I loved the warrior aspect of it ... When I was fighting to understand who I am, that (warrior) aspect was something that I really identified with."

Seems to me one could interpret this in various ways - that he *initially* became a committed Sikh as an "identity" thing, but then, once he was one, he "found the true meaning of Sikhism" as important to his self-identity. Not knowing a lot about Sikhism, I'm not sure what the "true meaning of Sikhism" is. Though I read once that one of the Sikh gurus is one of the few, if not the only, religious figures who suffered martyrdom as a result of upholding some other religion's religious freedoms, which always struck me as admirable! 

In any event, he was evidently committed enough to Sikhism to insist on wearing its symbols, like the beard, to the point of inventing special equipment to allow him (and other Sikhs) to follow the military career while doing so, rather than shaving it off.

[viper37]

What I see is the private sector gradually taking over government investments.  Many regions are booming, but big cities are failing.  No surprise there.

What you see is not necessarily accurate for the rest of the country.  I am not sure how one could argue that Vancouver and Toronto are failing. 

then there's no need for another unuseful stimulus package.

There is a need to address the failure of the Federal government to participate in a number of infrastructure projects, as just one example, whether or not the economy is in a deficit position.

the Federal was participating, and for a majority of economists, that was the best way: long term investments, not short term rush.

[Valmy]

Not knowing a lot about Sikhism, I'm not sure what the "true meaning of Sikhism" is. Though I read once that one of the Sikh gurus is one of the few, if not the only, religious figures who suffered martyrdom as a result of upholding some other religion's religious freedoms, which always struck me as admirable! 

Yeah neither do I. It is remarkably esoteric. But the martyr thing makes perfect sense in the context of Sikhism, it was a religion created in the midst of the mix of Islamic and Hindu beliefs as a way to incorporate the truths of the two into the true truth.

[viper37]

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election.

It depends on how you mean by "played much of a role". I think the declaration that the Liberals were going to run deficits for three years struck a cord in a number of ways.

It was fairly bold in the face of the prevailing austerity currents flowing in public discourse worldwide, so it came across as leadership. It also, I expect, helped with the various voter groups who felt their priorities were being fiscally starved - be arts people, gov't workers, health care, or and a number of other areas.

It may not have been the main focus of the rhetoric, but I think it helped the Liberals beat the NDP on the left, and I think it helped define the Liberals positively.

You have a weird definition of leadership.  Doing what's popular = leadership ?  Weird.  I always thought leadership was doing the right thing even if it was not popular.

[viper37]

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election.

It depends on how you mean by "played much of a role". I think the declaration that the Liberals were going to run deficits for three years struck a cord in a number of ways.

It was fairly bold in the face of the prevailing austerity currents flowing in public discourse worldwide, so it came across as leadership. It also, I expect, helped with the various voter groups who felt their priorities were being fiscally starved - be arts people, gov't workers, health care, or and a number of other areas.

It may not have been the main focus of the rhetoric, but I think it helped the Liberals beat the NDP on the left, and I think it helped define the Liberals positively.

Seemed to me that what helped the Libs against the NDP more than anything was the Con's use of identity politics as a wedge issue in Quebec.

Way the election looked to me was that a large number of voters were voting "against Harper" (rather than "for" any particular party). These voters were, basically, seeing which of the two alternatives - Libs and NDP - were emerging as the likely front-runner, and initially it looked like that was going to be the NDP. Hence, the NDP moved sharply towards the middle. As you may recall, the NDP had excellent polling numbers early on and looked like the party to beat, not the Libs.

However, the Cons, growing more alarmed by the NDP, and thinking that their "he's not ready" messaging already had bite against Trudeau, decided to jig in the direction of trotting out foolish gimmicks like the 'snitch line' and making a big deal about the Muslim head-covering as wedge issues, all to demolish the NDP in Quebec, which was the NDP's stronghold.

This largely worked, in bashing the NDP down - but, ironically, it made the Libs more attractive to the anti-Harper vote. That concentrated the anti-vote into one party, leading to Con defeat.

The whole thing could very easily have gone the other way, had the Cons not indulged in what must have seemed, in the heat of some election back room, like a brilliant idea. Though I suspect that what would have happened, is that the vote would have gone 'all NDP' instead of 'all Liberal', and right now we would have been discussing the great wisdom of the NDP's move into 'fiscal responsibility'. 

the snitch line did not get any coverage here.  No political talk show even talked about this.  The niqab was all the rage back then.  We have our limits.  We can't be angry for more than one thing at a time.

[Grey Fox]

Those things are rarely mutually exclusive.

Yeah, only place I hear of the snitch line is on here.

[crazy canuck]

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election.

It depends on how you mean by "played much of a role". I think the declaration that the Liberals were going to run deficits for three years struck a cord in a number of ways.

It was fairly bold in the face of the prevailing austerity currents flowing in public discourse worldwide, so it came across as leadership. It also, I expect, helped with the various voter groups who felt their priorities were being fiscally starved - be arts people, gov't workers, health care, or and a number of other areas.

It may not have been the main focus of the rhetoric, but I think it helped the Liberals beat the NDP on the left, and I think it helped define the Liberals positively.

You have a weird definition of leadership.  Doing what's popular = leadership ?  Weird.  I always thought leadership was doing the right thing even if it was not popular.

At the time the Liberals made the commitment it was very much going against the grain.  Both the NDP and the Conservatives had committed to balanced budgets.  When the Liberals took their position they were still well behind in the polls and there was no certainty that their policy position would become popular.

[Jacob]

At the time the Liberals made the commitment it was very much going against the grain.  Both the NDP and the Conservatives had committed to balanced budgets.  When the Liberals took their position they were still well behind in the polls and there was no certainty that their policy position would become popular.

Yeah, the orthodoxy of the time was very much "balanced budgets!"

[Barrister]

At the time the Liberals made the commitment it was very much going against the grain.  Both the NDP and the Conservatives had committed to balanced budgets.  When the Liberals took their position they were still well behind in the polls and there was no certainty that their policy position would become popular.

Yeah, the orthodoxy of the time was very much "balanced budgets!"

And with good reason.

[crazy canuck]

At the time the Liberals made the commitment it was very much going against the grain.  Both the NDP and the Conservatives had committed to balanced budgets.  When the Liberals took their position they were still well behind in the polls and there was no certainty that their policy position would become popular.

Yeah, the orthodoxy of the time was very much "balanced budgets!"

And with good reason.

And was never going to happen because the Conservative assumptions were too optimistic.  The Liberals had the right idea all along 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-inherit-deficit-that-could-jeopardize-budget-goals-study/article27185719/

[Josephus]

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election.

It depends on how you mean by "played much of a role". I think the declaration that the Liberals were going to run deficits for three years struck a cord in a number of ways.

It was fairly bold in the face of the prevailing austerity currents flowing in public discourse worldwide, so it came across as leadership. It also, I expect, helped with the various voter groups who felt their priorities were being fiscally starved - be arts people, gov't workers, health care, or and a number of other areas.

It may not have been the main focus of the rhetoric, but I think it helped the Liberals beat the NDP on the left, and I think it helped define the Liberals positively.

You have a weird definition of leadership.  Doing what's popular = leadership ?  Weird.  I always thought leadership was doing the right thing even if it was not popular.

At the time the Liberals made the commitment it was very much going against the grain.  Both the NDP and the Conservatives had committed to balanced budgets.  When the Liberals took their position they were still well behind in the polls and there was no certainty that their policy position would become popular.

As I've said earlier. It was this pronouncement that made me go Liberal over NDP. At the time I wasn't sure yet, but was leaning NDP.

[Ancient Demon]

That article is exactly what the Conservatives don't need.  The Conservatives wont learn the proper lessons from this defeat if they don't think their policies and rhetoric were too extreme.  The Conservatives are never going to be in power again if they only appeal to the right wing that appreciated both those things.

A majority of Canadians supported the Conservatives on most of the issues where you think they were too extreme. It was already pointed out to you several times how popular the Niqab ban was, when are you going to get this through your head? The worst thing they could do is listen more to people like you. The Conservatives lost primarily for economic reasons.