[Discussion] Canadian Politics Catch-All

A place to discuss Canadian politics and more general political topics through a Canadian lens.

Djinn wrote:

Oh, Quebec isn't racist. They're secular. There's a difference. /s

Quebec takes its cues from France. Calling them racist is an easy smear. I dont agree with this step but it's easy to see it as a continuation of the province's steady push for secularization. This has been going on for quite some time and it has to be taken in context of just exactly how much of the province was under the thumb of the catholic church and for how long that was the case.

You know you could try to understand what's happening.... or smear 8 million people. Up to you.

Tyops wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Oh, Quebec isn't racist. They're secular. There's a difference. /s

Quebec takes its cues from France. Calling them racist is an easy smear. I dont agree with this step but it's easy to see it as a continuation of the province's steady push for secularization. This has been going on for quite some time and it has to be taken in context of just exactly how much of the province was under the thumb of the catholic church and for how long that was the case.

You know you could try to understand what's happening.... or smear 8 million people. Up to you.

Until Quebec takes down the crucifix sitting over the speaker's chair in the Assemblée Nationale they are in no position to talk about pushing for secularization. Religious symbols bad, Catholic symbols good is not remotely secular.

Tyops wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Oh, Quebec isn't racist. They're secular. There's a difference. /s

Quebec takes its cues from France. Calling them racist is an easy smear. I dont agree with this step but it's easy to see it as a continuation of the province's steady push for secularization.

But officially this has nothing to do with secularization. According to Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée, this ban is not targeting religious symbols; it's targeting facial coverings.

The bill, Vallée said, is unlike the PQ's failed values charter in that it doesn't target religious symbols. The law would also apply, for instance, to masked protesters.

"We're talking about having the face uncovered. It's not what is covering the face," she said.

This is a security measure that has nothing to do with religious symbols and conveniently primarily targets Muslim women.

The crucifix in the National Assembly is not there as a religious symbol, but rather as a memorial to their cultural history, which was incredibly religious up until the Quiet Revolution.

In addition, Quebec society is very strongly against the wearing of any visible religious symbol in their public servants, including crucifuxes. Small ones that are hidden are OK. Visible ones are not.

I am exceptionally suspicious of reframing clear symbols of one thing as mere "memorial to cultural history."

Suspicious all you like, the province's motto is "Je me souviens" (either "I remember" or "lest we forget" depending on who you ask). These arent yokels desperately clinging to their confederate monuments. This is a province that bears deep scars of religious influence/overreach.

The policies referenced are completely misguided. No question.

wordsmythe wrote:

I am exceptionally suspicious of reframing clear symbols of one thing as mere "memorial to cultural history."

Mon patrimoine.

Djinn wrote:

Quebec set to pass law banning face coverings for anyone receiving public service — even a bus ride

Oh, Quebec isn't racist. They're secular. There's a difference. /s

The article says that Quebec could be voting on this as early as tomorrow, so let's see what happens.

Quelle surprise!

It's still kind of weird to me how much they seriously want to be France (despite vocalizations to the contrary). When I see something happen in France, I automatically assume it'll show up in Quebec at some point.

On a different note.

I'm guessing we'll be getting a new federal finance minister soon, what with Morneau completely bungling the Canadian Controlled Private Corporation tax reforms and, more importantly, the way he's handled his shares in Morneau Shepell to protect against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclu...

He didn't do the sensible thing when appointed to cabinet, which would be to divest and set up a blind trust holding a market portfolio. He didn't even go through the farce of moving his Morneau Shepell stake into a blind trust, which wouldn't actually have accomplished anything since he'd still hold shares and know he held shares but at least it would have sounded good. He simply rolled his shares into a numbered corporation he controls and carried on.

Chances are 100% that it will get challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The bus thing is unequivocally bonkers.

So, according to the Minister of Justice, this would also apply to mirrorred sunglasses and balaclavas. And, this is all for less than 100 people. Yes, that's right. Muslim community leaders estimate there are less than 100 women in Quebec who wear the burka or the niqab.

That's right. One. Hundred.

I should also note that guidelines for how police officers, provincial workers and municipal employees (like the kid working at the library or working the drop in day camps in the summer) are to handle things should they come across someone that runs afoul of this law are expected to be provided spring/summer 2018.

Necro!

Anyone want to talk about the PC leadership race in Ontario? The last month (holy crap, has it only been a month?) has been like a soap opera.

Part of me wants to believe the whole thing is an internal party hit job. I believe the women, but the fact that they came forward at this moment coupled with the fact that there’s a social con core of the party whose toes Brown has been stepping on for a while, makes me want to think they either chose or were encouraged to come forward in this moment on purpose.

Feegle wrote:

Necro!

Anyone want to talk about the PC leadership race in Ontario? The last month (holy crap, has it only been a month?) has been like a soap opera.

Part of me wants to believe the whole thing is an internal party hit job. I believe the women, but the fact that they came forward at this moment coupled with the fact that there’s a social con core of the party whose toes Brown has been stepping on for a while, makes me want to think they either chose or were encouraged to come forward in this moment on purpose.

There is a lot of momentum for victims because of the #MeToo movement right now, people are starting to both feel that it is safer for them to come out now, and that they have a better chance of being believed and having the crimes acted on, so the risk is lower and the "reward" is higher than it as ever been. Additionally it's really natural for several victims to come forward in a short span of time as the first one breaks the dam and others after that see "wait, my abuser is seeing allegations for abusing someone else? Maybe now is the time that my allegations will be heard".

Whenever people talk about how suspicious it is that a lot of victims came forward at the same moment what I hear is "Guys, isn't it really weird how the thing that happens almost every single time also happened this time?! Super suspicious guys."

That sort of inclination and veiled hostility is actually the exact reason victims correctly identify the need to report in packs for safety. In general anytime someone types or says the words "I believe the victims, BUT" I think that they should take a long, hard look about whether those victims deserve to have more people in their corner, or the abusers corner.

Feegle wrote:

Part of me wants to believe the whole thing is an internal party hit job. I believe the women, but the fact that they came forward at this moment coupled with the fact that there’s a social con core of the party whose toes Brown has been stepping on for a while, makes me want to think they either chose or were encouraged to come forward in this moment on purpose.

If what it took to get these women to come forward was encouragement from someone who was looking to gain political advantage, I'm entirely okay with that.

To be clear, there should not have been a but in my statement; on re-reading it in light of Yonder's comments, AND would have been a better choice, especially with the loaded meaning of putting a but in that position to the sentence.

I believe the victims. I support them coming forward. I'm also okay if they were encouraged to do so by someone else. There is no caveat there. Many victims coming forward at the same time is, in itself, not surprising or suspicious. I apologize if I said something else; I could have taken more time to wordsmith my sentence and will try to do so in the future.

What I was trying to say was this:

Women, some of whom are party members, employees, or otherwise affiliated, have come forward to accuse Patrick Brown of sexual misconduct at a time that is particularly damaging to the PC Party. I wonder if there are serious divisions below the surface of the party that are coming to the fore in a very public and messy way right now.

I hate to say it, but I think Brown's still the best choice to run the party. The other four candidates are right-wing nut jobs (or at least catering to right-wing nut jobs) with terrible policy. They're opposed to the sex-ed curriculum, they want to legally fight Trudeau over the carbon tax, and they want to keep Brown's increased spending plans while cutting the carbon tax that will pay for it. Brown might be a sleazebag, but at least he has decent policies.

Regardless, I'm generally an ABC voter, so it won't affect my vote. I'm really hoping that Andrea Horwath comes out of that cave she and her party have been hiding in for the past two elections and sweeps the province. They'll never have a better chance than now.

That's what I thought too. I'm pretty firmly left on the spectrum, but Patrick Brown has been pushing back against social conservative policies, keeping the new sex-ed curriculum in place and refusing to open up existing reproductive rights for discussion.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to the debates yet, but are Elliott and Mulroney SoCons as well? Doug Ford is a moronic blowhard, and what I heard of Tanya Granic Allen's sound bites from the debate scared the hell out of me; I got the impression that Elliott and Mulroney were a little more centrist.

Elliott looks like the best choice to me. Having been appointed to an Ombudsman position by the Liberal government insulates her a bit from attacks and she obviously doesn't have all the baggage Brown does.

But the whole thing really underlines how having membership elect party leaders in a Parliamentary system is bad: (http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/what-...) , but Corbyn making UK Labour completely ineffectual is still the best example of that.

Roke wrote:

But the whole thing really underlines how having membership elect party leaders in a Parliamentary system is bad: (http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/what-...) , but Corbyn making UK Labour completely ineffectual is still the best example of that.

That's a fascinating article; I legitimately did not know the history of leader selection among parties.

There are pros to grassroots selection in an ideal world - frankly, I kind of like the fact that Corbyn's colleagues keep trying to oust him and the grassroots keep saying, "Nope, we buy what he's selling." The problem seems to be that Corbyn can't translate that to an electoral victory, plus his caucus mates don't seem willing to work with him on the platform that he and his supporters espouse.

As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if the system said something like "you have to have been a member of the party for more than x years to vote for party leader" to curtail the membership drives that end up choosing the new leader.

It's the idea of an external force sweeping in on a tide of populism that has the potential to be dangerous - my brain melts when I consider the fact that Doug Ford might legitimately be the next leader of the opposition or - God forbid - premier.

Feegle wrote:

To be clear, there should not have been a but in my statement; on re-reading it in light of Yonder's comments, AND would have been a better choice, especially with the loaded meaning of putting a but in that position to the sentence.

I believe the victims. I support them coming forward. I'm also okay if they were encouraged to do so by someone else. There is no caveat there. Many victims coming forward at the same time is, in itself, not surprising or suspicious. I apologize if I said something else; I could have taken more time to wordsmith my sentence and will try to do so in the future.

What I was trying to say was this:

Women, some of whom are party members, employees, or otherwise affiliated, have come forward to accuse Patrick Brown of sexual misconduct at a time that is particularly damaging to the PC Party. I wonder if there are serious divisions below the surface of the party that are coming to the fore in a very public and messy way right now.

I understood your context.

I would be 0% surprised if this was already known within the party. 0% surprised also if where there was no support for them to come forward, something changed and there was sudden support to come forward.

I'm a pessimist tho.

Ontario MPP tables bill to lower voting age to 16

I think this is a fantastic idea. Encouraging high school students to get involved in the political process by allowing them to vote would do wonders to boost our anemic youth turn-out rate.

The usual excuse is "they aren't smart or informed enough to vote" but I think at this point we can say that that's a pretty naive read on the current bar for smart and informed voters.

The time is ripe for Votey McMPFace

Ontario PC leadership a toss-up between Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, poll suggests

This way too close for comfort. We'll see the results tomorrow starting at 1pm.

The 5th rule of Canadian politics is all Canadian politics polls are garbage. "If this man kicked a dog, he'd still win the election."

Sources say Doug Ford narrowly elected new Ontario PC leader, but party mum on results

Of course, these aren't official results. Doug Ford won on the first count and he won on the recount, but there's still legal issues casting doubt on the result. The party was supposed to announce the results at 3pm today, but as of 7:30pm nothing has been announced. Everyone has been kicked out of the hall where the event took place because another event is booked.

You almost have to feel sorry for the OPC.

Every step of the way since that Patrick Brown press conference. the Ontairo PCs have managed to make things more of a gongshow It would be impressive if they were doing it deliberately.

Oh Jesus, please don't let Doug Ford win the election please don't let Doug Ford win the election please don't let Doug Ford win the election...

Christine Elliott won’t concede Ontario PC leadership race

Alright, so let's break this down. The OPC leadership race uses a system similar to the US electoral college to determine the victor. Each provincial riding is allocated 100 points and candidates win points equal to their vote share in that riding. The candidate with the most points wins.

Example:
Candidate A wins 600 votes and Candidate B wins 400 votes in Riding 1. Candidate A receives 60 points and Candidate B receives 40 points.

Candidate A wins 20 votes and Candidate B wins 80 votes in Riding 2. Candidate A receives 20 points and candidate B receives 80 points.

Candidate B wins the leadership race with 120 points (44% of the vote) while Candidate A loses with 80 points (56% of the vote).

It's a crappy system that prioritizes small ridings with few conservative members (so basically NDP and Liberal strongholds where Conservatives will never win hold the most power), but that's not the point. The candidates did agree to those rules. The point is that the geographic location of each ballot is extremely important. Elliot's argument is that around 1,300 ballots (2-3% of the total vote) were allocated to the wrong riding, and since the result was extremely close (It's believed that Elliot won the popular vote and the majority of ridings), she's not conceding. If some of those ballots were incorrectly assigned to Riding 1 in my example instead of Riding 2 that would make a huge difference. She has a solid argument.