Canada Election 2015

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

To me, the big problem with that, is that most "legal frameworks" were created under the influence of one specific dominant religion and that legacy ends up enduring and creating persistent systemic biases against religions that weren't influential when the legal framework was in it's formative stages. But like many biases, they aren't blatant enough to notice upon casual observation.

I'm sure there are laws that put restrictions on religions that would never have passed had it been a historically dominant religion that was affected. In other words, the legal framework is naturally permissive of the culture (including its religion) it was developed along side of and in concert with. This is really the big flaw in those "Being equal means being the same" stances.

Of course one could argue that you could address the issue by simply making blanket changes to any law that conflicts with any major religions, like the example of simply offering citizenship oaths online, but I don't see this as practical. There are rules and laws in place that are performing a fairly minor purpose in society in which one could relax for the small percentage of people whose sincerely held religious beliefs are in conflict with the rule without much harm, but if you were to magnify the negative effects of removing the law across all of society, the small amount of harm would be made significant due to scale. Maybe not devastatingly so, but needlessly so.

When considering how to make a rule or a law, we need to weigh the pros and cons, and the pro side may be slightly greater for the vast majority of people who don't have a sincere moral or religious conflict with it, while the effects of the law on people who do would push it greatly into the con side for them. I really don't see how a society is served by insisting on a process that lacks any nuance or consideration of context (aka, understanding that people are individuals.)

What purpose would we really be addressing by allowing the oath to be taken wearing a paper bag or allowing people to have their ID photo taken while wearing a pasta strainer? People making these kinds of protests aren't genuinely advocating for their own ability to move through society in a way that makes them feel comfortable and respected. They're simply doing it to target others out of their own resentments of religion, or immigrants, or what have you. Our society needs to be intelligent enough to navigate these issues without resorting to blunt and simplistic "Being equal means being the same" stances.

I can see where you're coming from. But it's worth mentioning that the (Judeo-)Christian aspect of our society, which we cannot deny, is at this point mostly "structural". It's no longer about promoting a specific religion as the ''normal' one.

All of this being said, even if we decide it's desirable to make exceptions, I am not sure that the niqab is the right kind of exception to be making.

[MonctonRad]

Latest CBC Poll Tracker seat projection:

CPC - 128 seats
LIB - 110 seats
NDP - 98 seats
GRN - 1 seat
BQ - 1 seat

Yet another indication of the subsidence of the "Orange Wave". This is the first time (I think) that the CBC has projected fewer than 100 seats for the NDP.

I wonder who the lucky Bloquiste will be???

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Latest CBC Poll Tracker seat projection:

CPC - 128 seats
LIB - 110 seats
NDP - 98 seats
GRN - 1 seat
BQ - 1 seat

Yet another indication of the subsidence of the "Orange Wave". This is the first time (I think) that the CBC has projected fewer than 100 seats for the NDP.

I wonder who the lucky Bloquiste will be???

Likely the brother of the bard, Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu-Nicolet-Bécancour)... MP for one of lio's many residences!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

To me, the big problem with that, is that most "legal frameworks" were created under the influence of one specific dominant religion and that legacy ends up enduring and creating persistent systemic biases against religions that weren't influential when the legal framework was in it's formative stages. But like many biases, they aren't blatant enough to notice upon casual observation.

I'm sure there are laws that put restrictions on religions that would never have passed had it been a historically dominant religion that was affected. In other words, the legal framework is naturally permissive of the culture (including its religion) it was developed along side of and in concert with. This is really the big flaw in those "Being equal means being the same" stances.

I disagree that any of the following rules have the slighest Christianity taint:

- Must wear a helmet if you're going to ride a motorcycle (since society's going to pay for your healthcare after you crash, we can demand that).

- Can't leave your car parked there during the night, or you'll get ticketed or even towed.

- If you're summoned to court, you can't choose to be and remain masked.

- Can't bring a knife, AK-47, or any other type of lethal weapon aboard a domestic flight.



And as proof of what I'm saying, I will submit that these rules are extremely likely to be in force in countries with basically zero Christian heritage. Say, Japan, for example.

[flar]

It wasn't that long ago that Sunday shopping was an issue.

We have statutory holidays for Christmas and Good Friday

On the one hand, there is certainly a strong Christian ethos in our society.

But on the other hand, it's not PC in some circles to say Merry Christmas. It's "Happy Holidays" instead, to accommodate non-Christians. Obviously it makes a lot of people mad when they get in trouble for saying "Merry Christmas" yet accommodations are made so others can wear a turban in the RCMP, carry a ceremonial dagger to school, or wear a cloth over the face in a citizenship ceremony.

Personally, I think religion needs to be kept private. If your strange customs prevent you from doing something, then that's your choice. That's why I like the guy with the colander on his head, he exposes the absurdity of all this.

If my religion says I can only work on Saturdays and I'm not allowed to talk to people who eat chicken, would anyone make accommodations? Why should we make exceptions for one set of strange customs just because they are old customs? There are lots of "old" customs that were dropped, because they don't make sense any more.

I put all these things in the same category. You can do whatever strange stuff you want, as long as it's legal. But no one should have to change to accommodate these personal choices.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I disagree that any of the following rules have the slighest Christianity taint:

- Must wear a helmet if you're going to ride a motorcycle (since society's going to pay for your healthcare after you crash, we can demand that).

- Can't leave your car parked there during the night, or you'll get ticketed or even towed.

- If you're summoned to court, you can't choose to be and remain masked.

- Can't bring a knife, AK-47, or any other type of lethal weapon aboard a domestic flight.



And as proof of what I'm saying, I will submit that these rules are extremely likely to be in force in countries with basically zero Christian heritage. Say, Japan, for example.

Yeah. There is at least some level of harmonization of societal practices across much of the world that exists whether countries are of the Christian tradition or not.

In most places in the world you cannot take time off several times during your workday to go and pray (outside of your lunch hour and morning and afternoon breaks, if you choose to use them for that), and you won't get your own employer-provided prayer room for that purpose either.

[kiwi]

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2015...ance-on-key-social-issues-says-poll.html


A new poll by Forum Research finds more tolerance on social issues such as marijuana legalization and assisted suicide.


Has Canada become more tolerant on hot-button issues?

That’s what the results of a new Forum Research survey seem to suggest.

The poll of 1,557 randomly selected adults found a majority believe assisted suicide should be made legal and want marijuana legalized. Nearly half, meanwhile, support the idea of legalizing —.

Here’s how respondents feel about these and other controversial issues:

—: When asked “Should — be legal or not?” 49 per cent of Forum poll respondents said yes, and 38 per cent said no. Thirteen per cent replied “don’t know.” The Supreme Court of Canada struck down this country’s — laws in 2013. In its place Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government brought in a law that outlaws the buying, not selling of —.

Assisted suicide: Should assisted suicide be legal or not? Sixty-seven per cent of poll respondents said yes, 23 per cent said no, and 11 per cent said they don’t know. Seventy-one per cent of respondents in B.C. said yes, while 75 per cent of Quebecers said yes. Earlier this year, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the ban on doctor-assisted suicide.

Marijuana: The idea of legalizing pot was favoured by 54 per cent of Forum poll respondents. Thirty-five per cent are against the idea, and 11 per cent said they don’t know. Not surprisingly, the idea had the most traction with the 18 to 34 age group, where 64 per cent of the individuals polled said they like the idea of legalizing pot.

Time to retire: A majority of those surveyed — 65 per cent — want to see the CPP age of retirement switched back from 67 to 65. Twenty-eight per cent are opposed to the idea, and seven per cent said they don’t know.

Methodology: Results for the Forum poll, which was conducted Sept. 21 and 23, are considered accurate plus or minus 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Forum’s poll is weighted statistically by age, region and other variables to ensure the sample reflects the actual population according to the latest census data. The weighting formula has been shared with Torstar and raw polling results are housed at the University of Toronto’s political science department’s data library.

[O-tacular]

Lol!

http://www.thebeaverton.com/culture/item...ls-life-long-promise-to-destroy-the-arts

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Migs

How many times have we heard that now? Do you honestly think Canadians would be receptive of a coalition govt &/or another election? The NDP & Libs are miles apart on many important issues.

The foreign affairs debate tonight should be a good night for Harper as he is a man among boys in that felt. Poll #s right now are very similar to this time in 2011. Harper majority is a very good possibility, even some in CBC admitted so last night.

I fail to see how you, or anybody, could not see Harper's days as numbered. It truly baffles me.

Harper's chances {or anybody's for that matter} of getting a majority are somewhere between zero and nil.

That said, let's play fantasy for a minute and say Harper get's a majority...........his days are STILL numbered. I hate to break your bubble but in that scenario it will be the Conservative party and his backbenchers who will make sure that he is not long for this world.

You see, wait for it, even your beloved Conservatives are as opportunistic as any of the other parties and that goes quadruple for anybody looking to lead the party and become PM. If he wins a majority the day after the throne speech all his beloved backbenchers and ooooo so trusted cabinet ministers will have their knives out. They will gleefully agree to everything the great leader says as they symotaneously stab him in the back.

All the MPs know that befriending Harper to get into his good books is a no-win situation, just ask Nigel Wright as he can certainly tell you how Harper steadfastly stands by his friends. The Conservative headquarters will also be plotting against him from day one knowing that he is "used goods" and is nothing but a drain on the party.

The Conservatives know that this election, whether he wins or not, is Harper's last kick at the can and they have to start looking for a replacement. It takes at LEAST 2 years to get a party leader. The party has to give the electorate time to get use to him and warm to his policies and persona. Also leadership conventions are extremely expensive and they cannot afford it one year before going into an election as it drains the war chest. The sooner the leadership review is over the longer they have to refill the piggy bank for a new campaign.

You see, it doesn't matter who wins, Harper is on his way out. IF he gets a fantasy majority he may survive for 2 years but if not the opposition will pull him down as soon as possible. Harper is not long for this world and the only conversation is who manages to kill him first, the opposition or his own party.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

stop referring to fellow Harper supporters as sheep. It isn't their fault that they have an inept shepherd. See, after awhile, nobody believes you when you cry "Wolf!"

So you're on board with trying to stop the Conservatives from stripping the citizenship of convicted terrorists who tried to kill your family?

[O-tacular]

A bit of a primer for tonight's debate. Does anyone know if it will be televised? The article lists live streaming online but nothing else.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-foreign-policy-debate-1.3245821

Also an interesting analysis of what might happen after the election:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/election-2015-seat-projections-conservatives_n_8200422.html

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Yet another indication of the subsidence of the "Orange Wave". This is the first time (I think) that the CBC has projected fewer than 100 seats for the NDP.

I wonder who the lucky Bloquiste will be???

308 projects it as Bécancour-Nicolet-Saurel. There are a lot of very shaky NDP ridings in that area (stretching from Beauport to Joliette). The Bloc and Conservatives are the most likely gainers in a scenario where the NDP fall further and possibly lose these half dozen seats.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migs

So you're on board with trying to stop the Conservatives from stripping the citizenship of convicted terrorists who tried to kill your family?

So you're on board with trying to allow the Conservatives to strip the citizenship of Canadian journalists jailed in foreign countries for what they call "terrorism", which includes reporting against that foreign government?

Why do you think that journalists shouldn't enjoy freedom of the press?

[Migs]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

So you're on board with trying to allow the Conservatives to strip the citizenship of Canadian journalists jailed in foreign countries for what they call "terrorism", which includes reporting against that foreign government?

Why do you think that journalists shouldn't enjoy freedom of the press?

There is a word for people who answer a question with a question.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Migs

There is a word for people who answer a question with a question.

There is a word for people who make up straw man arguments time after time.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

So you're on board with trying to stop the Conservatives from stripping the citizenship of convicted terrorists who tried to kill your family?

Tried to kill MolsonExport's family? This is news to me.

[Bcasey25raptor]

If the NDP win 3rd place in this election, what does the future look like for that party? Could we be heading back into a 2 party state?

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

A bit of a primer for tonight's debate. Does anyone know if it will be televised? The article lists live streaming online but nothing else.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-foreign-policy-debate-1.3245821

Also an interesting analysis of what might happen after the election:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/election-2015-seat-projections-conservatives_n_8200422.html

It'll be on CHCH.

[kiwi]

I will be shocked if Harper wins a majority. A lot of Canadians don't like him and will be voting for the best Candidate to defeat his Conservatives(read my sig) and this year feels like there will be a huge voter turn out.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

A bit of a primer for tonight's debate. Does anyone know if it will be televised? The article lists live streaming online but nothing else.

What a funny read. I like how JT attacks Harpo's position on TPP (which I know you are against). JT states that he is for it AND that the Libbies will ensure strong protection for Canada in it like the other trade agreements they negotiated. You know, the ones with Irsael, Chile and (wait for it) Costa Rica. Yup, no one protects Canada like the Libbies of old.

On another note, how come no one posted about Suzuki calling JT a Twerp?!

David Suzuki Says He Called Justin Trudeau A 'Twerp'

Environmental activist David Suzuki says he called Justin Trudeau a "twerp" after the Liberal leader accused him of being "sanctimonious" during a heated discussion about climate change.

Re. the Munk debate, as you said, it can be watched here - who watches TV anymore other than white-haired conbot supporters??