Canada Election 2015

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

So, you honestly believe that, say, supporting having rules in place to prevent kids from bringing lethal weapons to school... is in fact an attitude that's mainly motivated by a hidden anti-Sikh agenda?!?

I think we're both having trouble keeping track of all the posts but this is the position I take regarding this specific issue:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think I need to clarify something. I'm not referring to laws that have other citizens as the victim, ie, assaulting, harassing, stealing from, or otherwise oppressing in any way. I'm only referring to things like the citizenship oath, where the only real issue is an objection solely on principles.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But as for specific laws, that's where it comes down to weighing the pros and cons of each one as mentioned in the rest of my post. If it's a rule that's too vital in protecting society or fulfilling some vital role, then no exceptions, religious or otherwise can be provided (so no ak-47s on the plane). But in the cases we've been discussing, that isn't applicable. The person's identity would be verified by someone in authority in a private space so they're no posing a security risk.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

...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.)
...

In the post you quoted, I was only referring to the colander guy type of scanario where people are opposed to exceptions based mainly or entirely on the principle of it.

[ssiguy]

There is a separate thread relating to people with disabilities in Canada so perhaps you guys can continue that conversation there and leave this one to the election?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Correct, I hadn't seen it. The page is moving very quickly and it's tough to keep up lol. And you may not have seen the post above this where I responded to the suggestion that I wish to give a free pass to criminal behaviour.

Yes, you're kind of comparing it to a victimless crime. (Which is indeed the most appropriate version of the analogy.)

I still don't think we should be giving a free pass for victimless "criminals".

As you say, it's mostly about principle -- but I would say that's pretty important in the grand scheme of things. That's one of the main pillars our society is built on. Fairness and equality and justice have to be there, otherwise people will likely start to get even more disengaged. Rules are there for reasons... if you can disobey them and get away with it, it's not really sending a good message.

As I said many times... if we can actually make exceptions to a given rule, then we should simply abolish that one 'cause it's obviously not vital.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There is a separate thread relating to people with disabilities in Canada so perhaps you guys can continue that conversation there and leave this one to the election?

The discussion is actually niqab-related and right now it's become a pretty important election issue, apparently.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In the post you quoted, I was only referring to the colander guy type of scanario where people are opposed to exceptions based mainly or entirely on the principle of it.

Who are you to claim you have the authority to draw some kind of arbitrary line between a colander and a turban?

[wg_flamip]

I don't like what the niqab stands for (though I don't feel it poses a threat to our society either), and I'm not going to make excuses for it or the people who wear it (by choice or by force). I believe the best way to protect women and promote their status in society is to give them the full rights of citizenship and the full protection of the state. A policy that bans women who wear the niqab from becoming citizens will only serve to keep them marginalized within society and, in some cases, within their families. I mean, it's kind of purdah-by-policy (as unintended as it may be) when a man can become a citizen and vote while his wife is denied citizenship and the rights that go along with it.

I mean, if you strongly believe that wearing the niqab is a mark of oppression, surely the solution is not to implement a target that only targets the victim of that oppression. It's a bit like arguing FGM has no place in Canadian society and therefore no women who've had their 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 mutilated should be allowed to become Canadian - regardless of what happens to the people who actually did the mutilating.

[TorontoDrew]

We need to reform our voting so we can choose a first and second choice at the polls. Harper for sure would not go for this but I hope the Liberals and NDP can push through this sort of reform. We are about to get a minority government most likely Harper and unless Thomas and Justin can figure out how to work together nothing will get done over the next 4 years on the hill.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Who are you to claim you have the authority to draw some kind of arbitrary line between a colander and a turban?

I'm glad you guys can keep a sense of humour about these things because I know some people take it all so seriously!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But as for specific laws, that's where it comes down to weighing the pros and cons of each one as mentioned in the rest of my post. If it's a rule that's too vital in protecting society or fulfilling some vital role, then no exceptions, religious or otherwise can be provided (so no ak-47s on the plane). But in the cases we've been discussing, that isn't applicable. The person's identity would be verified by someone in authority in a private space so they're no posing a security risk.

This is pretty much the closest our respective positions on this can come to each other.

Vital rule -> no exceptions

Non-vital rule -> [you] -> Let's make exceptions and create two classes of citizens, those who don't need to follow it and those who do!

Non-vital rule -> [me] -> Why the hell haven't we yet abolished such an useless rule?

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

My investment portfolio takes a huge hit whenever she opens her mouth. I lost a lot yesterday after she went off on power generation in Alberta. The last thing I need is more NDP. Conservatives all the way. 1) Economy, 2) Economy, 3) Economy......

So I take it you won't be voting for the party that just us into a recession?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

This is pretty much the closest our respective positions on this can come to each other.

Vital rule -> no exceptions

Non-vital rule -> [you] -> Let's make exceptions and create two classes of citizens, those who don't need to follow it and those who do!

Non-vital rule -> [me] -> Why the hell haven't we yet abolished such an useless rule?

For me I suppose it comes down to the bottom post that I quoted. I differentiate between non-vital and useless.

And the fact that there's already differences between some citizens, some for whom a non-vital law is in conflict with their core identity, and others for whom the law isn't terribly relevant. I don't see the law as creating the difference but rather simply recognizing that they exist. And I don't understand how either group is benefited by not recognizing it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Mister F

So I take it you won't be voting for the party that just us into a recession?

Are you sure it was a political party that got us into the recession and not a global drop in oil prices?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

I don't like what the niqab stands for (though I don't feel it poses a threat to our society either), and I'm not going to make excuses for it or the people who wear it (by choice or by force). I believe the best way to protect women and promote their status in society is to give them the full rights of citizenship and the full protection of the state. A policy that bans women who wear the niqab from becoming citizens will only serve to keep them marginalized within society and, in some cases, within their families. I mean, it's kind of purdah-by-policy (as unintended as it may be) when a man can become a citizen and vote while his wife is denied citizenship and the rights that go along with it.

I mean, if you strongly believe that wearing the niqab is a mark of oppression, surely the solution is not to implement a target that only targets the victim of that oppression. It's a bit like arguing FGM has no place in Canadian society and therefore no women who've had their 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 mutilated should be allowed to become Canadian - regardless of what happens to the people who actually did the mutilating.

Yes. This perfectly puts into words my feelings on the matter.

[O-tacular]

Seriously guys, can we move the niqab / religion debate to a new thread? It's really growing tiresome plodding through pages and pages of the same arguments about it. This is the Election thread.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Are you sure it was a political party that got us into the recession and not a global drop in oil prices?

My contention is that Harper has made it worse by undercutting our other industries to promote exclusively one. Putting all your eggs into one basket makes the pain worse. Also any idea if Mulcair's stat of 400k manufacturing jobs being lost under the Conservatives has any truth to it?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What made me think of this scenario was asking a worker at a government facility if there was an elevator there and they replied "Yes, but it's only for the disabled". In fact I was asking on behalf of my disabled mother.

I'm curious about which aspect of what I wrote that you consider insulting.

It's insulting because a real disability isn't something you can just "wish away" by changing your mind. This includes mental illness BTW.

People become religious and non-religious out of their own free will all the time.

Being religious is not a mental illness BTW. That's absurd. Of course, the way some people live their religion can be a sign of mental illness. But that's not the same thing.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Seriously guys, can we move the niqab / religion debate to a new thread? It's really growing tiresome plodding through pages and pages of the same arguments about it. This is the Election thread.

The only thing tiresome is your chronic whining about Harper in post after post after post. The niqab & religion rights are important election issues & should remain in this thread.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you are going to demonize all people who are against the niqab with a broad brush like this, then maybe I will stop holding back regarding the people who are FOR the niqab for the ''wrong reasons''.

You know who they are, right? They're the people who deep down don't really give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 about equality for women (especially muslim women), and who are perfectly willing to throw them under the bus in order that they personally can win some kind of hypothetical (or is hypocritical?) 21st century World Gold Medal for Tolerance and Openness to Diversity that they can then use as circle jerk fodder while looking down on other societies.

There you go. The knife can cut both ways, you know.

Broad brush? hah

When your position is summed up as "People who support the freedom of women to wear the niqab are endorsing the oppression of women", I think you can also be reduced to "You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it"

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

BTW geotag, I think flar absolutely hit the nail on the head with this one and he's expressing my position perfectly (which is identical to his).

Surely you can't wish for the random, usually ancient, nearly always idiotic requirements of various religions to start to have the power to trump actual laws...? Please tell me you don't...

One man's idiotic requirements are another man's actual laws, who is to determine the difference? Do I have to remind you that gay marriage laws were once actual laws?

Yes, I think when the Supreme Court decides our arbitrary laws are impacting the basic fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, those laws should probably be changed.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Broad brush? hah

When your position is summed up as "People who support the freedom of women to wear the niqab are endorsing the oppression of women", I think you can also be reduced to "You sure can dish it out, but you can't take it"

But I never said that.

I think that people who strongly support the freedom to wear the niqab in all instances of Canadian life are sweeping the issue of the oppression of women under the carpet in a "hear no evil, see no evil" type of reflex, in order to avoid the real issue which they may find unpleasant.

I also think that some of them do do it in the interest of self-agrandizement (thanks for suggesting the word), as if to be able to claim: "look how great we are! we're so tolerant we're even tolerant of *this*!"