Canada Election 2015

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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*!"

You never said that and then you proceed to say exactly that.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

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?

Possibly - here is a link to a very detailed explanation of the employment trends in manufacturing done by StatsCan.

It details firstly how this trend is wide spread amongst other western/developed economies, how Harpo really had no skin in it, and that it really is not a bad thing since most of the jobs lots were low skilled, low paying jobs. Note, I fully expect political zealots of both stripes to skew the report to their advantage - either pro-Harpo or anti-Harpo.

Regarding your first comment I am unclear of what Harpo did to "exclusively support oil by undercutting other industries"? Firstly all the trade agreements the Conbots negotiated provide support to our non-energy exporters, namely manufacturers (hint, they didn’t increase oil exports) and they provided Billions in support to manufacturers (mainly auto) during the downturn. Other non-energy things they have done include increased tax relaxation to most industries (except the oil patch), they removed the ACCA much to the detriment of the oil patch, they’ve expanded the role of EDC, they’ve protected key Canadian industrial players from foreign acquisition (MDA) and they tried to institute a national security agency (thank you AB and QC!) which would have helped the finance industry – plus many more examples.

Are they friendly to the patch? Of course – like they should be to all Canadian industrial sectors. But the biggest driver for the Oil Sands and energy companies in AB was the ACCA implemented by the Libbies (under Chretien) and cancelled by Harpo.

Again, what did they do for oil at the expense of everything else? And don’t say the exchange rate since they had nothing to do with that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

You never said that and then you proceed to say exactly that.

Impunging motives again.

Turning a blind eye to something isn't the same as endorsing it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

Here is another example that I have a big problem with:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...s-accommodation-says-passenger-1.3171114

[no_name]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Possibly - here is a link to a very detailed explanation of the employment trends in manufacturing done by StatsCan.

It details firstly how this trend is wide spread amongst other western/developed economies, how Harpo really had no skin in it, and that it really is not a bad thing since most of the jobs lots were low skilled, low paying jobs. Note, I fully expect political zealots of both stripes to skew the report to their advantage - either pro-Harpo or anti-Harpo.

Regarding your first comment I am unclear of what Harpo did to "exclusively support oil by undercutting other industries"? Firstly all the trade agreements the Conbots negotiated provide support to our non-energy exporters, namely manufacturers (hint, they didn’t increase oil exports) and they provided Billions in support to manufacturers (mainly auto) during the downturn. Other non-energy things they have done include increased tax relaxation to most industries (except the oil patch), they removed the ACCA much to the detriment of the oil patch, they’ve expanded the role of EDC, they’ve protected key Canadian industrial players from foreign acquisition (MDA) and they tried to institute a national security agency (thank you AB and QC!) which would have helped the finance industry – plus many more examples.

Are they friendly to the patch? Of course – like they should be to all Canadian industrial sectors. But the biggest driver for the Oil Sands and energy companies in AB was the ACCA implemented by the Libbies (under Chretien) and cancelled by Harpo.

Again, what did they do for oil at the expense of everything else? And don’t say the exchange rate since they had nothing to do with that.

Shreddog, Great post.
Always enjoy your posts. You always provide the links to back up your claims. I can't say the same for the many people on this forum.

[CCF]

Out of curiosity - why is it that the discussion of Canada's sub-par economy is often attributed to the push and pulls of the global economy and not the current party in power at the federal level....

....but when discussion deviates to the provincial scale, the NDP (who have been in power only for a short period) is blamed for the woes of Alberta and the same argument of a global recession is not applied...?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

For many people with deeply held moral/religious beliefs, this is the case as well. Of course there are different levels of religious devoutness and many casually religious people. That doesn't change the fact that there are some for whom this is absolutely not "optional" and not a matter of just changing one's mind.

The fact that you don't recognise this suggests to me that you haven't had the experience with the devotedly religious that I have. I grew up in that type of environment and when I rejected it, it caused huge levels on conflict for many years. For awhile I had a passionate hatred for religion that even Richard Dawkins would find extreme. But over time I grew to understand it, its function, and its place in society and history much more clearly. I suspect that without these formative experiences I would have the same stance as you and lio. Either that, or I would have become a religious zealot myself had I not been scared off before being fully infected...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here is another example that I have a big problem with:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scoti...s-accommodation-says-passenger-1.3171114

As she points out, I doubt Porter Airlines would agree to relocate a gay or black individual just 'cause I don't want that sitting next to me.

[Ashok]

We don't really have an issue with niqab or integration of Muslims in this country. We are not Europe, were they have issues with integration because of many complex issues - of which one of the main causes are people of certain ethnicities were excluded from good housing, good jobs, good schools, etc...

So yea, if you are going to passionate bring in the issue of niqab into the Canadian context and how it should be banned, then you are either fear mongering (like the PQ, Conservatives and Bloc are doing), or really ignorant, or simply racist.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by CCF

Out of curiosity - why is it that the discussion of Canada's sub-par economy is often attributed to the push and pulls of the global economy and not the current party in power at the federal level....

....but when discussion deviates to the provincial scale, the NDP (who have been in power only for a short period) is blamed for the woes of Alberta and the same argument of a global recession is not applied...?

The NDP being bad for the economy is a long running and convenient political meme that the right wing uses to scare people out of voting against the status quo.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ashok

We don't really have an issue with niqab or integration of Muslims in this country. We are not Europe, were they have issues with integration because of many complex issues - of which one of the main causes are people of certain ethnicities were excluded from good housing, good jobs, good schools, etc...

So yea, if you are going to passionate bring in the issue of niqab into the Canadian context and how it should be banned, then you are either fear mongering (like the PQ, Conservatives and Bloc are doing), or really ignorant, or simply racist.

Or maybe you just think that something that has as a basis the subjugation of women, while OK in people's private lives (including walking down the street, etc.), shouldn't be welcomed with open arms into Canada's public institutional framework, in order to give it more credibility than it deserves?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For many people with deeply held moral/religious beliefs, this is the case as well. Of course there are different levels of religious devoutness and many casually religious people. That doesn't change the fact that there are some for whom this is absolutely not "optional" and not a matter of just changing one's mind.

The fact that you don't recognise this suggests to me that you haven't had the experience with the devotedly religious that I have. I grew up in that type of environment and when I rejected it, it caused huge levels on conflict for many years. For awhile I had a passionate hatred for religion that even Richard Dawkins would find extreme. But over time I grew to understand it, its function, and its place in society and history much more clearly. I suspect that without these formative experiences I would have the same stance as you and lio. Either that, or I would have become a religious zealot myself had I not been scared off before being fully infected...

You're proving Acajack right with your personal story of basically choosing to stop to be "infected" by that mental illness because you decided you'd rather not be mentally ill...

People who are actually mentally ill would love to be able to do just that!

[Ashok]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Or maybe you just think that something that has as a basis the subjugation of women, while OK in people's private lives (including walking down the street, etc.), shouldn't be welcomed with open arms into Canada's public institutional framework, in order to give it more credibility than it deserves?

Right, so let us leave it to the men of this country to force women who say it is their choice to wear something to remove it.

Listen, what is the your goal of forcing women to remove the niqab? Is it to help them in any way? Because it will effectively put them under house arrest. Women's right, security concerns is the veil of this issue - what is happening is that the government needs a scapegoat, and they decided to pick on these poor 30 or so women because they needed a fear tactic to win votes. Really sad... and more sad that Canadians are falling for it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

For many people with deeply held moral/religious beliefs, this is the case as well. Of course there are different levels of religious devoutness and many casually religious people. That doesn't change the fact that there are some for whom this is absolutely not "optional" and not a matter of just changing one's mind.

The fact that you don't recognise this suggests to me that you haven't had the experience with the devotedly religious that I have. I grew up in that type of environment and when I rejected it, it caused huge levels on conflict for many years. For awhile I had a passionate hatred for religion that even Richard Dawkins would find extreme. But over time I grew to understand it, its function, and its place in society and history much more clearly. I suspect that without these formative experiences I would have the same stance as you and lio. Either that, or I would have become a religious zealot myself had I not been scared off before being fully infected...

It's not even close to zealotry but both my family and the family I married into are devoutly Roman Catholic. I basically went to mass every Sunday in my childhood as did my wife. Both my parents and my inlaws go to mass every Sunday and on all religious holidays. If they can't go they usually watch it on TV. I have grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. who are reasonably religious. All of my siblings and my wife's send their kids to Catholic school in Ontario.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're proving Acajack right with your personal story of basically choosing to stop to be "infected" by that mental illness because you decided you'd rather not be mentally ill...

People who are actually mentally ill would love to be able to do just that!

I never fully believed it to begin with. I simply "came out of the closet" with my rejection of it at the same time that i came out in another way.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Or maybe you just think that something that has as a basis the subjugation of women, while OK in people's private lives (including walking down the street, etc.), shouldn't be welcomed with open arms into Canada's public institutional framework, in order to give it more credibility than it deserves?

Or else you think that if we don't allow citizens to be faceless for this (regardless of the reason) then it's presumably for a reason, and you can't just play the religion card like that to successfully escape complying with rules to which others are forced to subject.

I'm fine with voting while masked, since everyone can do it. (And we'll probably see a bunch of trolls doing it in October.) I wouldn't be fine with it otherwise.

[SignalHillHiker]

CBC Newfoundland and Labrador
BREAKING:

CBC News has confirmed that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will visit the riding of Avalon Saturday evening.

Break out the welcoming committee.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Ashok

Right, so let us leave it to the men of this country to force women who say it is their choice to wear something to remove it.

Listen, what is the your goal of forcing women to remove the niqab? Is it to help them in any way? Because it will effectively put them under house arrest. Women's right, security concerns is the veil of this issue - what is happening is that the government needs a scapegoat, and they decided to pick on these poor 30 or so women because they needed a fear tactic to win votes. Really sad... and more sad that Canadians are falling for it.

Who said it was "men" who are opposed to the veil at citizenship ceremony? I'd like to see a breakdown in numbers because I bet there are more women who are anti-niqab than pro-niqab when it comes to this issue. All of the women I know in Quebec are strongly anti-niqab and the more wishy-washy people I know on the issue are all men.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

Thank you. I found that comparison quite insulting.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

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.

Funny coming from you with your nonsensical 'Harper Rulez!' posts. At least I'm not blindly supporting one political party and putting pure dogma ahead of reason.