Canada Election 2015

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

... at the same time that i came out in another way.

Out of curiosity, if your presence made the ultraorthodox dude who has the plane seat next to yours uncomfortable, would you agree to be relocated?

I'm just trying to gauge where's the limit (if any!) to your tolerance of intolerance...

[Mister F]

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...?

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

Exactly. If you can blame the NDP for the economy you can blame the Harper Conservatives too. The point I was making is that the Conservatives are no better for the economy than the opposition. The Conservatives have created the belief that they're the best stewards of the economy, but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's fiction.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Break out the welcoming committee.

Maybe he's going to announce a formal committment to give you control over the fishery in "your" waters if he's reelected?

[CCF]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

Precisely.

I think associating oneself with a political party based on longstanding historical ideology is how many people cast their vote.

In reality, the hope would be that individuals would educate themselves on the platforms and positions of each party in order to effectively decide which views best represent their own.

Obviously ideology plays a part in the positions taken by each party, but it's not black and white - if that were the case, then it should be the NDP proposing deficits and not the Liberal party. I would suggest that these nuances can be found in each party's platform.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

I suppose that out of all the people I "know" (via various degrees of separation) on Facebook who say they'll vote with a ski mask or a Halloween mask, at least a few out there will actually try and do it. I would assume that dealing with this is part of the training for Elections Canada polling station staff.

As a result of this the issue won't likely go away post-election.

You'll get at least a few "challengers" getting sworn in for citizenship wearing masks as well.

A Guy Fawkes mask would be cool, no?

[SignalHillHiker]

If he does I'll paint my house blue. I don't actually trust him, so I'm not convinced it would happen... but I would, and I imagine the province would, swing hugely blue just to make it clear that matters.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

It's a perfect analogy. What a joke.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A Guy Fawkes mask would be cool, no?

As a Pastafarian sympathizer myself, I'd instead lean towards a club-sized rectangular pasta box with two holes for the eyes, ideally complete with a pasta strainer as a hat (worn on top of the box).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Out of curiosity, if your presence made the ultraorthodox dude who has the plane seat next to yours uncomfortable, would you agree to be relocated?

I'm just trying to gauge where's the limit (if any!) to your tolerance of intolerance...

I wouldn't relocate myself (although if he chose to stay I'd be conscientious of what i talked about lest I shock him), but if he wanted to be relocated, then that's his prerogative!

I think it one can be summed up in this post:

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.

In other words, it depends on the impact you're having on others. Being in a public space and insulting others in ways such as stating or implying that I was dirty or evil or sinful, etc. then that should be considered inappropriate and not condoned by the airline. If the guy just requested to be moved in a respectful way, I may feel slighted or think it was stupid but I'd say go for it. I would not be offended if the airline agreed to move him upon his request but if they forced me to move they'd be in for a fight!

[shreddog]

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.

I think the main point about the Niqab in a Canadian context is getting lost. The SCC has already VERY CLEARLY stated that is fully acceptable to force an individual to present their face uncovered - namely to clearly establish their identity. Instances include presentation of statements while under oath in a trial, police identification for traffic enforcement, etc.

The debate in this election is not whether the niqab should be banned outright or whether religious freedom trumps all but whether swearing the oath is one of those few instances where the face needs to be unencumbered.

Contrary to JT's position this isn't about protecting the rights of all Canadians nor Harpo's position of keeping terrorists at bay, but rather is swearing the oath a "critical event" or not.

Personally I strongly believe that the person swearing the oath should do so without being hidden - however regardless of whether they wear the niqab or not they will have irrefutably establised their identity prior to doing so, so I ain't gonna die on this sword.

[shreddog]

On a seperate note, what did everyone think of JT playing the daddy card last night?

Personally I think it was uncalled for and very risky - however it may play right for him though it reinforces the perception that if his last name was Taschereau he'd likely not have been at the podium.

[geotag277]

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...?

No one is seriously blaming the NDP for the price of oil dropping and for Alberta companies to be struggling with the result.

Conservatives claim that the NDP aren't helping that environment by raising taxes, initiating royalty reviews, and projecting higher provincial government deficits than were otherwise forecast by increasing spending.

I'm not really siding with one view or the other here, but if you are going to attack a line of reasoning attack the actual one being used.

Personally I don't see the correlation between government and economy. Reagan is famous for lowering taxes being correlated with a period of economic prosperity, which is frequently conflated with Reagan caused a period of economic prosperity by lowering taxes, which is not correct. Another thing to keep in mind is that Reagan was reducing the top tax bracket by %20 (from %70 to %50) - in any case a huge swing. These days we talk about a percentage or two here or there, it is a bit absurd to think these marginal changes will have sweeping effects in the economy, especially as governments all throughout Canada are seriously struggling to provide high quality public services that we have already agreed by voting on that we should be providing.

Another thing to keep in mind is provinces are responsible for a lot of their own funding obligations. In Alberta, I think it's perfectly fine that the NDP raised taxes, it seems to me that was the right move and I can see the direct consequences of that additional revenue. In terms of the Federal government, I view it as a hulking bureaucracy which struggles to provide basic services efficiently, and furthermore seems unusually prone to wasteful spending. I don't see the benefit in the federal government increasing taxes to raise revenue for the programs it already should be funding as much as provincial.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I wouldn't relocate myself (although if he chose to stay I'd be conscientious of what i talked about lest I shock him), but if he wanted to be relocated, then that's his prerogative!

I think it one can be summed up in this post:



In other words, it depends on the impact you're having on others. Being in a public space and insulting others in ways such as stating or implying that I was dirty or evil or sinful, etc. then that should be considered inappropriate and not condoned by the airline. If the guy just requested to be moved in a respectful way, I may feel slighted or think it was stupid but I'd say go for it. I would not be offended if the airline agreed to move him upon his request but if they forced me to move they'd be in for a fight!

How would you feel if you were a black person sitting there minding your own business and someone asked to be moved just because you're black? It's the same thing. I mean, it's not technically illegal to be racist (or sexist) but it's another thing for an airline to accommodate someone who is being racist or sexist. Even if it's for religious or "belief" reasons.

This to me smacks of "have your cake and eat it too" religious accommodation. Yes, this particular person can have these beliefs that he can't sit next to another woman other than his wife (and even less - touch one!) but perhaps if that's so important he should not use public means of transport like airplanes, trains, etc.

It all sounds like bending over backwards so that certain people don't have any inconveniences related to their beliefs that are often inconsistent with modern society.

In most cases, it's without consequence. But making a woman (or a black person or a gay person) feel like they are undesirable or an untouchable when they didn't do anything, IMHO is not "victimless".

[kiwi]

Originally Posted by shreddog

On a seperate note, what did everyone think of JT playing the daddy card last night?

Personally I think it was uncalled for and very risky - however it may play right for him though it reinforces the perception that if his last name was Taschereau he'd likely not have been at the podium.

I'm ok with it so was the audience.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by kiwi

I'm ok with it so was the audience.

You're certainly not biased at all given that signature link.

Originally Posted by Shredogg

On a seperate note, what did everyone think of JT playing the daddy card last night?

Personally I think it was uncalled for and very risky - however it may play right for him though it reinforces the perception that if his last name was Taschereau he'd likely not have been at the podium.

Kind of a meh for me. It seemed called-for given Mulcair's attacking of Pierre over the War Measures Act but Trudeau's reaction was clearly something he had been saving up for a while. The whole Trudeau-son card has been well-played out for years even prior to Trudeau being leader of the Liberals. The folks who like this aspect of him already like him and those that don't don't. It's not really shocking that Justin should be proud of his father and his record given the fact that he wouldn't be going for Prime Minister if he wasn't.

On that note the War Measures Act used by Trudeau was far worse than anything Harper has attempted to do to this country in regards to what people criticize him for regarding personal liberities and freedom.

Edit - I knew I didn't just imagine this:

Originally Posted by Jen Gerson, National Post

“The NDP took a very strong position against C-51. We looked at it, we know it was wrong the same way that the NDP was the only party to stand up in 1970 when Pierre Trudeau put hundreds of Canadians in jail without trial, without any accusation. The only party to stand up against that was Tommy Douglas’s NDP.”
...
The elder Trudeau’s legacy is not an uncheckered one; his invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970 in response to the October Crisis was an abrogation of civil liberties five shades darker than anything Stephen Harper has yet imagined or tried.

With all due respect, Trudeau-the-younger can’t hitch a ride to 24 Sussex on his father’s surname and then expect the assembled company to politely ignore the ancient baggage.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-commen...-the-moment-the-left-began-to-eat-itself

[geotag277]

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

I appreciate that this woman was upset and other people are upset, but there are racist people in the world, there are idiots in the world, and they want to fly from time to time.

What is gained by rejecting this guy's request, potentially having him act rudely to the individual next to him for the whole flight, and/or forcing him off the plane? Is he going to be magically cured of his beliefs by being forced to sit next to this women? No, he isn't.

For the record, this guy is well within his rights to ask other passengers to switch, he never explicitly said that it was because she was a women, and the flight attendant's job is to defuse potential conflicts and make every one on board satisfied. The women of course didn't have to move, and she didn't. No one had to move. If no one wanted to move you better believe his 🞵🞵🞵 would be off the plane. But this is about a private group of people potentially accommodating a request. This guy is not standing in front of the Supreme Court asking it be illegal to sit next to women, he is figuring it out on his own how to operate within his own framework of religious beliefs by privately and politely asking other people to accommodate him, which they can all very legally refuse to do.

Again, what is the actionable thing here that you want to change with respect to Canadian culture and laws? Do you want to prevent individuals from privately attempting to resolve their own differences, with the assumption that the courts can legislate all types of discriminatory behaviour from private life? So even a private question amongst individuals such as, do you mind if we switch seats, all of a sudden becomes illegal if it can be shown to have a discriminatory interpretation?

No one's rights are being violated here by someone asking a question.

There is one extreme being painted here which is, people who tolerate the niqab are attempting to sweep massive oppression under the rug to hold themselves up as self aggrandizing champions of tolerance. Make no mistake this is a strawman caricature of what is actually happening including in the Supreme Court decision, but there is another extreme too, those who are attempting to legislate away basic rights from wearing clothing to even asking questions in private if there is any whiff of discriminatory interpretation of the action in question, all in the name of self aggrandizing how "intolerant" one is of rejecting "tolerance".

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

How would you feel if you were a black person sitting there minding your own business and someone asked to be moved just because you're black? It's the same thing. I mean, it's not technically illegal to be racist (or sexist) but it's another thing for an airline to accommodate someone who is being racist or sexist. Even if it's for religious or "belief" reasons.

This to me smacks of "have your cake and eat it too" religious accommodation. Yes, this particular person can have these beliefs that he can't sit next to another woman other than his wife (and even less - touch one!) but perhaps if that's so important he should not use public means of transport like airplanes, trains, etc.

It all sounds like bending over backwards so that certain people don't have any inconveniences related to their beliefs that are often inconsistent with modern society.

In most cases, it's without consequence. But making a woman (or a black person or a gay person) feel like they are undesirable or an untouchable when they didn't do anything, IMHO is not "victimless".

I'm black and I thought about that question after reading the article.

I think that I wouldn't make too much of a scene. If I had my wits about me, I would explain to the person why I'm offended, but an airplane isn't the place for an in-depth discussion about bigotry and I wouldn't want to inconvenience everyone for the sake of one racist. This isn't midcentury Alabama and I'm not Rosa Parks standing up to a larger social issue. That said, I wouldn't want to validate this person's prejudice, so I would ask the attendant to place the person somewhere else.
However, it's important to note that this is an offensive exception, but an exception nonetheless which I wouldn't want to cause too much of a scene about or inconvenience everyone else for. It wouldn't be the place and it's not the kind of larger social issue (in Canada at least) against which I would feel compelled to take a forceful stand. It's hurtful and offensive, but, as I said, it isn't Rosa Parks going up against an entire social and administrative system of discrimination.

I would submit a comment to the airline so that they'd know that it happened and I would probably contact the CBC so that the public would know it happened.

[Procrastinational]

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...?

I think you could make a solid argument that fiscal policy adopted by provincial governments have more impact on provincial economies than that of federal government fiscal policy on the national economy. The main reason for this is the ease of moving between jurisdictions. It is not always easy moving between countries.

Raising the highest marginal tax rate federally to say 40 or 50% would certainly cause annoyance among the wealthiest tax payers, but history suggests that most (but not all) would not find it worth the trouble to pack up and move to another country.

On the other hand, it is quite easy to move from New Brunswick or Nova Scotia to Alberta or Saskatchewan to save on taxes. Net interprovincial migration figures would certainly suggest that Canadians favour lower tax provinces when considering a move.

All of this applies just as much to businesses as it does to individuals. If BC doubled its corporate tax rate, chances are most businesses would simply pack up and leave for Alberta. If the federal government doubled the corporate tax rate, a few companies may leave, but the majority would just have to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 it up and pay the tax. Ironically, this means in the short term that petty competition between provinces for having the lowest taxes doesn't really grow the economy, it just moves the existing share around between provinces.

On the whole, I'd prefer to have the majority of tax policy in the hands of the provinces rather than the federal government. The competition between provinces keeps taxes from creeping up too high. With the federal government it is much harder to vote with your feet, and so there is nothing stopping a slow and steady rise in the tax rates, as we saw in the post war era all the way up to Trudeau.
People seem to have a short memory, but brain drain has historically been a very serious problem. Sure the economy has done reasonably well all things considered, but imagine where we'd be if so many of the best and brightest hadn't moved south of the border. Places like Silicon Valley are full of Canadians. The only way to end brain drain to the States is to have competitive tax rates, which has largely been achieved over the last 10 or 15 years.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

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.

It may be fear-mongering of convenience, but provincial NDP governments just don't have a track record sufficient to refute this claim. The NDP governments of the 90's in Ontario and BC are overused yet very relevant examples of this fact.

[CCF]

Originally Posted by geotag277

No one is seriously blaming the NDP for the price of oil dropping and for Alberta companies to be struggling with the result.

Conservatives claim that the NDP aren't helping that environment by raising taxes, initiating royalty reviews, and projecting higher provincial government deficits than were otherwise forecast by increasing spending.

I'm not really siding with one view or the other here, but if you are going to attack a line of reasoning attack the actual one being used.

Personally I don't see the correlation between government and economy. Reagan is famous for lowering taxes being correlated with a period of economic prosperity, which is frequently conflated with Reagan caused a period of economic prosperity by lowering taxes, which is not correct. Another thing to keep in mind is that Reagan was reducing the top tax bracket by %20 (from %70 to %50) - in any case a huge swing. These days we talk about a percentage or two here or there, it is a bit absurd to think these marginal changes will have sweeping effects in the economy, especially as governments all throughout Canada are seriously struggling to provide high quality public services that we have already agreed by voting on that we should be providing.

Another thing to keep in mind is provinces are responsible for a lot of their own funding obligations. In Alberta, I think it's perfectly fine that the NDP raised taxes, it seems to me that was the right move and I can see the direct consequences of that additional revenue. In terms of the Federal government, I view it as a hulking bureaucracy which struggles to provide basic services efficiently, and furthermore seems unusually prone to wasteful spending. I don't see the benefit in the federal government increasing taxes to raise revenue for the programs it already should be funding as much as provincial.

I agree with you - except a lot of people ARE simply blaming Alberta's current situation on the change in government. In my experience people are making the issue that simple.

On the contrary however, the Conservatives seem to be getting a free pass and many conversations chalk it up to a 'global recession.'

I'm not necessarily taking a stand here - just pointing out the hypocrisy!