Canada Election 2015

[Migs]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Christ, that is creepy.

Creepier than a woman concealing her face with a mask because of the customary wishes of the husband? Hmm

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by Migs

One thing is evident to most who read this thread, the left are a miserable bunch.

As opposed to these jovial gents?





Yeah, I know they're American, but Harper would love to drag Canada into GOP territory.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Migs

So according to the left its ok for a Muslim woman to wear a Niqab during a citizenship ceremony because of her religious beliefs but it's not ok for a Sikh man to have an opinion about homosexuality which likely relates to his religious beliefs. Funny how that works.

There is a difference between a woman wearing a piece of cloth because she feels more comfortable with it on, and a man arguing that we should allow parents to subject their children to what is essentially a form of mental abuse because their parents are uneducated on how human sexuality works.

Children suffer from mental health issues and some commit suicide after being subjected to conversion therapy. It is a harmful, destructive practice. That is why Ontario's legislature, including many of its PC members (including the leader and the his shadow cabinet) voted in favour of eliminating financial support for the program.

Conversion therapy has been PROVEN to be a failure, and has at times been used as nothing more than a way to make money to sexually abuse men who are in a vulnerable position. Anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Migs

Creepier than a woman concealing her face with a mask because of the customary wishes of the husband? Hmm

I don't know what happens at the bottom of the pile, but the high profile and educated niqab wearers in Canada often make the point that they wear the niqab despite their husbands' express wishes.

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't know what happens at the bottom of the pile, but the high profile and educated niqab wearers in Canada often make the point that they wear the niqab despite their husbands' express wishes.

Oh but I'm sure a lot of gay youth go into conversion therapy despite their parents' wishes too.

[Procrastinational]

Won't be in my riding on election day, so I went ahead and voted today.
I don't expect any major changes regardless of who wins. None of the parties have particularly revolutionary platforms. A tweak to the tax code here, and there, etc.
My only hope for this election is that it is the last one under the first past the post system.

What I'd like to see is some sort of combination of an Single Transferable Vote and a Mixed Member system. That way you keep the locally elected representatives. Under a STV system, the local candidates elected would not necessarily be proportional, but would represent the most agreeable option overall for that particular riding. Then the rest of parliament would be formed based on voters first choices.

That way, each elected candidate represents the most agreeable option for the riding, and parliament as a whole proportionally represents the 1st choice of voters.




Edit: If the Conservatives win a strong minority, or majority, I don't see any way around a Liberal and NDP merger. However, I'd prefer proportional representation, and the Conservative party splitting back into two.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Migs

Creepier than a woman concealing her face with a mask because of the customary wishes of the husband? Hmm

Yes, actually. Because misogyny is very common in Canada, so it wouldn't be like that's some surprise to us. Men in Canada force women to behave in certain ways all the time. Pay them less. Say their murders mean less because they weren't white. We live in an extremely misogynistic country.

Let's call the niqab debate what it really is: bigotry.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't know what happens at the bottom of the pile, but the high profile and educated niqab wearers in Canada often make the point that they wear the niqab despite their husbands' express wishes.

Lots of battered women say their husbands are swell guys. You need to look at the history of the Niqab my friend.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by vid

There is a difference between a woman wearing a piece of cloth because she feels more comfortable with it on, and a man arguing that we should allow parents to subject their children to what is essentially a form of mental abuse because their parents are uneducated on how human sexuality works.

Children suffer from mental health issues and some commit suicide after being subjected to conversion therapy. It is a harmful, destructive practice. That is why Ontario's legislature, including many of its PC members (including the leader and the his shadow cabinet) voted in favour of eliminating financial support for the program.

Conversion therapy has been PROVEN to be a failure, and has at times been used as nothing more than a way to make money to sexually abuse men who are in a vulnerable position. Anyone who supports it should be ashamed of themselves.

Both are terrible & I completely disagree with the Conservative who made those statements. Regarding the Niqab, some need to educate themselves what the purpose of it is, it has nothing to do with the Muslim religion but of a culture of oppression.

[J_Murphy]

Unbelievable. Sorry if this was already shared.

A Conservative candidate in suburban Toronto is defending therapies that attempt to turn gays straight, having penned an editorial that referred to homosexuality as "unnatural behaviour" and heterosexuals as "normal."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-e...idate-jagdish-grewal-gay-youth-1.3259324

[Ayreonaut]

Already happened, haha.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Intellectually challenged, biases massaged and stoked into a fury by their right wing leaders, they have nothing of substance to say, and invariably ruin any conversation they participate in. Because they are too dumb to know how dumb they are (Migs being an obvious example on this forum).

I know it's just playing into your Freudian "I Know you are" BS, but context and perspective is important. Unquestionably the members posting to this message board are all somewhat to heavily left leaning, and yet only a tiny fraction of them are actually able to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding their positions.

The level of discourse in this thread is barely above the level of zingers such as "Harper is a fascist pig". If you agree with that point of view this all looks very normal, but from the other perspective it is nothing more than ruining the conversation in the same way you are rallying against "biases massaged and stoked into a fury".

I'm not specifically calling you out, as you are generally eloquent and reasonable, only that sitting on a high horse thinking "your side" with it's own massaged messages communicating fury is any better is a bit absurd.

That said, when it comes to fundamental human rights, it is more than embarrassing to be on the wrong side of things as the Conservatives have been regarding sexuality for so long, it is criminal.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I know it's just playing into your Freudian "I Know you are" BS, but context and perspective is important. Unquestionably the members posting to this message board are all somewhat to heavily left leaning, and yet only a tiny fraction of them are actually able to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding their positions.

The level of discourse in this thread is barely above the level of zingers such as "Harper is a fascist pig". If you agree with that point of view this all looks very normal, but from the other perspective it is nothing more than ruining the conversation in the same way you are rallying against "biases massaged and stoked into a fury".

I'm not specifically calling you out, as you are generally eloquent and reasonable, only that sitting on a high horse thinking "your side" with it's own massaged messages communicating fury is any better is a bit absurd.

That said, when it comes to fundamental human rights, it is more than embarrassing to be on the wrong side of things as the Conservatives have been regarding sexuality for so long, it is criminal.

For the most part, great post.

As far as sexuality & conservatives, myself & most that I know couldn't care less who you or anyone else sleeps with. Some are strongly religious & have to learn to adapt to the changing world. Same should be said for followers of EVERY religion.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Migs

Lots of battered women say their husbands are swell guys. You need to look at the history of the Niqab my friend.

Yes, I've often thought there is a parallel there - women who are victims of domestic violence are obviously oppressed and the government should oblige them to show their bruises and scars in public, to keep in step with a Canadian value that we've just made up this moment (if Harper can do it, why not the rest of us?).

[Blader]

Originally Posted by flar

I was in a small town south of Ottawa last weekend, stopped to get some poutine from a fry truck with my family. There was a old guy talking with another old guy about how he "told off" some "A-rab". Strangely enough this Arab was black and had a turban. This is all too common among the small town Tim Horton's crowd. It reminded me of the old variety store in the village where I lived for a couple years. It was known as the " Paki store". Little did the locals know the owners were from North Africa. Probably best they didn't know that, actually. You don't want to know what I've heard people say about Aboriginal people.

I don't think we should rag on these people for being racist, it stems more from ignorance, fear and lack of exposure. These attitudes are slowly dwindling as the old timers pass on.

The problem as I see it, is that the Conservatives are using these attitudes, exploiting them for their own gain. We kindly call the niqab and its islamophobic underpinnings a "wedge issue." But it's playing with fire. The Conservatives are being extremely irresponsible by playing with these forces. I think it's a first in modern Canadian politics. Whatever you think of the issue personally is not the point. The point is these are divisive, hate-fueled politics and I'm sad to see Canada stoop to these lows.

Harper and all Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They know exactly what they're doing and its unethical and unbecoming of our political representatives.

Quoted for truth!
My country cousins, 100% white community, call Sikhs rag heads or pull starts - good humour to them, and not understood why I get upset. It's dangerous.

[SignalHillHiker]

We're still not done calling him out. Good.

At this Harper event, journalists were seen and not heard

When the prime minister comes to town it's always going to be a big stage managed event. There are legitimate security concerns, but Saturday's 5.5-hour campaign visit by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was the mostly tightly controlled event — for both the public and the media — that I've ever witnessed in this province.

I arrived at the MoorsFrost cold storage facility in Bay Roberts facility early, and already people were gathering outside the gates.

Some were protesters who came in from St. John's to send a message to Harper, but others were just from the area, they heard there was a rally with the PM, and they wanted to see Harper speak.

They were disappointed to find out those weren't the people the Conservative leader wanted to talk to. The RCMP members at the gate told them this was a private event. You had to be invited or a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada to get in.

After wristbands were issued, invited guests we let into the room for the rally.

The media were not. Instead we were herded upstairs to a holding room that smelled strongly of fish. A very nice RCMP German shepherd named Brock came in and sniffed all our gear to make sure we weren't carrying in any explosives, but even after the all clear we were not allowed in.


From a window overlooking the event we could hear the rally had already started, chants of "Canada, Canada" wafted up through the window. "You know this would make good TV," one of the national reporters told Conservative organizers, but to no avail.

It wasn't until a minute before Harper spoke that news crews were allowed in to a designated area at the back of the room.

It was a frantic rush to setup the cameras. Harper came out and gave a speech, mostly his national message of lower taxes and a better economy, and as soon as he was done, so were we.

I tried to go over to talk to some of the people at the rally, but a Conservative wrangler intercepted me and told me to hand over my media pass and get out. "This is now a private event," he told me. If we wanted to talk to supporters we had to wait outside the building.

They made sure the only images we got of the Conservative leader were there tightly scripted message, and nothing more.

This was a contrast to the Mulcair and Trudeau events, where the public was not only allowed but encouraged to attend, and the media were welcome to stay as long as it wanted and talk to whoever we liked.

There was also no chance to ask questions. This was a "reporters are to be seen, and not heard" type of event. I'm told Harper took questions earlier that day in Montreal, which doesn't help the reporters in Newfoundland much.

This part is concerning. An election campaign is basically a long, gruelling job interview.

It's our chance to decide whom we want to hire to represent us, to make decisions that will affect millions. It's our chance to find out from the leaders what they'll do about issues that concern us, and many of those concerns are local.

This is the chance to get them on the record on issues like how they'll diversity this province's economy, the LIFO shrimp quota policy, response times to search and rescue, the closure of the marine rescue sub centre and whether the province will have to pay $25 million in ferry tariffs.

Will Harper address any of those if he's elected? I have no idea.

This province has seven seats and half a million people, and during the longest campaign in generations, he couldn't find time to take a single local question.

The only federal leader who has actually taken questions from the media while he was on the ground in Newfoundland (none of them have visited Labrador) is the NDP's Tom Mulcair.

Trudeau handpicked two journalists to give one-on-one interviews to over the phone from Nova Scotia, but didn't stop to answer reporters' questions while he was here, either.

By comparison, our provincial politicians - even the ones critics claim are sometimes secretive - are open to reporters.

And, on a regular basis, we get to ask as many questions as we wish.

This visit from Harper is almost certainly the only one he'll make in this campaign, meaning this was our one chance to get him to focus on this province for a few moments.

Even supporters will quietly admit this wasn't about winning any votes; it was more about an obligatory visit to say you've run a national campaign.

Local Liberals are hoping Trudeau will still visit in the last two weeks of the campaign, so we may still get a chance to put some questions to him.

It makes sense that Newfoundland and Labrador isn't the main focus for the three main parties, as they they're locked in a dogfight to try and turn seats in B.C., Ontario and Quebec.

The least they can do for the few hours they stop here is take a few moments to talk about issues that matter locally, instead of just the issues that matter most to them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/peter-cowan-stephen-harper-avalon-1.3258368

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by flar

I was in a small town south of Ottawa last weekend, stopped to get some poutine from a fry truck with my family. There was a old guy talking with another old guy about how he "told off" some "A-rab". Strangely enough this Arab was black and had a turban. This is all too common among the small town Tim Horton's crowd. It reminded me of the old variety store in the village where I lived for a couple years. It was known as the " Paki store". Little did the locals know the owners were from North Africa. Probably best they didn't know that, actually. You don't want to know what I've heard people say about Aboriginal people.

I don't think we should rag on these people for being racist, it stems more from ignorance, fear and lack of exposure. These attitudes are slowly dwindling as the old timers pass on.

The problem as I see it, is that the Conservatives are using these attitudes, exploiting them for their own gain. We kindly call the niqab and its islamophobic underpinnings a "wedge issue." But it's playing with fire. The Conservatives are being extremely irresponsible by playing with these forces. I think it's a first in modern Canadian politics. Whatever you think of the issue personally is not the point. The point is these are divisive, hate-fueled politics and I'm sad to see Canada stoop to these lows.

Harper and all Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They know exactly what they're doing and its unethical and unbecoming of our political representatives.

I saw a news snippet that said Harper was considering banning government officials from wearing niqabs. Has there even ever been a federal employee who did?!?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

You love propaganda that promotes fighting Conservatives with guns? Lots of irony out there today.

That's exactly right MIGS, nice Fox News level pedantics. That's clearly what I meant. Why don't you just accuse me of wanting to shoot Conservatives?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Migs

You've seriously lost it. What the hell is the matter with you? This whole election is turning you & a couple others towards delerium.

You should apply for a position in Harper's office MIGS. You'd be his ideal underling. 'Yes Mr. Harper, your hemorrhoids look amazing!'

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

""Violence against women is unacceptable, which is why our government has brought forward laws to crack down on such violence.""

You know what's better than laws to punish those who commit violence? not inciting it in the first place.

Yeah the HarperCons have absolutely no right to speak about women's rights. Didn't Harper basically not give enough of a shit to open an investigation into thousands of missing and murdered aboriginal women?