The Ugly Canada Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

What I suspect, and what some are confirming, is that the ban is motivated largely by a deep-seated objection to a cultural practice that may be offensive to some people (much like the whole Sikh kippa debate of a couple of decades ago, or the issue of [once again] Sikh soldiers not removing their turban when entering the local Legion) only because it represents a departure from the Canadian norm, even though it does not really harm anyone under almost every single circumstance.

Couldn't the "doesn't really harm anyone" objection also be raised in response to objections to wearing a baseball hat in a Legion though? Do you think that if turbans are allowed in that situation, any reasonable head covering should be?

At the end of the day the hat removal rule is purely a social norm designed to get people to submit themselves to authority or humble themselves. It wasn't motivated by practical concerns around head coverings.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by someone123

Couldn't the "doesn't really harm anyone" objection also be raised in response to objections to wearing a baseball hat in a Legion though? Do you think that if turbans are allowed in that situation, any reasonable head covering should be?

Perhaps so, perhaps not. As far as turbans go, if the soldiers are willing to risk life and limb in the Canadian military, well I think they have more than earned the right to retain their turban in the Legion and the Queen will understand (this was one objection raised, that it was "disrespectful towards the Queen". Bollocks. It was a bunch of grouchy people objecting to when the 'other' is 'too other').

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Well, I don't know. I personally am not comfortable with this being the reason why we should arbitrarily ban the practice, which I do not equate with other practices that I see as clearly meriting strong objections; for example, female genital mutilation.

What I suspect, and what some are confirming, is that the ban is motivated largely by a deep-seated objection to a cultural practice that may be offensive to some people (much like the whole Sikh kippa debate of a couple of decades ago, or the issue of [once again] Sikh soldiers not removing their turban when entering the local Legion) only because it represents a departure from the Canadian norm, even though it does not really harm anyone under almost every single circumstance.

But is this truly an ''arbitrary ban of the practice''?

It seems more to me like a way to address situations where the face veil bumps against the usual practice (and especially - rules) or the ''Canadian norm'', if you prefer, and where a judgement call needs to be made as to what is gonna carry the day.

In most other circumstances (which is to say 99% of their time spent in society), these women will still be ''free'' to wear the face veil.

That's the issue I have with what I see as unreasonable accommodation: in cases where practices such as these (I am also thinking of people who don't want any contact with the opposite sex for religious reasons) where such a ''bump up'' occurs, I have an issue with the precedent that's created when the side that ''wins'' is by default always the extremely religious side.

I don't see that as a desirable way forward for society.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

There isn't a single gay community or gay activist community like there used to be in Canada in the 90's and earlier. Back in those days if you were openly gay your principal or only allies were on the left and to be accepted by them you had to adopt their basket of ideas. These days a lot of gay people don't need to be politically active or are more conservative. Basically they are becoming more like the rest of the population.

The queer activist stuff I mentioned is the left wing remainder of the older group. A lot of gay males don't get along well with this group. Actually sometimes you see GLBTQ groups that have zero cisgender males (I think Signal said this happened to St. John's Pride). That shows you how these groups can turn into echo chambers. Once that happens it is easy for them to develop strange beliefs and demand rigid orthodoxy.

I mean, I do get the whole idea of "minorities gotta stick together", "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but it seems to me that there still are some limits to that logic.

[MolsonExport]

If we are going to be arbitrary, then let's put more restrictions on the open expression of hatred in our society, which do harm so many people.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Is it unreasonable to hold our so-called enlightened society to a higher moral standard than those in the Middle East? If the argument involves a comparison to a much lower standard, well I don't find that a very strong argument whatsoever (and is completely beside the real issue). Vid has done a very good job articulating the real issue.

I think the answer to your question is undoubtedly yes.

That said, my follow-up question to all of this would be: "in light of the above, is it more desirable for the religious/cultural practices and environment that is common in (say) Toronto to gain more ground in (say) Kabul, or for their equivalents as witnessed in Kabul to gain more ground in Toronto?"

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I mean, I do get the whole idea of "minorities gotta stick together", "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but it seems to me that there still are some limits to that logic.

That last post was just meant to describe reality, not pass judgement one way or the other.

I don't think it has anything to do with special solidarity among minorities. It's purely political. A pro-multiculturalism stance became part of what you have to accept to be tolerated inside of Canada's largest left-wing social bubble. You'd also get in trouble for saying you like pipelines at a GLBTQ event in Vancouver even though that has nothing to do with GLBTQ issues specifically.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

That last post was just meant to describe reality, not pass judgement one way or the other.

I don't think it has anything to do with special solidarity among minorities. It's purely political. A pro-multiculturalism stance became part of what you have to accept to be tolerated inside of Canada's largest left-wing social bubble. You'd also get in trouble for saying you like pipelines at a GLBTQ event in Vancouver even though that has nothing to do with GLBTQ issues specifically.

I think you're largely right, but OTOH a ton of the posts made here by gay forumers on here in response to the apparent incongruity of their views on how much slack should be given to these types of Islamic practices, directly go all "Martin Niemoller" on us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

So I am just reacting to that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

There are different political "bubbles" and there's at least one in which multiculturalism and accommodation of foreign cultural practices has become axiomatic and beyond questioning. This is the bubble that includes the CBC, a lot of Liberal voters, even more NDP voters, etc. For example with the left-wing environmentalist and queer activist crowd the niqab bill seems to fall somewhere in the same ballpark as throwing babies out of windows or Donald Trump.

But then there are other bubbles that include people like that guy who comes on here to rant about Justin Trudeau. A large group of conservative voters don't care at all or would actively like to see the ban in place. In fact many of them are reflexively anti-political-correctness and against the first group I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

(I think both of these groups have lost their minds somewhat and are unknowingly caught up in tribalist in-group out-group thinking but they are part of the political reality of Canada. I should just be thankful this country isn't yet like the US I guess.)

This breakdown doesn't follow Anglophone vs. Francophone lines or Quebec vs. other provinces. I agree that the Quebec debates often have their own flavour but there is a lot of diversity of opinion in the rest of Canada.

In the case of Calgary vs. Toronto on this one, I was thinking of a Calgary phenotype who'd be totally open to immigration and cultural diversity, and likely to sexual diversity too, but also very fiscally conservative, big on low taxes and self-reliance, climato-skeptic, etc. So on the first two there'd be a high degree of commonality with your average Torontonian, whereas on the rest that follows - not so much.

[O-tacular]

Getting the thread back on track..



https://clockzillakingoflaval.tumblr.com/

[franktko]

YES!!! This thread used to be fun...

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Getting the thread back on track..



https://clockzillakingoflaval.tumblr.com/

I love seeing clockzilla in the background, menacing this new turd on the block.

Clockzilla is like Jake the Mus.
• Video Link

[Franco401]

I'm normally one to forgive the mansard roof trend of the 60s/70s, but for the love of god:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.9351256,-...ShrU2qz5X3q-t9jSLzWvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[O-tacular]

Next to peanuts and lolly pops these were the worst candies to get on Halloween.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/end-...ghteous-can-stop-the-kerrs-molasses-kiss

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Franco401

I'm normally one to forgive the mansard roof trend of the 60s/70s, but for the love of god:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.9351256,-...ShrU2qz5X3q-t9jSLzWvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I remember when I was really young in Thornhill my neighbourhood had a ton that were bungalows so pretty much the roof would touch the lawn.

[Fischbob]

They say that street interaction can make or break a building.


Source

Bonus content: the fake mansard roof just next door, and the soulless light industrial warehouse looming behind.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Franco401

I'm normally one to forgive the mansard roof trend of the 60s/70s, but for the love of god:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.9351256,-...ShrU2qz5X3q-t9jSLzWvg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[O-tacular]

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Next to peanuts and lolly pops these were the worst candies to get on Halloween.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/end-...ghteous-can-stop-the-kerrs-molasses-kiss

beg yer pardon, this is the worst halloween candy of all. I'd rather eat dog shit than black licorice or its derivatives

vomitus

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

you bastard!



demotivational