Election 2015

[Kilo_302]

One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-muslims-1.3257892

This fearsomely titled law is actually just a few amendments to the Immigration Act and Criminal code that outlaw a few things that are mostly already against the law in Canada — polygamy, forcing children into arranged marriages, and so-called honour killings, otherwise known as murder.

But the phrase "barbaric cultural practices" invokes so much more, especially as "barbaric" is not a legal descriptor, it's an emotive.

The mind of the beholder

Barbarism, of course, is in the mind of the beholder.

To some people, it is barbaric to pierce a baby's ears or slice off the skin on the end of an infant's penis, or even what the Christian ritual of communion symbolizes.

Almost certainly, though, the title of this new law was designed to invoke other, more foreign horrors: female genital mutilation, or all the stoning, flogging, amputating and executing contained in the ferociously harsh interpretations of religious law now associated in the public mind with Islam.

What's more, at the same time as the government was reminding Canadians of its new barbarity law, it was also stripping citizenship from people convicted of extremism. All, so far, have been Muslims.

The government says stripping of citizenship will be restricted to "terrorists and traitors." But then both those words are just as pliable as "barbaric."

There have been no reports that the government is considering stripping citizenship from the Sikh bomb-maker convicted in the 1985 Air India bombing — the worst act of political violence in Canadian history — or any of the surviving FLQ members convicted after the October Crisis.

None of the above is a Muslim.

 

[ModlrMike]

I'm not sure what to make of Quebec. For the 2011 election they took 10% of the vote and won 49 seats. Polls currently have them averaging 4-6%, and if their vote is efficient, that might put them at about 14 seats. Is that enough to be the spoiler? I don't think so. I think they need to be in the 40 range to have any real effect. I also personally think that they might be more disposed to keeping a Conservative led minority going than an NDP one. Considering that they have campaigned almost exclusively against the NDP this time out.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting review of Minorities and Coalitions by the Hansard Society of the UK.

http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A-Numbers-Game-Hansard-Society.pdf

Their view on two critical points:

The government does not have to have the largest party although it helps.

It is not enough that the Prime Ministers party is defeated in the General Election, nor even that he and his party are defeated in the House.  The Queen must not be deprived of council until there is a replacement.  Accordingly the other parties not only have to demonstrate that the PM does not command the House but that one of them can.

It is the UK society but as all Westminsters are linked I think it fair to assume that a similar rationale would apply over here.

Could Trudeau and Mulcair find enough common ground policies - that would not taint either one in the long term - that they could co-operate?  And how long would such a minority government last?

We know that Harper can manage a minority without a formal coalition.  Mulcair is probably bright enough to manage it.  Would Trudeau be bright enough to either do it himself or let Mulcair do it?  Jury's out, here.

I quote myself.  I find that it is rare that I disagree with me.  ;D

This is based on the notion that the Sovereign in the land is Queen, or in Canada's case the GG in right of the Queen, and it is dangerous to have an unfettered Queen roaming the boards.  The Queen must always be checked, or governed, or in parliamentary language "counselled".  In British history it is not without precedence for the Sovereign to disregard Parliament and it would be a great opportunity for an independently minded Sovereign, or GG*, to say to a divided House that if you can't get your act together then I will govern with the Privy Council until you lot get your act together.  Hence the Parliamentary insistence that the Sovereign must never be deprived of counsel and it is a lesser risk to have a defeated Prime Minister to continue counselling the Sovereign than to deprive the Sovereign GG of counsel and offer them the opportunity to act independently.

Remember who signs your Commissioning Scrolls and to whom you swear your oaths.  It isn't to anybody in parliament.

Edit: * the names Byng and Gough Whitlam immediately come to mind.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-muslims-1.3257892

I wish the niqab and barbaric cultural practices were not issues ~ I really wish the barbaric cultural practices were all left in the "old country" ~ but it appears that less than 10% of Canadians know or care much about important issues like defence, 10% to 20% care about issues like trade, 40-50% care about pocket books issues, 20%-30% will vote the party line, regardless of issues, but 60%-85% care about the niqab and the barbaric cultural practices. I'm sorry, but as distasteful as it may be, the issues matter to most Canadians and they are legitimate fodder for the campaign.

 

[Kilo_302]

I agree, but it's also a "chicken and the egg" situation. I'm sure most of us are aware of the arrival of Harper's new political advisor from Australia and his history of campaign work there. The Conservatives were on the ropes until quite recently, and the turn around coincides quite nicely with a shift to all things "Muslim."

Governments the world over have taken to playing on racial/cultural fears for political gain in the past. Ours is no different unfortunately. But it DOES put them in some very distasteful company. We've had an attack in Quebec on a woman wearing a niqab last week. It's clearly impossible to lay that at the feet of anyone but the perpetrator,  but Conservative political strategists know exactly what they're doing and it's a very dangerous game. If it keeps working, they'll keep hammering it home and where does it stop? These things have a nasty habit of getting out of hand, and it seems our government is eager to paint itself into a corner over this.

 

[George Wallace]

One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia?

Perhaps you would prefer a truly fascist nation ruled under Sharia Law? 

Sorry, but the cases of non-Canadians (and some new Canadians), no matter how few they are, are becoming more prevalent in the News with their use of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to manipulate our tolerant society to meet their agendas and in doing so are awakening the nation to the slow erosion of our tolerant culture to one that may not be what Canada has stood for over its 148 years.  If you think that this awakening to threats to our culture and outcries from the Public to protect our culture from barbaric and primitive practices is fascist, then perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Your example of the nijab, and lets include the burka, has had just as many Muslims as non-Muslims state that it should not be permitted.  For the tail to wag the dog, to appease a non-Canadian cultural believer in voting for a certain Political Party, is very distasteful to some (perhaps many).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I find it both interesting (and telling) that progressives are all for women's rights and feminism...right up until that woman is a Muslim. Then, religion seems to trump everything.

If we were to extend that to say, Catholics, where exactly would (or should) the Canadian mainstream stand on the issue of both birth control and abortion?

 

[George Wallace]

Many Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim, are coming forward now to defend Canada's "open face" policy that has been OUR cultural norm for the past century and a half, and even before Confederation.  It has been the norm in our culture that the only adults who covered their faces were the criminal element of our society.  It has been a symbol of "trust".  Even with two forms of ID being presented while Voting, without uncovering one's face does not properly identify one as being the person on those ID cards.  I am sure we could insist on fingerprinting or using retinal scans to identify these individuals; but I foresee them turning again to our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to abuse our societal norms and declare those means as being another "invasion of their privacy".  Time to stop this madness in the bud.

 

[Remius]

Back to things that matter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-election-2015-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-auto-dairy-fears-milewski-1.3258048

Good news for the CPC in those ridings that had worries over the TPP.  But I suppose it won't stop the unions and NDP from crying wolf.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Being a cynic, 308.com is now CBC Polltracker.  Mulcair and Trudeau have each offered CBC in excess of $ 100 million.  A cynic might think they are avoiding  the polls with the Conservatives in a commanding lead for reasons of obvious self-promotion.

 

[Kilo_302]

I find it both interesting (and telling) that progressives are all for women's rights and feminism...right up until that woman is a Muslim. Then, religion seems to trump everything.

If we were to extend that to say, Catholics, where exactly would (or should) the Canadian mainstream stand on the issue of both birth control and abortion?

Definitely a complex conversation, but you can easily turn that around  and look at the clear cases of "barbaric cultural practices" or terrorist attacks that our government is NOT focused on. It's quite clear that the intent of the hotline for example is not for the polygamists in BC or the fundamentalist Jewish sects in Quebec.

Similarly, the stripping of citizenship seems to be solely focused on Muslim terrorists versus terrorists of other persuasions. "Progressives" are reacting (I think) to these obvious double standards. And there are indeed many women who willingly wear the niqab for example. I personally don't agree with it, but it's a piece of clothing. It's hard turf for the government to intervene on.

Perhaps you would prefer a truly fascist nation ruled under Sharia Law? 

Sorry, but the cases of non-Canadians (and some new Canadians), no matter how few they are, are becoming more prevalent in the News with their use of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to manipulate our tolerant society to meet their agendas and in doing so are awakening the nation to the slow erosion of our tolerant culture to one that may not be what Canada has stood for over its 148 years.  If you think that this awakening to threats to our culture and outcries from the Public to protect our culture from barbaric and primitive practices is fascist, then perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Your example of the nijab, and lets include the burka, has had just as many Muslims as non-Muslims state that it should not be permitted.  For the tail to wag the dog, to appease a non-Canadian cultural believer in voting for a certain Political Party, is very distasteful to some (perhaps many).

That's a false binary. It's not a choice between our government playing up racist fears and our nation falling "under Sharia Law" at all. But that's the narrative the government would have you believe, because this is their political strategy. Your statement is proof that it's working.

When I say that this policy has shades of fascism, I am of course referring to the numerous historical examples of ethnic and religious groups being singled out as "threats to our culture" and our "way of life."

If you want to understand the true motivation behind these policies just look at how ineffective they would be. First off, has Neil Macdonald states in his article, how do we define "barbaric?" This is not a legal term. Murder is already illegal, as is any form of physical abuse, so one has to wonder what people could possibly be reporting that they already wouldn't be.

On the niqab front, only 2 women in the history of Canada have become citizens while wearing one. This is simply a non-issue has E. R. Campbell pointed out above. It's quite clear that the intent of these policies is not to protect our way of life (a nebulous phrase at best) but to stoke fears of Muslim culture. Did Islam really become such a risk in the last few weeks, right about the time Lynton Crosby arrived from Australia?

 

[Altair]

Is the Bloc really that weak or do they have a reasonable chance to ruin the prospects of both the liberals and NDP in Quebec?

They are that weak.

That said, they really only threaten the NDP.

The Liberals historical have the greater Montreal area as their quebec base, cosmopolitan urban voters and the suburbs. In the countryside it's the rural vote that would go bloc, but went NDP last time. If the bloc were to make a resurgence it would be there more than the greater Montreal area.

 

[GR66]

Many Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim, are coming forward now to defend Canada's "open face" policy that has been OUR cultural norm for the past century and a half, and even before Confederation.  It has been the norm in our culture that the only adults who covered their faces were the criminal element of our society.  It has been a symbol of "trust".  Even with two forms of ID being presented while Voting, without uncovering one's face does not properly identify one as being the person on those ID cards.  I am sure we could insist on fingerprinting or using retinal scans to identify these individuals; but I foresee them turning again to our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to abuse our societal norms and declare those means as being another "invasion of their privacy".  Time to stop this madness in the bud.

I disapprove of the whole idea of the Niqab.  Like many others I find discomfort in the entire concept of hiding your identity.  That being said, I think there is a whole lot of unneccessary "hype" being thrown up around this issue.  I think it needs to be made clear that in this case there was no question of the individual wearing the Niqab not being "properly identified" at the citizenship ceremony.  They removed the Niqab so that their identity could be confirmed before the ceremony, but wanted the right to replace it during the "public" portion of the ceremony.  The woman involved had no issues with removing the Niqab in order to be properly identified.

I very firmly believe that the collective rights of Canadians demand that the Niqab NOT be used to hide your identity when there is a need for lawful authorities to confirm who you are.  To me that includes when accepting your ballot on election day, when engaged with law enforcement or the courts, or when receiving government benefits, etc. 

However, although I disapprove of the concept of the Niqab in general I find it hard to impose my opinion on any women who CHOSES to wear that form of dress.  So long as they are not being forced to wear the Niqab and that in wearing it they do not use it to unlawfully hide their identity from authorities then I think it should be their choice.

In some ways it's like free speech.  It's harder to support it when you disagree with what's being said but it's still required.  As far as references to "feminism", I guess a true feminist might argue that freedom doesn't mean that women are all free from a particular cultural practice, but rather that they are free to choose which cultural practices they wish to follow.

 

[Privateer]

Perhaps you would prefer a truly fascist nation ruled under Sharia Law? 

No one is proposing that in this discussion.  Non sequitur.

Sorry, but the cases of non-Canadians (and some new Canadians), no matter how few they are, are becoming more prevalent in the News with their use of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to manipulate our tolerant society to meet their agendas and in doing so are awakening the nation to the slow erosion of our tolerant culture to one that may not be what Canada has stood for over its 148 years.  If you think that this awakening to threats to our culture and outcries from the Public to protect our culture from barbaric and primitive practices is fascist, then perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Your example of the nijab, and lets include the burka, has had just as many Muslims as non-Muslims state that it should not be permitted.  For the tail to wag the dog, to appease a non-Canadian cultural believer in voting for a certain Political Party, is very distasteful to some (perhaps many).

What are these "barbaric and primitive practices" that we are discussing, exactly?  And which are are not already covered by existing criminal code provisions?

If you want to foster a free, democratic, respectful society, then you need to focus on properly funding the education system, so that our children are immersed in those values from an early age.  Telling an adult that he or she is prohibited from wearing an item of faith is not going to accomplish anything.  And why should a grown adult be told that he or she cannot wear clothing of their choosing?  Nuns can wear habits (and I still see that on the street, though rarely), priests wear vestments, (some) Jews wear kippahs / yarmulkes.  Why should an adult Muslim be told that she cannot wear a niqab, if that is what she wants to wear?

It's clear that this government, and the Bloc Quebecois, are trying to foster fear and hate of a segment of our population in order to secure votes.  It may be effective, but it is something that I find repulsive.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Back to things that matter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-election-2015-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-auto-dairy-fears-milewski-1.3258048

Good news for the CPC in those ridings that had worries over the TPP.  But I suppose it won't stop the unions and NDP from crying wolf.

Wow. Even Saint Terry of Laurentia is admiting the CPC deal isn't bad. Even if he can't bring himself to say it out loud in plain language. It must of been heart wrenching to watch him pen that article. 8)

 

[Altair]

Being a cynic, 308.com is now CBC Polltracker.  Mulcair and Trudeau have each offered CBC in excess of $ 100 million.  A cynic might think they are avoiding  the polls with the Conservatives in a commanding lead for reasons of obvious self-promotion.

Eric Grenier has built a reputation for being one of the most accurate election prediction gurus out there.

It's the reason he gets sit beside nik nanos and talk about polls. I doubt, really really doubt, he sacrifices his professional reputation and model of accuracy in order to become a corporate hack.

 

[George Wallace]

No one is proposing that in this discussion.  Non sequitur.

Why yes, Kilo did.  He is accusing our Government of becoming fascist; or did you miss that as being what I responded to?  The opposite of course would be the acceptance of a truly fascist philosophy as proposed by those who would invoke Sharia Law on us. 

And let's not confuse an item of clothing being religious, when in fact it is only cultural.  We have covered that point ad nauseam......so using your words "Non sequitur".  Plus, in our "Open society", hiding ones face is not the norm, and never has been, no matter what habits, turbans, kippahs, or other vestments that individuals have worn. Please do not compare these articles of clothing with a face covering of any type.  In our culture, the only adults who wore masks, or disguises, were members of the criminal element.  It is this fact that most Canadians, whether they have been here for generations or just recent arrivals, of all faiths, recognize. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I disapprove of the whole idea of the Niqab.  Like many others I find discomfort in the entire concept of hiding your identity.  That being said, I think there is a whole lot of unneccessary "hype" being thrown up around this issue.  I think it needs to be made clear that in this case there was no question of the individual wearing the Niqab not being "properly identified" at the citizenship ceremony.  They removed the Niqab so that their identity could be confirmed before the ceremony, but wanted the right to replace it during the "public" portion of the ceremony.  The woman involved had no issues with removing the Niqab in order to be properly identified.

I very firmly believe that the collective rights of Canadians demand that the Niqab NOT be used to hide your identity when there is a need for lawful authorities to confirm who you are.  To me that includes when accepting your ballot on election day, when engaged with law enforcement or the courts, or when receiving government benefits, etc. 

However, although I disapprove of the concept of the Niqab in general I find it hard to impose my opinion on any women who CHOSES to wear that form of dress.  So long as they are not being forced to wear the Niqab and that in wearing it they do not use it to unlawfully hide their identity from authorities then I think it should be their choice.

In some ways it's like free speech.  It's harder to support it when you disagree with what's being said but it's still required.  As far as references to "feminism", I guess a true feminist might argue that freedom doesn't mean that women are all free from a particular cultural practice, but rather that they are free to choose which cultural practices they wish to follow.

Good post GR66.

I share your opinions.  I don't want a blanket ban on the Niqab (did I just say that?).  I have problem with France and Ataturk in that exact example. 

However I don't believe that it is over much to ask that when someone attends an official function here in Canada that they attend it bare-faced.

That is who you, as Canadians are.  It is not for us, as foreigners, to demand accommodation.  And yes it is easy for this foreigner to accommodate you as I share most of the same cultural values.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Privateer might have that individual on ignore as I do, as such, I miss everything Kilo says. 

 

[George Wallace]

I disapprove of the whole idea of the Niqab.  Like many others I find discomfort in the entire concept of hiding your identity.  That being said, I think there is a whole lot of unneccessary "hype" being thrown up around this issue.  I think it needs to be made clear that in this case there was no question of the individual wearing the Niqab not being "properly identified" at the citizenship ceremony.  They removed the Niqab so that their identity could be confirmed before the ceremony, but wanted the right to replace it during the "public" portion of the ceremony.  The woman involved had no issues with removing the Niqab in order to be properly identified.

I very firmly believe that the collective rights of Canadians demand that the Niqab NOT be used to hide your identity when there is a need for lawful authorities to confirm who you are.  To me that includes when accepting your ballot on election day, when engaged with law enforcement or the courts, or when receiving government benefits, etc. 

However, although I disapprove of the concept of the Niqab in general I find it hard to impose my opinion on any women who CHOSES to wear that form of dress.  So long as they are not being forced to wear the Niqab and that in wearing it they do not use it to unlawfully hide their identity from authorities then I think it should be their choice.

In some ways it's like free speech.  It's harder to support it when you disagree with what's being said but it's still required.  As far as references to "feminism", I guess a true feminist might argue that freedom doesn't mean that women are all free from a particular cultural practice, but rather that they are free to choose which cultural practices they wish to follow.

I can agree with your thoughts.  My concern, is as you have mentioned, is that this is not just an issue at the Polling Station, but on the streets when LEOs may have to identify a person.  This is a broader issue than what takes place solely in taking the Oath of Allegiance or voting at a Polling Station.  It is a problem when the identity of the individual is in question by LEOs, employers, and other events that require identification of individuals attending.  It is also a disruptive act in the eyes of a good number of the general public, who may take offence to that cultural practice.  Like you, I will fall back on a statement from PET, in that we have no place in the bedrooms (or homes) of the individual.  What they do within their own homes that does not contravene the Law, is their business.  What they do in society is another matter though.