turningrite

You 'think' you do, which more or less confirms that you actually don't. And the content of your comments regarding the subject cement this impression for me. Just saying....

You don't understand productivity, do you? It has nothing to do with wages. It is simply a calculation of how many units of labor it takes to produce a product in comparison to the number of hours it takes to produce the same product in another location, jurisdiction or with a different technology. Cost efficiency, which you seem obsessed with, is something else altogether.

You're backpedaling here. In many settings and contexts we restrict fundamental rights that are included in the Charter. Further, you set the parameters in this discussion where you state without apparent restriction "I still don't think that justifies telling women who want to wear those things that they can't." Now you appear to acknowledge that fundamental rights aren't always the relevant determinant of appropriate or acceptable personal conduct in many setting. As I said, appropriate attire is in many contexts determined in the eye of the beholder and not the wearer. Governments generally don't in this country generally set these restrictions, although M-103 illustrates that the current government seems open to limiting freedom of expression. One of the points I was trying to convey in my most recent post is that we constantly place restrictions on other fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association (i.e. political affiliation) and freedom of thought (i.e. ideology). While these rights are accorded identical importance to freedom of religion, we know they're they're not treated as unrestricted rights. When I was still working, neither I nor my coworkers could wear a political party T-shirt or even a button. We accepted that this was a reasonable restriction premised on avoiding offense to co-workers and clients. So why should freedom of religion be afforded special treatment? It isn't and shouldn't be accorded any special treatment in comparison to other fundamental rights. There's a time and a place for these things. I think those on the freedom of religion bandwagon need to acknowledge this.

I think you're kidding yourself. There are norms in any society, and in ours as much as anywhere else. I'm glad to see you oppose the burka and the niqab, which are simply contrary to the Western ethos of individual dignity and the promotion of gender equality. But I think you have an overreaching view of personal freedom regarding attire when in actual fact we're often told mainly what we can't wear. Try walking up to a bank teller wearing a balaclava. My guess is that the police will be called. To cite a more mundane example, most workplaces restrict what employees can wear based on an assessment of common standards that are acceptable both to co-workers and clients. When I was still in the workforce, I recall that the dress code explicitly forbade attire that could be construed as conveying any kind of political and/or ideological message or messaging. The evaluation of acceptability, then, is not held to rest in the eye of the wearer but, rather, in the eye of the beholder. In a diverse society, I believe adherence to common standards and expectations is the basis for general civility and amounts to appropriate social etiquette.

I think the most interesting aspect of Bernier's commentary relates to his assessment that Trudeau is promoting the creation of ethno-racial-religious political tribes that can be bought off with taxpayer dollars and special privileges. In other words, Trudeau is the ultimate political cynic, playing off the interests of varying groups against the broader interests of the Canadian population. And yet he dons a moralistic stance when sonorously condemning anybody who dares to criticize his diversity agenda when the inherent moral flaw is in his own program. The term hypocrisy barely touches on Trudeau's capacity for duplicity.

Oh come on. I suspect you understand the difference.

You've fallen into the trap of confusing the general with the specific. Canada's overall productivity performance lags Western standards largely as a result of our reliance on resource-dependent industries which often can't as easily adopt new technologies as can industries in other sectors. Canada's auto manufacturing productivity, however, ranks as high as other jurisdictions and in some aspects may be superior. Below is a link to an article in BNN Bloomberg about this. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canadian-auto-plants-are-the-most-productive-globally-linamar-ceo-1.543903

I can generally understand your points about homophobia and misogyny, but the concept of xenophobia has been so corrupted as to be applied by many progressives to denigrate anybody who promotes a realistic approach to immigration or points out the very real problems associated with our current immigration and refugee programs. Progressives should recall the advice of the economist Milton Friedman, who noted that mass immigration and the social welfare state are incompatible. And other less well-known economists have reached the same conclusion. What happens when you try to combine the two is a decline in social solidarity and erosion of support for social welfare measures, and particularly for those measures that are seen as being redistributive. Where these matters are concerned, progressives can't both have their cake and eat it too. Xenophobia as it's currently understood and generally presented, doesn't belong in your hierarchy of moral failures.

I've long said that the Conservatives really messed up when Bernier lost the party's leadership. I think he's one of the few willing to speak out on principle about a lot of issues Canadians find problematic and/or perplexing. In a news report today, he criticizes Trudeau's "cult of diversity" as being divisive and counterproductive: "Trudeau's extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges" According to the CBC story, the usual progressive criticisms of "racism" and "xenophobia" have emerged, of course, but I suspect Bernier has highlighted misgivings held by a lot of Canadians about Trudeau's multicultural and diversity obsessions, which our political leaders in general are far too hesitant to address. Maybe Bernier could start a new party? My guess is that it would quickly garner lots of support. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4783325

The U.S. is even more ethically compromised where Saudi Arabia is concerned than is Canada. The KSA autocracy warranted Trump's first foreign visit following his inauguration and reportedly about $300 billion in U.S. arms sales to the kingdom provide a massive disincentive to prompt any, well, principled U.S. response. And the KSA is a prime American ally against Iran in the region, so geopolitical issues come into play. American policy is seldom based on actual principles unless monetary gain counts as a principle. The main issue for America is shoring up its interests. Canada, on the other hand, has few real interests where the KSA and/or the broader region are concerned.

1.) And your point is? A large proportion of vehicles sold in the Canadian market is comprised in whole or in part by product manufactured in the U.S. and/or Mexico and in fact both the U.S. and Canada have steadily lost manufacturing capacity and employment to Mexico. 2.) Yes, Ontario is an expensive jurisdiction, which means that in economic terms it poses little or no real threat to America's auto manufacturing sector. Ontario has held its (declining) share of auto sector employment mainly as a result of automation and superior productivity. Assuming it's not attacked with arbitrary tariffs, it will likely continue to hold on to at least some share of North American auto manufacturing well into the future. 3.) Canada could decide to do as Australia has done and abandon its auto sector. In such an event foreign and mainly Asian manufacturers would likely gain a significant advantage and likely further displace American-based manufacturers. I'm not sure this is a result American corporations would prefer, but why would Canada have any obligation to offer American manufacturers preferential treatment in a post-NAFTA environment? The auto manufacturing sector reportedly accounts for about 100 thousand direct Canadian jobs at present, a figure that, as you suggest, is in decline. The broad IT/tech sector reportedly now employs about 800 thousand Canadian workers, and counting. The difference between the two is in the kind of jobs the two sectors create, but in the longer run Canadians might eventually be better off in a post-NAFTA world.

I'm not talking about regular political and bureaucratic obfuscation. I doubt that opposition parties or the media in other Western countries would tolerate the kind of silence we've seen in Canada relating to the Danforth investigation. In the U.S., the example physically and culturally closest to us, I suspect there would be mounting campaigns of outrage were an investigation into an event like the Danforth shooting smothered as has been the case here. Can you point to a single episode in another major Western/democratic country where in recent decades, and particularly since the advent of the internet, politicians and the media have been similarly content to tolerate silence on such a serious matter of public interest. I can't. To me, the situation illustrates a serious flaw in the Canadian democratic model.

This will blow over. Neither country will let it escalate to the point that it irreparably interferes with the minimal commercial relationship that now exists. We could have halted the shipment of military equipment to Saudi Arabia and/or taken other meaningful action like terminating the status of all Saudi temporary residents/students/workers currently in Canada as well as suspending all visa applications. And we might have applied such measures to the regimes that have sided with the Saudis. But we haven't done any of this. The Saudis, meanwhile, could have embargoed shipments of oil to this country and could have cancelled the contract for military vehicles Canada is sending to that country. Alas, these things haven't happened. This is now a propaganda skirmish, with the Trudeau government harping on about "our values" to an eager progressive audience at home while the Saudi government flexes its reactionary muscles to prove to domestic hardliners and allies that its reform plans are minimal and it will continue to suppress dissidents.

On yet I can't think of another Western democracy where this kind of apparent bureaucratic lassitude would be tolerated in relation to a serious matter that potentially intersects with public safety. Can you? I wonder if it will take as long before authorities release meaningful information about the investigation into today's shooting atrocity in New Brunswick? My guess is that it won't.

1.) I'm sure Freeland has been advised to be more careful. Our government can't say much about the really problematic aspects of Saudi policy, like the war in Yemen, when we sell arms to the Saudi regime. So, we're complicit, and I'd bet the Saudis know hypocrites when they see them. 2.) It's kind of the point of online forums, isn't it. I wonder why anybody would be on here other than to express their opinions and read those of others? Most of us have no role to play in the halls of power but for the time being this remains mainly a free country. Vent on we must...

There's an interesting new column written by Christie Blatchford on the delay in releasing information about the Danforth shooting investigation, in which she points to the inherent problem in assigning the investigation to Ontario's Special Investigations Unit. Blatchford writes: "And in the Hussain case, where there is much public interest and a sort of imposed chill on the police until the SIU part of the probe is complete, surely the unit could both put a rush on the job or be a little more transparent about the issues, if there are any, that are complicating its task." The column also notes that in the absence of information rumor and speculation has been rampant. We assume that in a democracy the public has a right to be informed. This whole mess raises concern about why we've developed a system, at least in Ontario, that isn't apparently designed to accommodate the public interest. Can political leaders not bypass or resolve the smothering impact of SIU involvement in such matters? Presumably they can, which should make us wonder why they haven't. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-absence-of-police-answers-on-toronto-danforth-shooting-leaves-rumours-and-nonsense/wcm/1d7f8312-940c-41f9-951f-d2c2672f9129?video_autoplay=true

It seems that both sides, the Trudeau government and the Saudi regime, are ramping up this squabble for domestic consumption. The Trudeau Libs, of course, get to preach about "our values" and the Saudis get to put dissidents in their place as well as assert that their regime must not be criticized by moralizing Westerners. Of course, neither side will take this too far. Trudeau will be content to drone on about "our values" (Wouldn't that be "dog whistle" speech coming from anybody else on the political spectrum?) without explicitly contrasting them with the fundamentalist (ahem, Islamic?) values espoused by the Saudi regime. And the Saudis will of course keep sending oil to parts of Canada where Western Canadian oil isn't permitted to reach. Neither side will openly address the ongoing slaughter in Yemen nor the massive Western arms sales that help to fuel the situation. As the economic relationship between the two countries is so marginal, this spat mainly amounts to a communications win-win for the posturing regimes. Nothing of importance will happen and both sides will claim a moral victory to their respective domestic audiences.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that this dispute relates to actual principles when in all probability it doesn't. JT's government fell into this little crisis as a result of an apparently indiscreet tweet. But assuming he can limit the damage and prevent the cancellation of a large military contract, he seems content to play politics with it by virtue-signalling to his base. In the meantime, serious sanctions, which could be warranted were the government actually serious about human rights abuses, probably won't be considered unless the Saudis up the ante. The Trudeau government has no intention of getting into a fight over Islam. Are you encouraging him and his government to go full-out Islamophobic? The progressive tribe in this country long ago made peace with the cultural hypocrisy it espouses.

I think the point many are making is that much of this amounts to more windbag virtue-signalling, an apparent specialty of the Trudeau government. The Macleans article I referenced in a previous post noted that were JT's government really serious about confronting the Saudi regime it would stop selling arms to it. But that's not going to happen unless the Saudis pull the plug. The West has tolerated human rights abuses in the KSA for a very long time in return for, well, oil and oil money. So, we're not very principled after all and a good argument can be made that we're complicit in the continuing violation of human rights in KSA as well as other places where we simply choose to overlook abuses we in the West say we can't tolerate. Trudeau's usual line for such regimes is that they're "evolving", as if that somehow absolves all parties of responsibility. Our PM, newly energized by the Saudi spat, into which Freeland likely dragged us by accident, and loudly spouting his "values" malarkey in all directions - too bad he's still saying nothing about the Danforth shooting investigation - will no doubt stop short of serious sanctions. Equivocation is, after all, our default setting. Oh, and you're wondering where the U.S. State Department is on this? Silent, of course, as reportedly hundreds of billions of dollars in arms sales are on the line. Money talks, as usual. Don't get carried away by concern about principles In reality, our governments don't.

I agree.

Of course the U.S. won't take a principled stand on this when a reported $300 billion in military sales is on the line. Money Trumps principles all the time. And principles are really for the little people. Canada is no better, though. Will Canada take economic action against the Saudis or fail to fulfill the contract for armored vehicles? Don't bet on it unless the Saudis pull the plug.

Freeland, like Trudeau and many of the rest in the federal cabinet, is a naive ideologue who appears to believe that moralizing is a political parlor game of sorts. I tend to agree with the article in Macleans, 'It's time for Canada to take the next step against Saudi Arabia', which holds that if this government wants to be taken seriously on human rights it should stop nattering about abuses and take concrete action, including ceasing military sales to the Saudi regime. The article makes a good point about the extent to which other Western countries, including Trump's U.S., are compromised by having put profit ahead of principles for so long where the Saudi regime is concerned. I suspect Freeland believed her antics would have little negative impact while her her party could burnish its own windbag moralist credentials in the lead up to the next election. She's probably somewhat dumbfounded by the harsh response. The whole international human rights regime is really a big crock as the countries that generally conform with UN principles often take the brunt of international criticism while the abusers concoct their own alternative world views and usually avoid serious scrutiny. Maybe it's time to ditch the whole morass. In the meantime, if Trudeau's government really means what it says it does, it should demonstrate some courage and give a large middle finger to the Saudi regime and its enablers among both Arab and Western countries. I suspect it doesn't have the guts to do so. There's money on the line after all and we're not morally superior to anybody else, as it turns out. https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/its-time-for-canada-to-take-the-next-step-against-saudi-arabia/

The Trudeau government floats along obliviously on an idealistic raft of unicorns, lollipops and gratuitous platitudes. Western and Islamic ideologies, particularly where different views about "rights" are concerned, were never and will never will be reconcilable. Freeland has demonstrated her foolishness about this in the past, as exhibited by her much ridiculed performance when interviewed by Bill Maher in 2015. The Trudeau government just doesn't 'get it' where differing cultural values are concerned. Their preferred notion of globalist multicultural convergence is just plain silly. And we're now paying a price for this naive thinking.

Trudeau/Freeland made Canada a target. But I think the Saudi action has much more to do with reinforcing the message of Islamic exceptionalism, as outlined in the Cairo Declaration. It's sending a message to its own activists and reformers and to the West in general that its hard-line approach remains intact despite some tentative reforms. Reportedly other Arab countries are lining up in support of this position. Our naive government should have been able to anticipate this. Canada is an easy target because our trade with the region and its investment in this country are in both cases relatively small. The Saudis and the Arab countries in general get to make a statement that they'll tolerate no values-based interference in their affairs. Naively, our government has viewed conflicting cultural ideologies as reconcilable. They are not. I believe that it's primarily our government's naivety that's has landed Canada at the centre of this showdown. Other Western governments, and particularly those in countries with significant economic ties to the Arabic world, will no doubt heed the Saudi warning. None, if any, of the major Western economic powers are coming to Canada's defense. The silence speaks volumes.

There seems to be widespread agreement that the Saudi government is utilizing what it believes to be our government's grandstanding on (Western) human rights to bully the rest of the West into compliance with the notion of Islamic exceptionalism. And, so far, the Saudis appear to be succeeding. My question is whether our government had any intention of becoming a whipping boy in this context or whether Freeland and Trudeau have fallen into this by mistake? If Freeland backs away from her stance, the government's international human rights strategy (i.e. "they're evolving") and its mantra of inherently reconcilable values will be exposed as shams. I don't think the 'sunny ways' approach will accomplish much here. But the question remains as to whether the government had or has any idea what it's gotten into here?