The Ultimate Liberal Conundrum

Shady · May 20, 2009

A Tamil protest blocking the Toronto pride parade.

Discuss

Michael Hardner · May 24, 2009

It won't happen now. Would it have happened ? Their goal was to disrupt general traffic, not special events.

Shakeyhands · May 24, 2009

A Tamil protest blocking the Toronto pride parade.
Discuss

How ignorant. Typical Tory post I'm afraid. And you all wonder why you can't gain a majority.

jdobbin · May 24, 2009

A Tamil protest blocking the Toronto pride parade.

No problem for Conservatives. Kill them all, right?

August1991 · May 25, 2009

No problem for Conservatives. Kill them all, right?

No, Dobbin.

The thread title makes no reference to Conservatives. It refers to a Liberal Conundrum - and the point is valid, as we have seen recently with Ruby Dhalla.

If Leftists choose to elevate victimhood/oppression to an ideology, what happens when two supposed victims cross paths?

This OP refers to the minority-victim-oppressed Jaffna Tamils and minority-victim-oppressed Gays. How to choose? In the case of Ruby Dhalla, it was a minority-victim-oppressed woman MP of colour and minority-victim-oppressed Philippina guest workers. How to choose between Ruby and the foreign workers? The Left is confused between Muslims as minority-victim-oppressed and women as minority-victim-oppressed.

Is this a competition to determine who is more oppressed or a victim? Is that the principle Liberals now observe?

-----

Liberals. If Pierre Trudeau were alive today, I don't know what he would say but I suspect that he wouldn't so readily embark on this victimhood-oppression jag. Trudeau's style was to look outside the box and seek basic principles.

The Liberals today, under Ignatieff, are entirely inside the box.

Edited May 25, 2009 by August1991

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

No, Dobbin.
The thread title makes no reference to Conservatives.

And I throw it back on the Conservatives which I know you don't like but it is a question that has to be asked.

It refers to a Liberal Conundrum - and the point is valid, as we have seen recently with Ruby Dhalla.

We have seen what the Conservative solution is: Use Parliament for their own purposes rather than let the courts decide a civil matter.

If Leftists choose to elevate victimhood/oppression to an ideology, what happens when two supposed victims cross paths?

And Rightists chose to ignore things and hope the Liberals or NDP will unblock the roads. The Tories were utter cowards on the Tamil matter and have chosen to regard the 300,000 Tamil Canadians as terrorists.

This OP refers to the minority-victim-oppressed Jaffna Tamils and minority-victim-oppressed Gays. How to choose? In the case of Ruby Dhalla, it was a minority-victim-oppressed woman MP of colour and minority-victim-oppressed Philippina guest workers. How to choose between Ruby and the foreign workers? The Left is confused between Muslims as minority-victim-oppressed and women as minority-victim-oppressed.

And the right chooses to regard both as enemies.

Is this a competition to determine who is more oppressed or a victim? Is that the principle Liberals now observe?

Is the principle of the Conservatives to write off certain segments of the population?

Liberals. If Pierre Trudeau were alive today, I don't know what he would say but I suspect that he wouldn't so readily embark on this victimhood-oppression jag. Trudeau's style was to look outside the box and seek basic principles.

Conservatives. If Robert Stanfield were alive, would be he believe the lack of compassion and outright hostility to large segments of the population? I suspect not. Stanfield was not a divider.

The Liberals today, under Ignatieff, are entirely inside the box.

The Conservatives today, under Harper, want to see people placed in a box.

August1991 · May 25, 2009

And I throw it back on the Conservatives which I know you don't like but it is a question that has to be asked.

Throw the question back on the Conservatives? Why? Stephen Harper and other Conservatives have some basic principles (despite what some commentators argue). But what of Ignatieff?

Dobbin, how will Ignatieff choose between Dhalla and the foreign caregivers? How would Ignatieff choose between Gays and Jaffna Tamils?

Edited May 25, 2009 by August1991

capricorn · May 25, 2009

Let's suppose I was visiting TO and encountered a Tamil protest and a gay pride parade intersecting at a major artery. And let's suppose I was forced to join one or the other. No question, I would select the gay pride parade. Why? Because I am more sympathetic to the cause of gay activism than I am of activism for a bloody conflict occurring outside Canada which Canada has not provoked or cannot turn around. I would rather be surrounded by semi-nude bodies of folks engaged in letting it all hang out, having a good time, than folks brandishing flags emblazoned with AK-47s and bullets.

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

Throw the question back on the Conservatives? Why? Stephen Harper and other Conservatives have some basic principles (despite what some commentators argue).

We have seen those principles. Ignore. Act with hostility towards large segments of the population.

But what of Ignatieff?

Can't remember him acting with hostility towards groups like Harper has.

Dobbin, how will Ignatieff choose between Dhalla and the foreign caregivers?

Think that is up to a court, don't you? I know you think it has all be decided but it hasn't been. You seem to think that a committee if Parliament is equipped to get to the truth.

How would Ignatieff choose between Gays and Jaffna Tamils?

Probably reminding everyone that the Liberals repatriated the Constitution and believe in a Charter of Rights and the principles of peace, order and good government.

Many Rightists don't believe in the Charter and the peace, order and good government they believe in is one where hostility to certain groups is paramount.

August1991 · May 25, 2009

Let's suppose I was visiting TO and encountered a Tamil protest and a gay pride parade intersecting at a major artery. And let's suppose I was forced to join one or the other. No question, I would select the gay pride parade. Why? Because I am more sympathetic to the cause of gay activism than I am of activism for a bloody conflict occurring outside Canada which Canada has not provoked or cannot turn around. I would rather be surrounded by semi-nude bodies of folks engaged in letting it all hang out....

So your principle is that "letting it all hang out" takes precedence.

----

I'm sorry but between violent Jaffna Tamils and exhibitionist Gays, modern Liberal politicians need a better moral compass than "It matters to me and I can do something." By that logic, you'll just look self-serving, like Conservatives.

Worse,"letting it all hang out" just makes you look like a 1960s Beatle fan.

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

I'm sorry but between violent Jaffna Tamils and exhibitionist Gays, modern Liberal politicians need a better moral compass than "It matters to me and I can do something." By that logic, you'll just look self-serving, like Conservatives.

Your disdain for the Tamils and gay is quite evident. Kind of like the disdain we have seen in regards to women.

August1991 · May 25, 2009

Your disdain for the Tamils and gay is quite evident. Kind of like the disdain we have seen in regards to women.

Jaffna Tamils, gays and women - such oppressed victims.

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

Jaffna Tamils, gays and women - such oppressed victims.

Tamils, gays and women - such disdain and hatred.

August1991 · May 25, 2009

Tamils, gays and women - such disdain and hatred.

Dobbin, we speak of people, individuals. I have no disdain or sense of superiority. As a Conservative, I profoundly respect a common person's nature to be what they are.

----

Dobbin, it is federal Liberals/Leftists that view gays, women and Jaffna Tamils as victims, weaklings, oppressed people, minorities. Leftists such as yourself want to "help" these oppressed minorities. I suspect that you do this to feel "important". You want to control your environment, or change the world. Leftists are "progressives" who want to force people to advance.

Edited May 25, 2009 by August1991

g_bambino · May 25, 2009

Tamils, gays and women - such disdain and hatred.

But, isn't that the typical response? Instead of addressing a valid and rational question, the reaction is to throw slanderous accusations of bigotry at the inquirer. Question why we need an Afro-centric school and you're labelled as a racist. Observe flaws in the curtain of gay victimhood and you're called a homophobe. What a convenient way to strangle debate.

The hypothetical presented isn't all that ridiculous; August already raised the Ruby Dhalla conundrum, and I'm reminded of David Ahenakew. Sure, the courts were involved in the latter, but there was a non-legal political element to the affair, where the left-leaning politicians who typically see all minorities as victims of Anglo-Euro-Caucasian oppression were suddenly faced with a person of one highly-charged visible minority group making unambiguously bigoted comments about another highly-charged minority. I wasn't all that into politics back then, but I found the whole thing fascinating to watch; I'd never seen such a situation before, and the reactions were, well, interesting.

Shakeyhands · May 25, 2009

No, Dobbin.
The thread title makes no reference to Conservatives. It refers to a Liberal Conundrum - and the point is valid, as we have seen recently with Ruby Dhalla.

If Leftists choose to elevate victimhood/oppression to an ideology, what happens when two supposed victims cross paths?

This OP refers to the minority-victim-oppressed Jaffna Tamils and minority-victim-oppressed Gays. How to choose? In the case of Ruby Dhalla, it was a minority-victim-oppressed woman MP of colour and minority-victim-oppressed Philippina guest workers. How to choose between Ruby and the foreign workers? The Left is confused between Muslims as minority-victim-oppressed and women as minority-victim-oppressed.

Is this a competition to determine who is more oppressed or a victim? Is that the principle Liberals now observe?

-----

Liberals. If Pierre Trudeau were alive today, I don't know what he would say but I suspect that he wouldn't so readily embark on this victimhood-oppression jag. Trudeau's style was to look outside the box and seek basic principles.

The Liberals today, under Ignatieff, are entirely inside the box.

You are giving the OP way too much credit August, this post was purely put on as what he/she thought was a joke. As unfunny and disgusting as it is. Again, typical tory behaviour.

It really makes one wonder how the rank and file can ever grow when ignoramuses like these attempt to promote the party.

capricorn · May 25, 2009

So your principle is that "letting it all hang out" takes precedence.

Not sure what you mean. In the somewhat amusing hypothetical the OP sets up, my principle would be to select the venue least dangerous to my personal safety. So far, my survival instincts have served me well.

Worse,"letting it all hang out" just makes you look like a 1960s Beatle fan.

I don't have anything that would hang out, not now nor in the sixties.

Oleg Bach · May 25, 2009

A Tamil protest blocking the Toronto pride parade.
Discuss

That is funny - liberal freedom and lack of social and civil discipline blocks University Avenue - the court house - the Attorney generals office - Queens Park and so on. All because the liberal mind does not want to discriminate between good and evil. 'it's all good' - They do not want males being in a state of manhood so they encourage social policy for the poor that creates...cowardly black gang bangers that drill bullet holes though the lungs of 5 year olds. They want equality between the sexes - so they assist with the gayification of males - and after 25 years the gay day parade consists of aging losers with beer bellies wearing leather shorts with the bum cut out to facilitate easy entry - old sodomist males with mental problems...and no sense of human rights - just the right to persue their pleasure by though the seduction of the young - preferably straight young men if they can get them ----great....just frinking wonderful - this is worse than a conundrum --- wait untill there is a serious and real depression - and perhaps a war of invasion of our land - and I will now quote the arch feminist Germain Greer and her regretful statement "We have feminized our males to the point that they will not be capable of protecting us - be careful what you wish for!

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

Dobbin, we speak of people, individuals. I have no disdain or sense of superiority. As a Conservative, I profoundly respect a common person's nature to be what they are.

Yet you seem to have a palpable disdain and your language reflects it.

Dobbin, it is federal Liberals/Leftists that view gays, women and Jaffna Tamils as victims, weaklings, oppressed people, minorities. Leftists such as yourself want to "help" these oppressed minorities. I suspect that you do this to feel "important". You want to control your environment, or change the world. Leftists are "progressives" who want to force people to advance.

Rightists such as yourself want to ignore groups and act hostile toward them. I suspect it is that you feel hatred towards them. You want to control their environment and leave you world unchanged. Rightists are "regressive" who want to force people to go backwards.

Oleg Bach · May 25, 2009

The Tamils are progressive...they progressed right out of Shri-Lanka to here - sucked up our resourses and expect to regress back to their...and bring their lack of progression back here.. :rolleyes:

jdobbin · May 25, 2009

The Tamils are progressive...they progressed right out of Shri-Lanka to here - sucked up our resourses and expect to regress back to their...and bring their lack of progression back here..

Shows what you know about Tamils.

Oleg Bach · May 25, 2009

Shows what you know about Tamils.

I know about the other side and the real side of the story...I was trying to be cute - of course I support the oppressed being murdered - remember - Stalin destroyed 16 million of my mothers people - and Hitler did a great disservice to my family - along with the communists who just loved to shoot my old uncles and grandfather...the point is - when Israel was crushing Hamas - and killing civilians - not a damned peep out of Canada. AND - we kept the same attitude about Shri-Lanka - Now that supposedly the Tamils have been vanquished - THIS is when the real genocide goes into it's last phase - and we remain silent..those are my real thoughts.

Oleg Bach · May 25, 2009

I know about the other side and the real side of the story...I was trying to be cute - of course I support the oppressed being murdered - remember - Stalin destroyed 16 million of my mothers people - and Hitler did a great disservice to my family - along with the communists who just loved to shoot my old uncles and grandfather...the point is - when Israel was crushing Hamas - and killing civilians - not a damned peep out of Canada. AND - we kept the same attitude about Shri-Lanka - Now that supposedly the Tamils have been vanquished - THIS is when the real genocide goes into it's last phase - and we remain silent..those are my real thoughts.

Correction - that first line reads improperly - I support the saving of lives no matter who or where - now that they have cornered what is left of Tamil forces - they will quietly execute thousands - and in 5 years there will be a big scandal about the huge common graves being unearthed..what else is new about the world?

Shady · May 26, 2009

No problem for Conservatives. Kill them all, right?

Yeah, that must be it. :rolleyes:

If Leftists choose to elevate victimhood/oppression to an ideology, what happens when two supposed victims cross paths?

Exactly. That's the crux of the argument. Which of the oppressed constituency is afforded the most sympathy and/or support?

Is the principle of the Conservatives to write off certain segments of the population?

No. It's about treating everyone the same, treating everyone as Canadians.

But what of Ignatieff?
Can't remember him acting with hostility towards groups like Harper has.

No, because Ignatieff will say one thing to one group of people, and the exact opposite to another, the way he did at two seperate events for Israeli supporters and Palestinian supporters.

Probably reminding everyone that the Liberals repatriated the Constitution and believe in a Charter of Rights and the principles of peace, order and good government.

And was the sponsorship scandal part of this Liberal belief in "order and good government"? :lol:

What a convenient way to strangle debate.

Exactly. Apparently to rabid leftwingers, if you don't support the fire-bombing of churches and restaurants, or the redefining of marriage, you're full of destain and hatred. :rolleyes:

jdobbin · May 26, 2009

Yeah, that must be it.

As I suspected.

No. It's about treating everyone the same, treating everyone as Canadians.

Really? Is that why Tories treat some people and groups as pariahs?

No, because Ignatieff will say one thing to one group of people, and the exact opposite to another, the way he did at two seperate events for Israeli supporters and Palestinian supporters.

Harper says two different things about Quebecers depending on if he is in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.

And was the sponsorship scandal part of this Liberal belief in "order and good government"?

Was the "in and out" scam part of the Liberal belief in "order and government?

Exactly. Apparently to rabid leftwingers, if you don't support the fire-bombing of churches and restaurants, or the redefining of marriage, you're full of destain and hatred.

Apparently to rabid rightwingers, it is good to label Tamils and Palestinians in Canada as bombers of churches and restaurants, or to define marriage as between a man and woman exclusively and invoking the notwithstanding clause.