The politics of fear

[capricorn]

"It's become a symbol of the politics of fear. At the beginning of the summer, there wasn't a single Canadian, if asked, who was frightened of the census taker."

Ignatieff said the government is trying to convince people they will be sent to prison to "break stones" if they don't comply with the census — even though no Canadian has ever actually gone to jail because they didn't participate.

"It's the politics of fear and division," said Ignatieff.

"The government is walking up saying 'You should be very, very concerned about that census taker because he's going to take you out of your house, put chains on your legs and take you to one of Vic Toews' prisons.' Give me a break. I mean, it's just not serious politics."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Long+form+census+controversy+boils+over+Parliament/3586122/story.html

It's necessary to parse Ignatieff's words because, as we're told, nuance is an integral part of his communications style. So what is Ignatieff saying? Is he saying that because Canadians were not afraid of the census there was no reason to do the census differently? Does Ignatieff believe that policy should be changed only when there is a measure of fear on the part of Canadians but if Canadians don't fear the program it should remain as is?

As I said in another thread, fear and tears should not form part of the equation in setting national policy. If the government determines a government program and/or service can be delivered in a more effective manner, I don't think it needs to probe Canadians on the fear factor before making improvements.

[DrGreenthumb]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Long+form+census+controversy+boils+over+Parliament/3586122/story.html

As I said in another thread, fear and tears should not form part of the equation in setting national policy.

Yeah I agree, policy should be formed based on the best statistical data available to us, you know, the kind gathered inthe mandatory long form census? Also consulting highly educated experts in the field would be helpful. Not naming a bunch of evangelical bible literalists to commissions that have a say in shaping science policy would probably help too. Gary Goodyear and Preston Manning and Stockwell day should not be allowed within a country mile of a science decision. The same goes for the rest of the loony tune rapturists.

Edited September 27, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[regroup]

I worked as a census taker during the 2006 Census and I can assure you there are significant number of people who very much resent the questioning and particularly the long form.

Because of this personal familiarity with the reluctance (even hostility) that many people exhibit, I was very surprised at the reaction to the Harper initiative to remove at least the long form.

While I can appreciate the importance many people who find the census to be valuable to them in their professional lives feel, it is my belief the Harper Government would have gained far more votes by eliminating the long form than by retaining it.

The public reaction was more a manifestation of the liberal media drumming up "Bash the Government" news than any popular opposition to the measure.

[scribblet]

Totally agree, the only reason for the opposition to it was politics and chance to get at the CPC.

I was also surprised at the opposition considering the complaints previously, and even a lawsuit re invasion of privacy from a woman in Saskatchewan. I think it's still on going.

[CANADIEN]

Totally agree, the only reason for the opposition to it was politics and chance to get at the CPC.

I was also surprised at the opposition considering the complaints previously, and even a lawsuit re invasion of privacy from a woman in Saskatchewan. I think it's still on going.

Politics and wanting to bash the CRC is indeed the reason why RIGHT-wing organizations like the Evangelic Fellowship and the CD Howe Institute have opposed the Governmen`'s decision.

It is politics and wanting to bash the CPC that have prompted the vast majority of statisticians in the PRIVATE sector to argue that the government's decision will reasult in unreliable statistics - ironic, considering that they (the statisticians) are likely to be in high demand from all types of organisations as a result of the government's decision.

It is politics and wanting to bash the CPC that has motivated the opposition from banks, public health planners, etc.

As for the complaint from a Saskatchewan woman... Must be one of the THREE received by the Federal Privcy Commissioner in the past decade. Now, mind you, I did not like filling the long form when I had to do it, and looking at what questions should be asked is a good idea (which is why the Conservatives didn't bother doing it, made too much sense I suppose). And I am not one to favour the Government asking questions ithout a good reason. That being said, the census is a useufl tool both for policy-making and for holding government accountable, and quite frankly, the fear that it represents the big bad government prying into people's life for nefarious purposes is without any merit.

Edited September 27, 2010 by CANADIEN

[capricorn]

I'd like to expand a little bit on my OP.

Consider Ignatieff's comments regarding the gun registry and the safety of citizens.

"We stood with victims, we stood with emergency room doctors, we stood with the police and the Mounties, all of whom say we need a long-gun registry for the public security of Canadians," he said.

Ignatieff said he will follow through on his party's proposals to change the registry to make it more palatable to rural Canadians.

"If you care about public safety in this country, you want a gun registry. Period," Ignatieff said.

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100922/gun-registry-vote-100922/20100922/?hub=MontrealHome

Again, the fear of being the victim of a gun crime appears to be an important factor in the fight to keep the gun registry alive. It may not be so much that in itself the gun registry keeps the public safe, but that it addresses the fears of citizens, especially in urban areas and especially women. I feel I'm being told that Canadians are fearful of crime therefore the registry is a necessity. So here is another government program that will be retained because some politicians say citizens fear becoming victims of gun related crime.

Without it, many people — particularly women — will die, they warned.

"Keeping the gun registry is really a matter of life and death for many Canadians," warned Liberal MP Anita Neville.

Clair Tremblay, the co-ordinator for an ad hoc committee of women's groups that support the registry, said there would be "huge implications" for women's safety if the registry is scraped.

"It saves lives and the registry was created to do just that — to save lives after 14 women were massacred at the Montreal massacre," she said.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/09/21/15425976.html

The level of fear is heightened when the specter of life and death is raised.

In the case of the census, Ignatieff says it's that Canadians are not afraid of the census. In the case of the gun registry, the implication is that citizens are afraid of being victims of crime so must be protected.

[RNG]

People don't fear the long form. But three of my friends had to do the long form last time. And each of them cursed it to no end. They considered it incredibly intrusive, and didn't trust the government in their claims of it being confidential. As anti-Harper as I have become the last two years, eliminating the long form is a good thing.

[Topaz]

The best way to please the majority would be to make compromises to the long form but its seems this government always wants it their way and when you have a minority you can't have your way if the opposition does agree with you, so you meet them half way but Harper doesn't seem to want. If they made it you only had to fill out the long form once in your life time, there shouldn't be any problems with that, should there?

[capricorn]

If they made it you only had to fill out the long form once in your life time, there shouldn't be any problems with that, should there?

Providing the government maintain a census registry on who in the 15 million or so already filled it out, and whose turn it is next.

[RNG]

The best way to please the majority would be to make compromises to the long form but its seems this government always wants it their way and when you have a minority you can't have your way if the opposition does agree with you, so you meet them half way but Harper doesn't seem to want. If they made it you only had to fill out the long form once in your life time, there shouldn't be any problems with that, should there?

So if that knowledge is out there, how confidential is it?

[bloodyminded]

The level of fear is heightened when the specter of life and death is raised.

Sure. "War on Terror" is a fine example.

[Topaz]

What about the speech the Min. of Finance gave in Toronto? He said in the next election, if the Libs got in they would "spend and tax" and drive the debt up. I laughed because most Canadians know that it was the Libs to pay down the debt left by Trudeau and Mulroney. Its the Tories that went into debt BEFORE we went into the recession. The Libs have said that they would raise the GST back only if we were out of the recession and if it wouldn't hurt the economy. How else is a government going to pay down the debt if they don't get EXTRA money from some where? Its the Tory party that is in the "fear mode", just listen to them.

[capricorn]

What about the speech the Min. of Finance gave in Toronto? He said in the next election, if the Libs got in they would "spend and tax" and drive the debt up.

Well, if the Liberals could just come out with a policy platform, their policies could be costed and we'd be in a position to know how the debt would be impacted.

I laughed because most Canadians know that it was the Libs to pay down the debt left by Trudeau and Mulroney.

I doubt most Canadians follow politics closely enough to have an opinion one way or the other. The Liberals post Mulroney benefited from a buoyant economy resulting in high government revenues. Not to mention the Liberals raiding millions from the EI fund helped tremendously in reducing the deficit.

The Libs have said that they would raise the GST back only if we were out of the recession and if it wouldn't hurt the economy.

Raising the GST back to 7% may be a good economic decision but for taxpayers it would be just another tax hike.

How else is a government going to pay down the debt if they don't get EXTRA money from some where?

Getting extra money from companies and taxpayers is exactly what worries Canadians. The party that leaves more money in the taxpayers' pockets (for those who have some left) will win the next election.

Its the Tory party that is in the "fear mode", just listen to them.

The game of politics is to make your party look better than the other guy. So far, the Liberals are all about how awful the Conservatives are.

[capricorn]

Sure. "War on Terror" is a fine example.

Terror alert...code orange...code orange...

[RNG]

The best way to please the majority would be to make compromises to the long form but its seems this government always wants it their way and when you have a minority you can't have your way if the opposition does agree with you, so you meet them half way but Harper doesn't seem to want. If they made it you only had to fill out the long form once in your life time, there shouldn't be any problems with that, should there?

If you did that, I think the statistical randomness would be all f'd up. I'm not a statistician but think this dog don't hunt. Anyone out there know?

[Shady]

How else is a government going to pay down the debt if they don't get EXTRA money from some where?

Maybe by spending less? Even just a little less each year.

[RNG]

Maybe by spending less? Even just a little less each year.

What kind of freaking radical are anyway, thinking like that? It goes against thousands of year of tradition.

Actually it totally tee's me off. I have been a small c conservative all my life. I always voted Cap C Conservative, till now. Harper has managed to piss me off to no end. I still hate Liberals from way back, and you need to be challenged to support the NDP IMO.

That is totally the answer. Spend less. So tell me, why, in my lifetime, the only governments I am aware of that reduced their countries debt were the freaking Liberals with Martin as Finance Minister, and Clinton, a Dem in the US? DOES NOT COMPUTE!