cybercoma Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 I still maintain it's also about the Liberals and the NDP thumbing their noses at the demonstrated wishes of the majority of Canadians. About the niqab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I don't recall Reform or the Alliance wanting to to change FPTP, they did want more direct democracy, such as referendums, initiatives and recall along with a triple E Senate. It's a shame that the PCs completely swallowed the Alliance as that was all lost. This was the post I was responding to: I believe the red herring referred to is that suddenly in the last election cycle, winning a majority mandate with less than 50% of the vote seems to be unfair. We certainly didn't hear this crying when the Liberals won with less than 50%, but this is Harper... this is the Conservatives...it's different now. Right? Reform had a different solution to the problem but they still protested ('cried about') the same issue. In fact, the local Reform candidate spoke to my history/civics class in 1993 and told us that our electoral system amounted to "elect[ing] a dictator" every four years. (I remember leftists complaining about it as well. I despised Chrétien as a further-left-than-now teenager and resented the concentration of power.) I actually prefer Reform's solution in this case. My point, however, was that the opposition to how our electoral system leads to a concentration of power in the hands of leaders whose parties won less than half of the popular vote is not something that has begun under Harper, as much as his supporters want to believe that he is a modern-day Joan of Arc. People complained about it under Chrétien too. Edited October 1, 2015 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 I still maintain it's also about the Liberals and the NDP thumbing their noses at the demonstrated wishes of the majority of Canadians. "Demonstrated wishes of the majority of Canadians" does not trump the law, else nobody would still be going to jail for marijuana possession. Canadians fooled by the rhetoric of the niqab being a security risk or a harbinger of shariah law arriving next week might feel differently if they really understood the extent of the "problem", the actual issue, or that until 2011 women could and did take the oath while wearing a niqab. I think it might have been politic of the NDP/Libs to offer a referendum after the election, cooler heads and some sanity might have prevailed. It'll be a shame if Harper wins by appealing to bigotry and sadly, it looks like a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) This was the post I was responding to: Reform had a different solution to the problem but they still protested ('cried about') the same issue. In fact, the local Reform candidate spoke to my history/civics class in 1993 and told us that our electoral system amounted to "elect[ing] a dictator" every four years. (I remember leftists complaining about it as well. I despised Chrétien as a further-left-than-now teenager and resented the concentration of power.) I actually prefer Reform's solution in this case. My point, however, was that the opposition to how our electoral system leads to a concentration of power in the hands of leaders whose parties won less than half of the popular vote is not something that has begun under Harper, as much as his supporters want to believe that he is a modern-day Joan of Arc. People complained about it under Chrétien too. It's a dreadful system, no matter who is in power. It encourages apathy and cynicism and makes incumbents arrogant. Look at the Anders fiasco. Imagine if you are a party loyalist but can't stand the local MP. Under STV, you can vote for another guy in the the same party. Edited October 1, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I don't believe it's strictly about the niqab issue. I think many Canadians are turned off by the Liberals and the NDP going counter to the stated wishes of the majority of Canadians who do want the niqab removed when the oath of citizenship is taken. If those parties disregard what they knew full well was of concern to the majority, how would they act on other issues if they win government? No doubt, many Canadians are asking themselves that question, me included.Parties should not pander. They should put out a platform based on their core beliefs and see who wants to vote for it. Far more objectionable is promising one thing before an election and doing something different afterwards. For the NDP and Liberals, this is a matter of principle, defending pluralism and tolerance in Canada. They know full well they will lose votes because of it. I admire anybody who does that. And I see Andrew Coyne doesn't think too much of this debate either:http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-to-uncover-or-not-to-uncover-why-the-niqab-issue-is-ridiculous Edited October 1, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Says the guy who smells like feet. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Part of the beauty of our charter is that it protects certain individual rights, regardless of which way the wind is blowing this week or next regarding majority wishes. Which is why such people should never be brought here in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 "Demonstrated wishes of the majority of Canadians" does not trump the law, else nobody would still be going to jail for marijuana possession. Uhm, almost nobody does - because of the demonstrated wishes of Canadians. What do you think pushed the softening of laws but the demonstrated wishes of Canadians? What do you think pushes any laws into being softened or hardened by the 'demonstrated wishes of Canadians'? What do you think democracy is about anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Which is why such people should never be brought here in the first place."Such people" here we go again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 "Such people" here we go again! It's a perfectly adequate description. Is it giving you problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Uhm, almost nobody does - because of the demonstrated wishes of Canadians. What do you think pushed the softening of laws but the demonstrated wishes of Canadians? What do you think pushes any laws into being softened or hardened by the 'demonstrated wishes of Canadians'? What do you think democracy is about anyway?There is a pot related police incident every 9 minutes in Canada according to 2014 stats., and charges are up 30% since 2006. The demonstrated wishes of Canadians will be met when it's either legalized or decriminalized. And that ain't likely under Harper now is it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 It's a perfectly adequate description. Is it giving you problems?Not really, but it does reflect on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Not really, but it does reflect on you. I'm an immigrant and it does not affect me at all. Call a spade a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Part of the beauty of our charter is that it protects certain individual rights, regardless of which way the wind is blowing this week or next regarding majority wishes. Not quite. Certain rights are not absolute and are subject to "reasonable accommodation". Quebec has been going through such accommodation for years. Reasonable accommodation is centered around undue hardship on either party. Seeing as we've provided a great deal of accommodation to the Muslim faith - or put another way, have not introduced any roadblocks to the practicing of their faith, sure a Charter challenge would have a good chance of siding with the government - that lifting the veil for a citizenship ceremony falls under reasonable accommodation - certainly not "undue hardship". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'm an immigrant and it does not affect me at all. Call a spade a spade. That I am highly literate? So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Not quite. Certain rights are not absolute and are subject to "reasonable accommodation". Quebec has been going through such accommodation for years. Reasonable accommodation is centered around undue hardship on either party. Seeing as we've provided a great deal of accommodation to the Muslim faith - or put another way, have not introduced any roadblocks to the practicing of their faith, sure a Charter challenge would have a good chance of siding with the government - that lifting the veil for a citizenship ceremony falls under reasonable accommodation - certainly not "undue hardship".They have the right to practice their faith under the charter, including wearing the niqab. If it does end up at the SC, which I suspect it will, I reckon Harper will lose yet another round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Let's stop pretending that all immigrants are alike. They're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 That I am highly literate? So? My point was that some seemed to be butt hurt over how you were referring immigrants as "such people". I was just saying that it's not a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 They have the right to practice their faith under the charter, including wearing the niqab. If it does end up at the SC, which I suspect it will, I reckon Harper will lose yet another round. Either way, Harper gets to take a stand on an issue, and at least he took it all the way to the SC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Which is why such people should never be brought here in the first place. We should not be bombing them causing their displacement and mass migration. We would not need to consider taking in refugees if we stayed out of the conflict. Whatever it is, it is not a civil war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) My point was that some seemed to be butt hurt over how you were referring immigrants as "such people". I was just saying that it's not a big deal. I was referring to those who believe women need to be covered head to toe their entire lives so as to not arouse lust in men as 'such people'. Edited October 1, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 We should not be bombing them causing their displacement and mass migration. We would not need to consider taking in refugees if we stayed out of the conflict. Whatever it is, it is not a civil war. Uhh, no, terrorists are basically causing people to flee. We should absolutely be bombing the terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Uhh, no, terrorists are basically causing people to flee. We should absolutely be bombing the terrorists.You mean like Assad? That would get us in trouble with the Russians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Uhm, almost nobody does - "Almost nobody" isn't the same as "nobody" so you've only proved my point. What do you think pushed the softening of laws As far as I know, the laws have not softened. What has happened is that in some areas of Canada, enforcement varies, which is more the function of police and prosecutors. Judges are subject to laws relating to sentencing minimums if the cases come before them. In terms of law enforcement being responsive to the will of the people, Halifax is better than Winnipeg. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-patchwork-pot-policy-how-possession-charges-vary-from-city-to-city/article16377021/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Reform had a different solution to the problem but they still protested ('cried about') the same issue. In fact, the local Reform candidate spoke to my history/civics class in 1993 and told us that our electoral system amounted to "elect[ing] a dictator" every four years. I believe so strongly in electoral reform then that I actually voted for Reform in the late 90s, early 00s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.