The downfall of respected political discourse In Canada (and here)

[Scotty]

Mulcair was certainly bland, but the dead cat that the Conservative threw on the table was one of the most despicable campaign strategies we've seen as long as I can remember. Though when I think about it, I guess it's a lot better than making fun of Chrétien's facial paralysis.

I'm assuming you're referring to the niqab? That is not what I consider 'dirty' politics. Dirty politics is smearing your opponent unfairly. The niqab issue is simply an issue the Tories took a stand on and which the other parties disagree on.

I think you consider it dirty because it's an outgrowth of one of the four major social topics that many people feel should never be discussed, because, I think, they feel the case is closed, and no one is allowed to open it up to consider alternatives. That, of course, is immigration.

But there is nothing dirty about the niqab debate except that one side believes that questioning it is an outrageous finger pointing at a minority group and should not be tolerated. Interestingly, most on the other side are also operating from a perspective of protecting individual rights in that the niqab represents, to them, a deeply unsettling and misogynistic representation of the belief that women are lesser persons and should, by culture or force, hide their faces and remain anonymous so as to not incite male lust.

What you fail to consider is that most on both sides are working out of their belief in what is needed to protect a secular, open society. There is no reason to demonize the other side for this even if you believe them mistaken.

[ReeferMadness]

Evidence of Harper having cheated in the last three elections seems vanishingly rare. I think you are taking a couple of individual instances such as the guy who outstripped his spending limits, and the guy who did that robocall stuff and blaming that on Harper. This even though there is no evidence such things were done in an organized, across the country basis as if it were being directed from above, and no evidence it had any impact even on local elections, let alone the national one.

Yeah and Chretien claimed that wasn't personally responsible for the sponsorship scandal.

Harper has introduced and/or accentuated a style of politics and campaigning that is divisive, intolerant and just plain unpleasant. IF (and it's a big if) he didn't personally endorse the cheating, it was certainly his leadership style that allowed and encouraged it. I hope his successor can manage to change the tone.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm assuming you're referring to the niqab?

---SNIP---

Isn't a little early to be whitewashing Harper for his misdeeds?

The international media is pointing the finger at Canada in general (and Harper in particular) for politics racist and anti-Muslim I posted a link yesterday that had links to about 8 major international media sites). Seems like he's "misunderstood" by a few people.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[ReeferMadness]

Some leaders have the ability to bring people together and inspire. Some divide and get people to rally around them by convincing their base that their values and way of life is under attack. Harper is definitely in the latter category.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Look what's happening down south. History shows that sooner or later what goes on down there winds up in Canada.

If you mean things like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, Blogs, etc. then that's true. Goes all the way back to the telegraph.

[Scotty]

Yeah and Chretien claimed that wasn't personally responsible for the sponsorship scandal.

Harper has introduced and/or accentuated a style of politics and campaigning that is divisive, intolerant and just plain unpleasant. IF (and it's a big if) he didn't personally endorse the cheating, it was certainly his leadership style that allowed and encouraged it. I hope his successor can manage to change the tone.

Speaking as someone who remembers how divisive earlier elections were I think you are mistaken about him introducing anything new. The difference being that overall political manners have gotten progressively worse over the years to the point nearly anything goes.

[Scotty]

Isn't a little early to be whitewashing Harper for his misdeeds?

I am not interested in replaying the discussion about the niqab on this topic. I was merely pointing out for the sake of political discourse that assuming your intelocutor's position comes from some kind of morally deficient position leads to nothing more than insults and smears.

[ReeferMadness]

Speaking as someone who remembers how divisive earlier elections were I think you are mistaken about him introducing anything new. The difference being that overall political manners have gotten progressively worse over the years to the point nearly anything goes.

Let's agree that things have gotten progressively worse. I think that Harper has taken things to a level previously unseen in Canada - more like the politics in the USA.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think this culture of not discussing those things has done more harm than good.

Probably. The problem is that most people have an emotional attachment to a political position, combined with the fact that generally their position is unsubstantiated. If you don't have an emotional attachment to a political position then there is no reason to get offended or have a dislike for such conversations because either A. you will be presented with a better position, in which case you can simply change your mind, or B. you will demonstrate that your position is better, which means your position is now strengthened from such a challenge.

[ReeferMadness]

I am not interested in replaying the discussion about the niqab on this topic. I was merely pointing out for the sake of political discourse that assuming your intelocutor's position comes from some kind of morally deficient position leads to nothing more than insults and smears.

And I'm pointing out it isn't just me, it's most independent commentators, even conservative ones. Andrew Coyne. Conrad Black. Rafe Mair. International media. There were two editorials in the National Post yesterday that lambasted Harper for the pathetic spectacle with the Ford family. None of these guys are in the pocket of the Liberals or NDP.

There are very few people these days outside of the partisan base that have good things to say about Stephen Harper's style. The only logical defense I've heard of him lately is he's been fiscally responsible (and even that's debatable).

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's agree that things have gotten progressively worse. I think that Harper has taken things to a level previously unseen in Canada - more like the politics in the USA.

Even if that was true, it sure has made things far more interesting than the previous "watching paint dry" boredom of before. Even the Liberals and NDP had to import American speakers just to keep their delegates awake at conventions.

[Scotty]

And I'm pointing out it isn't just me, it's most independent commentators, even conservative ones.

That's completely irrelevent. I'm not commenting on why the Conservatives chose to make an issue of the niqab, and agree it was at least in part politically motivated. But I've read a number of columns opposing the niqab and they have very good reasons, most of them having to do with a a liberal belief in what our society should stand for. They are entitled to those opinions without being derided as evil or morally inferior. They are placing more importance on the need of society not to accomodate something which, to them, symbolizes oppression towards women, than to the right of a woman to wear the niqab. That might be a different opnion than yours but it is no less valid and no less moral. You have no lock on what is and is not an acceptable opinion.

[ReeferMadness]

That's completely irrelevent. I'm not commenting on why the Conservatives chose to make an issue of the niqab, and agree it was at least in part politically motivated. But I've read a number of columns opposing the niqab and they have very good reasons, most of them having to do with a a liberal belief in what our society should stand for. They are entitled to those opinions without being derided as evil or morally inferior. They are placing more importance on the need of society not to accomodate something which, to them, symbolizes oppression towards women, than to the right of a woman to wear the niqab. That might be a different opnion than yours but it is no less valid and no less moral. You have no lock on what is and is not an acceptable opinion.

And if the Conservatives brought this up in a thoughtful, mature way that invited respectful debate (as I understood they did in Quebec), he wouldn't come across as a race-baiting ass. Instead, he brought in an Australian with a reputation for divisive race-baiting politics and within the space of a week, he started talking up the niqab issues (both the citizenship ceremony and the public service) and followed it up with the ridiculous "barbaric cultural practices hotline. To most people outside of the loyal base, that looks like politics of fear and division.

It's all about context. You can go and lick your wounds and complain that Harper is being treated unfairly - but I think most people see it pretty much exactly as it is.

[Scotty]

It's all about context. You can go and lick your wounds and complain that Harper is being treated unfairly - but I think most people see it pretty much exactly as it is.

I am not even speaking to what Harper does or says but other individuals in society, including those on this site, who should be able to discuss this issue without being subjected to labels.

And all of this is part of one of the four topics which certain people feel may not be discussed, that being immigration.

[ReeferMadness]

I am not even speaking to what Harper does or says but other individuals in society, including those on this site, who should be able to discuss this issue without being subjected to labels.

And all of this is part of one of the four topics which certain people feel may not be discussed, that being immigration.

And I think there was a healthy debate on this site on niqabs - which is amazing considering the context in which the topic first came up. If you want to discuss immigration, do it. Just be aware that a lot of anti-immigration sentiment comes from racists or people who are prejudiced against some group or religion. And frame the discussion accordingly.

[msj]

I'm sorry but this is the dirtiest federal election in Canada I've seen in all my adult years. Not to say the others weren't dirty, but this is the worst. And not because it's more noticeable, it's because the tactics have changed, and the campaign money must be massive. Tell me with a straight face you've ever seen mudslinging TV or radio or print ads at the rate of this election in Canada.

Probably I suppose. Don't know as I don't watch TV unless it is on demand so I rarely see any ads.

This is what I mean by filters - use them and who cares what garbage some dirty back room guy is whipping up.

Human nature arguments are BS. Killing people and raping people and molesting children is human nature too. But through reason we have calculated that it's is to the benefit of all if these activities were banned and protected against. It's called civilized society. But hey it's ok for rape to occur because "human nature" and facebook.

This here is a straw man argument.

I never claimed this so have no idea where you get it from.

[Icebound]

Yeah that's an odd behaviour I've seen this election on MLW. It's like posters are campaigning on here lol.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there were a few posters on MLW that are paid by the parties. The number of posts per day for some would have had to be practically a full-time job ....

...

[ReeferMadness]

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that there were a few posters on MLW that are paid by the parties. The number of posts per day for some would have had to be practically a full-time job ....

...

who would pay someone to post on MLW? It would have to be a party with a lot of money.

[Moonlight Graham]

There isn't any evidence to support that, other than taking a few instances of individuals getting overzealous, and then exagerating them and using them to tar entire parties.

I've asked for an example and you declined to provide one. [re: "Name a disgusting action of a political party in this election - without advocating for or against in order to avoid thread drift".]

Here's one from just yesterday. Though both the party and the publisher are guilty in this case.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Smeelious]

Generally I think this has been one of the least dirty elections in recent memory. This is based only on my own perceptions, and might not have basis in reality.

I don't especially think that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse in recent years either. As with most things specific topics will come and go.

To the giant adds in the papers....That tends more to a discussion about critical thinking than evil electioneering. I think it was fairly obvious that those were adds, I would hope that most people realized that too..

[PIK]

The crap started with PET.He was the one that divided thio country and we have been paying the price since.

[ToadBrother]

The crap started with PET.He was the one that divided thio country and we have been paying the price since.

This country has had long-standing divisions dating back to before Confederation. The East-West divide hardly began with Trudeau, I'd say it began with Sir John A. MacDonald and Louis Riel.

[msj]

What about the religious divide? Catholic vs protestant?

I seem to recall something about certain Churches would explain that red is for hell and blue is for heaven - and that was back in the 1870's.

Canada has come a long way from allowing religious densibilities sensibilities influencing political discourse.

That is a step in the right direction we take for granted today.

[Scotty]

And I think there was a healthy debate on this site on niqabs

With tons of namecalling.

If you want to discuss immigration, do it. Just be aware that a lot of anti-immigration sentiment comes from racists or people who are prejudiced against some group or religion. And frame the discussion accordingly.

Your assumption about motives is revealing. It is simply not possible to discuss immigration without going into the pros - AND cons, which means delving into immigrant failure rate and detrimental effects on Canada, as well as possible ways to improve things. That will automatically queue the politically correct to attack mode.

[poochy]

With tons of namecalling.

Your assumption about motives is revealing. It is simply not possible to discuss immigration without going into the pros - AND cons, which means delving into immigrant failure rate and detrimental effects on Canada, as well as possible ways to improve things. That will automatically queue the politically correct to attack mode.

But it's ok when they call you a racist, don't you get it? They have been trained to think that way, the whole country has for 40 years, most of them do not have the intellectual independence required to think critically about an issue without running back to their progressive training, which is of course why we seem to have so many taboo subjects in Canada, not only are you wrong for even considering a different opinion, you aren't truly allowed to express it, not without immediately being labelled. Well, erm, ah idk gee, that's uncomfortable....RACIST! That'l shut em up.