Singh Wins Federal NDP on 1st Ballot

[August1991]

On 10/16/2017 at 12:11 PM, Argus said:

They certainly ridiculed Stockwell Day for his religious beliefs.

Singh? Day?

Argus, good point.

=====

But I fear, Argus, that you miss a broader point.

We in the West have fought against obscurantism - while respecting individual choice.

Edited October 19, 2017 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, August1991 said:

We in the West have fought against obscurantism - while respecting individual choice.

I think it's more accurate to say there is a natural tension between the forces of individual freedom and homogenization.  We, at once, want to be free to do what we want as we demand others comply and become like us.
 

It's very natural, and accepting things and people who are radically different is not natural.  Being suspicious of such things is natural.   

 

It's difficult to be civilized.  You can't do everything you want.  Look at the ten commandments to find out what people naturally wanted to do.  Eventually holy laws were so successful at creating a civilization that the big problem was the different interpretations causing fights, so they had to create a new framework separating the laws from the various churches that created them.

[drummindiver]

On 02/10/2017 at 2:01 PM, Argus said:

There are enough Sikhs to swamp an NDP leadership campaign but not enough to get their party into power.

Many milenials believe the "if you don't vote for me you're racist" bullshit. Not enough get out to vote though. 

http://m.torontosun.com/2017/10/18/jagmeet-singh-plays-the-race-card

On 02/10/2017 at 6:13 PM, capricorn said:

As much as Mr. Singh likes to think (and says) that Quebec is a progressive province, IMO his wearing of religious symbols will not go over well in La Belle Province. It took Quebecers a very long time to get out from under the thumb of the Catholic Church and religion is not an element they want to contend with in their modern politics.

See Bill 62. They dont really want it in everyday life let alone politics.

On 05/10/2017 at 1:02 PM, Argus said:

You mean that Quebec cares about its culture and values more than English Canada? Yes, that's been obvious for some time. Hell, leftist Anglos refuse to admit English Canada even HAS any culture or values.

Hapy Holidays.

 

On 09/10/2017 at 11:19 PM, H10 said:

 

America has a large religious nut wing in the bible belt.  It is kind of funny that the "religious" "Christian" people are the most bigoted haters in the entire hemisphere.

Many Arab nations are in the same hemisphere. I challenge you to show the bible belt more bigoted...or racist

On 16/10/2017 at 11:44 AM, Michael Hardner said:

He didn't mention it, ie. he didn't have to explain or apologize for it.  I don't recall him having to make any such statements so I disagree that he 'felt the need to downplay'.  Candidates don't generally mention religion, so Harper seems typical in these regards.

Andrew Scheer sure had to disavow his religious beliefs would impact his politics.

Rightly so.

[Benz]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think it's more accurate to say there is a natural tension between the forces of individual freedom and homogenization.  We, at once, want to be free to do what we want as we demand others comply and become like us.

If some fields are clearly stable and accepted, others are still battlefields of the tension.

It is accepted that one can choose its religion and wear what its religion orders to. It is also accepted that if you work in a position of autority like a policeman, you must wear specific garments to show what you represent and the role you play.

Now the conflict is, some people think they can use the freedom of practicing religion of that first field and apply it into the second field where there are rules of homogenization. They think their right to practice their religion is stronger and overpass the common good.

This is where we are divided. Because it's now the religion that set rules into a field where rules have been defined by everyone, for everyone, for the common good. It is a total intrusion way above one's individual rights. Like if the power of religion is absolute.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Benz

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Benz said:

Now the conflict is, some people think they can use the freedom of practicing religion of that first field and apply it into the second field where there is rules of homogenization. They think their right to practice their religion is stronger and overpass the common good.

Homogenization isn't the common good.  Both individual rights and homogenization are good and the tension is to find the path between them.  The courts have used their imaginations to find areas where both areas could somewhat be satisfied, for example by creating hybrid uniforms.

 

8 minutes ago, Benz said:

This is where we are divided. Because it's now the religion that set rules into a field where rules have been defined by everyone, for everyone, for the common good. Total intrusion that is way above one's individual rights. Like if the power of religion is absolute.

There are lots of examples where religion is accommodated over the general/public requirements.  A Jewish store owner battled the government until the 1990s (!) for the right to open his doors on Sunday (the public, CHRISTIAN sabbath) which a day of work for him.

 

Ultimately, this is a question of what will fly and what will not.  The people of Quebec might think this is ok, but I don't.

[Benz]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Homogenization isn't the common good.  Both individual rights and homogenization are good and the tension is to find the path between them.  The courts have used their imaginations to find areas where both areas could somewhat be satisfied, for example by creating hybrid uniforms.

 

There are lots of examples where religion is accommodated over the general/public requirements.  A Jewish store owner battled the government until the 1990s (!) for the right to open his doors on Sunday (the public, CHRISTIAN sabbath) which a day of work for him.

 

Ultimately, this is a question of what will fly and what will not.  The people of Quebec might think this is ok, but I don't.

Homogenization can be for common good and can be for the worst as well. Homogenization itself has Nothing to do with good or bad, it is how we use it that can be morally judged.

Hybrid uniforms are not neutral. Therefore, they are attemps to make the religions win their point.

Accommodations are not a bad things, when they do not have effects on people other than those concerned. If Jewish stores opened on sundays have only customers from Jewish community and they do not compete with non Jewish stores, there are no conséquences. All accommodation requests have to be evaluated seperately. Some may be rejected, others accepted. I have no problem that religious people are asking accommodation. I just don't accept that they get it for granted only based on the fact that they are religious. Religion is not a free pass reason.

I see that you think it's not ok. Be sure that you are not near to convince me anytime soon. At least not with those weaks cases.

[PIK]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/10/18/jagmeet-singh-plays-the-race-card

So it did not take the new leader of the NDP to throw out the race card when the questions get tough. This is what we do not need. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by PIK

[Goddess]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are lots of examples where religion is accommodated over the general/public requirements.  A Jewish store owner battled the government until the 1990s (!) for the right to open his doors on Sunday (the public, CHRISTIAN sabbath) which a day of work for him.

Using Benz' analogy of the fields, both sides of this dispute were squarely in the religious field.  One side felt Sunday is the religious  "day of rest", the other did not.  Secularism won out. Thankfully.

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Benz said:

Homogenization can be for common good and can be for the worst as well. Homogenization itself has Nothing to do with good or bad, it is how we use it that can be morally judged.

Ok, I can accept that.

 

26 minutes ago, Benz said:

Hybrid uniforms are not neutral. Therefore, they are attemps to make the religions win their point.

Yes, it's a compromise.   Do they disallow crucifixes from being worn by cops ?  If not, religion also wins the point there although you'll find some detail that makes it ok, I am sure.

 

28 minutes ago, Benz said:

I have no problem that religious people are asking accommodation. I just don't accept that they get it for granted only based on the fact that they are religious. Religion is not a free pass reason.

These statements, taken together, are nonsense.  What else is religious accommodation other than a pass granted for the fact or religion?

 

29 minutes ago, Benz said:

I see that you think it's not ok. Be sure that you are not near to convince me anytime soon. At least not with those weaks cases.

Likewise.  You can explain why a legislature that passes laws under a crucifix can, with no hint of irony, pass laws intended to secularize Quebec.  It's xenophobia, sold with double-talk.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, PIK said:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/10/18/jagmeet-singh-plays-the-race-card

So it did not take the new leader of the NDP to throw out the race card when the questions get tough. This is what we do not need. 

NDP may as well slit their own throats now, politically speaking...

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

NDP may as well slit their own throats now, politically speaking...

The Kirpan should come in handy...

[Benz]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, it's a compromise.   Do they disallow crucifixes from being worn by cops ?  If not, religion also wins the point there although you'll find some detail that makes it ok, I am sure.

 

These statements, taken together, are nonsense.  What else is religious accommodation other than a pass granted for the fact or religion?

 

Likewise.  You can explain why a legislature that passes laws under a crucifix can, with no hint of irony, pass laws intended to secularize Quebec.  It's xenophobia, sold with double-talk.

The key word is ostentatious. If one has a discreet symbol, it is accepted. The goal is not to make the person feels we want to take the religion out of soul. It is to make sure the religion has its limits and the person understands if there are a conflict between its religious beleifs and the rules of the society, those last ones prevails. If a policeman wear a little crucifix or a little crescent moon or anything like that Under its clothes, it is the last of our concerns.

You think that all religious should be granted by default. I rather think that symbols and religious practices are forbidden by default for functions of autority. But one can ask for a accommodation and then we evaluate if it is reasonnable. I can't see a good reason for the functions of autority. But for other public jobs, there are plently of possibilities.

No double standards. A christian should not be allowed to wear an ostentatious symbol more than anyone else. I never said that an ostentatious crucifix should be allowed.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Benz said:

The key word is ostentatious. If one has a discreet symbol, it is accepted.

As I predicted, you found a way to separate 'ethnic' (using Parizeau's word) symbols from 'cultural' religious symbols other than the obvious.  This is done, now, by using the quaint word 'ostentatious'.  So the government has decided that a crucifix in the national assembly is not ostentatious and a face covering worn by a poor woman on a bus is.

This is state-sanctioned prejudice, and pandering to the worst instincts of the people.

3 hours ago, Benz said:

No double standards. A christian should not be allowed to wear an ostentatious symbol more than anyone else. I never said that an ostentatious crucifix should be allowed.

Maybe, instead, the government can just get out of the business of telling people what to wear.  The ID question is a separate one, and I can accept practical arguments in that domain.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe, instead, the government can just get out of the business of telling people what to wear.  The ID question is a separate one, and I can accept practical arguments in that domain.

You are talking past each other because neither of you has taken into consideration where the other is coming from.

Benz cares deeply about the culture and traditions of Quebec. This is not something you understand or can identify with as you could not care less about the culture and traditions of Canada

[Benz]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

As I predicted, you found a way to separate 'ethnic' (using Parizeau's word) symbols from 'cultural' religious symbols other than the obvious.  This is done, now, by using the quaint word 'ostentatious'.  So the government has decided that a crucifix in the national assembly is not ostentatious and a face covering worn by a poor woman on a bus is.

This is state-sanctioned prejudice, and pandering to the worst instincts of the people.

Maybe, instead, the government can just get out of the business of telling people what to wear.  The ID question is a separate one, and I can accept practical arguments in that domain.

Ahhh! you were talking about the crucifix in the Assemblée Nationale!!! That is not the same thing. I was talking about what people wear. That is another subject. You are vicious.

So regarding the crucifix at the A.N., it's a tricky one. In my opinion, we should remove it. But the point of those who would like to keep it, is that thing is a patrimonial object. Although I am no longer catholic and do not beleive in god, I admit they have a point. catholicism is part of our history and even if we have a seperation of Church and state, we do not need to erase our past. Having that thing in the A.N. does not jeopardize the mindset of the people Inside it. It is rather a matter of image than a matter of trust. We will not lose the confidence in the politicians to take the right decision, should there be a conflict between the rules of the state and the values of christianism, just because of that crucifix in the room. That is why I am tolerating it so far. But as I said, I would prefer have it moved to somewhere else.

Regarding the "poor woman" in the bus that can't no longer wear a burqa or niqab... I do not care about your feelings. I care about how she must feel to think she needs to wear such thing. I care about her lack of self confidence and the power her religion has over her throu indoctrination. While the only thing you care about, is the right of that religion to control her mindset.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Benz

[Benz]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

You are talking past each other because neither of you has taken into consideration where the other is coming from.

Benz cares deeply about the culture and traditions of Quebec. This is not something you understand or can identify with as you could not care less about the culture and traditions of Canada

Yet, he cares that all other religious organizations can freely indoctrinates their followers to values that are against the canadian ones. All protected under the sacred so called individual freedoms. This is a very sophisticated hypocrisy.

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

Benz cares deeply about the culture and traditions of Quebec. This is not something you understand or can identify with as you could not care less about the culture and traditions of Canada

Your argument fails, first on the general count because you are making assumptions and in fact aspersions on my character.  On the second count because you know nothing of my relationship with Quebec.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Benz said:

That is another subject.

Of course it's another subject, because making it so eliminates the question of xenophobia from how this legislation looks.  The fact is that one group is targeted for oppression by the government, with the approval of the majority who is not affected.  Making it about something other than oppression, as it appears, will make it certain that it passes.

 

14 minutes ago, Benz said:

I care about her lack of self confidence and the power her religion has over her throu indoctrination.

And I care about Quebecois who are now baptized into the new religion of government knowing what is best for you beyond any mortal.  

[Michael Hardner]

And now I realize I'm drifting the thread.  Apologies, and I will stop now even if you reply Benz.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Your argument fails, first on the general count because you are making assumptions and in fact aspersions on my character.  On the second count because you know nothing of my relationship with Quebec.

I am basing my assumptions on many of your posts and statements in the past. You've always talked about your comfort level with open borders, with bringing in however many foreigners wanted to come here as long as they can pay their way. You've never shown anything but 'couldn't care less' attitude when people talk about Canada's culture and traditions, expressing your delight in new and different cultures and traditions and values you encounter and never judged any of them poorly. My impression is you'd be delighted if you had the money to simply travel the world, constantly encountering new people and places. In terms of that discussion we had about Jonathan Hadre and his 'open' vs 'closed' personality types you are clearly quite open.

[Benz]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course it's another subject, because making it so eliminates the question of xenophobia from how this legislation looks.  The fact is that one group is targeted for oppression by the government, with the approval of the majority who is not affected.  Making it about something other than oppression, as it appears, will make it certain that it passes.

 

And I care about Quebecois who are now baptized into the new religion of government knowing what is best for you beyond any mortal.  

You clearly failed to demonstrate that we are xenophobic and I explained you why. You are trying to victimize the muslims like if those rules would be against them. Which is far from the truth because many muslims do agree with those rules. The muslims are warning us themself about the danger of those obscurantists. The real muslims have no problem to respect our rules and that does not jeopardise their faith into their religion. On the contrary. It helps save it from the obscurantists.

Your last sentence says alot about you. You considere my concern about the harmful religious indoctrination to women as a government's new religion. We are definitely not on the same page.

It is not that much off topic since we are talking about a subject that touches directly the bill 68 in Québec and that Singh said he will fight against it as much as he can.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I am basing my assumptions on many of your posts and statements in the past. You've always talked about your comfort level with open borders, with bringing in however many foreigners wanted to come here as long as they can pay their way. You've never shown anything but 'couldn't care less' attitude when people talk about Canada's culture and traditions,

Those two things are not related, sorry.  You can insult me all you want but don't try to say that Liberals who foist their values on you as "Canadian values" are incorrect, thanks.

 

1 hour ago, Argus said:

My impression is you'd be delighted if you had the money to simply travel the world, constantly encountering new people and places.

?  What an odd thing to say.  "No, of course not.  Mostly people with the money to travel constantly would prefer to stick to a trailer park in northern Florida."  Your impressions of me reflect a lot of thinking, not sure why.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah, and now I'll stop the thread drift on that end too. 

[peoples advocate]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎17 at 10:54 AM, PIK said:

We need Harper back. Now everyone knows Harper was a alright leadr, not perfect but solid.

hahahahahahahaah

[Bubble Burst]

I am a secular Liberal. Voted for Trudeau's Liberals and for provincial NDP. However I will never vote for someone who ostentatiously displays religious garments in public life. It shows him as a religious fanatic, and I don't want religious fanatics in government or paid by my taxes.