Why is Bernier against condeming white supremacy?

[-1=e^ipi]

See below tweet.

This is crazy? How does Bernier think that condemning white supremacy = associating an entire ethnicity with terrorism? And is he implying that white supremacy is a religion?

 

He has had plenty of time to retract his claim, clarify what he meant, or apologize. But we see none of that. Instead Bernier has doubled down on twitter with similar claims.

 

I don't think we should vote for someone who is against condemning white supremacy. If you want to vote against crony capitalism or supply management, please vote for the Libertarian Party instead.

[Michael Hardner]

No idea why.  He won't get elected on the White Supremacy ticket, of course, so he's either a zealot or he's profiting from it in other ways.

[jacee]

Maxime Bernier thinks white supremacists represent all white people.

He has clearly lost not just his confidential government files this time, but his entire supply of marbles. 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by jacee

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

How does Bernier think that condemning white supremacy = associating an entire ethnicity with terrorism? And is he implying that white supremacy is a religion?

The way I read it, Bernier is saying the opposite. He thinks it's absurd to associate the word "Sikh Extremists" with Sikhs in general, and I agree with that. If the government identifies a group of terrorists as Sikh Extremists, it doesn't make me think all Sikhs are extremist.

But it does demonstrate the liberal inability to discriminating things very clearly and precisely.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, jacee said:

Maxime Bernier thinks white supremacists represent all white people.

 

Well, to be fair, Canadian government(s) have long considered white people to be the benchmark to which other groups are compared and how they are defined (e.g. "visible minorities", "aboriginals", etc.).   So called "white supremacy" is an institutional part of Canadian government administration and bureaucracy, starting with employment law.

 

Quote

...We have policies that are not only explicitly based on a largely outmoded idea, but that further entrench it. It has almost no foundation in science, no usefulness, and no long-run merit. Result? People love it. Even the "we believe in science" left are heavy exploiters of this fallacy, just as much as the "race realists" of the far right with their passive-aggressive white supremacy. The fact that this is painted as mere pencil-necked data collection by the government in the name of a vague "equity" makes it even more insidious. (Sorry for all the scare quotes, just turned out that way....)

https://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2013/05/visible-minorities-distinctly-canadian.html

 

[jacee]

31 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The way I read it, Bernier is saying the opposite. He thinks it's absurd to associate the word "Sikh Extremists" with Sikhs in general, and I agree with that. If the government identifies a group of terrorists as Sikh Extremists, it doesn't make me think all Sikhs are extremist.

But it does demonstrate the liberal inability to discriminating things very clearly and precisely.

I just have to ask ... 

How do you interpret this statement?

And yet, he’s been warning us for weeks about the dangers of “white supremacy,” equating an entire ethnicity with terrorism.

[OftenWrong]

7 minutes ago, jacee said:

I just have to ask ... 

How do you interpret this statement?

And yet, he’s been warning us for weeks about the dangers of “white supremacy,” equating an entire ethnicity with terrorism.

He's saying that Trudeau's logic is a double-standard. Trudeau believes that words used to identify a group associated with terrorism must avoid the impression that this is a trait of the whole group. To some extent it depends on what Trudeau meant by White Supremacy.

[jacee]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

He's saying that Trudeau's logic is a double-standard. Trudeau believes that words used to identify a group associated with terrorism must avoid the impression that this is a trait of the whole group. To some extent it depends on what Trudeau meant by White Supremacy.

Do you think white supremacists represent "an entire ethnicity", as Bernier does?

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

Do you think white supremacists represent "an entire ethnicity", as Bernier does?

 

53 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

The way I read it, Bernier is saying the opposite. He thinks it's absurd to associate the word "Sikh Extremists" with Sikhs in general, and I agree with that. If the government identifies a group of terrorists as Sikh Extremists, it doesn't make me think all Sikhs are extremist.

But it does demonstrate the liberal inability to discriminating things very clearly and precisely.

What makes you think that is what Bernier actually believes, himself? I don't think it is.

Edited April 27, 2019 by OftenWrong

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

He's saying that Trudeau's logic is a double-standard. Trudeau believes that words used to identify a group associated with terrorism must avoid the impression that this is a trait of the whole group. To some extent it depends on what Trudeau meant by White Supremacy.

Bernier has had a long time to clarify his position, if that was what he meant. Instead, he hasn't and has just doubled down. He could have responded to criticism or concern over his comments by clarifying what he meant, but refuses to do so.

[-1=e^ipi]

Btw, the comment isn't a result of any linguistic barrier. He said the same thing in French.

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Bernier has had a long time to clarify his position, if that was what he meant. Instead, he hasn't and has just doubled down.

He's not obligated to clarify his position on inflammatory accusations. Any ordinary person such as myself can understand what he meant well enough.

And remember, it was Trudeau who raised this issue in the first place. He brought it to the political table. He initiated the dialogue, by making an offensive and baseless attack on "White people".

[-1=e^ipi]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

He's not obligated to clarify his position on inflammatory accusations. Any ordinary person such as myself can understand what he meant well enough.

Ordinary people don't claim that warning against white supremacy is an attack on an entire ethnicity.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is a recent article related to this topic:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/04/25/berniers-party-encouraged-organizers-to-court-radical-fringe-group-votes_a_23717471/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

[OftenWrong]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

Ordinary people don't claim that warning against white supremacy is an attack on an entire ethnicity.

It is Mr. Trudeau's own logic that defeats you there, fella. Don't complain to me, your boss is saying exactly that.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

It is Mr. Trudeau's own logic that defeats you there, fella. Don't complain to me, your boss is saying exactly that.

Boss? I don't support Trudeau. I was supportive of the PPC up until this comment by Bernier.

 

If your interpretation of what Mr. Bernier said is what Mr. Bernier meant, then Mr. Bernier could clarify things. Yet he chooses not to.

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Mr. Bernier could clarify things. Yet he chooses not to.

Hopefully I have explained it well enough for you then. Any other problems, let me know.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Ordinary people don't claim that warning against white supremacy is an attack on an entire ethnicity.

Ordinary people wouldn't claim that warning about Sikh terrorists is an attack on all Sikhs, either. 

[Hal 9000]

Good grief people, do you really NOT see the point he was making?  

[-1=e^ipi]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Ordinary people wouldn't claim that warning about Sikh terrorists is an attack on all Sikhs, either. 

I agree... but a comment by Trudeau doesn't justify the comment by Bernier.

[jacee]

Bernier is acting a bit strange. 

Fortunate that he's no longer likely to be PM. 

But kinda sad.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I agree... but a comment by Trudeau doesn't justify the comment by Bernier.

I think he was just trying to make a point about Liberal hypocrisy. 

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

I think he was just trying to make a point about Liberal hypocrisy. 

I agree.  But serious politicians don't "make points" unless they're campaigning to say outrageous things that will get them noticed... effectively because they have no chance of getting elected and are just trying to get a boost to become the next paid media badboy.  Which do you think *I* think this example is ?

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree.  But serious politicians don't "make points" unless they're campaigning to say outrageous things that will get them noticed... effectively because they have no chance of getting elected and are just trying to get a boost to become the next paid media badboy.  Which do you think *I* think this example is ?

Could be some truth in that. But then again Bernier is hardly a newcomer to saying things which outrage people. That is, after all, how he left the Conservative party.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Could be some truth in that. But then again Bernier is hardly a newcomer to saying things which outrage people. That is, after all, how he left the Conservative party.

I can't see his strategy being developed for the purpose of winning.