Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] Takin' out the trash to replace it with... whoops.

15860626364

Posts

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.


    Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
    I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.

    I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?

    How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.

    I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.


    edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
    My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.

    I still find it funny there is an exception for weeding rings.... A strongly Judeo-Christian symbol.

    Your point about Natives is 100% on point though. Those are religious symbols that are not specifically exempted.... And surprise! Not a white person thing!

    Like every single thing targeted by this is for non white cultures. If those of you being pedantic on here don't see that I don't know what to tell you. This does not pass a basic smell test.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    BroloAridholSatanIsMyMotorSteelhawkSchmimpy Pim- no god what am I sayingKetBraNova_CCaulk Bite 6EtiowsaCanadianWolverineFencingsaxAngelHedgie
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    Except it isn't taking specifics into consideration. Someone choosing to dress a certain way is inherently different from someone being forced to dress in a certain way. That consesual nature is, to my mind, key. And it is completely ignored in outlawing particular dress.

    Gnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    My basic assertion is that we have all the laws necessary to curb harmful things today and this law is an extension targeted specifically at the "weird" cultures that just so happened to have increased in the last couple decades in many communities.
    Any regulation of someone's specific cultural practices should be done with care and with an eye to the direct harm caused.

    I think this law fails at all of that.

    Are many women being forced to wear the niqab? yes, certainly.
    Is it illegal for them to take it off in Canada? Nope
    Will they face legal consequences for choosing to take it off in Canada? nope
    Will their husband face legal consequences for beating her for taking it off in Canada? Yep.

    That's it in a nutshell for me.

    monikermrondeauGnome-InterruptusDisco11CelloCaulk Bite 6
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Damn, we deserve what we get :(

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514

    Public Square Research and Maru/Blue to capture a portrait of the country in this election year, found that while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.


    edit: If you agree to spend $15 on netflix every month but not more than $10 for climate change I am gonna go ahead and challenge your assertion that fighting Climate Change is a "Top" priority.

    This definitely feels like one of those things where surveying people on even the slightest nuance of some policies is kinda pointless.
    It reminds me of the West Wing bit, where they had a survey, in which 18 percent of people thought spending on something was too high, and 11 percent thought it should be cut.

    TubularLuggage on
    ZibblsnrtEddyFencingsax
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Damn, we deserve what we get :(

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-poll-climate-change-1.5178514

    Public Square Research and Maru/Blue to capture a portrait of the country in this election year, found that while nearly two-thirds of Canadians see fighting climate change as a top priority, half of those surveyed would not shell out more than $100 per year in taxes to prevent climate change, the equivalent of less than $9 a month.


    edit: If you agree to spend $15 on netflix every month but not more than $10 for climate change I am gonna go ahead and challenge your assertion that fighting Climate Change is a "Top" priority.

    This definitely feels like one of those things where surveying people on even the slightest nuance of some policies is kinda pointless.
    It reminds me of the West Wing bit, where they had a survey, in which 18 percent of people thought spending on something was too high, and 11 percent thought it should be cut.

    100%

    Also, you can't reference a west wing scene without linking it. That's the law.

    edit: shit, wrong one.


    Aridhol on
    Fencingsax
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    I think he was referencing this one

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    BroloTubularLuggageArcticLancerFencingsax
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    crap I can't find it :(

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.


    Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
    I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.

    I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?

    How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.

    I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.


    edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
    My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.

    But this is about actions, as I already pointed out. The practice in this case being a specific mode of dress women are supposed to follow.

    You were the one that brought up the first nations example and even got whingy about no one running with it. So here I am, running with it. What specific practice are we talking about here? What example are you thinking of?

    Under this law, it would seem that first nations religious symbols would be just as banned as anything else, since it's supposed to apply to everything afaik.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    Except it isn't taking specifics into consideration. Someone choosing to dress a certain way is inherently different from someone being forced to dress in a certain way. That consesual nature is, to my mind, key. And it is completely ignored in outlawing particular dress.

    The question isn't whether or not someone can be told how to dress but what specifically you can or cannot dress as. I'm saying it's doesn't have to be about choice vs lack of choice.

    Basically one can think that the law telling a woman she can't wear a hijab is wrong and also think the law telling that same woman she can't wear a shirt that advocates for the genoicide of the jewish people is fine. These are not incompatible ideas because the question is one of the specifics of what is being banned and not the question of whether the government could or could not do that.

    Brolo
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    sig.gif
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    crap I can't find it :(

    To be fair, both of those clips are pretty relevant to that.

    Aridhol
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    Except it isn't taking specifics into consideration. Someone choosing to dress a certain way is inherently different from someone being forced to dress in a certain way. That consesual nature is, to my mind, key. And it is completely ignored in outlawing particular dress.

    The question isn't whether or not someone can be told how to dress but what specifically you can or cannot dress as.

    It's not about whether someone can be told what to wear but whether some can be told what they are allowed to wear? That's the exact same hair.
    I'm saying it's doesn't have to be about choice vs lack of choice.

    Basically one can think that the law telling a woman she can't wear a hijab is wrong and also think the law telling that same woman she can't wear a shirt that advocates for the genoicide of the jewish people is fine. These are not incompatible ideas because the question is one of the specifics of what is being banned and not the question of whether the government could or could not do that.

    Okay, and the specifics of Bill 21?

    Aridhol
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    I’m guessing your best bet would be to report the text to your phone company. The cops probably won’t do a thing or even have an answer for you.

    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.


    Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
    I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.

    I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?

    How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.

    I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.


    edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
    My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.

    But this is about actions, as I already pointed out. The practice in this case being a specific mode of dress women are supposed to follow.

    You were the one that brought up the first nations example and even got whingy about no one running with it. So here I am, running with it. What specific practice are we talking about here? What example are you thinking of?

    Under this law, it would seem that first nations religious symbols would be just as banned as anything else, since it's supposed to apply to everything afaik.

    Apologies if I was a bit unclear. My point about the indigenous person is that there is no way this would fly anywhere outside racist quebec and I doubt it would even fly inside quebec if someone was indeed running for office wearing traditional dress. In essence I'm saying this will not be applied equally (as evidenced by wedding rings already excluded) and it's specifically targeting muslims which makes it racist as all fuck.

    There is no example to point to because the entire idea that anywhere would try to tell an indigenous person what to fucking wear as a pre-requisite for a job is so laughable I would think it was understood universally here.
    This would NEVER EVER happen because there would be a god damned riot. The only reason this is cool right now is because the people most directly affected and publicized are muslims and in Quebec it's all good to discriminate there.

    tldr; No government in Canada, outside Quebec, would ever be able to survive proposing a law that forbid indigenous people from wearing cultural garb or symbols. That's what I was saying.

  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    Depends on what it says. Unsolicited texts are technically spam but they're so easy to spoof sources it's just a waste of time to block numbers.
    You could check if it's a legit associated number but likely not.

    If it was something threatening or hate speechy then you could report it.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    Depends on what it says. Unsolicited texts are technically spam but they're so easy to spoof sources it's just a waste of time to block numbers.
    You could check if it's a legit associated number but likely not.

    If it was something threatening or hate speechy then you could report it.

    Also could be a nutter relative that signed you up to this service thinking you just need to hear more of the brain poison to join them and fall in line.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Caulk Bite 6
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    Depends on what it says. Unsolicited texts are technically spam but they're so easy to spoof sources it's just a waste of time to block numbers.
    You could check if it's a legit associated number but likely not.

    If it was something threatening or hate speechy then you could report it.

    Also could be a nutter relative that signed you up to this service thinking you just need to hear more of the brain poison to join them and fall in line.

    Thankfully all my familiar nutters both know I could ruin computers for them forever and/or they're too dumb to understand how to do that.

    Caulk Bite 6
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Read the bill, more or less, and as far as I can tell it only covers the wearing of religious symbols. Which means that Ash Wednesday activities aren't covered. Surely just an oversight.

    And as much as the conversation is focused on the hijab and niqab, this also hits Jews of both genders and male Sikhs. Probably others, but my knowledge of religious stuff people wear is limited.

  • ElaroElaro Mister No Fun AllowedRegistered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.


    Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
    I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.

    I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?

    How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.

    I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.


    edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
    My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.

    But this is about actions, as I already pointed out. The practice in this case being a specific mode of dress women are supposed to follow.

    You were the one that brought up the first nations example and even got whingy about no one running with it. So here I am, running with it. What specific practice are we talking about here? What example are you thinking of?

    Under this law, it would seem that first nations religious symbols would be just as banned as anything else, since it's supposed to apply to everything afaik.

    Apologies if I was a bit unclear. My point about the indigenous person is that there is no way this would fly anywhere outside racist quebec and I doubt it would even fly inside quebec if someone was indeed running for office wearing traditional dress. In essence I'm saying this will not be applied equally (as evidenced by wedding rings already excluded) and it's specifically targeting muslims which makes it racist as all fuck.

    There is no example to point to because the entire idea that anywhere would try to tell an indigenous person what to fucking wear as a pre-requisite for a job is so laughable I would think it was understood universally here.
    This would NEVER EVER happen because there would be a god damned riot. The only reason this is cool right now is because the people most directly affected and publicized are muslims and in Quebec it's all good to discriminate there.

    tldr; No government in Canada, outside Quebec, would ever be able to survive proposing a law that forbid indigenous people from wearing cultural garb or symbols. That's what I was saying.

    And no government in Quebec has survived proposing a law like Bill 21 yet, at least in the sense of "had a second mandate". The last ones who tried, the PQ, had a mandate of less than 2 years for pulling that stunt.

    And before we engage in more Quebec-bashing, may I remind everyone that we still operate under FPTP, and thus our government is not representative of our population. Only 34% of the voting public voted for them! This is true across Canada, you can count on roughly a third of the population to vote Conservative!

    "Most people don't look at the world through your asshole"
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    edited June 19
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment/amp
    Anti-Muslim sentiment appears to be the main motivation for those who support a ban on religious symbols, a new poll has found.

    The poll of 1,212 Quebecers, conducted May 3-7, found 63 per cent of Quebecers supported a ban on religious symbols for judges, police officers and prison guards, and 59 per cent were in favour of a similar ban for teachers. This was true for all age categories except for 18-24 year olds, who were against such a ban.

    ...snip...

    The poll also found only 28 per cent of people had a positive view of Islam, and 37 per cent had a positive view of Muslims, compared with 66 per cent who had a good view of Catholics and 60 per cent who had positive views of Catholicism.

    Among those who have negative feelings about Islam, 88 per cent support a ban on religious symbols for public school teachers. Conversely, those who had positive views of those religions were overwhelmingly against the ban.

    Maybe the numbers have changed since then, but it looks like a majority of Quebec is down for this.

    daveNYC on
    Aridhol
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Registered User regular
    They are and that's the problem. Quebec is turning into a super passive-aggressively racist province with a near term intention to drop the "passive" aspect.

    AridholCaulk Bite 6Brolo
  • HandkorHandkor Registered User regular
    But most of the polling has been a bit misleading with the questions about Bill 21. Lots of "Are you for a secular state?" When the question is changed to the enforcement part and the details of what they mean by secular state support drops pretty quickly.

    Elaro
  • ElaroElaro Mister No Fun AllowedRegistered User regular
    Yes, a majority of Quebecers are down for this, but that's because they're misinformed about Islam because most of them have never had a good conversation with a Muslim in their life! Also because we value a secular culture, so if you just ask twenty Quebec randos if authorities should be wearing religious symbols, just in general, their quick off-the-cuff answer will probably be "no". No to be anti-Muslim, but because without thinking about it, they believe in the separation of religion and public life!

    This isn't racism, this is misguided anticlericalism. Yes, in the fact, this is hurting everybody but Christians and non-religious folk, as intended by the CAQ, but the general sentiment of "religious leaders shouldn't control our education or the application of our laws" doesn't come from a bad place! I mean, yes, absolutely the CAQ would like a return to the Great union-busting Darkness, but they're assholes and all political landscapes have them, unfortunately.

    Now, you want to see Quebec's true face, watch the reaction to the immigration bill the CAQ are forcing down the throats of everyone else in the Assembly. I haven't seen much coverage of it yet, but going by campaign promises, let me just say that the CAQ is shopping for White Affluent Franco-belgian Francophones, or WAFFles for short. (Francophones Franco-Belges Blancs et Riches... Des Fran-fran Bebar, maybe ? )

    "Most people don't look at the world through your asshole"
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    you can have a secular state without controlling what people wear.
    Making the jewish headmaster take his kippah off when teaching doesn't make the guy not jewish.
    The law does nothing at all except make people with highly visible religious garb the "others".

    One question I have is what will happen when a company decides that no turbans are allowed or no kippahs.
    How will a court square the fact that the government can say no but a company can't?

    "I'm sorry Steve Jewishperson, you can't be a VP because you'd then be a Jew in power over other folks at the company and that's bad here in this province"

    Gnome-InterruptusDescendant XCaulk Bite 6
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Elaro wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Like, fundamentally the problem here is y'all seem to want some sort of first principles kind of ruling here. But that shit is stupid. The law (as in, the law in general not this specific bill) is not a mathematical axiom and exists to take specifics into consideration. The argument y'all are floating is the same kind of thing you see thrown around when it comes to banning certain kinds of speech. As if the law can't make a judgement on what is and is not acceptable.

    I agree with you about the law but what someone wears doesn't do anything and the government regulating cultural beliefs and practices that don't directly affect other people is wrong and should not be done.


    Also, everyone so far has side stepped the indigenous persons thing which is really all you need to know about supporters of this kind of law.
    I'm just glad these kind of laws would never fly in any other province where institutional and cultural racism is at least a little less prevalent.

    I don't think anyone side-stepped it so much as they argued the core philosophical point at hand. But, I mean, if you really want to use another example, bring it up. What specific indigenous practice do you think applies here? What's the objectionable one in this case?

    How about you stop trying to steer this to the actions and focus on what the law does which is outlaw clothing. Does everyone object to stoning adulterers? yes? Ok great, let's move on to what the law actually is.

    I already addressed the fact that everything harmful about the practices are already illegal and therefore this law does nothing except further institutionalize racism and make more "others" who have no route to power without abandoning their culture.


    edit: I'll take a stab at what you're asking anyway. Can an indigenous person, under this law, wear their traditional clothing and/or head dress as Premier? Or a cop? or a public school teacher?
    My read of it is no and I'd like to understand how that is explained without racism.

    But this is about actions, as I already pointed out. The practice in this case being a specific mode of dress women are supposed to follow.

    You were the one that brought up the first nations example and even got whingy about no one running with it. So here I am, running with it. What specific practice are we talking about here? What example are you thinking of?

    Under this law, it would seem that first nations religious symbols would be just as banned as anything else, since it's supposed to apply to everything afaik.

    Apologies if I was a bit unclear. My point about the indigenous person is that there is no way this would fly anywhere outside racist quebec and I doubt it would even fly inside quebec if someone was indeed running for office wearing traditional dress. In essence I'm saying this will not be applied equally (as evidenced by wedding rings already excluded) and it's specifically targeting muslims which makes it racist as all fuck.

    There is no example to point to because the entire idea that anywhere would try to tell an indigenous person what to fucking wear as a pre-requisite for a job is so laughable I would think it was understood universally here.
    This would NEVER EVER happen because there would be a god damned riot. The only reason this is cool right now is because the people most directly affected and publicized are muslims and in Quebec it's all good to discriminate there.

    tldr; No government in Canada, outside Quebec, would ever be able to survive proposing a law that forbid indigenous people from wearing cultural garb or symbols. That's what I was saying.

    And no government in Quebec has survived proposing a law like Bill 21 yet, at least in the sense of "had a second mandate". The last ones who tried, the PQ, had a mandate of less than 2 years for pulling that stunt.

    And before we engage in more Quebec-bashing, may I remind everyone that we still operate under FPTP, and thus our government is not representative of our population. Only 34% of the voting public voted for them! This is true across Canada, you can count on roughly a third of the population to vote Conservative!

    I hope we can all understand that "X" bashing isn't targeted at any forumers here (maybe Richy... :) j/k) but rather the "masses" who are responsible for electing governments that do stupid shit.
    BC does stupid bullshit all the time and we can't take it personal.

    I mean no ill will to anyone here

    CanadianWolverine
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    I’m guessing your best bet would be to report the text to your phone company. The cops probably won’t do a thing or even have an answer for you.

    Maybe talk to your MP / MLA (aka their staff) about it? Sometimes interesting things come of that.

    steam_sig.png
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    So, I just got an unsollicited text message from Québec Proud. Is there anything I can do beyond blocking them? Reporting them to my phone company or the cops?

    I’m guessing your best bet would be to report the text to your phone company. The cops probably won’t do a thing or even have an answer for you.

    Maybe talk to your MP / MLA (aka their staff) about it? Sometimes interesting things come of that.

    I don't know about you, but I wouldn't talk to my MP if they and I were the last two people on Earth.

    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Every time I go to the grocery store with my toddler, I see my MP shopping with his wife. But, only when I take my kid. It’s happened three times so far, all random times of the week. It’s getting creepy. At least I know that he’s cheap like me and shops at No Frills.

    Gnome-InterruptusDescendant X
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular

    Queen's Park Reporter (with the occasional education story) at the Toronto Star.

    So we're... shuffling the shit around? That's not going to boost your sub-30% approval numbers, Doug.

  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    I'm a bit surprised that he moved Fedeli. They must have given up on trying to sell the budget as anything but a total shitshow

  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited June 20
    I've been seeing a lot of outrage on the internet regarding cuts to OSAP, the government run student loan program. The conservatives are always as bad as we expect. Making it harder for people to go through post secondary school makes zero sense. How does that help the province in any way?

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I've been seeing a lot of outrage on the internet regarding cuts to OSAP, the government run student loan program. The conservatives are always as bad as we expect. Making it harder for people to go through post secondary school makes zero sense. How does that help the province in any way?

    You see, a lot of people like horse racing-

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
    Caulk Bite 6
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    Hot take: I’ve always thought horse racing (and dog racing) as a gambling sport should die out. It seems cruel, and it always seems to be on the cusp of collapse, economically. My local racetrack is constantly begging the government for handouts to keep functioning.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Don't mind horse racing. I wouldn't protest to keep it or anything but I don't mind it.

    It's not going to die out though as it's been happening for thousands of years.
    Like thousands of years pre-colonization kind of stuff here...

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Don't mind horse racing. I wouldn't protest to keep it or anything but I don't mind it.

    It's not going to die out though as it's been happening for thousands of years.
    Like thousands of years pre-colonization kind of stuff here...

    We need robot dogs and horses !

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Don't mind horse racing. I wouldn't protest to keep it or anything but I don't mind it.

    It's not going to die out though as it's been happening for thousands of years.
    Like thousands of years pre-colonization kind of stuff here...

    We need robot dogs and horses !

    Robot dogs and horses and whatever would be sweet.

    I want robot battles, races, explosions etc.

    Give me the Reel Steel live shit I need scientists!

    Caulk Bite 6ForarGnome-InterruptusSteelhawk
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I've been seeing a lot of outrage on the internet regarding cuts to OSAP, the government run student loan program. The conservatives are always as bad as we expect. Making it harder for people to go through post secondary school makes zero sense. How does that help the province in any way?

    If you want a picture of Ontario's future, imagine a white conservative man's boot stamping on a human face, forever.

    sig.gif
    AegisCaulk Bite 6
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Al_wat wrote: »
    I've been seeing a lot of outrage on the internet regarding cuts to OSAP, the government run student loan program. The conservatives are always as bad as we expect. Making it harder for people to go through post secondary school makes zero sense. How does that help the province in any way?

    What way do those graduates tend to vote?

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    It's just SOP for the contemporary right — slash programs, make them unable to function, then use that dysfunction as an excuse to make further cuts, replace public organizations with private ones, and continue cutting taxes

    I'm sure Ford would love totally privatized education and student loans

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
    Al_watLaOsShadowenGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6shryke
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    So excited that we’re now in the ‘it’s always election season’ world of the United States, as I see my second Shaping Canada’s Future ad.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    PsykomaCaulk Bite 6RichyCelloshryke
Sign In or Register to comment.