As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Pardon my French [Canadian Politics Thread]

194969899100

Posts

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I'm getting married in November. These new restrictions literally don't change anything for us as we planned originally for under 50 x people and social distancing in a big space.

    Though now I have a system in place to weed out the unvaccinated who may have slipped in. No free booze or taco's for you

    Hey, congrats!

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusKayne Red RobeAegisLordSolarMachariusSteelhawkTeriferinImperfectdjmitchellaFencingsaxJragghenElvenshaeShadowenEtiowsaJayrichoCanadianWolverine
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    I'm getting married in November. These new restrictions literally don't change anything for us as we planned originally for under 50 x people and social distancing in a big space.

    Though now I have a system in place to weed out the unvaccinated who may have slipped in. No free booze or taco's for you

    Hey, congrats!

    Thank you!

    We pushed it back from June thinking we would be in a better place.....

    Best summer ever = Fucked for Fall

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    I like advance voting a lot. I get a thrill from putting my balot in the little box.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    The fact you need to write the name of the candidate you vote for, rather than check a box, guarantees it won't be the norm. Nor should it be in my opinion. Ballots are more difficult to count, and I don't want people's bad handwriting to become a problem for our democracy.

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusArcticLancermrondeaushrykeLordSolarMacharius
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    Herein we see a PC candidate flubbing an easy question:

    RichyAl_watEl MuchoEtiowsaRear Admiral Choco
  • djmitchelladjmitchella Registered User regular
    What's up with purple? Here in Calgary, if it means anything, it's Nenshi's colour, which I guess is a dogwhistle for not liking property developers and being pretty mad with the provincial government:
    "Regardless of the politics and the ideology and the endless lurching back and forth like a Stampede ride that we're hearing from the province, your city government is here for you … and we'll continue to do what it takes to get us out of this," Nenshi said,

    nenshi.jpg

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    sig.gif
    shrykeGnome-InterruptusAegis
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    What's up with purple? Here in Calgary, if it means anything, it's Nenshi's colour, which I guess is a dogwhistle for not liking property developers and being pretty mad with the provincial government:
    "Regardless of the politics and the ideology and the endless lurching back and forth like a Stampede ride that we're hearing from the province, your city government is here for you … and we'll continue to do what it takes to get us out of this," Nenshi said,

    Last I checked, purple was the colour of royalty, homosexuality, and a teletubby. I was actually looking at the pattern on the purple tie to find if there were dogwhistles drawn on it.

    sig.gif
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    TubularLuggageGnome-InterruptusPhoenix-DBlarghyThe Cow KingCaedwyrShadowenEvil MultifariousRear Admiral ChocoAridholSteelhawkSatanIsMyMotorOmnomnomPancaketynic
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Richy wrote: »
    What's up with purple? Here in Calgary, if it means anything, it's Nenshi's colour, which I guess is a dogwhistle for not liking property developers and being pretty mad with the provincial government:
    "Regardless of the politics and the ideology and the endless lurching back and forth like a Stampede ride that we're hearing from the province, your city government is here for you … and we'll continue to do what it takes to get us out of this," Nenshi said,

    Last I checked, purple was the colour of royalty, homosexuality, and a teletubby. I was actually looking at the pattern on the purple tie to find if there were dogwhistles drawn on it.

    A few right wing populist parties have been using it recently, I'm guessing mostly because it's a color that wasn't already being used by a major party. The bigoted anti-French people's alliance party in New Brunswick uses purple too. Their predecessors used green back in the late '80s/early '90s, but since then the Green party has gotten dibs on that.

    It's annoying, because purple was one of my go-to voting day shirt colors in the past, since I'd try to not wear a party color to the polls (They don't care. I think it's just a mental holdover from the times I worked as a poll worker).

    TubularLuggage on
    LordSolarMacharius
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    The fact you need to write the name of the candidate you vote for, rather than check a box, guarantees it won't be the norm. Nor should it be in my opinion. Ballots are more difficult to count, and I don't want people's bad handwriting to become a problem for our democracy.

    ooor you could send out ballots with check boxes and a blank space at the bottom to write in if needed?

    Fencingsax
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    The fact you need to write the name of the candidate you vote for, rather than check a box, guarantees it won't be the norm. Nor should it be in my opinion. Ballots are more difficult to count, and I don't want people's bad handwriting to become a problem for our democracy.

    ooor you could send out ballots with check boxes and a blank space at the bottom to write in if needed?

    We could; I guess that would require changing the way Elections Canada handles mail-in voting.

    We'd still be left with the issues of Conservatives fucking with the postal service to stop the ballots from getting in on time and setting up fake mailboxes to steal ballots, though.

    sig.gif
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    The fact you need to write the name of the candidate you vote for, rather than check a box, guarantees it won't be the norm. Nor should it be in my opinion. Ballots are more difficult to count, and I don't want people's bad handwriting to become a problem for our democracy.

    ooor you could send out ballots with check boxes and a blank space at the bottom to write in if needed?

    We could; I guess that would require changing the way Elections Canada handles mail-in voting.

    We'd still be left with the issues of Conservatives fucking with the postal service to stop the ballots from getting in on time and setting up fake mailboxes to steal ballots, though.

    You solve that by putting them in jail. Well the second part anyway. Just because US election law is shit doesn't mean yours has to be. :D Besides, they can also steal a page from the GOP and fuck with the number of polling places for the same effect in person.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    The fact you need to write the name of the candidate you vote for, rather than check a box, guarantees it won't be the norm. Nor should it be in my opinion. Ballots are more difficult to count, and I don't want people's bad handwriting to become a problem for our democracy.

    ooor you could send out ballots with check boxes and a blank space at the bottom to write in if needed?

    We could; I guess that would require changing the way Elections Canada handles mail-in voting.

    We'd still be left with the issues of Conservatives fucking with the postal service to stop the ballots from getting in on time and setting up fake mailboxes to steal ballots, though.

    You solve that by putting them in jail. Well the second part anyway. Just because US election law is shit doesn't mean yours has to be. :D Besides, they can also steal a page from the GOP and fuck with the number of polling places for the same effect in person.

    They can't, because Elections Canada is an independent entity, unlike in the US where the elections are managed and run by the party in power (seriously, who the fuck thought this was a good idea?)

    sig.gif
    CroakerBCCaedwyrEl MuchoCanadianWolverineLordSolarMacharius
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    I and pretty much everyone I know did the mail in voting option this time around; it was so much easier, faster and convenient than the usual process I wish it was the norm

    The fact you need to write the name of the candidate you vote for, rather than check a box, guarantees it won't be the norm. Nor should it be in my opinion. Ballots are more difficult to count, and I don't want people's bad handwriting to become a problem for our democracy.

    ooor you could send out ballots with check boxes and a blank space at the bottom to write in if needed?

    We could; I guess that would require changing the way Elections Canada handles mail-in voting.

    We'd still be left with the issues of Conservatives fucking with the postal service to stop the ballots from getting in on time and setting up fake mailboxes to steal ballots, though.

    You solve that by putting them in jail. Well the second part anyway. Just because US election law is shit doesn't mean yours has to be. :D Besides, they can also steal a page from the GOP and fuck with the number of polling places for the same effect in person.

    They can't, because Elections Canada is an independent entity, unlike in the US where the elections are managed and run by the party in power (seriously, who the fuck thought this was a good idea?)

    And the head of the CDC, FCC, etc are the same. Like in the US, the head is still an appointed position. Get the "right" person at the top and.. Or just change the law with a sufficiently large amount of support. Seems like it wouldn't be that much harder than fucking with your post office.

  • TeriferinTeriferin Registered User regular
    I voted by mail as a Canadian living in the US. They sent me a prepaid airmail envelope to mail my ballot in, which was highly convenient.

    Technically it was an envelope for the envelope with my signature on it, that then contained the envelope with my ballot inside.

    teriferin#1625
    FencingsaxGnome-InterruptusSteelhawkIncenjucar
  • BlarghyBlarghy Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    CaedwyrHardtargetAridhol
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Alberta, like most of Canada already has a stronger pressure forcing the use of English. I'm not going to defend Bill 21, because it is discriminatory and shameful, but Bill 96 is not in the same category.
    Bill 96 is pointless (it address superficial issues rather than actual problems with the forced use of English), but it's no more fundamentally different than any other language preservation efforts.

    Caedwyr
  • HardtargetHardtarget There Are Four Lights VancouverRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities"
    right, but why does he?

    steam_sig.png
    kHDRsTc.png
    Disco11AegisEvil MultifariousAridholSatanIsMyMotor
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    I feel like the moderator could have avoided most of this backlash by just slightly changing the phrasing to "laws that some have called discriminatory or accused of marginalizing minorities." Just shift the onus to a general contention and avoid making it seem like it's your position. It's certainly factual that some have made those criticisms (very fairly, IMO)!

    oldmankenRichy
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    Stay safe Alberta peeps



    BC not coming to help either because things aren’t great here.

    :so_raven:
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Really? Because one of the first things Doug Ford did was cancel Ontario's French University, cut French services, and eliminate the French language services commissioner, and later when Laurentian University was in financial troubles his solution was to eliminate all the French programs at that university. New Brunswick has an actual anti-francophone party that campaigns (and wins seats) on a platform of eliminating equal rights for the francophone population in that province, and they cozy up nicely with the province's government. And yet, Kurl was very much uninterested in asking O'Toole why he supports discriminatory provincial Conservative leaders, while she was fire and brimstone over Blanchet's support of Québec's attempts to protect the French language. In fact, none of this got anything remotely resembling the national media attention and outrage of Québec's Bills 21 and 96.

    sig.gif
    CanadianWolverine
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    That depends on whether your goal is to open the floor to a fair and informative political debate, or to take a moral high stance and express your disdain for an entire province.

    sig.gif
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    It's not a problem to call racist things racist things. If you don't want the label for the bill don't have the bill.

    Sorry to hurt Quebec's feelings for the thing they specifically did themselves.

    Sincerely, Everyone else.

    SatanIsMyMotorBionicPenguinGnome-InterruptusOmnomnomPancakeTubularLuggageDisco11BlarghyHardtargetImperfectT-bolt
  • taliosfalcontaliosfalcon Registered User regular
    It’s pretty crazy; I’m in Alberta and my parents are 60+ at which age range our likely to be implemented soon triage system declares essentially let em die if anything goes wrong; they’re luckily pretty well off and planning to just.. leave the province soon if it goes into effect until it ends. They’re both double vaxxed but worried about strokes, heart attacks etc. And being triaged into no care

  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    That depends on whether your goal is to open the floor to a fair and informative political debate, or to take a moral high stance and express your disdain for an entire province.

    Why not call a spade a spade? It's a racist law that he is in support of. You seeing it as some kind of disdain for an entire province is reading way too much into nothing.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • OmnomnomPancakeOmnomnomPancake OttawaRegistered User regular
    Taco weddings are the best part of this page, by far.

    Disco11JayrichoLordSolarMachariusBouwsT
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    It's not a problem to call racist things racist things. If you don't want the label for the bill don't have the bill.

    Sorry to hurt Quebec's feelings for the thing they specifically did themselves.

    Sincerely, Everyone else.

    https://thebeaverton.com/2021/09/province-that-keeps-passing-racist-laws-gets-real-mad-when-you-call-them-racist/

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    Aridhol
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Taco weddings are the best part of this page, by far.

    Taco trucks and a magician. It's going to be a blast .

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    RichyThe Cow KingElvenshaeSteelhawkAridholShadowenJayrichoOmnomnomPancakeFencingsaxLordSolarMachariusBouwsT
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    TL;DR: Moderator ask a loaded question, and got the obvious answer, and we are supposed to be surprised.

    Frankly, I am more offended by the implicit assumption that limiting the dominating majority language, English, is somehow an act against minorities.
    I'll also point out that by conflating the two, the question gives cover to the racists: they can pretend they are only standing up against forced assimilation into English when defending racism directly is inconvenient.

    Plus, if you want to talk about real questions of racism and discriminant in Québec where the federal government actually has some jurisdiction, immigration is right there.
    The current interaction of provincial and federal immigration policies make it hard to US level for people to get their permanent residency in Québec. This is fairly new, and part of the problem is a federal quota, from what I understand.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Really? Because one of the first things Doug Ford did was cancel Ontario's French University, cut French services, and eliminate the French language services commissioner, and later when Laurentian University was in financial troubles his solution was to eliminate all the French programs at that university. New Brunswick has an actual anti-francophone party that campaigns (and wins seats) on a platform of eliminating equal rights for the francophone population in that province, and they cozy up nicely with the province's government. And yet, Kurl was very much uninterested in asking O'Toole why he supports discriminatory provincial Conservative leaders, while she was fire and brimstone over Blanchet's support of Québec's attempts to protect the French language. In fact, none of this got anything remotely resembling the national media attention and outrage of Québec's Bills 21 and 96.

    Let's not muddy the water here. People aren't upset about Quebec 'protecting the French language'. People are upset about the parts of Bill 21 that are harmful to minorities.

    The bigot party in New Brunswick does get called out, but they don't receive as much attention because they have no actual power. They're currently a small fourth place party opposite a majority government, on the decline, who thankfully never had any actual sway. Their predecessors fizzled out, and they seem to be on the same path.

    Also, people complain about Ford and Kenny all the time. People frequently complain about Alberta.

    (Also, earlier you implied that Kurl was from the CBC. She's actually with Angus Reid)

    AridholSatanIsMyMotorDisco11HandkorHardtargetCaedwyrGnome-InterruptusImperfectFencingsax
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Really? Because one of the first things Doug Ford did was cancel Ontario's French University, cut French services, and eliminate the French language services commissioner, and later when Laurentian University was in financial troubles his solution was to eliminate all the French programs at that university. New Brunswick has an actual anti-francophone party that campaigns (and wins seats) on a platform of eliminating equal rights for the francophone population in that province, and they cozy up nicely with the province's government. And yet, Kurl was very much uninterested in asking O'Toole why he supports discriminatory provincial Conservative leaders, while she was fire and brimstone over Blanchet's support of Québec's attempts to protect the French language. In fact, none of this got anything remotely resembling the national media attention and outrage of Québec's Bills 21 and 96.

    Let's not muddy the water here. People aren't upset about Quebec 'protecting the French language'. People are upset about the parts of Bill 21 that are harmful to minorities.

    The bigot party in New Brunswick does get called out, but they don't receive as much attention because they have no actual power. They're currently a small fourth place party opposite a majority government, on the decline, who thankfully never had any actual sway. Their predecessors fizzled out, and they seem to be on the same path.

    Also, people complain about Ford and Kenny all the time. People frequently complain about Alberta.

    (Also, earlier you implied that Kurl was from the CBC. She's actually with Angus Reid)

    The question explicitly said that protection against assimilation into English was equally as racist as Bill 21.

    Richy
  • BlarghyBlarghy Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    That depends on whether your goal is to open the floor to a fair and informative political debate, or to take a moral high stance and express your disdain for an entire province.

    I am legitimately curious how the question, loaded as it is, expresses disdain for an entire province? I assume there some opposition to the bills within Quebec itself. There seems to be a very large gap in how this issue is perceived within Quebec and outside of it. I don't disdain Quebec, and my belief that the bills are discriminatory would be the same if Alberta or Germany or Russia, etc banned the same things.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Really? Because one of the first things Doug Ford did was cancel Ontario's French University, cut French services, and eliminate the French language services commissioner, and later when Laurentian University was in financial troubles his solution was to eliminate all the French programs at that university. New Brunswick has an actual anti-francophone party that campaigns (and wins seats) on a platform of eliminating equal rights for the francophone population in that province, and they cozy up nicely with the province's government. And yet, Kurl was very much uninterested in asking O'Toole why he supports discriminatory provincial Conservative leaders, while she was fire and brimstone over Blanchet's support of Québec's attempts to protect the French language. In fact, none of this got anything remotely resembling the national media attention and outrage of Québec's Bills 21 and 96.

    Let's not muddy the water here. People aren't upset about Quebec 'protecting the French language'. People are upset about the parts of Bill 21 that are harmful to minorities.

    The bigot party in New Brunswick does get called out, but they don't receive as much attention because they have no actual power. They're currently a small fourth place party opposite a majority government, on the decline, who thankfully never had any actual sway. Their predecessors fizzled out, and they seem to be on the same path.

    Also, people complain about Ford and Kenny all the time. People frequently complain about Alberta.

    (Also, earlier you implied that Kurl was from the CBC. She's actually with Angus Reid)

    The question was:
    "You denied that Quebec has problems with racism yet you defend legislation such as bills 96 and 21, which marginalize religious minorities, anglophones and allophones. Quebec is recognized as a distinct society, but for those outside the province, please help them understand why your party also supports these discriminatory laws."

    It calls both French language protection (Bill 96) and secularism enforcement (Bill 21) as discriminatory, and conflates it with Québec's status as a distinct society into it for some reason, and also by the way puts words in Blanchet's mouth (he never said Québec has no racism problem, he said he doesn't want to use the expression 'systemic racism' because it's become politically loaded (which granted is bullshit, but that's a different debate)). I'm not muddying the waters, the question itself was a pile of mud. And if you don't see how "why do you support discriminatory laws" is a loaded and unfair question, please explain to us when you stopped beating your wife.

    People complain about Ford and Kenney and the racist party in NB. People in this thread definitely do so routinely. I have no problem with people. The CBC and MSM in general doesn't complain about them. At all. This debate is a perfect example of it - these discriminatory governments and their relationship to Federal parties (*cough*O'Toole*cough*) was not brought up once, while Kurl was more than happy to rant against Québec and Blanchet's support of it. This is the Québec-bashing double standard that's infuriating people and that's strengthening the Bloc.

    (I stand corrected on Kurl's affiliation.)

    sig.gif
    mrondeaushrykeLordSolarMacharius
  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Really? Because one of the first things Doug Ford did was cancel Ontario's French University, cut French services, and eliminate the French language services commissioner, and later when Laurentian University was in financial troubles his solution was to eliminate all the French programs at that university. New Brunswick has an actual anti-francophone party that campaigns (and wins seats) on a platform of eliminating equal rights for the francophone population in that province, and they cozy up nicely with the province's government. And yet, Kurl was very much uninterested in asking O'Toole why he supports discriminatory provincial Conservative leaders, while she was fire and brimstone over Blanchet's support of Québec's attempts to protect the French language. In fact, none of this got anything remotely resembling the national media attention and outrage of Québec's Bills 21 and 96.

    Let's not muddy the water here. People aren't upset about Quebec 'protecting the French language'. People are upset about the parts of Bill 21 that are harmful to minorities.

    The bigot party in New Brunswick does get called out, but they don't receive as much attention because they have no actual power. They're currently a small fourth place party opposite a majority government, on the decline, who thankfully never had any actual sway. Their predecessors fizzled out, and they seem to be on the same path.

    Also, people complain about Ford and Kenny all the time. People frequently complain about Alberta.

    (Also, earlier you implied that Kurl was from the CBC. She's actually with Angus Reid)

    The question explicitly said that protection against assimilation into English was equally as racist as Bill 21.

    Huh? How so? I actually just went back an rewatched that part of the debate to verify and I didn't see this.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Blarghy wrote: »
    Disco11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, the fall of the CPC's campaign in Québec and of their dreams of forming a government may end up being due to... a CBC moderator's open disdain for Québec and the Bloc.

    In the English debate (traditionally the debate that matters least to Québécois, ironically enough), Kurl asked Blanchet why he supports "discriminatory laws that marginalize minorities", which is right up there with "when did you stop beating your wife" in terms of fair questions that invite reasoned debate. Blanchet didn't take the bait and instead shot down the question and defended Québec. The blatant Québec-bashing disguised as a question, along with Blanchet's defense of the province, fired up support for the Bloc. This is important because the Bloc and CPC have a lot of overlap in their supporters: people who are sick of the LPC tendency to rule from Ottawa and trample provincial powers and want them out. More support for the Bloc means less support for the CPC, and thus less seats for the CPC and more seats either for the Bloc or, ironically, the LPC in ridings where vote-splitting between the two parties allows them to slip into first place.

    I've got to say, CBC sinking the CPC's campaign because they hate Québec too much is not the twist I expected.

    I mean... It's a fair question.

    His response of brushing it off and attacking the person asking the question is what all populists do.

    It's a racist law that really only affects people of color. Call it what you want but if it walks like a racist and talks like a racist....

    I'm pretty sure that if Alberta passed the same laws but instead restricted French instead of English, people would be just as rightfully up in arms about it. Its not Quebec bashing, its bashing a discriminatory law.

    Really? Because one of the first things Doug Ford did was cancel Ontario's French University, cut French services, and eliminate the French language services commissioner, and later when Laurentian University was in financial troubles his solution was to eliminate all the French programs at that university. New Brunswick has an actual anti-francophone party that campaigns (and wins seats) on a platform of eliminating equal rights for the francophone population in that province, and they cozy up nicely with the province's government. And yet, Kurl was very much uninterested in asking O'Toole why he supports discriminatory provincial Conservative leaders, while she was fire and brimstone over Blanchet's support of Québec's attempts to protect the French language. In fact, none of this got anything remotely resembling the national media attention and outrage of Québec's Bills 21 and 96.

    Let's not muddy the water here. People aren't upset about Quebec 'protecting the French language'. People are upset about the parts of Bill 21 that are harmful to minorities.

    The bigot party in New Brunswick does get called out, but they don't receive as much attention because they have no actual power. They're currently a small fourth place party opposite a majority government, on the decline, who thankfully never had any actual sway. Their predecessors fizzled out, and they seem to be on the same path.

    Also, people complain about Ford and Kenny all the time. People frequently complain about Alberta.

    (Also, earlier you implied that Kurl was from the CBC. She's actually with Angus Reid)

    The question explicitly said that protection against assimilation into English was equally as racist as Bill 21.

    Huh? How so? I actually just went back an rewatched that part of the debate to verify and I didn't see this.

    The answer is immediately above your post.

  • SatanIsMyMotorSatanIsMyMotor Fuck Warren Ellis Registered User regular
    edited September 17
    If it is, it isn't explicit, because I don't see it.
    I'm genuinely trying to understand here, can you be more clear?

    edit: NM, I understand now. That said, her question was about the bill. If a component of the bill is discriminatory and racist then the whole bill is. We can't pick and choose aspects of the bill to support and other aspects not.

    SatanIsMyMotor on
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    If it is, it isn't explicit, because I don't see it.
    I'm genuinely trying to understand here, can you be more clear?

    edit: NM, I understand now. That said, her question was about the bill. If a component of the bill is discriminatory and racist then the whole bill is. We can't pick and choose aspects of the bill to support and other aspects not.

    Bill 21 and Bill 96 are not the same bill. They are different bills. Bill 21 is racist bullshit. Bill 96 is performative protection against forced assimilation into the English majority.

This discussion has been closed.