Canadian Politics Thread

[Warhippy]

The thing about faith in regards to bigotry is that, if a person uses their faith to justify intolerance it makes them a bigot

 

Nobody is maligning a faith or body of belief there.  Just the individual that is using it to justify terrible behaviour.  See the US Maga GOP and Evangelical movement for reference

 

So in Canada, because a person would call out an individual based on individual behaviour and beliefs that are abhorrent justified by their faith, they are not being bigotry a for calling it out.  They are merely indicating the person in question is a bigot

[Bob Long]

Just now, Optimist Prime said:

I totally agree, and that is why I think any reference to GOD in the preamble to the charter needs to be removed, and from the Anthem, and prayer from places like the House of Commons, Provincial Legislatures, Town Halls, schools et cetera. 

 

and tax credits. I'm tired of supporting it. 

 

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

We have so much more in common than we have not in common, Warhippy. ; )

I can be combative to say the least.  Without question.

 

But my love or common sense and middle ground is why I'm so middle of the road about everything.

 

Their truth.  Your truth.  Whatever lies in the middle

[Optimist Prime]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

religion doesn't have to be complete, consistent, fair, objective, challengeable, or answerable to anyone in particular. Why would anyone want to base any law on that?

I will take it one notch further: if you enshrine the rights of a religious group to shape our laws, lets say a predominant one like Catholicism in Canada. Then what do you do when the majority religion changes to a flavour that isn't quite so analogous to what Canada is today?

 

Religious based laws seem nice to the religious, so long as it is THEIR religion whose influence is being felt in law. 

I don't think Christians would be very happy with a legal system like Irans, for instance. 

So if you wouldn't like say Sharia Law to be a thing in Canada: why on earth would you like Catholic Cannon to dictate law in Canada?

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Optimist Prime said:

I totally agree, and that is why I think any reference to GOD in the preamble to the charter needs to be removed, and from the Anthem, and prayer from places like the House of Commons, Provincial Legislatures, Town Halls, schools et cetera. 

 

I agree within reason. I say that because I do know some religions such as Sikhism require turbans and that should be allowed at the very least. Similar idea to wearing necklaces of the cross. I believe in respecting religions while making the government a non-religious ground essentially.

[Optimist Prime]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I believe in respecting religions while making the government a non-religious ground essentially.

I have no respect for religions. I think the overwhelming evidence suggests that most if not all bigotry is rooted in religion. Us vs Them: how do we know who "them" is? They dont pray to the same god we do. 

 

I would toss it all out. No use for God in governance. Tax the cults, I say. Free to believe, not free to push it on others. 

 

edit: I forgot to comment on the hats: i have no issue with anyones hat. 

[Maninthebox]

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I have no respect for religions. I think the overwhelming evidence suggests that most if not all bigotry is rooted in religion. Us vs Them: how do we know who "them" is? They dont pray to the same god we do. 

 

I would toss it all out. No use for God in governance. Tax the cults, I say. Free to believe, not free to push it on others. 

 

edit: I forgot to comment on the hats: i have no issue with anyones hat. 

 

I agree on the evidence and I'm not religious myself by any means; however, I think, even if you don't respect the religion itself, at least respecting people's decisions to follow a religion should still be there.

 

Whether we like it or not, religions are going to be a part of society for a long time. We can't control that. We can, however, control how we react to that.

[Optimist Prime]

5 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

I agree on the evidence and I'm not religious myself by any means; however, I think, even if you don't respect the religion itself, at least respecting people's decisions to follow a religion should still be there.

 

Whether we like it or not, religions are going to be a part of society for a long time. We can't control that. We can, however, control how we react to that.

Perhaps I don't follow what you mean by respect?

I have complete disrespect for religious folks. They are either charlatans or weak willed chattel believing the charlatans. But I don't molest/beat/deny them. Religious people sit beside me peacefully on the bus: if that is what you mean then i respect them. But if you mean i should shush up about it, then no I don't respect them. if you praise god in my presence, you are going to hear my disrespectful counterpoint. 

 

example: a certain religion demands 10% tithe and time spent on the street with a partner and a little metal stand of leaflets promoting the cult to the masses: If i am walking by and they are trying to talk someone into joining the cult, i let the person know their cult has a trillion dollar hedge fund and STILL will excommunicate the members who don't tithe. That is facts, is it disrespectful of me to interfere in the recruiting drive?

 

double edit: I feel I have wandered off topic, my apologies. Peace and Prosperity to all. I will leave this alone now. 

[Satchmo]

5 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:

inconceivable?

[The Lock]

7 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Perhaps I don't follow what you mean by respect?

I have complete disrespect for religious folks. They are either charlatans or weak willed chattel believing the charlatans. But I don't molest/beat/deny them. Religious people sit beside me peacefully on the bus: if that is what you mean then i respect them. But if you mean i should shush up about it, then no I don't respect them. if you praise god in my presence, you are going to hear my disrespectful counterpoint. 

 

Respect has nothing to do with telling people to shut up about things (well it might, read the 2nd paragraph as this paragraph doesn't read well in hindsight). It's more about accepting that some people will be religious and others will not, that's all.

 

For example, if the religious person beside you on the bus and said absolutely nothing and you turned around and suddenly started to harp on them about them being religious, that would be disrespectful in my opinion. Same thing if they decided to harp on you unprompted about their religion. If, however, you were having a peaceful discussion with them about religion and you both were providing your opinions, no name-calling or anything, that would be respectful. If you both just kept quiet, that would also be respectful.

 

It's no different than how we're having a conversation about it now, respecting that each other has an opinion about it.

Edited March 8 by The Lock

[Optimist Prime]

8 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

Respect has nothing to do with telling people to shut up about things (well it might, read the 2nd paragraph as this paragraph doesn't read well in hindsight). It's more about accepting that some people will be religious and others will not, that's all.

 

For example, if the religious person beside you on the bus and said absolutely nothing and you turned around and suddenly started to harp on them about them being religious, that would be disrespectful in my opinion. Same thing if they decided to harp on you unprompted about their religion. If, however, you were having a peaceful discussion with them about religion and you both were providing your opinions, no name-calling or anything, that would be respectful. If you both just kept quiet, that would also be respectful.

 

It's no different than how we're having a conversation about it now, respecting that each other has an opinion about it.

That is a good take. Some people think respecting a religion is to for instance agree that religious people can deny women's health supports because God says blah blah blah., again though wrong subreddit. LOL

[The Lock]

2 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

That is a good take. Some people think respecting a religion is to for instance agree that religious people can deny women's health supports because God says blah blah blah., again though wrong subreddit. LOL

 

"Respect" does not mean "agree". If having to agree were the case, we wouldn't need to talk about respect to begin with. As it turns out, people have different opinions and respect is then needed to prevent kindergarten tantrums. 

Edited March 8 by The Lock

[Bob Long]

35 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

I will take it one notch further: if you enshrine the rights of a religious group to shape our laws, lets say a predominant one like Catholicism in Canada. Then what do you do when the majority religion changes to a flavour that isn't quite so analogous to what Canada is today?

 

Religious based laws seem nice to the religious, so long as it is THEIR religion whose influence is being felt in law. 

I don't think Christians would be very happy with a legal system like Irans, for instance. 

So if you wouldn't like say Sharia Law to be a thing in Canada: why on earth would you like Catholic Cannon to dictate law in Canada?

 

hey man, thats like hate speech. 

 

But yes, anyone taking 10 seconds to look at it objectively can see the problems. 

 

Its just more borrowed US right wing-ness too. I wish our con's up here could at least come up with their own stuff to build policy around. 

 

[Optimist Prime]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

hey man, thats like hate speech. 

 

But yes, anyone taking 10 seconds to look at it objectively can see the problems. 

 

Its just more borrowed US right wing-ness too. I wish our con's up here could at least come up with their own stuff to build policy around. 

 

If the PC party still existed, r.i.p. PM Mulrooney, I would look to them as a replacement for the current government. The current itteration of Preston Mannings conservatives, for me, need not apply.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Optimist Prime said:

If the PC party still existed, r.i.p. PM Mulrooney, I would look to them as a replacement for the current government. The current itteration of Preston Mannings conservatives, for me, need not apply.

 

the PCs lost me when Judas McKay joined with the reformer pity party. 

[Optimist Prime]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

the PCs lost me when Judas McKay joined with the reformer pity party. 

Samesies. What a disgrace to his dad. Mr. McKay was spinning in his grave that day.

[Optimist Prime]

The elder McKay was kingmaker to Mulrooney and the inside track was Peter would be PM one day too. Too bad he sold out the party after signing a declaration not too on the convention floor. Peter McKay lost all trust and respect that moment and thus is no longer considered PM material.

[Alflives]

12 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

If the PC party still existed, r.i.p. PM Mulrooney, I would look to them as a replacement for the current government. The current itteration of Preston Mannings conservatives, for me, need not apply.

I preferred the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, even though they had some crap in their ranks. 

[Optimist Prime]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I preferred the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, even though they had some crap in their ranks. 

hehehe, i mentioned them the other day talking to a BCUP hopeful candidate. What is with these terrible party anacronyms? You with the CRAP? Nah, I am with B Cups

[The Lock]

18 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I preferred the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, even though they had some crap in their ranks. 

 

I mean (and this is admittedly random)... when I first saw the "People's Party of Canada" signs, I legitimately though it was the communist party trying to up their game. The name's so close to "People's Republic of China".

 

It's still such a stupid name in my opinion.

Edited March 9 by The Lock

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

9 hours ago, Optimist Prime said:

I will take it one notch further: if you enshrine the rights of a religious group to shape our laws, lets say a predominant one like Catholicism in Canada. Then what do you do when the majority religion changes to a flavour that isn't quite so analogous to what Canada is today?

 

Religious based laws seem nice to the religious, so long as it is THEIR religion whose influence is being felt in law. 

I don't think Christians would be very happy with a legal system like Irans, for instance. 

So if you wouldn't like say Sharia Law to be a thing in Canada: why on earth would you like Catholic Cannon to dictate law in Canada?

 

It's always ever been about privilege.  They know that the moment the laws become agnostic (or even atheist), they lose their privilege over those of other faiths/religions (or those who choose to go without).  It's the same reason why institutionalized biases driven by colonialism, sexism, and racism are impossible to stamp out - because those who hold the privilege will fight their hardest to prevent that privilege from being diminished.

[Smashian Kassian]

On 3/6/2024 at 7:59 AM, Bob Long said:

The anti-vaccination stuff, the trucker soft spot,

Just to clear this up first. Trump isn't anti-vaccine. He's actually so pro-vaccine that he takes credit for how wonderful it was (of course he does);

Spoiler

And to be fair to him, operation warp speed did happen under his administration. You can say anti-vax is right-wing for sure (though some clear lefties overlap), but to the original point; thats clearly not derived from Trump. Trump was clearly not instructing the convoy - far from it. 

 

 

On 3/6/2024 at 7:59 AM, Bob Long said:

you're 100% on point, many Canadian progressives do align with US progressives. I'm not sure you'd find any that deny that? lots of love for AOC on this site, eg.

 

But PP is bringing in US right ideas to his platform, its not actually debatable that he's using their talking points, sometimes verbatim. "parents rights" e.g., is right from the US evangelical playbook. the way he describes our border issues, its all just borrowed from the US.

 

I guess we're into a chicken & egg thing. Are some ideas distinctly American or Canadian & funneled, or do people independently agree with some ideas regardless of their location? I'd say its more the latter, on both sides of the aisle.

 

Both sides in both countries have shared ideas in their 'platform'. You just said yourself leftists in both countries agree on some ideas, and the point I was responding too was that this was a distinctly right phenomena. So, I guess you've made my point. Politicians on either side just try to weaponize this talking point for power when they deem it applicable, and ignore it while promoting Americanism when applicable. It really means nothing other than being a tool of vague partisan politics. 

 

On 3/6/2024 at 7:59 AM, Bob Long said:

The fact is tho, we're already more progressive than the US, the left down there would love to have what we do in terms of social programs.

 

Not sure what benefit US right ideas bring?

 

Would they? I guess. Our healthcare isn't exactly at its best point the last while. But I suppose, I'll grant you the point. As an aside I find this comparison difficult given the difference in population + immigration (including illegal) between the two. Not say anyone's wrong its just more the fundamental difference in the comparison. America is the center of the world with an open southern border. They have way more people. We don't deal with that level of volume as it pertains to our social systems. Its just totally different is all I'm saying.

 

As for what 'US right' ideas benefit us. The constitution seems much stronger than the Charter. Which is extremely important in my opinion. Not that I think paper is particularly strong in general but free will is mankinds greatest achievement & I'm in favour of strengthening/enshrining it as much as possible/neccesary.

 

I hesitate to bring up guns given its another apples to oranges comparable, but to take the opportunit; as you may know (I've commented many times going back to the old site) I do get frustrated with our current Liberal gov't exploiting some of the populations ignorance on the matter to make an issue where there really isn't one - in order win popularity. When your stating basic untruths, the only conclusion is that its exploitation or something worse (gross incompetence). And I'm not the only one, even Carey Price made a post about it. (And I'll say to their credit; I've seen clips of the federal NDP push back against the Liberals regulation as its important for rural first nations aswell, its just part of being a massively rural nation imo)

 

I could go on, but I'll stop rambling to you now. Haha. 

 

On 3/6/2024 at 12:40 PM, RWMc1 said:

 

If they are all the same, then what are you all complaining about. Lil pp would have done exactly the same thing as true dough, right? If you don't believe that, then "they're all the same" is a false narrative.

 

You know what, fair point. I guess my point is basically the great Chomsky quote; "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..."

 

E.X is basically, your allowed debate within 4-6. If you sit at 7 you'll argue 6 as hard as you can, despite it not being satisfactory if you were to have your way. And vice-versa.

 

The conservatives talk a certain game, and do apparently want to make some significant changes, but I guess I'm skeptical it would actually go as far as some people think (basically as far as progressives fear & non-PC's would want). 

 

Do I think he'd 'do the same as Trudeau'? He says he wouldn't, which I hope, but am skeptical in the long-run.

 

On 3/6/2024 at 12:40 PM, RWMc1 said:

 

Are you aware that America has a legal right to bring their troops into Canada if they feel that their national security is at risk. That means that someone like trump could concoct a "security risk" and use that loophole to have troops enter Canada without our consent.

 

That loophole was hidden in a conservative bill to divert flood water into Canada. That's what I mean by American style. Not to mention all the decisiveness little pp and co. created then cried about. Are you tired of divisiveness in Canada vote in the people who caused it. People actually buy into that crap.

 

I wasn't but I'm not at all surprised. Canada has no army compared to the US, with or without "legal right" they could bring troops into Canada & make this USA North tomorrow. So that isn't particularly alarming. What's written on paper is just written on paper, at the end of the day.

 

No party in Canada is significantly less divisive than any other right now imo. Trudeau definitely has his fair share of divisive remarks. This guy is a joke of a speaker/leader.  

 

Edited March 9 by Smashian Kassian

[Smashian Kassian]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:26 PM, Johngould21 said:

I think universal dental care, and daycare is showing good integrity, as well as having the feds step up with housing. You know social programs that help people, not individuals.

 

Given the Liberals are very unpopular, and the population is ready for an alternative, why would they not just pull support & run on these good proposals themselves? The optics are all in their favor no? They could have their cake & eat it too rather than going down with the ship.

 

I'm not opposing myself to these proposals - though I do question the housing part - but it just seems illogical. For example the recent NDP pharmacare bill is along the lines of something the Liberals promised in 2019, but never delivered on. So good on the NDP for stepping up many years later, but also why subordinate yourselves with the devil to make a dime? I don't know. Seems like the door is open for them to have a better impact imo.

 

Lastly the bolded. People are individuals. This is perhaps entirely philosophical/irrelevant from your point, but to jump on my soapbox for a moment I don't like this idea of clump & conquer. This lends to bureaucracy being so big & unconquerable, and the individual being dependent or subordinate. 

[Smashian Kassian]

 

On 3/6/2024 at 1:59 PM, RWMc1 said:

 

Will this continue under the conservatives though?   Re-criminalization  seems to be a trend in right wing politics.

 

Makes no sense to go otherwise, they'd handing the next election over the opposition & blacklisting themselves as a legitimate option for atleast 10 years, possibly a generation. Imo

 

On 3/7/2024 at 9:08 AM, Ricky Ravioli said:

Trans youth policies make majority of Canadians 'uncomfortable': survey

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trans-youth-policies-make-majority-of-canadians-uncomfortable-survey-1.6797458

 

 

God damn Democracy.

 

On 3/7/2024 at 12:56 PM, Sapper said:

The alt right has a very long well established history of these behaviors.

They seek out a created enemy that will feed to their voter bases anger and then seek to validate to them their fears are real.  We literally have centuries of this documented in our history 

 

 

You say this as if the Soviet Union never existed. Lol. This was Stalin's whole way of staying in power.

 

On 3/7/2024 at 5:17 PM, 4petesake said:

 

Wiggy is nothing if not consistent in trying to tie sexual predation with transgenders and washrooms when the two issues have zero to do with each other.  If he really cared about sexual predators he’d stop making a connection that doesn’t exist.  Anyone can get into any washroom anywhere any time.

 

Supervisor sat in car while repeat B.C. sex offender victimized 11-year-old girl

B.C. public safety minister Mike Farnworth says he ordered an investigation upon learning of the case

 

A provincially appointed supervisor assigned to monitoring a high-risk sex offender in Kelowna sat in the car outside an equestrian centre for 2½ hours while an 11-year-old girl was victimized by Taylor Dueck, B.C. United MLA Renee Merrifield alleged Tuesday.

 

https://theprovince.com/news/supervisor-sat-in-car-while-repeat-bc-sex-offender-victimized-11-year-old-girl/wcm/cd6356b2-49bb-4310-b137-c41b3d89758b
 

 

 

This is a great anti-Gov't case. How TF do you have a gov't supervisor allowing this to happen???

 

In theory we are all to blame for this sexual assault given we theoretically control the govt. Great job everyone. 

 

Seriously tho, why is this person voluntarily not in view of the assignment for over 2 hours???

 

 

Edited March 9 by Smashian Kassian