The Legault government

262 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

JKR wrote:

Who’s proposing open borders?

Anyone who says "No one is illegal". Because the statement means that no one can be legally prevented from crossing the borders. 

Are any political parties proposing open borders?

Maybe not, but Pondering is debating Kropotkin, who wrote in post 164 of this thread... 

Great, then what the fuck are you on about with this racist woman and calling human beings illegal immigrants. No one is illegal. Language has power and yours is amplifying a nasty racist message.

 

No, VOTD, not even close. Here is what Pondering is saying over and over and over again:

Quote:
The position on the left is 100% acceptance of all immigrants and refugees and it isn't open for discussion because anything else is racist.

Not kropotkin. "THE LEFT". I have never heard of anyone, left, right, or butterscotch, who says anyone who wants to come to Canada any old time must be allowed in, no questions asked, refugee claimant or not. Refugee claimants - yes, they must be allowed a hearing. That's, like, what we call, international law. If their claim is denied, they can't stay. Other immigrants? Nope. If kropotkin actually advocates that, then he needs to give himself a serious shake. But I don't believe he advocates that for one second.

Pondering has created a straw left in order to perpetuate this idiotic "debate" about one putrid heckler last August. A "debate" that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.

Please don't fuel Pondering's flame. Her own spontaneous combustion is more than adequate in that regard. And I sincerely apologize for participating, however briefly, in this toxic thread drift.

Have you not heard the phrase "no one is illegal"? How do you think the average person interprets that phrase?

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Not kropotkin. "THE LEFT". I have never heard of anyone, left, right, or butterscotch, who says anyone who wants to come to Canada any old time must be allowed in, no questions asked, refugee claimant or not. If kropotkin actually advocates that, then he needs to give himself a serious shake. But I don't believe he advocates that for one second.

Well, then what else can the phrase "No one is illegal" possibly mean? If the state doesn't have the right to declare ANYONE illegal and boot them out of the country, doesn't that mean that anyone who wants to come to the country can do so, no questions asked?   

 

voice of the damned

FWIW, I don't think that open-borders is any sort of beyond-the-pale opinion, and while I disagree with it personally, I think it's one of those things reasonable people can have differing views on. But if you are going to advocate it, you should be clear about everything it's going to entail. Sort of like people who advocate the legalization of all drugs(a position I support, long-term) need to acknowledge that this includes heroin and meth, not just weed and 'shrooms.   

swallow swallow's picture

"No one is illegal" does not mean open borders. It means advocacy for equal treatment for people in the country who are not citizens or permanent residents. 

http://rabble.ca/toolkit/rabblepedia/no-one-illegal 

Pondering, people are talking about the woman (seems her name, which I provided, has vanished again, as so often happens) because you brought her up, implying she was an ordinary Quebecoise woman with valid concerns. She isn't. I agree with votd: these things can be discussed. 

I'm more concerned, frankly, that the Legault government wants to lower legal immigration numbers, leading to serious labour shortages. My local Tim Horton's even reduced hours severely due to inability to get enough employees. 

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, then what else can the phrase "No one is illegal" possibly mean? If the state doesn't have the right to declare ANYONE illegal and boot them out of the country, doesn't that mean that anyone who wants to come to the country can do so, no questions asked?   

You think "the left" advocates that? That's what Pondering repeats interminably. I don't advocate that anyone can come here and stay. Do you know anyone who advocates that? Very very serious question. This isn't about what some 4-word phrase means. Swallow has explained that quite simply.

The name of the racist provocateur, member of the far-right Front Patriotique, was Diane Blain. I thought Trudeau was quite diplomatic in not calling her a piece of shit.

cco

swallow wrote:

I'm more concerned, frankly, that the Legault government wants to lower legal immigration numbers, leading to serious labour shortages. My local Tim Horton's even reduced hours severely due to inability to get enough employees. 

I don't support Legault's immigration cuts at all, but I am concerned by the way "labour shortage" has become received wisdom. When there's a real labour shortage, wages spike. People weren't flying to Fort McMurray to get $13/hr jobs in the oil sector. Québec's employers have just bet that they can cut hours and beg the government to supply them with sufficiently desperate people while hoarding wealth at the top. If jobs at Olymel paid $75/hr, Canadians from coast to coast would be taking French classes.

lagatta4

Yes, Canadian Tire here also lacks workers. The young woman at the cash said young people preferred studying. Remember that Cégep here, including many advanced technical/vocational courses of study, is pretty much free.

swallow swallow's picture

18,000 immigration claimants, meanwhile, are going to be sent back to the beginning of the line under Bill 9. I know people this affects and it is brutal for them.

Which as a CAQ policy I guess is back on topic. 

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, then what else can the phrase "No one is illegal" possibly mean? If the state doesn't have the right to declare ANYONE illegal and boot them out of the country, doesn't that mean that anyone who wants to come to the country can do so, no questions asked?   

You think "the left" advocates that? That's what Pondering repeats interminably. I don't advocate that anyone can come here and stay. Do you know anyone who advocates that? Very very serious question. This isn't about what some 4-word phrase means. Swallow has explained that quite simply.

The name of the racist provocateur, member of the far-right Front Patriotique, was Diane Blain. I thought Trudeau was quite diplomatic in not calling her a piece of shit.

Unionist, don't claim to understand my posts because you don't. You may not have heard of it but many people on the left say "no one is illegal".  It doesn't matter at all what they mean by that. It only matters what people think they are saying. The slogan sends the message that the speaker wants open borders. This serves the interests of the right nicely. That isn't to say it should never be used, only that the left needs to present a coherent message on immigration other than let everyone in. 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

"No one is illegal" does not mean open borders. It means advocacy for equal treatment for people in the country who are not citizens or permanent residents. 

http://rabble.ca/toolkit/rabblepedia/no-one-illegal 

Pondering, people are talking about the woman (seems her name, which I provided, has vanished again, as so often happens) because you brought her up, implying she was an ordinary Quebecoise woman with valid concerns. She isn't. I agree with votd: these things can be discussed. 

But that isn't true. I didn't know her background. I didn't imply anything about her one way or another. I simply quoted the question and said the question wasn't racist and she shouldn't be called racist for it. If she said other racist things and was with a racist group then of course calling her out would be appropriate however I much prefer Singh's reaction to racist heckling. He didn't call the woman a piece of shit or racist. Rather than feeding hostilities Singh chose to de-escalate rather than fuel. 

swallow swallow's picture

Pondering wrote:

Unionist, don't claim to understand my posts because you don't. You may not have heard of it but many people on the left say "no one is illegal".  It doesn't matter at all what they mean by that. It only matters what people think they are saying. The slogan sends the message that the speaker wants open borders. This serves the interests of the right nicely. That isn't to say it should never be used, only that the left needs to present a coherent message on immigration other than let everyone in. 

The organization "No one is illegal" has a clear message, and it's not "let everyone in." 

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

FWIW, I don't think that open-borders is any sort of beyond-the-pale opinion, and while I disagree with it personally, I think it's one of those things reasonable people can have differing views on. But if you are going to advocate it, you should be clear about everything it's going to entail. Sort of like people who advocate the legalization of all drugs(a position I support, long-term) need to acknowledge that this includes heroin and meth, not just weed and 'shrooms.   

( The following is all in my opinion not being presented as a series of facts to anyone reading)

Most people who support decriminalization of all drugs mean usage not sales which is a great example because if people misunderstand that to mean allow sales of all drugs at the corner store they will be against it. 

What do you think would happen if we opened our borders even to all refugees in the world. NGOs and governments would invest in ships to start sending them all here. The refugee crisis would be solved within a year and Canadian social services would be overwhelmed within months. The US would be having a fit because they would not allow such a thing to happen on the North American continent. 

We have no intrinsic right to establish borders. All borders are might makes right. We are animals and like animals we establish a territory and keep the competition out. From a practical perspective the systems we organize under require a limited population and borders to work. No borders is the ultimate free market system. 

Someone once said to me that sometimes perception is more important than reality and that is very true. The right have become masters at creating false perceptions that serve their cause. All too often the left makes it easy for them. The left can't even get people to perceive the truth. Obviously I am speaking in generalities. The left does get some messages across but politically it is the right that is winning elections. 

The Green New Deal is gaining in popularity in the States and I think it is rubbing off on Canada. It is basically the Leap Manifesto dressed in words that can be sold to the 99%. The Leap Manifesto was dressed in words that couldn't even be sold to 20%. When I said so I was treated as though I was speaking against indigenous peoples or against the core message of the Manifesto when really my focus was on the marketing of it. 

Militancy has its place. Occupy and the Yellow Vests of France made and are making a difference. Neither could get elected to office. That is why social movements and political parties can't be one and the same thing. They have different purposes even if topics and positions overlap.

Sales and marketing techniques can be used to promote the truth.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unionist, don't claim to understand my posts because you don't. You may not have heard of it but many people on the left say "no one is illegal".  It doesn't matter at all what they mean by that. It only matters what people think they are saying. The slogan sends the message that the speaker wants open borders. This serves the interests of the right nicely. That isn't to say it should never be used, only that the left needs to present a coherent message on immigration other than let everyone in. 

The organization "No one is illegal" has a clear message, and it's not "let everyone in." 

And yet I, who regularly read the news, watch the news, and come here, have never heard that clear message you speak of. The slogan is the message the majority of people hear and react to. 

No one is illegal means no one is in the country illegally. In other words it is legal for anyone who wants to be in Canada to be here. If that is not the position of the organization then they need to change their slogan. 

cco

Pondering wrote:

Militancy has its place. Occupy and the Yellow Vests of France made and are making a difference. Neither could get elected to office. That is why social movements and political parties can't be one and the same thing. They have different purposes even if topics and positions overlap.

Two Québec student strikers did get elected to office – one for the PQ, and one for QS, which is explicitly a party allied with social movements. Social movements are every bit as valid sources for politicians as the more traditional politician-generators like business executive suites and the military high command. Some (like the yellow vests) are poorly organized and incoherent at best, but not all.

Pondering

cco wrote:
swallow wrote:

I'm more concerned, frankly, that the Legault government wants to lower legal immigration numbers, leading to serious labour shortages. My local Tim Horton's even reduced hours severely due to inability to get enough employees. 

I don't support Legault's immigration cuts at all, but I am concerned by the way "labour shortage" has become received wisdom. When there's a real labour shortage, wages spike. People weren't flying to Fort McMurray to get $13/hr jobs in the oil sector. Québec's employers have just bet that they can cut hours and beg the government to supply them with sufficiently desperate people while hoarding wealth at the top. If jobs at Olymel paid $75/hr, Canadians from coast to coast would be taking French classes.

Exactly. Wage depression is a huge issue.  We are constantly being told there are jobs Canadians are unwilling to do when the truth is they are unwilling to do it for the wages and conditions being offered. 

There are people who are too racist and too ignorant or too brainwashed to be educated but they are a minority. Many people have concerns over immigration that have nothing to do with skin colour. They may be unable to articulate their concerns properly, present an argument to support their concerns, but that doesn't mean the concerns are invalid or rooted in racism. 

The left needs to tackle these concerns without judgement and condemnation. 

Maybe I am completely wrong. I acknowledge the possibility. But even if I am wrong, there has to be a reason why people are voting against their own self-interest and in favor of being exploited through neoliberalism. Blaming the MSM is a cop-out. 

swallow swallow's picture

All we can ask is that people educate themselves. I suggest starting with UN refugee documents, for instance this one on the term "illegal" this one is very short and though it addresses Europe, could jsut as well work for Canada: https://www.unhcr.org/cy/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2018/09/TerminologyLeaflet_EN_PICUM.pdf

Sample excerpt: "Under international law, everyone has the right to leave a country, including their own. All those arriving at borders have innate human rights and specific human rights protection needs. Labelling all migrants trying to reach Europe through unofficial channels as ‘illegal’ is inaccurate and increases their exposure to prejudicial treatment." Please do consider reading or skimming the bullet points, it's only 2 pages. 

Pondering, I hope you might consider distinguishing between "This means X" and "The way I understand this phrase is X." Sorry if this sounds confrontational, but words have power and I think it is worth thinking about how we use them so that we don't inadvertently cause harm. I agree some of the explanations could be done in plainer langauge, but it seems clear to me: people are not "illegal," that dehumanizes them and is contrary to treaties Canada has voluntarily signed. The "no one is illegal means open borders" stuff is just your interpretation; I'd ask that you please consider the possibility of perhaps reconsidering your interpretation and allowing the possibility that you may, in this case, be mistaken, through no ill will on your part. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I agree some of the explanations could be done in plainer langauge, but it seems clear to me: people are not "illegal," that dehumanizes them and is contrary to treaties Canada has voluntarily signed.

Do you think the fact that these terms are not plain and clear is accidental or intentional?  Because to be fair, naming an organization "No one is illegal" when all they do is advocate for immigrant rights would be like naming your organization "No more Cannabis" when all you mean to do is ensure that cannabis isn't sold at corner stores.

And I would agree that calling someone who arrives at Canada's border an "illegal" immigrant is jumping the gun slightly, insofar as they just got here.  But someone intentionally living under the radar in Canada is, in fact, illegal, isn't it?  Are they not, in fact, immigrants who are here illegally?  Are they really most accurately described as "controversially un-citizenshipped" or some other euphemism?

If I operate a still without a licence, it's an illegal still.  If I open a storefront to sell weed, it's an illegal dispensary, and so on.  But what [plain] word could we use for immigrants, then?  Fraudulent immigrant, or something like that?  Even the term "undocumented" makes it sound more like we just haven't gotten around to documenting them, rather than that they made an effort to avoid being discovered.

I would agree that words have power, which is exactly why the unwillingness to speak plainly looks so hinky.

voice of the damned

Swallow wrote:

"No one is illegal" does not mean open borders. It means advocacy for equal treatment for people in the country who are not citizens or permanent residents. 

I can believe that, though I will say that if the movememt is being misunderstood as advocating open-borders, it might partly be connected to the self-applied No One Is Illegal label.

That said, I think there are still a lot of people who would be racist against immigrants regardless of what one movement called itself, since racists don't tend to repsond to issues on a micro level(ie. they didn't just start foaming at the mouth about immigration after hearing that the group is called No One Is Illegal). Still, whatever perception exists that the movement advocates open-borders is likely resultant partly from their name.

Pondering wrote:

We have no intrinsic right to establish borders. All borders are might makes right. We are animals and like animals we establish a territory and keep the competition out.

I wouldn't phrase it in such sociobiological terms. Suffice to say, we are humans, and humans like to decide who can and cannot live in the territory they inhabit.

And, actually, we've gone animals one better, and established written and immutabe boundaries about who can go where(aka borders), as well as conditions for entry. As opposed to just spraying or growling a bit to mark your loose territory for the duration of time that you are hanging around there. Almost certainly connected to our capacity for long-term thinking and abstract thought.

 

 

 

Pondering

I doubt anyone ever interpreted "illegal immigrant" as meaning the individual's existence on Earth was illegal. It always meant that they were in Canada illegally. No, I don't have proof of that, does anyone really want to argue the point? Do people here think that other people understood it to mean the person themselves existed illegally? 

I'll answer more later but I have other things to do and I don't want to overwhelm the discussion. 

cco

This is essentially a rhetorical war over the speed of the euphemism treadmill. I understand the argument that "illegal" is dehumanizing, but I've heard "sans-papiers" – a French term which on the surface is as value-neutral as it gets, literally "without papers" – used in exactly the same way I've heard people talk about "illegals". Targeting the language instead of the underlying attitude seems to me to be of minimal use. I've seen a lot of changes in acceptable language in my life, but they haven't tracked with changes in mentality. That's why dog-whistle politics exists. (On a side note, terms like "illegal" or "undocumented" don't only apply to people crossing at Roxham Road to apply for refugee status – they also apply to the more typical case of someone who comes on a short-term visa and stays after it's expired. Those people don't have the same treaty protection refugee claimants do.)

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

My granffather was a 'sans papier' or 'without papers"

The latter became a derogatory term when used as initials. This argument about 'illegal' about any person is unacceptable. When the Irish and Italians got to this side of the world they were treated a lot like these refugees or  immigrants.

This whole term 'illegal' only came about relatively recently. To me, it's a term the Americans can be calling immigrants for years, ESPECIALLY now. I'd feel lkike a MAGA moron if I refered to them as 'illegals'

swallow swallow's picture

Never mind.

voice of the damned

cco wrote:

On a side note, terms like "illegal" or "undocumented" don't only apply to people crossing at Roxham Road to apply for refugee status – they also apply to the more typical case of someone who comes on a short-term visa and stays after it's expired.

I personally use the term "illegal" to refer to mostly-white westerners who teach ESL in Korea on a tousist visa. I suppose in that case the meaning is more "illegal teacher", since they haven't entered the country illegally per se(though they are violating the terms of their visa by holding jobs).

JKR

Pondering wrote:

And yet I, who regularly read the news, watch the news, and come here, have never heard that clear message you speak of. The slogan is the message the majority of people hear and react to. 

Are voters that concerned or even aware of No One is Illegal? It seems to me that they play a minuscule part in the consciousness of the average voter.

Unionist

Take this discussion to another thread, please. This is getting ridiculous.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Take this discussion to another thread, please. This is getting ridiculous.

Okay. Anyone interested can check the Activism forum in a couple of minutes.

 

cco

Liberals slam Legault for saying employers should offer $25-an-hour jobs

Quote:
Legault made the remarks Tuesday in an interview on 98.5 FM in Montreal. After show host Paul Arcand suggested the province would not help out restaurateurs and hotels lacking staff, Legault suggested that “actually, restaurants, retail outlets and tourism businesses” that pay workers $15 to $20 an hour “will have more difficulty finding employees.”

Legault said that job seekers would naturally be drawn to jobs that paid better with wages of $25 or $30 an hour.

I'll be damned: Legault agrees with me on this one! (And the PLQ, vile as ever, is denouncing him for his business-killing idea of paying workers enough to survive.)

Pondering

So let's see him raise the minimum wage. He is just saying it to counter their argument that they need more immigrants. 

Interestingly in response employers said the jobs only need high school. What unions did was disengage level of education from wages. Early 70s a floor sweeper at Purina in Montreal made 16$ an hour which was enormous at the time. Minimum wage was about 2$ an hour if that. 

Wages and prices have been disengaged from the value of what is produced. 

I wonder if Legault is losing his enthusiasm for PR.

cco

And, of course, the Liberals did their best to make it more difficult to get an education, in order to ensure the workforce is desperate enough to take those jobs. Their business model is in big trouble if Quebecers are educated.

jerrym

Having spent his entire life as a sovereignist until founding CAQ in 2011, I think Legault is still pursuing that goal. While he showed almost no interest in climate change during the election, he shifted gears afterwards. I believe he realized building more hydropower and getting off fossil fuels would not only be more popular, it would make Quebec less dependent on the rest of the country for energy. 

Pursuing the scapegoating of Muslims and other religious minorities also provides him with a potential opportunity for conflict with the Trudeau federal government on a highly emotional issue that helps create a wedge with the federales. 

Making Quebec less dependent on Canada for resources and created friction on an ongoing basis, leads to challenges of federal government authority that produces a dilemma for the federales: let him do what he wants as he builds step-by-step more autonomy for Quebec until almost no strings remain or take on the challenge and risk a fight where Quebecois possibly feel alienated from the Ottawa government.

Pondering

Legault has never denied that he continues to be a sovereignist. He just favors an incremental path. That is why he wants to administer the federal tax in Quebec.

pietro_bcc

https://twitter.com/jfrobergeQc/status/1147103127725850625

Hey look Roberge discussed education with Malala Yousafzai, a woman he believes is unfit to be a teacher because of a religious symbol she wears and posed for a photo with her. I wonder if he brought up the importance of teachers not wearing religious symbols to her before taking that photo.

lagatta4

I doubt it. However, Pondering, as someone who has both been a militant and worked in the Québec labour movement, you are way off field. The idea is that ALL workers should earn enough money to live decently, whatever their educational level. And I have a master's degree and speak four languages. Solidarité mes frères et mes soeurs! People who want to continue studying will do so, as long it it isn't priced out of their reach.

voice of the damned

pietro_bcc wrote:

https://twitter.com/jfrobergeQc/status/1147103127725850625

Hey look Roberge discussed education with Malala Yousafzai, a woman he believes is unfit to be a teacher because of a religious symbol she wears and posed for a photo with her. I wonder if he brought up the importance of teachers not wearing religious symbols to her before taking that photo.

I'm not sure if there's a real contradiction there, despite the optics being a little ironic. 

Most of us here probably support abolishing religious school boards. But we could probably imagine ourselves meeting a teacher from a Catholic school, and finding that they have insighful things to say about the education system overall, even if, ultimately, we'd prefer that their particular school-boards didn't exist in their current form. 

Pondering

lagatta4 wrote:

I doubt it. However, Pondering, as someone who has both been a militant and worked in the Québec labour movement, you are way off field. The idea is that ALL workers should earn enough money to live decently, whatever their educational level. And I have a master's degree and speak four languages. Solidarité mes frères et mes soeurs! People who want to continue studying will do so, as long it it isn't priced out of their reach.

You 100%  reversed what I said: Read.

So let's see him raise the minimum wage. He is just saying it to counter their argument that they need more immigrants. 

Notice I am saying RAISE MINIMUM WAGE. 

Interestingly in response employers said the jobs only need high school. What unions did was disengage level of education from wages. Early 70s a floor sweeper at Purina in Montreal made 16$ an hour which was enormous at the time. Minimum wage was about 2$ an hour if that. 

Unions forced employers to pay a living wage in the past. 

Immigrants are willing to work for less and to work under the table because they often have no choice. This is what employers want. That is why employers promote immigration.  Many workers know this so they feel threatened by immigration. ​

voice of the damned

A Quebec Superior Court justice has rejected a request to temporarily suspend parts of the province's new religious symbols law, though he did agree it raises "serious" constitutional questions.

Justice Michel Yergeau said Thursday the court must defer, at this stage, to the power of elected politicians to pass legislation they believe is in the public good. 

https://tinyurl.com/yymfszcp

 

cco
voice of the damned

"But it's our culture!!" is often used as an excuse by those who simply want state endorsement for their religion, but this is one instance where I can see it having some merit, especially if we're talking about stuff, like the stained-glass windows mentioned, that go back over two centuries.

The Al Rashid Mosque in Edmonton, claimed to be the third oldest in North America, is now maintained at least partly at government expense, on the grounds of the Fort Edmonton historical park. Can't imagine many people would think that means the Alberta government is in the business of forcing Islam down everyone's throat.  

Pondering

Not to religion. The article even mentions repurposing buildings. The angels on Motherhouse were kept when it was transformed into Dawson College. A great deal of Quebec's historical art and its finest architecture was paid for by the Catholic Church. When I say "a great deal" I mean almost all. An artist in Quebec made their entire living or close to it by painting for the church. 

cco

Only $5 million is going to repurposing them. The other $15 million is subsidizing churches staying open under their existing management – in addition to all the other subsidies and tax exemptions they already receive.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Only $5 million is going to repurposing them. The other $15 million is subsidizing churches staying open under their existing management – in addition to all the other subsidies and tax exemptions they already receive.

The investment is not into keeping them open it is into artifacts and buildings that are of cultural value. The churches would not otherwise be spending money on restoration which they will now spend on something else. The items would not be preserved. Congregations are dwindling. 

pietro_bcc

"laïcité"

If the government had purchased the buildings, maintained the artifacts as heritage objects and repurposed all of the buildings that would be fine. But if the churches want to keep the properties the only thing the Quebec government should offer them is a Vatican phone number.

pietro_bcc

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/parents-cant-pull-kids-out-if-te...

The incoherence of the government is staggering. One of the justifications of Bill 21 was that the teachers with hijabs were going to indoctrinate kids through being their teacher, so they have to protect the children from this. Now the government is saying that parents aren't allowed to pull their children from classes taught by someone wearing a religious symbol. Given that the government's position is that having a teacher with a visible religious symbol is indoctrination, shouldn't parents be allowed to protect their children from religious indoctrination and pull their children out of these classes?

Bill 21 is a national disgrace.

Pondering

I don't think there was any fear of indoctrination. As the article explains there is a grandfather clause that applies to all religious symbols. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I remember Pondering gushing about how CAQ is going to give Quebec electoral reform. So how is that working out for ya?

People have told me that you should never trust the word of a politician unless he or she is a New Democrat. Maybe that is true but trusting the word of a right wing politician at any level of government is foolish (to put it nicely).

pietro_bcc

Pondering wrote:

I don't think there was any fear of indoctrination. As the article explains there is a grandfather clause that applies to all religious symbols. 

I am against Bill 21, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the government.

The rhetoric used by the government in supporting this law (specifically the sections dedicated to education) stated that it was necessary to apply it to teachers because the children seeing those symbols on an authority figure would pressure them into adopting those religious views. These were the justifications given by the government. Clearly ridiculous and bigotted justifications, but the justifications given.

I am aware that there is a grandfather clause which protects their jobs. But it is a clear example of hypocrisy to say that children seeing religious symbols on their teachers causes religious indoctrination and then to deny parents the ability to pull their children from classes where this supposed religious indoctrination is occuring.

Pondering

I've been against the law all along so didn't pay attention to the details. So ugly and divisive. I hope he keeps the PR campaign promise. That wouldn't just be a silver lining it would be a gold lining. 

cco
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It will be decided by referendum in 2022...I wouldn't hold my breath Hardly a promise kept. Not even close

bekayne

alan smithee wrote:
It will be decided by referendum in 2022...I wouldn't hold my breath

We all know how successful referendums on electoral reform are.

Pages