====
Issues Pages:
Regions:
Conservative Campaign Manager Admits HUGE Mistake Going After NDP With Niqab Issue
Mon, 2016-02-08 10:50
#1
Conservative Campaign Manager Admits HUGE Mistake Going After NDP With Niqab Issue
Mon, 2016-02-08 10:55
#2
Conservative campaign manager Jenni Byrne went into the election full of confidence.
Ms. Byrne, based on conversations with those close to her, would likely counter that all the shiny objects in the world won’t matter if the Conservatives’ advantages are properly put to use. They have the most seats, the most money, the best voter data, the most discipline, the strongest support base and a leader who connects with it; they just need to execute.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/meet-the-woman-driving-harp...
Now months later in an OP-ED she writes going after the NDP with the Niqab issue was a huge tactical mistake. Writing...
Another key factor that led to the Conservatives’ defeat was that the party needed the NDP to do well. With the NDP rising in the polls for the first half of the campaign, Stephen Harper was well-positioned to be re-elected.
Having argued since 2011 that the NDP were never our main opponent, including making the internally unpopular decision of dismantling our NDP unit that was tasked with tracking and attacking that party, I lost the argument to others who felt they were the more serious threat.
The decision during the campaign to turn our guns on the NDP was a mistake. They were never the party’s enemy. The final straw was when the party went after the NDP on the niqab issue. It crushed the NDP in Quebec, but it also removed them as a viable alternative in the rest of the country, something Conservatives needed them to be.
The collapse of the NDP had a profound impact. Former Mississauga MP Stella Ambler increased her vote total from the previous election, but couldn’t win when NDP supporters in her riding went to the Liberals, even though the Liberal candidate barely ran a campaign. Similarly, former Richmond Hill MP Costas Menegakis increased his vote total and percentage of the vote – but with the NDP losing 75 per cent of its vote, he had no chance of retaining the seat.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-the-conservative-party-can-av...
Mon, 2016-02-08 11:24
#3
alan smithee
One problem with her theory. Most Canadians were so disgusted with the Harpercons that they'd happily elect an onion ring. And with that,Trudeau fit the bill.
Even now,months after the election,they refuse to acknowledge that their policies played a huge role in their demise. She,along with every other Conservative,must have a habit of eating paint chips.
Her tears taste very very sweet.
Mon, 2016-02-08 11:45
#4
Timebandit
Yes, some serious denial going on there. A majority of Canadians hated their government enough to mobilize a vote that trounced the ruling party. Also, playing on the niqab issue is presented as a tactical error in disabling the NDP, but she doesn't seem to consider that for many of us it was such a repugnant move that we were more determined than ever toget the vote out and get the CPC out of office.
Mon, 2016-02-08 11:51
#5
It made no sense for the Cons to go after the NDP as they needed a strong NDP to get them to another majority government.
The only thing I can think is that the Cons brain trust sincerely though Trudeau would have a major meltdown, and they were waiting and waiting for that to happen. And wanted to synergize the meltdown at the same time with the Niqab issue, and then come up the middle with an even bigger majority. Which was a dangerous game to play.
Because Trudeau didn't have that meltdown, the Niqab tanked the NDP and the Libs won a majority government.
Mon, 2016-02-08 11:56
#6
Timebandit
I think the CPC brain trust got panicky about the polling and blew the dog whistle to mobilize their most faithful base.
Tue, 2016-02-09 17:41
#7
It made no sense for the Cons to go after the NDP as they needed a strong NDP to get them to another majority government.
The only thing I can think is that the Cons brain trust sincerely though Trudeau would have a major meltdown, and they were waiting and waiting for that to happen. And wanted to synergize the meltdown at the same time with the Niqab issue, and then come up the middle with an even bigger majority. Which was a dangerous game to play.
Because Trudeau didn't have that meltdown, the Niqab tanked the NDP and the Libs won a majority government.
I think part of the CPC strategy was successful, and part of it wasn't.
You can see where some of what they put together worked and might have worked even better had they not pushed it so far and had the Liberals not been stronger than expected.
1.) The Niqab issue was partially successful for the CPC. They succeeded in mobilizing their base and getting back above 30% (they had been falling below 30% in some of the late August/early September Nanos tracking during the Duffy Trial, etc.)
2.) Along with getting their 30%+ base out, they did succeed in picking up half a dozen seats in Quebec in conservative pockets, such as in the Quebec City area, etc. However, they did not get the huge bounce out of the Niqab they had been hoping for, and they allowed the Liberals to have a big comeback in Quebec which was one of the worst possible things they could have done to themselves.
Had the NDP not fallen as far, and had the Liberals not been so strong, the CPC might have done better. So you can see where there was a plausible path for them in mid-to late September before the anti-CPC vote coalesced in early-to Mid October. But the gamble failed in the end.
Wed, 2016-02-10 02:41
#8
Yes, some serious denial going on there. A majority of Canadians hated their government enough to mobilize a vote that trounced the ruling party. Also, playing on the niqab issue is presented as a tactical error in disabling the NDP, but she doesn't seem to consider that for many of us it was such a repugnant move that we were more determined than ever toget the vote out and get the CPC out of office.
I would also add that the analysis which opened this thread suggests a closed system in which the votes move between parties, and did not factor in the massive surge in voter turnout which pretty much only benefitted the Liberals.
Wed, 2016-02-10 02:45
#9
Timebandit
Exactly. Stronger youth vote and the blatant racism meant that otherwise apathetic voters who might not have bothered came out to cast ballots.
Wed, 2016-02-10 12:32
#10
True.
Largest turnout since 1993 was also a factor.
Wed, 2016-02-10 13:11
#11
The emergence of he niqab isue also wasn't totally in the CPC's hands. They did not get that women to challenge the rules in court and they had no control over the fact that the court ruled on her right to wear a niqab in the middle of the campaign. Also, the niqab exploded as an issue in Quebec less because of anything Harper did than because the Quebec "yellow press" made it front page news and Duceppe and his racist followers in the BQ were also putting kerosene on the fire. So, I'm not sure that it was ever n option for the Tories to make it any less of an issue.
Wed, 2016-02-10 14:37
#12
Opposition to the niqab in Québec is not solely racist - it also comes from a deep distrust of conspicuous religion, which was originally a mistrust of Québec's own Catholic Church rule and schools and hospitals womanned in large part by nuns in habits. Yes, there are racists here who oppose the immigration of people from the Middle East and the Maghreb, but there are probably far more diehard secularists who are equal-opportunity mange-curés.
I worked alongside Gilles Duceppe in the CSN organisation committee. Do you know what we were doing? Organising workers in hotels and hospitality industry, where there were huge numbers of immigrant workers and workers of colour. He was very dedicated to fighting racism. We were also trying to organise workers in shops in areas known as "the slave quarters" because the working conditions were so shitty and dangerous and because the workers were largely immigrant workers of colour, in particular Haitians. No, I'm not a Bloc supporter, nor do I favour a ban on the hijab in citizenship ceremonies (largely because I think it is a non-issue) but I think a lot of people outside Québec really misunderstand the issues here.
Do I like the course the Bloc has taken? Of course not, that is why I worked for Boulerice despite my many disagreements with the NDP. But calling all of Duceppe's followers "racists" is more than a bit of a distortion. I have friends who voted Bloc - they are mostly old trade unionists, and all have fought racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination, as well as imperialist war. Unless you think Québec being Francophone is discrimination...
Wed, 2016-02-10 14:46
#13
Timebandit
The emergence of he niqab isue also wasn't totally in the CPC's hands. They did not get that women to challenge the rules in court and they had no control over the fact that the court ruled on her right to wear a niqab in the middle of the campaign.
No, but the opportunity arose and they used it. They could have left well enough alone, but the government fighting the issue in court so stridently was part of the call to the base. They continued to double down and publicize the issue. They made the choice to pursue.
Wed, 2016-02-10 14:49
#14
No, but the opportunity arose and they used it. They could have left well enough alone,
Exactly when they doubled down and then said they would go after Niqab wearing Civil Servants next.
Wed, 2016-02-10 14:51
#15
It should have been a non-issue. It affected almost nobody, and everyone has to prove their identity before applying for citizenship. Yes, I certainly think the Bloc was guilty of cheap demagogy, but I don't think the roots of that demagogic appeal are solely racist.
Wed, 2016-02-10 15:09
#16
swallow
Well, they were partly opportunist as well as jsut racist, I suppose.
The Bloc's oil drop-hijab ad was totally racist, I think. I lost a huge amount of respect for Bloc militants that went along with Duceppe's accomodation of that sort of imagery. The BQ and PQ seem to me to have become standard right-leaning nationalist formations, not so different from the Canadian Conservatives in anything other than their loyalty focus. Thank god for QS.
Wed, 2016-02-10 15:24
#17
Yes, it was a disgusting ad.
Wed, 2016-02-10 16:36
#18
The emergence of he niqab isue also wasn't totally in the CPC's hands. They did not get that women to challenge the rules in court and they had no control over the fact that the court ruled on her right to wear a niqab in the middle of the campaign.
No, but the opportunity arose and they used it. They could have left well enough alone, but the government fighting the issue in court so stridently was part of the call to the base. They continued to double down and publicize the issue. They made the choice to pursue.
True, but the Tories first raised the niqab at citizenship oaths a year ago so the die was cast long before the election campaign. From a purely political perspective, you cant blame the Tories for trying to exploit the issue. Right to the bitter end every poll showed that the vast majority of Canadians (especially in Quebec) agreed with the Tories that people should not be allowed to wear a niqab at a citizenship ceremony. They probably thought that it would help them shore up their tiny base in Quebec (which it did). I'm just saying that i don't buy Jenni Byrne's attempt to cover her ass over this issue. The Tories decided to appeal to racist sentiment over year ago when they first brought in regulations around niqabs and citizenship oaths - they were well past the point of no return on the issue by the time we were in the election campaign. Even if harper had never uttered the word niqab - Duceppe was already doing his dirty work for him and you had the Peladeau owned tabloid press in Quebec running sensational anti-Muslim front pages day after day.
Jenni Byrne could not have put the genie back in the bottle even if she wanted to
Thu, 2016-02-11 10:56
#19
Conservative backroom suffered from myopia in last election
Chantal Hébert
Conservative and NDP insiders have been delivering some preliminary conclusions as to the causes of their October defeats. Their findings are strikingly interchangeable — with the popular momentum for change somewhat conveniently fingered as a root cause of electoral failure.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/11/conservative-backroom-suff...
Fri, 2016-02-12 14:20
#20
At Issue | NDP and Conservative campaign errors
Fri, 2016-02-12 14:26
#21
I worked alongside Gilles Duceppe in the CSN organisation committee. Do you know what we were doing? Organising workers in hotels and hospitality industry, where there were huge numbers of immigrant workers and workers of colour. He was very dedicated to fighting racism. We were also trying to organise workers in shops in areas known as "the slave quarters" because the working conditions were so shitty and dangerous and because the workers were largely immigrant workers of colour, in particular Haitians.
Sure. Lots of people have impressive instances of progressive stances in their careers. Here's another...
"In a wide-ranging research trip, he studied the rituals and traditions of the Blackfoot and participated in sweat lodge ceremonies. Having developed an empathy for the Siksika people and gained their confidence, he returned with a camera crew and filmed an emotional and often angry documentary in which he confronted authorities about housing conditions and demanded to know why, for example, grocery stores had bulk supplies of vanilla extract on their shelves and why were they selling it at huge mark-ups to obvious alcoholics.
The reaction was immediate after the show aired in June, 1977: outrage from viewers and appreciation by the Siksika, who named him White Writer and later became his political supporters."
END QUOTE
Now, I'm not going to say that Duceppe's later career was as bad as that of the erstwhile First Nations advocate described in that artice. The fact remains, though, that if the "Niqab" ad was disgusting and racist, then Duceppe was disgusing and racist for approving it, regardless of whatever great things he was doing for Haitians back in the day.
Fri, 2016-02-12 19:27
#22
Opposition to the niqab in Québec is not solely racist - it also comes from a deep distrust of conspicuous religion, which was originally a mistrust of Québec's own Catholic Church rule and schools and hospitals womanned in large part by nuns in habits. Yes, there are racists here who oppose the immigration of people from the Middle East and the Maghreb, but there are probably far more diehard secularists who are equal-opportunity mange-curés.
Except it doesn't come from distrust of religion in general, as Quebecers are quite protective of their own Catholic heritage. The Quebec society is deeply anti-Muslim (I personally experienced it when I was living there), and it does not originates from secularism. However, I do not think it is racism or white supremacism either. It is about you Quebecers' deep distrust and xenophobia toward foreign cultures. That's why for an immigrant, it is fairly difficult to integrate successfully into Quebec society, unless he completely gives up his own culture. That's not a requirement in the rest of Canada or US.
Fri, 2016-02-12 21:13
#23
montrealer58
Had Jenni Byrne had her way, there would not have been any Bance-eruptions, and Levant would somehow have been silenced. Not happy to destroy the jobs of 150 people at SUN TV, Levant had to destroy Kory and Jenni and Stevie too. Levant was one of the best campaigners for the Liberals...
Fri, 2016-02-12 21:42
#24
Sanizadeh, Québécois quite dramatically ditched the Church in the 1960s. Unless you mean that people like beautiful old churches? Secularists in Tunisia and Turkey also love beautiful old mosques. We have one of the world's highest rates of non-marriage and shacking up.
Sat, 2016-02-13 00:41
#25
Had Jenni Byrne had her way, there would not have been any Bance-eruptions, and Levant would somehow have been silenced. Not happy to destroy the jobs of 150 people at SUN TV, Levant had to destroy Kory and Jenni and Stevie too. Levant was one of the best campaigners for the Liberals...
are you saying he is an agent provocateur? pretending to be an over the top Conservative in order to destroy them?
Sat, 2016-02-13 01:20
#26
montrealer58
Had Jenni Byrne had her way, there would not have been any Bance-eruptions, and Levant would somehow have been silenced. Not happy to destroy the jobs of 150 people at SUN TV, Levant had to destroy Kory and Jenni and Stevie too. Levant was one of the best campaigners for the Liberals...are you saying he is an agent provocateur? pretending to be an over the top Conservative in order to destroy them?
I can't think of any other logical explanation! 
Sat, 2016-02-13 01:22
#27
Had Jenni Byrne had her way, there would not have been any Bance-eruptions, and Levant would somehow have been silenced. Not happy to destroy the jobs of 150 people at SUN TV, Levant had to destroy Kory and Jenni and Stevie too. Levant was one of the best campaigners for the Liberals...are you saying he is an agent provocateur? pretending to be an over the top Conservative in order to destroy them?
I can't think of any other logical explanation!
i've often wondered if something like this wasn't happening
Sat, 2016-02-13 08:51
#28
Sanizadeh, Québécois quite dramatically ditched the Church in the 1960s. Unless you mean that people like beautiful old churches? Secularists in Tunisia and Turkey also love beautiful old mosques. We have one of the world's highest rates of non-marriage and shacking up.
Yes but God forbid that anyone suggest removing the crucifix on the of the National Assembly or scrapping the giant cross on Mount Royal and suddenly all, these supposedly anti-religious quebecers start whimpering about how they need to keep all these "symbols of their Catholic heritage"
Sat, 2016-02-13 13:48
#29
Had Jenni Byrne had her way, there would not have been any Bance-eruptions, and Levant would somehow have been silenced. Not happy to destroy the jobs of 150 people at SUN TV, Levant had to destroy Kory and Jenni and Stevie too. Levant was one of the best campaigners for the Liberals...are you saying he is an agent provocateur? pretending to be an over the top Conservative in order to destroy them?
I can't think of any other logical explanation!
i've often wondered if something like this wasn't happening
Oh, come on.
Levant is a hard-core conservative.
He's not a secret plant for the Liberals/NDP, etc.
Sat, 2016-02-13 14:35
#30
montrealer58
Levant was definitely the most effective Twitter personality for the Liberals. They could not have asked for anything better!
Sat, 2016-02-13 14:36
#31
Stockholm, no they don't. The only political party I belong to supports moving the crucifix to a museum. As for the cross, I don't think the Québec government has any authority over it. Some things like that (no, not the crucifix, which is counter to the principle of secularism in a legislative chamber) become symbols of cities, like the big Jeebus in Rio. The latter doesn't bother Brazilian Jews, Muslims or atheists.
You might also look into why you hate Québec so much. That is also akin to racism, and highly problematic.
Sat, 2016-02-13 15:20
#32
Yes but God forbid that anyone suggest removing the crucifix on the of the National Assembly or scrapping the giant cross on Mount Royal and suddenly all, these supposedly anti-religious quebecers start whimpering about how they need to keep all these "symbols of their Catholic heritage"Sanizadeh, Québécois quite dramatically ditched the Church in the 1960s. Unless you mean that people like beautiful old churches? Secularists in Tunisia and Turkey also love beautiful old mosques. We have one of the world's highest rates of non-marriage and shacking up.
I would object and I am not at all religious. Technically I'm Catholic but I don't believe in God or go to church. The Duplessis era was a dark time but it also spawned the Quiet Revolution. I don't see the cross on Mont Royal as a particularly religious symbol it's just part of the historical landscape like churches that have been transformed into condos. Quebec doesn't need to negate its history to secularize.
As Lagatta noted, we are leaders in shacking up. We actively secularized in a way other places haven't because the church was so embedded in civic life. The church didn't just wane in Quebec as it has in other places. It was an active rebellion yet very different because it was a democratic revolution rather than a physically violent one. Just as Christmas is enjoyed by the secular world so are other aspects of life that are intertwined with religion in Quebec, like the Cross on Mont Royal or the angels on Motherhouse which became Dawson College. St Joseph Oratory is still actively religious but it is also a symbol of Montreal.
That we have rejected the Church as a governing body, and many rejected it as a religion, doesn't mean we don't value it as a central aspect of our history. Without the church Quebec practically has no local history. Quebec artists were dependent on the church.
The crusifix in the National Assembly could be moved to a museum or displayed somewhere else in the building but it could also stay where it is as it fades into history. It's not like it ever really guided decision making in the assembly. There is a dollop of irony in having it there.
Sat, 2016-02-13 15:32
#33
montrealer58
Why is life is better for the average Joe in Quebec (where the NDP is non-existent) than it is in Ontario (which has had an NDP for decades).???
Sat, 2016-02-13 16:23
#34
Social movements. And in its first term, the PQ (which is utterly woeful nowadays) enacted many key pieces of social legislation in support of workers, women, lesbian and gay people, small farmers etc, which the NDP had been advocating for many years.
Pondering, I agree with you about the Cross and historic churches - the cross on the mountain was a place where we smoked dope, shared a bottle of wine, snogged and screwed etc and had lost any religious significance; But not about the crucifix, because it is in a deliberative chamber, just beneath the speaker, and it is important for all lawmakers to be equal whatever their religion or lack of religion, their gender, race etc. There is a museum in the National Assembly; that is where the crucifix belongs. It was installed by Duplessis; it isn't something that is as old as the National Assembly.
An important thing we have achieved, which Ontario still hasn't, is the abolition of confessional school systems. I'm proud of that one as I played a small part in it, and a friend who was a school board member in Côte-des-neiges played a much larger one. She was a "lapsed Muslim", by the way...
Sat, 2016-02-13 17:01
#35
Stockholm, no they don't. The only political party I belong to supports moving the crucifix to a museum. As for the cross, I don't think the Québec government has any authority over it. Some things like that (no, not the crucifix, which is counter to the principle of secularism in a legislative chamber) become symbols of cities, like the big Jeebus in Rio. The latter doesn't bother Brazilian Jews, Muslims or atheists.
You might also look into why you hate Québec so much. That is also akin to racism, and highly problematic.
You try to justify Quebecers irrational vendetta against the handful of Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear a niqab by saying that we have to understand that Quebecers are highly secular and have bad memories of the Duplessis era - fine. But then you dismiss the idea that the crucifix on the wall of the National Assembly or the Cross on Mount Royal (both erected while Duplessis was Premier) ought to be removed as a non-issue. Its totally contradictory.
I'm trying to put myself in the position of being a francophone Quebecer who is nominally Catholic but who is totally secular and wants separation of church and state (don't we all) - why would i be totally blase and dismissive about crucifixes in public places like the National Assembly and overlooking the whiole city of Montreal - and yet be tied up[ in a knot over the fact that THREE women in the last 5 years have chosen to wear a niqab while taking a citizenship oath???>
The only possible explanation is that this isnt about secularism and isnt about separation of church and state. Its about xenophobia and Muslims symbolizing "the other". No one cares about a crucifix in the National Assembly because Catholicism is seen as an "OK" religion, while Islam is seen as evil and alien. Pure and simple.
I grew up in Quebec and i love Quebec. I just wish Quebecers could shake off this rampant Front nationale style xenophobia - they are better than that.
Sat, 2016-02-13 17:22
#36
The emergence of he niqab isue also wasn't totally in the CPC's hands. They did not get that women to challenge the rules in court and they had no control over the fact that the court ruled on her right to wear a niqab in the middle of the campaign.
Get real, it was the CPC who imposed the dress code in the first place, in a manner that the courts later ruled unlawful. They thought they could use it as a wedge issue. They did, but it backfired.
Sat, 2016-02-13 18:00
#37
Can't you READ? I've always opposed the crucifix in the National Assembly, and just did so again before you lied about my position on that.
Pondering, I agree with you about the Cross and historic churches - the cross on the mountain was a place where we smoked dope, shared a bottle of wine, snogged and screwed etc and had lost any religious significance; But not about the crucifix, because it is in a deliberative chamber, just beneath the speaker, and it is important for all lawmakers to be equal whatever their religion or lack of religion, their gender, race etc. There is a museum in the National Assembly; that is where the crucifix belongs. It was installed by Duplessis; it isn't something that is as old as the National Assembly.
Québec solidaire also advocates its removal, and always has, as long as they've touched on the matter.
As for the cross, it had been advocated since the 19th century (in memory of the wooden cross erected in 1643) and work on it started in 1924, long before Duplessis' first term started in 1936. It was funded by a popular subscription, not the Québec government. Unlike the crucifix, which contradicts the neutrality of the deliberative assembly and the equality of its members, I think the cross is a non-issue.
Your "love" reminds me of Ghomeshi's.
Sat, 2016-02-13 19:54
#38
Exactly. Stronger youth vote and the blatant racism meant that otherwise apathetic voters who might not have bothered came out to cast ballots.
And yet, had there been a terrorist attack close to the federal election, Harper may have benefitted from the additional turn-out in order to have another majority.
The fact is, of the 5 elections Harper contested as leader, he increased his party's seat count in 4 of them. That shows that he knew what he was doing. You can call Harper all kinds of names, but "stupid" isn't one of them. He knew how to win, and he wouldn't have allowed the niqab to become an issue unless he had good reason to think it would work. As Stockholm pointed out, Harper's position was in line with Canadian public opinion on this issue (even though the issue obviously didn't rank high enough to be a vote-breaker) so from his point of view, it was a chance worth taking.
Let's also not assume that Islamophobia has been defeated with Harper gone. It is still out there (especially on YouTube) and if things start to get rough economically, or when (not if) there's another terrorist attack, those sentiments can easily be aroused.
Sat, 2016-02-13 21:16
#39
montrealer58
By not feeding the Islamophobia fires with the ezra levant, Canada now has diplomatic and foreign policy freedom from Bibi and his Beheaders. Not having Harper around is already giving Canada a better reputation in the world in a few short months. A whole country was held hostage by a delusion that the government could endlessly prop the oil price up to keep the tar sands burning. When Harper stopped buying oil, its price crashed.
Tens of billions of Canadian money was spent by the so-called free enterprise Conservatives acting like a moronic petrostate. Fortunately new business opportunities beyond the comprehension of an oil-stained and sullied Conservative are opening up. One thing these Conservatives seem to need is an education.
It will be found that when ezra levant is not the heart of the Canadian government's communication policy, incidents of terrorism should decline.
Sat, 2016-02-13 21:46
#40
The fact is, of the 5 elections Harper contested as leader, he increased his party's seat count in 4 of them. That shows that he knew what he was doing.
What he was did was unite the right to win with fewer votes than the PC/Reform previously, helped by the narrowing of the vote spread between the Liberals and the NDP, culminating with a majority win when the NDP surpassed the Liberals. Once that spread returned to historic norms, he was out, and his party was left with a core support of a bit over 30%.
As more than one commentator has pointed out, relying on a split opposition, rather then trying to target a majority of the electorate as successful PC leaders had done previously, is a thin reed to lean on.
Sat, 2016-02-13 22:36
#41
You try to justify Quebecers irrational vendetta against the handful of Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear a niqab by saying that we have to understand that Quebecers are highly secular and have bad memories of the Duplessis era - fine. But then you dismiss the idea that the crucifix on the wall of the National Assembly or the Cross on Mount Royal (both erected while Duplessis was Premier) ought to be removed as a non-issue. Its totally contradictory.
I'm trying to put myself in the position of being a francophone Quebecer who is nominally Catholic but who is totally secular and wants separation of church and state (don't we all) - why would i be totally blase and dismissive about crucifixes in public places like the National Assembly and overlooking the whiole city of Montreal - and yet be tied up[ in a knot over the fact that THREE women in the last 5 years have chosen to wear a niqab while taking a citizenship oath???>
The only possible explanation is that this isnt about secularism and isnt about separation of church and state. Its about xenophobia and Muslims symbolizing "the other". No one cares about a crucifix in the National Assembly because Catholicism is seen as an "OK" religion, while Islam is seen as evil and alien. Pure and simple.
I grew up in Quebec and i love Quebec. I just wish Quebecers could shake off this rampant Front nationale style xenophobia - they are better than that.
I'd be fine with the crusifix being placed in a museum or on display somewhere else in the building with an explanatory plaque.
Sure there is some xenophobia in Quebec and it might even be a bit stronger than in other areas of Canada but that doesn't mean we want to keep the cross on the mountain for religious reasons.
The Catholic Church permeated our lives. I live on Saint Dominique near the corner of Saint Laurent and down the street from Saint Denis. Saint Catherine Street is our "main" street. Pie-IX is named after a pope. Many of our honoured historical figures were also nuns or priests. I don't think about nuns when I think of Nun's Island.
Separation of Church and State doesn't mean we have to negate our history as a Catholic province. Quebec can be actively secular while recognizing that it is a huge part of our heritage as recently as a generation ago but most nuns don't wear habits anymore nor ostentatious crosses as street wear. Some government workers may wear a tiny cross as jewelry, they aren't unheard of, but they are no more common here than elsewhere in the country.
A hijab looks very much like a nun's veil and coif and is intended to serve much the same purpose.
Since 9/11 there has been a sharp rise in the wearing of the hijab. Maybe sometimes it to serve the intended purpose but many young women starting wearing them as a political statement of sorts.
http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/3/253.short
This study argues that the process of re-Islamization has accelerated in the aftermath of 9/11 as an increasing number of adolescents and young adults (daughters of immigrant Muslims) are assuming a public Islamic identity by wearing the hijab (headscarf). Drawing on two decades of research on American Muslim communities and in-depth interviews with American Muslim youth, this study finds that the hijab has become a symbol of an American Islamic identity—a public affirmation of trust in the American system that guarantees freedom of religion and speech. At the same time, it has also become a symbol of anti-colonial solidarity and resistance to efforts to eradicate Islam in an American environment that is increasingly seen as anti-Islamic. Implications for the future role of the veil in the lives of American Muslims are discussed
and
http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-03-the-hijab...
“The wearing of hijab allows me to stand fast upon my principles, to weather the storms of popular disapproval and the intense—oh my god—the intense pressure to lose your background, your values…wearing a hijab is tantamount to holding a microphone and announcing to the world you are a Muslim and you are not afraid to exhibit it. That you will not change your name to “Mo” from Mohammad to escape the backlash. It has made me more zealous in presenting to the world, with myself as a model, a member of humanity, and a follower of Islam.”
Putting on a hijab—particularly one with a noticeably bold pattern or color—is, as the friend above said, “tantamount to holding a microphone and announcing to everyone that you are a Muslim.” In this context, far from being a symbol of stifling Islamic supremacy, the scarf stands instead as a banner of autonomy. It demands the freedom of Muslim women in America to practice their faith openly; the freedom to reject restrictions placed on them and their bodies by reductionists who compartmentalize the hijab (and other forms of veiling) as a tidy issue of female oppression or Islamic tyranny. American Muslim women, by challenging these popular misconceptions of the hijab, are claiming public spaces as the religiously diverse and multicultural places they are intended to be.
If used religiously it is intended to hide the hair of a woman because it is sexy and women shouldn't be inviting male attention to themselves. If a woman also wears eyeliner and chooses bold patterns and colors then she isn't wearing it for religious reasons. She is wearing it to advertise her religion and to make a political statement.
That is exactly why the Quebec Government doesn't want it worn when delivering public services.
Also, women who wear the Niqab may not see it as a symbol of oppression but that doesn't mean it isn't one. Being able to see people's faces is part of our culture. It's why so many people advised Mulcair to shave. I'm glad he didn't, he wears it well, but concealing the face has a negative connotation in our culture and is viewed suspiciously when not expected. We allow holloween masks and ski masks and other face coverings, and what people wear should not be dictated by the state, so I agree niqabs should not be banned.
Personally I don't care at all if a woman wears a hijab delivering public services but if it is being used as a means of political expression it is subverting rules everyone else in Quebec has to follow. We cannot know an individual woman's motive for wearing the hijab but Quebecers are not wrong to suspect that it is a political statement not a religious requirement.
Sat, 2016-02-13 22:41
#42
montrealer58
A huge pile of Taurean Scatology about nothing at all
Sun, 2016-02-14 12:56
#43
The fact is, of the 5 elections Harper contested as leader, he increased his party's seat count in 4 of them. That shows that he knew what he was doing. You can call Harper all kinds of names, but "stupid" isn't one of them. He knew how to win, and he wouldn't have allowed the niqab to become an issue unless he had good reason to think it would work. As Stockholm pointed out, Harper's position was in line with Canadian public opinion on this issue (even though the issue obviously didn't rank high enough to be a vote-breaker) so from his point of view, it was a chance worth taking.
Yes, but as Chantal Hébert & others have pointed out, just because something is popular in the polls and a majority of people supposedly agree, doesn't mean they will vote based on that issue or for the party or politician pushing it.
Eg. The majority of Quebecers agreed with Pauline Marois & the PQ on the Charter of Values, banning the Niqab etc, and yet look at what happened to Marois & the PQ in 2014.
It doesn't seem that Harper or the Cons learned anything from the Marois PQ example the year before.
And meanwhile down South, just because a lot of Americans/Republicans, etc. agree with Donald Trump on some of his policies about Muslims, immigration, etc. doesn't mean they will vote for him. He's only getting a portion of the Republican Primary vote, and he might not be able to win a General Election this year at all.
Sat, 2016-02-20 03:41
#44
Yes, but as Chantal Hébert & others have pointed out, just because something is popular in the polls and a majority of people supposedly agree, doesn't mean they will vote based on that issue or for the party or politician pushing it.The fact is, of the 5 elections Harper contested as leader, he increased his party's seat count in 4 of them. That shows that he knew what he was doing. You can call Harper all kinds of names, but "stupid" isn't one of them. He knew how to win, and he wouldn't have allowed the niqab to become an issue unless he had good reason to think it would work. As Stockholm pointed out, Harper's position was in line with Canadian public opinion on this issue (even though the issue obviously didn't rank high enough to be a vote-breaker) so from his point of view, it was a chance worth taking.
That's true, but what else did Harper have to go on?
Sat, 2016-02-20 10:29
#45
That's true, but what else did Harper have to go on?
Many pundits are saying that he should have showcased the strong female talent he had. Right now these women are dominating QP. Rona Ambrose, Michelle Rempel, Lisa Raitt, Candice Bergen. If Harper focused on economic matters and showcased these women highlighting it is not a one person party, & a more moderate bent, he might have held the Liberals to a minority.
But the whole CPC strategy was to highlight Harper as a one-man band.
Sat, 2016-02-20 12:46
#46
it was a 1 person party.
Sat, 2016-02-20 13:05
#47
But the public didn't seem to mind that Harper was a 1-man show until the latter years of his term.
For a while it seemed that the 'Strong, Tough Man' leader role worked for Harper with voters.
Until it didn't any more.
Sat, 2016-02-20 13:57
#48
it was a 1 person party.
& that was the problem. People knew it was a one-man party. And Canada was sick of it, Instead of changing the channel and highlghting some of the high profile women, and say "Hey we are a team!" and try to appeal to women. Instead they doubled down and continued to present Harper as a one man band, even though they knew people were sick of him.
In the aftermath of the election, the Conservatives narrative is that Canadians were tired of Harper, 60% wanted a change, no PM won four elxns in a row, Harper outlived its welcome. So then why didn't they change the startegy and have other people share the stage with Harper?
This is just one of the many, many mistakes the CPC made in this election.
Sat, 2016-02-20 14:23
#49
But keep in mind that the Conservatives did some things right.
They were still in contention to win a Minority until late September/early October when the ABC vote coalesced behind the Liberals.
They recovered from the below 30% numbers that they were getting in late August during the corrosive weeks of the Duffy Trial.
They finished the election with their base intact and with nearly a third of the vote.
They succeeded in picking up half a dozen seats in Quebec in conservative pockets around Quebec City.
Sat, 2016-02-20 14:29
#50
all it says to me is 30% of Canadians want a dictatorship or are sexist racist assholes.