User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Holy $#@!, Canada's having an election! But why?

  1. #11
    Points: 143,202, Level: 91
    Level completed: 5%, Points required for next Level: 3,448
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    84034
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    44,100
    Points
    143,202
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    9,560
    Thanked 15,999x in 11,718 Posts
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I mean they basically agree on everything anyway, so what's the point?

    Seriously, I was recommended a live cast of the English-language federal leaders' debate the other day...



    ...and what stuck out to me the most was the uniformity of opinion among them. With the sole exception of the Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, all the other candidates are essentially running on variations of the governing Liberal Party's program: scaled-up versions were offered by Jagmeet Singh of the New Democrats and Annamie Paul of the Greens while a scaled-down version was offered by Conservative leader Erin O'Toole. The baseline program on offer though seems to be the same across the board for all Canadian parties. Nobody's atually offering a different program. Except Blanchet on behalf of the Bloc. But that's because he represents Quebec, which, as of June 16th, is now officially recognized as a separate nation, no longer considered simply a province of Canada. He's not even seeking to be the Prime Minister of Canada like the rest of them; he's there simply to advocate for Quebec's national interests within the federal framework.

    As I watched this debate, Blanchet quickly emerged as my favorite of the leaders precisely because he was the one who dared to be different. Since English isn't first language, he sometimes struggled to translate his thoughts and accordingly had a very plain manner of speaking that was actually usually much easier to follow than how the other leaders (especially the polished bureaucrats of the bigger parties) communicated, IMO. I liked his simple, straightforward presentation of what struck me as a moderate, common sense kind of worldview within the framework of his distinctive goals. I didn't agree with his stance on just everything, but he came off to me as a human being, not a robotic ideologue.

    Because the Bloc's program stands out for not being socially liberal across the board, Blanchet, and frankly Quebec as a whole by proxy, faced breathtakingly blatant political discrimination and marginalization from multiple presenters (which he called out) on a level that honestly shocked me. Right off the bat, the very first question directed at Blanchet was...



    For perspective, Bill 96 is a local proposition applicable only to Quebec that seeks to equalize the treatment of the French language, which prevails in Quebec, therein by banning most large and medium-sized businesses in Quebec from offering services exclusively in other languages (such as English, for example; the prevailing language in Canada). Bill 21 is a local Quebec bill that prohibits government employees from wearing ostentatious religious symbols (such as giant cross necklaces, burqas, or turbans) while on the job. These are the "discriminatory laws" of which the presenter spoke. The query forced Blanchet to remind the presenter that his was officially recognized as a nation and not a "distinct society", whatever that means; not a mere province of Canada, and also to rebuke the notion that Quebecers are collectively racists for overwhelmingly supporting laws preserving their common language against English encroachment from without and the local separation of church and state. I found the boundless obnoxiousness of this kind of official wokeness, and the ironic utilization of it to justify transparent Canadian national chauvinism, absolutely insufferable, and so apparently did the people of Quebec, as by the following morning the Premier of Quebec had requested an apology and the leaders of Canada's two main parties, Trudeau and O'Toole, had both made public statements denouncing the notion that Quebecers are collectively racists...



    ...though, again, notably Trudeau and O'Toole waited until the following day to offer solidarity, as if to perhaps gauge the public response first before deciding their opinion. Anyway, this was the kind of treatment that he, and Quebec, received broadly, and it continued even in the CBC's post-debate coverage later in the evening, in which I noticed that Blanchet was scarcely mentioned and de-contextualized the one time his partication was even brought up. There is indeed a bigoted nation here, but it's not the historically colonized, and apparently still marginalized, Quebec.

    To my immense satisfaction, Mr. Blanchet did force an opportunity to briefly but specifically defend Bill 21 eventually, and had this to say of it: "Quebec wants religion out of the state affairs because religion never protected equality for women, and..never..will." Truer words were never spoken and I never thought I'd see the day that someone would have the audacity to speak that kind of controversial truth in a debate of party leaders for any country! Ask the women of Afghanistan if they feel liberated by the burqa, for example. Many women are forced by their husbands to conceal every inch of their bodies for shame of being female like that and might frankly find something like Bill 21 a nice excuse they can throw back to avoid doing so for at least part of their day. Either way, it's not the message to young girls and women that the state should be supporting. I like and respect the secularism of majority French-speaking countries like France and Quebec. Detractors will speak of discrimination against beliefs, but they'll never say a thing about the way those beliefs discriminate against actual people; namely women. People matter more than opinions, and especially groundless ones. For the daring frankness of this take alone, I'd support Blanchet's party in a heartbeat were I a Quebecer, personally.

    Blanchet's perspective as the representative of a traditionally marginalized nation I felt became especially valuable when the treatment of indigenous nations was brought up. In response to an 18-year-old Ojibway first-time voter who asked all the leaders what they'll do to rebuild trust between his people and the federal government after 150 years of broken promises, Blanchet offered this clearly heartfelt opinion:



    I found it quite powerful and a perspective born out of the kind of indisputable sincerity that could only come from someone in his position vis-a-vis the nation of Canada. Even if other leaders had spoken the exact same words, the impact wouldn't, and couldn't, have been the same. In fact, all of his remarks on the subject of first nations, even beyond these, seemed the most spot-on of all.

    I hope Blanchet's party does well in Quebec (which is the only place they campaign for obvious reasons). He comes off to me as an honest and straightforward person and offered a breath of fresh air from the predictable plastic phrases, political correctness, and generic styles and attack lines of the rest. Beyond that, I don't think I care what the outcome of this election is.

    You should of seen the first dem party debate last year there wasn't much debate in that debate either.

  2. #12
    Points: 23,949, Level: 37
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 401
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Retirednsmilin308's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    5095
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    5,750
    Points
    23,949
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    6,349
    Thanked 5,088x in 3,075 Posts
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I mean they basically agree on everything anyway, so what's the point?

    Seriously, I was recommended a live cast of the English-language federal leaders' debate the other day...



    ...and what stuck out to me the most was the uniformity of opinion among them. With the sole exception of the Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, all the other candidates are essentially running on variations of the governing Liberal Party's program: scaled-up versions were offered by Jagmeet Singh of the New Democrats and Annamie Paul of the Greens while a scaled-down version was offered by Conservative leader Erin O'Toole. The baseline program on offer though seems to be the same across the board for all Canadian parties. Nobody's atually offering a different program. Except Blanchet on behalf of the Bloc. But that's because he represents Quebec, which, as of June 16th, is now officially recognized as a separate nation, no longer considered simply a province of Canada. He's not even seeking to be the Prime Minister of Canada like the rest of them; he's there simply to advocate for Quebec's national interests within the federal framework.

    As I watched this debate, Blanchet quickly emerged as my favorite of the leaders precisely because he was the one who dared to be different. Since English isn't first language, he sometimes struggled to translate his thoughts and accordingly had a very plain manner of speaking that was actually usually much easier to follow than how the other leaders (especially the polished bureaucrats of the bigger parties) communicated, IMO. I liked his simple, straightforward presentation of what struck me as a moderate, common sense kind of worldview within the framework of his distinctive goals. I didn't agree with his stance on just everything, but he came off to me as a human being, not a robotic ideologue.

    Because the Bloc's program stands out for not being socially liberal across the board, Blanchet, and frankly Quebec as a whole by proxy, faced breathtakingly blatant political discrimination and marginalization from multiple presenters (which he called out) on a level that honestly shocked me. Right off the bat, the very first question directed at Blanchet was...



    For perspective, Bill 96 is a local proposition applicable only to Quebec that seeks to equalize the treatment of the French language, which prevails in Quebec, therein by banning most large and medium-sized businesses in Quebec from offering services exclusively in other languages (such as English, for example; the prevailing language in Canada). Bill 21 is a local Quebec bill that prohibits government employees from wearing ostentatious religious symbols (such as giant cross necklaces, burqas, or turbans) while on the job. These are the "discriminatory laws" of which the presenter spoke. The query forced Blanchet to remind the presenter that his was officially recognized as a nation and not a "distinct society", whatever that means; not a mere province of Canada, and also to rebuke the notion that Quebecers are collectively racists for overwhelmingly supporting laws preserving their common language against English encroachment from without and the local separation of church and state. I found the boundless obnoxiousness of this kind of official wokeness, and the ironic utilization of it to justify transparent Canadian national chauvinism, absolutely insufferable, and so apparently did the people of Quebec, as by the following morning the Premier of Quebec had requested an apology and the leaders of Canada's two main parties, Trudeau and O'Toole, had both made public statements denouncing the notion that Quebecers are collectively racists...



    ...though, again, notably Trudeau and O'Toole waited until the following day to offer solidarity, as if to perhaps gauge the public response first before deciding their opinion. Anyway, this was the kind of treatment that he, and Quebec, received broadly, and it continued even in the CBC's post-debate coverage later in the evening, in which I noticed that Blanchet was scarcely mentioned and de-contextualized the one time his partication was even brought up. There is indeed a bigoted nation here, but it's not the historically colonized, and apparently still marginalized, Quebec.

    To my immense satisfaction, Mr. Blanchet did force an opportunity to briefly but specifically defend Bill 21 eventually, and had this to say of it: "Quebec wants religion out of the state affairs because religion never protected equality for women, and..never..will." Truer words were never spoken and I never thought I'd see the day that someone would have the audacity to speak that kind of controversial truth in a debate of party leaders for any country! Ask the women of Afghanistan if they feel liberated by the burqa, for example. Many women are forced by their husbands to conceal every inch of their bodies for shame of being female like that and might frankly find something like Bill 21 a nice excuse they can throw back to avoid doing so for at least part of their day. Either way, it's not the message to young girls and women that the state should be supporting. I like and respect the secularism of majority French-speaking countries like France and Quebec. Detractors will speak of discrimination against beliefs, but they'll never say a thing about the way those beliefs discriminate against actual people; namely women. People matter more than opinions, and especially groundless ones. For the daring frankness of this take alone, I'd support Blanchet's party in a heartbeat were I a Quebecer, personally.

    Blanchet's perspective as the representative of a traditionally marginalized nation I felt became especially valuable when the treatment of indigenous nations was brought up. In response to an 18-year-old Ojibway first-time voter who asked all the leaders what they'll do to rebuild trust between his people and the federal government after 150 years of broken promises, Blanchet offered this clearly heartfelt opinion:



    I found it quite powerful and a perspective born out of the kind of indisputable sincerity that could only come from someone in his position vis-a-vis the nation of Canada. Even if other leaders had spoken the exact same words, the impact wouldn't, and couldn't, have been the same. In fact, all of his remarks on the subject of first nations, even beyond these, seemed the most spot-on of all.

    I hope Blanchet's party does well in Quebec (which is the only place they campaign for obvious reasons). He comes off to me as an honest and straightforward person and offered a breath of fresh air from the predictable plastic phrases, political correctness, and generic styles and attack lines of the rest. Beyond that, I don't think I care what the outcome of this election is.

    I dated a lady who lived in Quebec for about a year. It was awesome and she let me know about how the women revolted against the church's domination of them. It was pretty cool. El'en reflected that attitude. Montreal is an interesting city all in itself.

    I will amplify more on this in greater detail, but for now I gotta go cook a late lunch for my lady.

    Dave
    Last edited by Retirednsmilin308; 09-25-2021 at 01:51 PM.
    When it is not allowed to be questioned, it is not science, it is PROPAGANDA

  3. #13
    Points: 33,099, Level: 44
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 851
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    25000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    The Booman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12915
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    That's me over there
    Posts
    11,784
    Points
    33,099
    Level
    44
    Thanks Given
    4,931
    Thanked 12,905x in 7,102 Posts
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by IMPress Polly View Post
    I mean they basically agree on everything anyway, so what's the point?

    Seriously, I was recommended a live cast of the English-language federal leaders' debate the other day...



    ...and what stuck out to me the most was the uniformity of opinion among them. With the sole exception of the Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet, all the other candidates are essentially running on variations of the governing Liberal Party's program: scaled-up versions were offered by Jagmeet Singh of the New Democrats and Annamie Paul of the Greens while a scaled-down version was offered by Conservative leader Erin O'Toole. The baseline program on offer though seems to be the same across the board for all Canadian parties. Nobody's atually offering a different program. Except Blanchet on behalf of the Bloc. But that's because he represents Quebec, which, as of June 16th, is now officially recognized as a separate nation, no longer considered simply a province of Canada. He's not even seeking to be the Prime Minister of Canada like the rest of them; he's there simply to advocate for Quebec's national interests within the federal framework.

    As I watched this debate, Blanchet quickly emerged as my favorite of the leaders precisely because he was the one who dared to be different. Since English isn't first language, he sometimes struggled to translate his thoughts and accordingly had a very plain manner of speaking that was actually usually much easier to follow than how the other leaders (especially the polished bureaucrats of the bigger parties) communicated, IMO. I liked his simple, straightforward presentation of what struck me as a moderate, common sense kind of worldview within the framework of his distinctive goals. I didn't agree with his stance on just everything, but he came off to me as a human being, not a robotic ideologue.

    Because the Bloc's program stands out for not being socially liberal across the board, Blanchet, and frankly Quebec as a whole by proxy, faced breathtakingly blatant political discrimination and marginalization from multiple presenters (which he called out) on a level that honestly shocked me. Right off the bat, the very first question directed at Blanchet was...



    For perspective, Bill 96 is a local proposition applicable only to Quebec that seeks to equalize the treatment of the French language, which prevails in Quebec, therein by banning most large and medium-sized businesses in Quebec from offering services exclusively in other languages (such as English, for example; the prevailing language in Canada). Bill 21 is a local Quebec bill that prohibits government employees from wearing ostentatious religious symbols (such as giant cross necklaces, burqas, or turbans) while on the job. These are the "discriminatory laws" of which the presenter spoke. The query forced Blanchet to remind the presenter that his was officially recognized as a nation and not a "distinct society", whatever that means; not a mere province of Canada, and also to rebuke the notion that Quebecers are collectively racists for overwhelmingly supporting laws preserving their common language against English encroachment from without and the local separation of church and state. I found the boundless obnoxiousness of this kind of official wokeness, and the ironic utilization of it to justify transparent Canadian national chauvinism, absolutely insufferable, and so apparently did the people of Quebec, as by the following morning the Premier of Quebec had requested an apology and the leaders of Canada's two main parties, Trudeau and O'Toole, had both made public statements denouncing the notion that Quebecers are collectively racists...



    ...though, again, notably Trudeau and O'Toole waited until the following day to offer solidarity, as if to perhaps gauge the public response first before deciding their opinion. Anyway, this was the kind of treatment that he, and Quebec, received broadly, and it continued even in the CBC's post-debate coverage later in the evening, in which I noticed that Blanchet was scarcely mentioned and de-contextualized the one time his partication was even brought up. There is indeed a bigoted nation here, but it's not the historically colonized, and apparently still marginalized, Quebec.

    To my immense satisfaction, Mr. Blanchet did force an opportunity to briefly but specifically defend Bill 21 eventually, and had this to say of it: "Quebec wants religion out of the state affairs because religion never protected equality for women, and..never..will." Truer words were never spoken and I never thought I'd see the day that someone would have the audacity to speak that kind of controversial truth in a debate of party leaders for any country! Ask the women of Afghanistan if they feel liberated by the burqa, for example. Many women are forced by their husbands to conceal every inch of their bodies for shame of being female like that and might frankly find something like Bill 21 a nice excuse they can throw back to avoid doing so for at least part of their day. Either way, it's not the message to young girls and women that the state should be supporting. I like and respect the secularism of majority French-speaking countries like France and Quebec. Detractors will speak of discrimination against beliefs, but they'll never say a thing about the way those beliefs discriminate against actual people; namely women. People matter more than opinions, and especially groundless ones. For the daring frankness of this take alone, I'd support Blanchet's party in a heartbeat were I a Quebecer, personally.

    Blanchet's perspective as the representative of a traditionally marginalized nation I felt became especially valuable when the treatment of indigenous nations was brought up. In response to an 18-year-old Ojibway first-time voter who asked all the leaders what they'll do to rebuild trust between his people and the federal government after 150 years of broken promises, Blanchet offered this clearly heartfelt opinion:



    I found it quite powerful and a perspective born out of the kind of indisputable sincerity that could only come from someone in his position vis-a-vis the nation of Canada. Even if other leaders had spoken the exact same words, the impact wouldn't, and couldn't, have been the same. In fact, all of his remarks on the subject of first nations, even beyond these, seemed the most spot-on of all.

    I hope Blanchet's party does well in Quebec (which is the only place they campaign for obvious reasons). He comes off to me as an honest and straightforward person and offered a breath of fresh air from the predictable plastic phrases, political correctness, and generic styles and attack lines of the rest. Beyond that, I don't think I care what the outcome of this election is.
    Why? Because it's cold and there is nothing else to do.






  4. #14
    Points: 83,669, Level: 70
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,181
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialYour first Group50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    IMPress Polly's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    154082
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    6,632
    Points
    83,669
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    6,996
    Thanked 5,503x in 3,250 Posts
    Mentioned
    584 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Interesting about the Greens. The COVID crisis hurt them. They caved to the trend to use plastic bags over reusable bags. And they have been silent on all the mask litter much of which is making their way into rivers and the oceans.
    It is interesting, at least to me! I'm inclined to attribute this development to two things:

    1) A global drop in enthusiasm for environmentalism during the Covid era just because the latter issue weighs on people's minds as a more immediate-term concern than global warming and such. The number of people who regard climate change as a real problem that needs to be addressed, for example, hasn't declined either domestically or worldwide. Where the issue ranks in as a priority for people, including even young people, has changed (specifically fallen) since 2019.

    ...AND...

    2) The Green Party of Canada's change of leadership since the 2019 election has proven a major problem for that specific party that's yielded lots of internal bickering over issues unrelated to the environment, such as over the party's stance on the Israel-Palestinian conflict for example, as well as on questions of racial justice. The bottom line here is that Annamie Paul is proving to be no Elizabeth May and her pick as the new Green leader expresses a recent shift into unpopular wokeness territory that runs parallel to the New Democratic Party's analogous, and analogously unpopular, shift toward concerning itself only with the opinions the youth.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts