News   Jul 24, 2024
 431     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 963     1 
News   Jul 24, 2024
 608     0 

What's the future for the Conservative Party?

And why is there a need for such a hotline? If you see someone breaking the laws of this country, call the police or 222-TIPS. No one was advocating for this hotline but yet they brought it. How much will this hotline cost? WTF is a barbaric cultural practice and who gets to define it? So they lost because their hotline wasn't hip enough? Are you kidding me? This is not about any womans rights or honour killings. They needed a political wedge issue to divide up the votes in Quebec and they used this and the niqab issue. Thankfully they failed woefully. I have been in Canada for 20 years and have never seen this racial/ethnic/religious baiting politics before and I hope it's the last time we see this crap.


Sure, and honour killing and abuse is something that you want to call a "Barbaric practices" hotline about, instead of 911?

So if 911 could solve all these issues, would you two be in favour of abolishing women's helplines as well? Women's shelters? As for what is a barbaric cultural practice? You could ask the same thing about "What is discrimination?" "Who gets to define who has precedence in religious freedom vs human rights cases? i.e. the Human Rights Commission case a few years back of the Muslim barber who refused to cut the hair of a feminist lesbian" Also you could also ask "What is abuse?" If a wife feels threatened but the husband doesn't state a direct threat, things could get messy and we can argue until the cows come home"


And yes they got blasted by the media, not because the idea is "xenophobic" but because of the way they sold it. The name focuses more on the perpetrators than on the victims. Had they used more "progressive" language like I don't know "At Risk Victims Helpline" it would have been seen differently.


Wait a minute here - you seem to have left no room that women can choose to wear it on their own as part of their faith (which was the case for the women who went to court over the issue). We don't go about telling nuns that they should drop their headcovering and black smocks - because it is their choice. The important thing here is that the choice is not out of coercion. The comfort level of the majority of Canadians have nothing to do with it - considering the majority of Canadians a) don't consider it an issue of such import and b) have no issue with overarching legislation that dealt with it on a rights basis.

Agreed, as stated before the majority of Canadians don't consider it an issue of major importance. As for nuns covering their heads, that's a bad comparison because nuns take a life long oath of service to the church and in Canada they are (99.9 % of the time) not pressured, in fact I know quite a few families that have, in vain, begged their daughters not to become nuns. That's a stark contrast to women who wear the niqab, most of which are pressured to do so by their husbands and families. I'm sure there are those who do it by choice but is this what Canada is? A country that embraces segregation between genders? Whatever happened to equality of the sexes?


I wonder why they weren't mentioning their stellar economic record during the past 10 years. Anemic growth, huge deficits even though Paul Martin left them billions in surplus, added billions to the country's debt, and the country has gone through 2 recessions under their watch. Seems cutting taxes isn't the magic solution to every economic problem like they wanted us to believe. It's time for someone else to have a chance. They can go stay in the time out box.

I'm not a fan of deficits either but come on do you remember the political climate of 2008-09? The buzz words were "Keynesian" "stimulus" "short term deficits". It would have been political suicide for them to stick to their guns maintain a balanced budget as none of the other political parties had that on their agenda. They were all against budget cuts even if it meant a deficit. By the way, the Conservatives wanted to balance the budget this time around but it was the Liberals who advocated a "modest" deficit.


I don't know really want to get into a debate over the niqab, but I honestly wonder what part of "Canada is a free country" some people do not understand.

I also wonder what of part "Canada is a free country. And in a free country women must not be treated as thralls" most people don't understand.


Wow, you really don't understand why the CPC lost! I wasn't being serious with the "old stock Canadian" comment, but can you not see how being xenophobic and mean spirited hurt the party?


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ir-identity-before-they-lost-power-hbert.html


Good article about how the conservative movement in Canada is failing.

Xenophobic for attempting to create a help hotline to prevent honour killing and forced marriages? I guess misogynists get precedence over women's rights but as long as they originate from a certain part of the world?


Nonetheless I can understand the "mean spirited" comment; I've said before that Harper has very little charisma and I definitely wouldn't want him as a boss as he known to be a micro manager but that doesn't make him a "racist". But just because somebody gets convicted for robbery doesn't mean he's a rapist, murder, child molester, puppy eater etc. In my opinion Trudeau won this election on image rather than being the better candidate. That and all the scandals that the Conservatives had.
 
I also wonder what of part "Canada is a free country. And in a free country women must not be treated as thralls" most people don't understand.

You seem to not understand what free country means.

It means that you do not get to dictate to women what they can, and cannot, wear. Listen to the articulate and intelligent women who say that the choice to wear the niqab is their choice. You do not get to be dismissive of the views of these women because you, as some white man, thinks he knows better than the women themselves. If someone is being forced to do something against their will, there are legal remedies for that which do not involve taking away their constitutional rights. It is particularly appalling that some people seem to think that the best way to help a woman who is allegedly being forced to do something involves forcing her, and everyone like her, to do something against her will. Coercion and humiliation will not help these women. As in France, all it will do is further marginalize these women.

I don't like the niqab. That's my opinion in a free country. You think the niqab makes these women "thralls", whatever that means, and that too is an opinion to which you are entitled. Neither of us is entitled to force those opinions on women who get to decide themselves if they wear the niqab or not.

Anyway, I am not debating the niqab issue any further. I've said my piece.
 
Last edited:
So if 911 could solve all these issues, would you two be in favour of abolishing women's helplines as well? Women's shelters? As for what is a barbaric cultural practice? You could ask the same thing about "What is discrimination?" "Who gets to define who has precedence in religious freedom vs human rights cases? i.e. the Human Rights Commission case a few years back of the Muslim barber who refused to cut the hair of a feminist lesbian" Also you could also ask "What is abuse?" If a wife feels threatened but the husband doesn't state a direct threat, things could get messy and we can argue until the cows come home"

Xenophobic for attempting to create a help hotline to prevent honour killing and forced marriages? I guess misogynists get precedence over women's rights but as long as they originate from a certain part of the world?

Let's not be ridiculous here - a women's helpline is there to assist women who chose to call, not by third party to snitch because of what they considered as "barbaric". I don't need to define what that term entails - the law is pretty clear as to what's legal and what's not. Whoever came up with it better offer a damn good reason why we need a snitch line solely for this purpose specifically for people who happens to originate from a certain part of the world. What, our existing institutions aren't good enough. For all the complaints about exceptionalism, it seems odd to want the state to sponsor it in quasi-legal institutions.

And yes they got blasted by the media, not because the idea is "xenophobic" but because of the way they sold it. The name focuses more on the perpetrators than on the victims. Had they used more "progressive" language like I don't know "At Risk Victims Helpline" it would have been seen differently.

Nice, you already branded someone as "victims" without knowing, or even asking whether they are or not - is it really about them, or is it about asserting one's belief on others? Labelling of this sort is about one of the most disempowering thing you can do. And it isn't like we don't have victims helpline or child abuse hotlines already. Are you saying that somehow that isn't sufficient (and if so, why?). Also, if the intent is to create an at risk victims helpline, one wouldn't have branded it as a snitch line in the first place - don't treat Canadians as fools - and that relates to the topic at hand.

Agreed, as stated before the majority of Canadians don't consider it an issue of major importance. As for nuns covering their heads, that's a bad comparison because nuns take a life long oath of service to the church and in Canada they are (99.9 % of the time) not pressured, in fact I know quite a few families that have, in vain, begged their daughters not to become nuns. That's a stark contrast to women who wear the niqab, most of which are pressured to do so by their husbands and families. I'm sure there are those who do it by choice but is this what Canada is? A country that embraces segregation between genders? Whatever happened to equality of the sexes?

First, you will need to present evidence that they are "pressured" to do so by their husbands or families (vs. personal choice and/or upbringing); second, is chosing what to wear about segregation of the sexes? What someone put on themselves is quite a different policy area than saying having mandatory segregation for the sake of accommodation.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You seem to not understand what free country means.


It means that you do not get to dictate to women what they can, and cannot, wear. Listen to the articulate and intelligent women who say that the choice to wear the niqab is their choice. You do not get to be dismissive of the views of these women because you, as some white man, thinks he knows better than the women themselves. If someone is being forced to do something against their will, there are legal remedies for that which do not involve taking away their constitutional rights. It is particularly appalling that some people seem to think that the best way to help a woman who is allegedly being forced to do something involves forcing her, and everyone like her, to do something against her will. Coercion and humiliation will not help these women. As in France, all it will do is further marginalize these women.


I don't like the niqab. That's my opinion in a free country. You think the niqab makes these women "thralls", whatever that means, and that too is an opinion to which you are entitled. Neither of us is entitled to force those opinions on women who get to decide themselves if they wear the niqab or not.


Anyway, I am not debating the niqab issue any further. I've said my piece.

You could also say "listen to the articulate and intelligent women who say it's their choice to share a husband." Why then is bigamy illegal and furthermore criminalized in a free country like Canada? Why does the State dictate to women that they are not allowed to share a husband?


Furthermore this random white man has lived in Beirut and Lebanon is a fairly liberal 50 % Muslim country (40 % Christian, 10 % other) and I have seen the affect it has. Most people there will not tell you that it's the woman's choice but it depends on her family: who would choose to cover themselves up and be in a state of utter discomfort? There are a few women that would but then again you could find a few women in this world that would choose to share a husband as well. And let's get realistic, the point is not to humiliate the women, it's prevent them from being humiliated. Being forced to cover up their faces while the men roam around in regular clothing isn't humiliation? Hey at least you can’t see who it is…


As for your France example, it's quite the opposite. Banning the niqab is an attempt to prevent the marginalization of these women. I don't know if you know much about France's history but the French state (the first and then subsequent republics) was founded on the principal of separation of church (in this case mosque) and state. Even a visible crucifix is frowned upon in state buildings. Therefore women with niqabs had no chance of being integrated into French society.



Let's not be ridiculous here - a women's helpline is there to assist women who chose to call, not by third party to snitch because of what they considered as "barbaric". I don't need to define what that term entails - the law is pretty clear as to what's legal and what's not. Whoever came up with it better offer a damn good reason why we need a snitch line solely for this purpose specifically for people who happens to originate from a certain part of the world. What, our existing institutions aren't good enough. For all the complaints about exceptionalism, it seems odd to want the state to sponsor it in quasi-legal institutions.

Actually I'm not sure if you're aware of this but women's and children's helpline do take calls from third parties as well who have good reason to suspect that a certain woman or child is being abused. Regarding what barbaric means see my point in my previous post and of course they would have to define what the term means; I'm assuming honour killings and forced marriages would be candidates. Again it seems you have an issue with the word “barbaric” so my original point that this idea was poorly sold remains valid.


If our existing institutions are good enough for this matter, why aren't they good enough for say when a drunk John Smith beats Jane? Why can't our existing institutions deal with that instead of the women's helpline?


Re: Quasi-Legal - Isn't that the case with the Humans Rights Commissions/Tribunals?


Nice, you already branded someone as "victims" without knowing, or even asking whether they are or not - is it really about them, or is it about asserting one's belief on others? Labelling of this sort is about one of the most disempowering thing you can do. And it isn't like we don't have victims helpline or child abuse hotlines already.

AoD

It was a random name I picked out of the hat. But you can say the same thing that the women's helpline is branding women as victims without listening to the man's side of the story. Maybe Jane made the whole thing up to get back at John. Unlikely but it has happened.


Also, if the intent is to create an at risk victims helpline, one wouldn't have branded it as a snitch line in the first place - don't treat Canadians as fools - and that relates to the topic at hand.

AoD

That's kind of the point. The way that it was sold was bad and therefore it failed. Btw did you know that there are already "snitch channels" in place? You could for example report somebody you suspect is working illegally...



First, you will need to present evidence that they are "pressured" to do so by their husbands or families (vs. personal choice and/or upbringing); second, is chosing what to wear about segregation of the sexes? What someone put on themselves is quite a different policy area than saying having mandatory segregation for the sake of accommodation.

See my point above.
 
Some people are still salty about the CPC losing the election.
I see you're a fan of South Park? Wouldn't it be so much simpler if the world was divided into, as in the Iraq war episode, into emasculated liberal wimps and redneck conservative nutcases? I'll make it simple: imagine me as a right wing nut who's crying under his bed that the CPC lost. Oh and I also have a picture of Harper in my living room that I used to gaze at for 30 minutes each morning before going to work and each night before going to bed. :cool:
 
The CPC might consider asking itself whether it has any coherent set of beliefs about the proper role of the federal government, and whether it is capable of making a sufficiently coherent and compelling case for those beliefs to win reelection. Otherwise, what exactly is the point? It's clear that the Harper strategy of cobbling together micro-targeted groups without any internally consistent view of what it actually means to be conservative didn't work, either politically or from an enduring policy standpoint.
 

Back
Top