Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Same things
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Same things
People have a right to believe (or not) in whatever religion they want and have their right accommodated for (i.e. being able to pray during work if one's religion demands it, being able to wear their religious garb, even in fields that require a uniform like the Mounties, have an item like a knife on their person should it be a part of their practices, etc.). It's not a "special right", it's basic human decency to honor that Charter right.
That's not how special rights work.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
It is a special right because the same right isn't granted to those who don't have the religious reason for it.
gutter_trash
Banned
some cities have laws against open carrying weapons, including knives
we don't have a 2nd Amendment. So, he broke the law, now he pays the fine.
Simple as that.
You can't walk around with an open carry katana blade either, even if it's made out of shitty stainless steel
No, it's not. Mr. McCarthy, by his own admission, does not consider himself to be in violation of divine requirements if he doesn't wear his little ceremonial knife. That is not the case with a devout Sikh.
PEI's electoral reform plebiscite concludes tomorrow. I used the online voting system they're testing out, which closes tomorrow; there were two days of in-person voting on Friday and Saturday. I ended up voting:
1) Mixed-Member Proportional (two thirds FPTP districts, one third list voting)
2) Dual-Member Proportional (two-member districts, one elected via FPTP, the other selected to achieve proportionality of the total vote)
3) Preferential Voting (in most elections this wouldn't matter much, as the third party vote is typically small here, though it wasn't in the last election)
4) First Past the Post
5) First Past the Post plus Leaders (don't really see the point)
1) Mixed-Member Proportional (two thirds FPTP districts, one third list voting)
2) Dual-Member Proportional (two-member districts, one elected via FPTP, the other selected to achieve proportionality of the total vote)
3) Preferential Voting (in most elections this wouldn't matter much, as the third party vote is typically small here, though it wasn't in the last election)
4) First Past the Post
5) First Past the Post plus Leaders (don't really see the point)
2a (or the UNDHR) is not going anywhere so I suggest we all buckle in and accept that yes, reasonable religious beliefs have protection under the Charter as opposed to regular secular beliefs. Incidentally, it is likely that country would literally not exist without freedom of religion being guaranteed in various forms pre-Charter.
0% chance that this doesn't get thrown out within 2 seconds if it proceeds to section 1.
0% chance that this doesn't get thrown out within 2 seconds if it proceeds to section 1.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
There's no such thing as "divine requirements", so it has no "existential significance" in reality.
Hence: same thing.
In case I'm still being unclear, I am arguing that exceptions based on religious feelings should not exist whatsoever, as they are not based in reality.
It's bullshit and no, I won't accept it. You are right that it's sadly not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean I will suddenly think it's no longer bullshit, because it is.
That seems rather peculiar. If someone actually need some kind of weapon around them to actually feel safe and functional this wouldn't be "human decency" because they don't follow the commands of some "divine" entity? I do believe there are often double standards when talking about religions.
It's like when some religious group don't want men and women to be together at public pools or gyms. It's once again human decency because of religion, otherwise most modern people would call it sexist.
I'm 100% for the charter and to accommodate everyone as much as possible so they feel welcomed and are proud to live here but I do think it needs some updating.
It does have existential significance in reality, because the person really believes it. And therefore, denying him that harms the wellbeing of the Canadian Sikh community, a large and growing portion of the population that contributes a lot to this country.
Getting rid of these sorts of accommodations puts us on the road to being France, which has marginalized its immigrant communities to disastrous effect.
PumpkinSpice
Banned
What's up with #5? Like assuming nationally, what would happen if the Conservatives won 60% of seats but Trudeau was leader? There'd be American-style chaos right?
It just means if a leader doesn't win their own seat an extra seat is allocated for them, I believe. It's not a presidential-style thing. It's by far the dumbest option on that list. And I say that as someone who thinks the FPTP status quo is The Literal Worst.
I'm genuinely curious Morrigan Stark if you would support something like the Quebec Charter or other things that would ban religious symbols from being worn members of the public service since you don't believe reasonable religious belief should be protected under the Charter. An example would be right now I can't wear a (for example) top hat or a collander while working for the government, but I can wear a burqua if it is part of my sincere religious belief specifically because of the protection of 2a. Or other cases such as the ability to wear a turban instead of the mandated safety helmet as part of the RCMP because the turban is part of the practice of my religion.
The logical extension of your opinion would be that it would indeed be within the right of the government to tell the person in each of these cases not to wear that article of clothing in those situations because religious beliefs should not be protected, particularly in the public space when there is a competing interest (such as the public safety interest in the case of a kirpan, or the historic interest in having the RCMP in matching uniform).
Hearing your opinion on R v NS would also be fascinating, although somewhat tangential to the discussion)
The logical extension of your opinion would be that it would indeed be within the right of the government to tell the person in each of these cases not to wear that article of clothing in those situations because religious beliefs should not be protected, particularly in the public space when there is a competing interest (such as the public safety interest in the case of a kirpan, or the historic interest in having the RCMP in matching uniform).
Hearing your opinion on R v NS would also be fascinating, although somewhat tangential to the discussion)
cryptosporidium
Member
in my opinion I dont think hes meaning we should outright get rid of religous freedoms even for clothing, just diminish it to the point where say a sikh cant carry a dull knife around anymore. Keyword being when he says "exceptions" such as knife carrying. Though I would not touch the sikh population as a politician, thats a large voter base thats growing pretty fast with many sticking between grits and torys.
In regards to religions and special rights, I feel that it's worth considering that 2a can also serve as a fringe benefit to racial minorities, whether they're religious or not. We've seen many times people who conflate race and religion, such as those that assume that because a person has brown skin that they must be a Muslim. Because 2a allows people to freely express their religious beliefs, it means that they become woven into Canadian culture, and as such the bigotry towards those people hopefully drops over time. If Islam no longer seems like a boogeyman Bob the convenience store owner, then he's probably not going to racially profile people as being Muslim because of their skin colour.
I'm a very irreligious person and believe in secularism wherever possible. I don't think our government should be influenced by religious beliefs, I don't think Catholic schools should be publicly funded; but at the same time I think it's important that we continue to protect those among us who might be mistreated because of how they look or what they believe. As well I can understand wanting to have a completely secular society, but I don't think jumping straight in and amending 2a would be a beneficial solution, especially when religion is ingrained in so many people.
I'm a very irreligious person and believe in secularism wherever possible. I don't think our government should be influenced by religious beliefs, I don't think Catholic schools should be publicly funded; but at the same time I think it's important that we continue to protect those among us who might be mistreated because of how they look or what they believe. As well I can understand wanting to have a completely secular society, but I don't think jumping straight in and amending 2a would be a beneficial solution, especially when religion is ingrained in so many people.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
If the article/accessory is allowed for religious reasons, it should be allowed for non-religious reasons as well. If the accessory interferes with a person's job, such as safety issues in your helmet example, it should be banned regardless of religious reasons because safety issues/job performance/etc. should always override faith.
If the piece of clothing or accessory does not interfere with anything and causes no harm to anyone then obviously people should be free to wear them.
It's really that simple!
I see. So to place that in a bit of context: would it be permissible for the Canadian government to require, say, our Minister of Defence to wear a helmet, as all soldiers otherwise would, when entering into a combat zone for inspection. There would be two competing interests here along with his religious preference: the first being his safety, the second being his compliance with a rule applied to all soldiers and his role as an example. Right now, he is allowed to wear his turban purely because of the protection of 2a. Firstly, should the military require him to wear a helmet given these competing interests, and second, what would be the case if he refused to take off his turban because he would rather uphold his own religious beliefs?
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Canadian Republicanism please! Let's just vote for who should be GG and transfer all the PM's powers to that office. lol
gutter_trash
Banned
1 day left to go
That would make Canada a presidential system, which is an awful form of government, as the US shows lately.
That's how it is now. They don't allow religious exemptions that compromise safety.
killer rin
Member
Meh, lets just go the route of elected King/Queens that serve for say 10 years each
We could always choose our executive in a lottery, a la this book: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0771035756/
(It's not a very good book, but the idea is interesting)
(It's not a very good book, but the idea is interesting)
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Based on this limited information, I'd say he should be forced to wear the helmet, and disciplined/sacked if he refuses. It's preposterous otherwise.
mdubs seems to suggest this isn't the case above?
killer rin
Member
So predictions, whats going to win the PEI referendum.
I'm personally betting on FPTP, or FPTP with Leaders. My reasoning being that on the ballot it specifically mentions "(The Current System)" next to FPTP. So my idea is that a large amount of people who didn't bother to learn the other systems would likely just rank those two as the top two ranks
I'm personally betting on FPTP, or FPTP with Leaders. My reasoning being that on the ballot it specifically mentions "(The Current System)" next to FPTP. So my idea is that a large amount of people who didn't bother to learn the other systems would likely just rank those two as the top two ranks
gutter_trash
Banned
I am also against a US styled Presidential system in Canada. We don't elect Presidents, we elect parliamentarians
Canadian governments get shit done while Washington stalls in gridlock thanks to redistricting gerrymandering hell where Congress is so FUCKED that nothing ever gets done
Get rid of the Queen? sure, why not. But I don't want a US style system in Canada.
Our Canadian governments gets shit done (all parties included)
The parliamentary system has some of the same weaknesses the US system has, namely, low information voters who aren't up to handling the finer nuances. So, for instance, in 2011 the voters didn't give a damn about Harper pissing all over parliamentary supremacy and the government's unprecedentedly getting censured by the Commons. That sort of thing undermines government.
However, parliamentary systems are better for low information voters because the executive can at least implement its platform. Governments still get praise or blame for stuff that isn't really their fault, but that's unavoidable. The thing that has totally derailed the US is that the Republicans figured out that the average swing voter just blames the president for anything they don't like about the country, so there's little to no consequences for Senate Republicans doing everything they can to fuck up the workings of the executive and judicial appointments process.
However, parliamentary systems are better for low information voters because the executive can at least implement its platform. Governments still get praise or blame for stuff that isn't really their fault, but that's unavoidable. The thing that has totally derailed the US is that the Republicans figured out that the average swing voter just blames the president for anything they don't like about the country, so there's little to no consequences for Senate Republicans doing everything they can to fuck up the workings of the executive and judicial appointments process.
Silent Chief
Member
I don't understand the appeal of lists. That's kinda like a senate election mechanism.
In my riding, I want an MP that has the majority of the vote. I also don't want more MPs with no riding to represent the people in my riding who voted against the majority. What would those MPs do when the others go back into their riding to work for their constituents? Maybe in cities, it would make sense to elect a bunch of MPs according to the local votes and then distributes them in pseudo ridings around town, but in rural areas where the ridings are huge, this makes no sense at all.
I actually think the biggest problem the US has right now is actually that republicans are heavily exploiting the fact that state legislatures have complete control over congressional districting. We may never see a democrat house again short of the republican party collapsing. The gerrymandering is that bad.
The electoral reform results on the fifth stage:
Turnout was 36.46%. Premier MacLauchlan didn't set a threshold for what would prompt action and what wouldn't, so I guess we'll see what he does next.
Turnout was 36.46%. Premier MacLauchlan didn't set a threshold for what would prompt action and what wouldn't, so I guess we'll see what he does next.
AuthenticM
Member
I'm glad MMP won.
What do you know ? A referendum can actually lead to a new system and a rejection of the status quo. One LPC argument destroyed.
pr0cs
Member
Won't be the last either
killer rin
Member
Wow, I'm actually surprised... Then again I was partly right since FPTP was winning until the end. Sad that only 35% people voted, but it seems par for the course
Wow this is big. The question is, is it good?
After 5 rounds of runoff voting and within 3 points of 50% maybe isn't enough to make me confident in the success of a referendum.
In an Atlantic province.
Take these numbers and add suburban Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta and FPTP wins.
I'd be really interested to see some kind of accumulation of specific ballot combinations, but that's a pretty pleasing result. The right answer won and the dumbest answer lost decisively. 
Seriously, though, I don't understand why that was even an option.
I don't think there's any specific reason to think that any of these places will be more decisively in favour of FPTP than others, especially if given a ranked ballot like this one. Like, PEI is one of the places that has verged on returning legislatures with no opposition party at all multiple times. So I'm not sure why you'd consider it more prone to like alternatives than other places that lack pluralismu in similar ways. If you're aware of useful polling on the matter broken down that way, I'd be interested to see it.
And I'm gonna point out that there are a *lot* of people in Alberta (the province I feel comfortable speaking for to some degree) who have never voted for a winner, especially federally but also provincially, in their lives. While they may not be a plurality (let alone majority) of Albertans, they'd definitely contribute quite a lot of votes away from FPTP.
Edit to add: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...dian_Electoral_Reform_-_Report.pdf?1448994262 -- Alberta is actually among the higher regions (Quebec is way ahead of all the rest) in wanting substantial reform, turns out. SK/MB are indeed among the lowest. Atlantic provinces are in the middle. Oddly, people more aware of how the electoral system works are more likely to think it's ok as is.
No one is ever seriously suggesting a straight party list system when they talk about proportional systems. Almost all the time the system being suggested is MMP.
People elected without a specific riding are there to represent the people who did not elect a member in their own riding. The idea that members represent the interests of those who did not vote for them effectively is at complete odds with reality. The result of pretending that they do is that many people go without any real voice in policymaking. Consider especially minority voices, who because of the multiple tiers of representative elections have a particularly hard time getting someone elected who *really* knows what their problems are.
Seriously, though, I don't understand why that was even an option.I don't think there's any specific reason to think that any of these places will be more decisively in favour of FPTP than others, especially if given a ranked ballot like this one. Like, PEI is one of the places that has verged on returning legislatures with no opposition party at all multiple times. So I'm not sure why you'd consider it more prone to like alternatives than other places that lack pluralismu in similar ways. If you're aware of useful polling on the matter broken down that way, I'd be interested to see it.
And I'm gonna point out that there are a *lot* of people in Alberta (the province I feel comfortable speaking for to some degree) who have never voted for a winner, especially federally but also provincially, in their lives. While they may not be a plurality (let alone majority) of Albertans, they'd definitely contribute quite a lot of votes away from FPTP.
Edit to add: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...dian_Electoral_Reform_-_Report.pdf?1448994262 -- Alberta is actually among the higher regions (Quebec is way ahead of all the rest) in wanting substantial reform, turns out. SK/MB are indeed among the lowest. Atlantic provinces are in the middle. Oddly, people more aware of how the electoral system works are more likely to think it's ok as is.
No one is ever seriously suggesting a straight party list system when they talk about proportional systems. Almost all the time the system being suggested is MMP.
People elected without a specific riding are there to represent the people who did not elect a member in their own riding. The idea that members represent the interests of those who did not vote for them effectively is at complete odds with reality. The result of pretending that they do is that many people go without any real voice in policymaking. Consider especially minority voices, who because of the multiple tiers of representative elections have a particularly hard time getting someone elected who *really* knows what their problems are.
matthewwhatever
Member
I'd be really interested to see some kind of accumulation of specific ballot combinations, but that's a pretty pleasing result. The right answer won and the dumbest answer lost decisively.
Wait, I thought MMP won?
Seriously, though, I don't think that they're going to implement a new voting system with only 36% turnout. That's abysmal, and not just because PEI is generally known for being Canada's most engaged province. We're talking about a place that had 77% turnout for the last general election, and 86% turnout in the last provincial election. For this plebiscite, they lowered the voting age to 16, gave people 10 days to vote, and allowed online and phone voting, and they still got barely more than a third of all voters to cast votes. That suggests to me either that a) people don't care, or b) people were confused by the options. (Personally, I'd lean towards the latter; I think I'm a relatively knowledgeable person, but I wouldn't be able to explain DMP to you if my life depended on it, and FPTP + Leader just sounds confusingly stupid.) I think that's why the Premier was so circumspect in his press release afterwards.
On a national level, I'm curious as to whether the federal government is actually going to do nationwide electoral reform consultations via online survey. I think the results of that, depending on the questions, are going to be a lot more useful than the townhalls (which, judging from Twitter, seemed to be packed with Fair Vote Canada types) or the CPC surveys (which, I mean...come on).
killer rin
Member
Wait, I thought MMP won?
Seriously, though, I don't think that they're going to implement a new voting system with only 36% turnout. That's abysmal, and not just because PEI is generally known for being Canada's most engaged province. We're talking about a place that had 77% turnout for the last general election, and 86% turnout in the last provincial election. For this plebiscite, they lowered the voting age to 16, gave people 10 days to vote, and allowed online and phone voting, and they still got barely more than a third of all voters to cast votes. That suggests to me either that a) people don't care, or b) people were confused by the options. (Personally, I'd lean towards the latter; I think I'm a relatively knowledgeable person, but I wouldn't be able to explain DMP to you if my life depended on it, and FPTP + Leader just sounds confusingly stupid.) I think that's why the Premier was so circumspect in his press release afterwards.
On a national level, I'm curious as to whether the federal government is actually going to do nationwide electoral reform consultations via online survey. I think the results of that, depending on the questions, are going to be a lot more useful than the townhalls (which, judging from Twitter, seemed to be packed with Fair Vote Canada types) or the CPC surveys (which, I mean...come on).
It would be funny if the surveys got a larger feedback than what a potential referendum got in turnout. I mean, if that happened if you did both and one side won the survey with a wider response rate whereas the actual referendum had the other side win because of the wrong people voting in the turnout what would happen?
Anyhow, it truly is a shame that Electoral Reform in PEI only for 36% of the vote. But then again, I always find these situations weird when a government throws it out due to turnout. If only 36% of people voted in an actual election, the result doesn't just get thrown out, it actually goes through without regard for what the other 64% thought. Not to mention that it's not like we're not used to being at the whims of a minority of the population whenever we vote in a Majority Government.
cryptosporidium
Member
Personal opinion is, especially on electoral reform, only those that actually understand the concepts should vote. This idea that we need everyones two cents is bogus as not everyone can comprehend the decision they are making. Tyranny of the majority and all that jazz, I'd rather have an informed turnout than one thats just going to cause people who are afraid of change to stay with the status quo
1 day left to go
Make it happen!
DeadlyParasite
Member
As a Canadian I sincerely hope Trudeau fights Donald Trump to the last gasp over serious political issues.
Wyndstryker
Member
We might need to start getting our stockpile of materials to build the wall.
Or quickly find bugs bunny to cut the continent
Or quickly find bugs bunny to cut the continent
As do I. I feel so disappointed in America right now, and so worried for the minorities who live there. I'm thankful that I'm living in this country, at least.
The PQ and the CPC both dipped their toes into dog whistle territory in recent campaigns, and didn't get much to show for it (and, of course, in the case of the CPC, they were the incumbent party).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked