Support NeoGAF

[Slime]

Canada is more liberal then the US. Political parties also have to rely a lot more on other groups besides rural whites to win elections and a lot of ridings are usually in the cities or suburbs surrounding the cities like in provinces like Ontario.

Yeah. People tend to forget that Muslim immigrants were a huge part of Harper's base. When he went all fascist-lite last election, they jumped to Trudeau. Running with someone like Leitch as leader would be electoral suicide.

I'm not worried about a Canadian Trump. If it ever came to that, I have faith that strategic voting or some kind of coalition would prevent it anyway. We have a lot more left-leaning voters in total, even when conservatives win.

 

[mo60]

Speaking of the next Alberta election rule the wildrose out of contention for it for now. I don't think they have a shot of winning the next election unless they learn from their mistakes in 2012 and 2015 and moderate themselves signficantly but sadly with some of the shenanigans they pulled this year like that blog post criticizing one of the NDP policies in an insane way I don't think that is possible at the moment. The PC's could potentially challenge the NDP but they need to fix their financial issues first, they need to figure out how to appeal to people in the cities and to need to prevent themselves from being controlled by Jason Kenney.

Edit:I just heard that Sandra Jansen left the Alberta PC leaderdship race after experiencing harrasment at the recent PC convention.
Link.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/...leader-after-harassment-allegations-1.3846248

 

[matthewwhatever]

Correction: BOTH women running for AB PC lead dropped out. I don't know anything about their politics, but that's pretty appalling regardless.

Please don't listen to any prognosticating about the Alberta election. Especially from someone who isn't even from here. No one knows at this point who will win the next election, and anyone telling you they do is selling snake oil. Right now the right wing of Alberta politics is divided, and there's no sign of it uniting. The parties in the running are the Wildrose and the NDP.

Stop looking for reassurance and inform yourself. And I don't mean by asking a forum to do your homework for you. All you'll get from that is a bunch of rando opinions filled with personal biases and expectations (like the bias you reflect that Alberta is all hicks). Read some wikipedia pages, start paying attention to political media, get involved with a party or some kind of organisation if you want to make a difference beyond your vote.

Re. the bathroom debate the primary opposition to it is a couple of catholic school boards that are largely controlled by their local catholic authority. Right now, because of the NDP, Alberta almost certainly has some of the most progressive law on gender identity in the country. If you want to know more specifically about how Albertans stand against the rest of the country on the subject, look for 6_1 and 6_2 in this poll Ipsos did a while ago: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=15621

Alberta is a bit of a mixed bag, with Alberta being pretty much in line with the rest of the country in being positive for gender identity being the determining factor, but there are fewer people who "don't care" and more who think birth sex should be the deciding factor roughly in proportion.

Frankly, the idea that Alberta is socially regressive is pretty damn overblown imo. At least on this kind of issue. Albertans have rejected social conservativism in every provincial election since Klein retired, and it's not as if it hasn't been tested. Stelmach and Redford were social moderates and won elections. Prentice juked right and lost, partly because he tried to absorb the far right WRP into his fold. The wildrose have also lost both elections they were poised to win largely because of so-called "bozo moments" by their far right wing caucus in those elections. And finally, the NDP were a more palatable protest vote than the WRP.

Where Albertans are "socially conservative" is in exactly the place that most "centrists" think is entirely valid: the idea that you can be socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Of course, this is bullshit when you realize that social progressivism requires (expensive) social programs or it's basically a sham, but whatever, I tire of having that argument pretty easily.

Just quoting this whole post for truth. If anyone in this thread has insights into Alberta politics, it's maharg.

And to re-emphasize one part in particular: do research on what interests you, and then get involved in what motivates you. Just asking for answers on a message board doesn't cut it, and it means you're getting your ideas through someone else's filters.

 

[mackaveli]

Please don't listen to any prognosticating about the Alberta election. Especially from someone who isn't even from here. No one knows at this point who will win the next election, and anyone telling you they do is selling snake oil. Right now the right wing of Alberta politics is divided, and there's no sign of it uniting. The parties in the running are the Wildrose and the NDP.

Stop looking for reassurance and inform yourself. And I don't mean by asking a forum to do your homework for you. All you'll get from that is a bunch of rando opinions filled with personal biases and expectations (like the bias you reflect that Alberta is all hicks). Read some wikipedia pages, start paying attention to political media, get involved with a party or some kind of organisation if you want to make a difference beyond your vote.

Re. the bathroom debate the primary opposition to it is a couple of catholic school boards that are largely controlled by their local catholic authority. Right now, because of the NDP, Alberta almost certainly has some of the most progressive law on gender identity in the country. If you want to know more specifically about how Albertans stand against the rest of the country on the subject, look for 6_1 and 6_2 in this poll Ipsos did a while ago: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=15621

Alberta is a bit of a mixed bag, with Alberta being pretty much in line with the rest of the country in being positive for gender identity being the determining factor, but there are fewer people who "don't care" and more who think birth sex should be the deciding factor roughly in proportion.

Frankly, the idea that Alberta is socially regressive is pretty damn overblown imo. At least on this kind of issue. Albertans have rejected social conservativism in every provincial election since Klein retired, and it's not as if it hasn't been tested. Stelmach and Redford were social moderates and won elections. Prentice juked right and lost, partly because he tried to absorb the far right WRP into his fold. The wildrose have also lost both elections they were poised to win largely because of so-called "bozo moments" by their far right wing caucus in those elections. And finally, the NDP were a more palatable protest vote than the WRP.

Where Albertans are "socially conservative" is in exactly the place that most "centrists" think is entirely valid: the idea that you can be socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Of course, this is bullshit when you realize that social progressivism requires (expensive) social programs or it's basically a sham, but whatever, I tire of having that argument pretty easily.

Thanks for the info. But where did I say everyone in Alberta is hicks? Please point to my post where this is inferred as I did not have that intent.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I don't know where he got that from. Albertans sure are defensive.

Anyway, LOL https://www.thebeaverton.com/2016/1...omatic-relations-trump-borrowing-dog-whistle/

 

[gabbo]

You know, with marijuana legislation coming down the pipe in spring, do you think places like that can recover?

It would depend on a few things.
One - whether it can be grown as a cash crop. Tobacco farms were no small thing, costing 6 figures to operate, and the amount of land needed to make a profit was ridiculously large, because the money being paid to farmers by the tobacco companies was getting squeezed all the time until it basically bottomed out. Seniors being able to get high is not going to turn back the tide unless they can convert tobacco kilns into... whatever the weed equivalent would be.

Two - at least in my old area, alternatives are almost always NIMBY'ed away. garbage powered gas plant to replace a shuttered Bicks/Smuckers pickle plant - the literal best place in the region to place it, knocked down because people didn't want to ship in garbage. Not fears of the environment (the place was on a huge rubber bladder to account for brine spills already) or jobs, but the idea of shipping garbage in instead of out. Being seen as Ontario's weed haven would not sit well with that town. They'd rather.... hand outs and subsidies for failing industries than to actually try and push forward with something new. Toby Barrett and Diane Finley would push back hard against that happening there as well.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Hey,

I'm Canadian and live in Alberta which is the worst cause of all the conservatives. I don't follow Alberta Politics or Canadian politics as much as I should but I vote every time I can either NDP or Liberal which I did last year for Trudeau. I mostly love and follow American politics Clinton losing I'm still shell shocked and know Canada is pretty great already but I am a little worried of what could happen if I don't educate myself in Canadian Politics as I should and if something Like Trump came to be in Canada it would be the worst.

So I just have a couple of questions. I am naive so if some of the questions are stupid I apologize in advance and just want to learn.

I am super left leaning btw.

1. I voted for the NDP government in Alberta whenever that election took place. I am all for government spending and increase in taxes on rich and for the environment. How are the NDP's viewed in Alberta? They got elected right when I believe oil was pretty much going down and then it went down even further.

a) When is the next election for the government here? Is it set in place or it could happen at any moment. (probably a dumb question but I never know when elections take place as it seems they happen whenever and not like the States where it is predetermined).

b) Will the NDP's lose? Alberta is conservative country and it sucks but I hope they have some chance of staying in power. It sucks for them cause they got a shitty hand. But maybe they are awful but I don't want the conservatives back in power.

c) What is going on with the bathroom law in Alberta. Are people really that choked about this issue?

d) Which party has a better chance of taking power next time there are elections in Alberta? NDP, Liberal, PC, or another? I just want to try and read up and follow and know which party to support. And is there a good source of info to read up on and learn? For US politics it's easy to just read off topic or the community thread as there are constant topics posted giving you up to date politics in US. Is there some place similar for Canada?

2. When is the next national election?

a) How is Trudeau doing and I believe the election is far off but does it look good that the Liberals will do well next election as well?

b) Is universal health care always going to stay or will the conservatives try and do things to weaken it?

c) Any social / envirommental and any important issues in Canada that I should be aware of that politicians are currently discussing?

d) I remember Harper had some law or bill or something where a bunch of people where deemed second class citizens even though they were born here. Did that go away? I don't remember it clearing but it was posted on GAF i think and i believe it could maybe apply to me as my parent's weren't born here but I was.

Thanks and sorry if I should know some of the answers to these questions and I don't.

Alberta is suffering economically, the NDP are done, they might as well get out of Alberta altogether.

The federal landscape is still too early to tell. If the liberals in Ontario continue their trajectory, things will not look good for the federal liberals in the next election, Wynne is increasingly toxic and her government can't do anything right.

 

[gutter_trash]

Canada is more liberal then the US. Political parties also have to rely a lot more on other groups besides rural whites to win elections and a lot of ridings are usually in the cities or suburbs surrounding the cities like in provinces like Ontario.

Canada is on average a very Centrist country,

City folks like me tend to believe that it is more Center-Left or Left and Liberal but the truth is it is not.

There is a danger that Urban Canada can cause a Trump affect by being condescending towards Rural Canada

Canada's advantage is that it is more balanced than the US and that balance keeps us healthy

Ontario is a Province that has a huge electorate of Conservative voters and gave Harper a majority.

the Liberal Party must always be vigilant to not repeat arrogant implosions that we have witnessed in the past

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Canada is on average a very Centrist country,

City folks like me tend to believe that it is more Center-Left or Left and Liberal but the truth is it is not.

There is a danger that Urban Canada can cause a Trump affect by being condescending towards Rural Canada

Canada's advantage is that it is more balanced than the US and that balance keeps us healthy

Ontario is a Province that has a huge electorate of Conservative voters and gave Harper a majority.

the Liberal Party must always be vigilant to not repeat arrogant implosions that we have witnessed in the past

The Liberals in Ontario are already imploding with arrogance, there are a lot of angry people on Ontario.

 

[gutter_trash]

The Liberals in Ontario are already imploding with arrogance, there are a lot of angry people on Ontario.

I hate when Provincial politics affect the future of Federal politics

Quebec Liberals (not affiliated) are a bunch of morons running a shit show unable to manage things while the other Provincial parties are identity nationalists waiting to take over.

I hate Quebec provincial parties SOOOO much. i have no love for any of them but I hold my nose and vote for Quebec Liberals because they are the ''least'' nationalistic

 

[AuthenticM]

I hate when Provincial politics affect the future of Federal politics

Quebec Liberals (not affiliated) are a bunch of morons running a shit show unable to manage things while the other Provincial parties are identity nationalists waiting to take over.

I hate Quebec provincial parties SOOOO much. i have no love for any of them but I hold my nose and vote for Quebec Liberals because they are the ''least'' nationalistic

What do you think of the non-identity policies of these parties?

 

[Apathy]

The Liberals in Ontario are already imploding with arrogance, there are a lot of angry people on Ontario.

Yeah but angry at the provincial level, not the federal level. Besides, right now you got brown and horwath, two of the worst possible alternatives you can have at a provincial level backing two of the worst provincial party alternatives. That's how bad the other two are that even as bad as the libs are now, they would probably be elected again, and yes I know polls right now show the cons could win, but they show that almost every time and they end up opening their mouths and tend to lose the election.

 

[youta]

d) I remember Harper had some law or bill or something where a bunch of people where deemed second class citizens even though they were born here. Did that go away? I don't remember it clearing but it was posted on GAF i think and i believe it could maybe apply to me as my parent's weren't born here but I was.

You're remembering the grotesque bill C-24. Bill C-6 recently passed the House of Commons, and is now making its way through the Senate.

 

[Leeness]

I wasn't really screwing around. You can literally pay $15 for a Tory membership and vote for a Tory candidate you think best challenges Leitch. You don't have to like conservatives or conservatism, but you can take out a membership and vote/donate for the candidate you think you be the best alternative to the wannabe-Trump Leitch.

Edit: As for Trudeau, I was critical of him during the leadership race, but he's mostly been fine as far as at least getting his promises in progress or achieving them.

I was talking to an NDPer friend today who was thinking about doing this, and then this evening I spoke to someone on Lisa Raitt's campaign who said I was the fourth person today he'd spoken to with that kind of story. So anecdotal, but Trump's win may end up energizing the Chong & Raitt campaigns in a way that nothing else could.

I mean, I'm a card-carrying Liberal, and even I'm thinking of doing that now. On the one hand, that's $15 towards party that'll use it to campaign against things I believe in. On the other, stopping homegrown Trumpism is pretty important.

Bolded is the reason why I cant bring myself to get a tory membership to stop leitch. Even if leitch wins I don't see how her brand of trumpism can beat trudeau in 2019 since Canadians resoundly rejected Harper's dogwhistling in the last general election. Doubling down on that strategy makes no sense unless they're hoping for an economic downturn in the next few years.

What I fear most is if the CPC membership nominate an harper-esque candidate like Scheer who is palatable to both the PC and Socon wings of the party. He can be really competive in a post FPTP Canada

Hm... I'll consider it. It's definitely an interesting idea. But yeah, giving money to the cons...eeeeh.

 

[mdubs]

The Liberals in Ontario are already imploding with arrogance, there are a lot of angry people on Ontario.

The good news is that Ontario has the privilege of having 3 completely inept parties though

 

[Parch]

Canada is on average a very Centrist country,
City folks like me tend to believe that it is more Center-Left or Left and Liberal but the truth is it is not.
There is a danger that Urban Canada can cause a Trump affect by being condescending towards Rural Canada
Canada's advantage is that it is more balanced than the US and that balance keeps us healthy
Ontario is a Province that has a huge electorate of Conservative voters and gave Harper a majority.
the Liberal Party must always be vigilant to not repeat arrogant implosions that we have witnessed in the past

Good post. The biggest flaw in Canada is how eastern Canada views western Canada. With all due respect, there's a lot of clueless people in this country. Western Canadian conservatives are absolutely nothing like American conservatives. It's insulting when we get that comparison. Canadian political parties are indeed very Centrist. That means all of Canada.

The condescending attitude towards "rural Canada" also usually means east vs west. 4 of the top 8 largest cites in Canada are in the west, so how we all get looked at as a bunch of cow herders is ridiculous.

I've spent my life living in several provinces from BC to PEI, and what some people think of other parts of the country is mind boggling.

 

[gutter_trash]

What do you think of the non-identity policies of these parties?

the PQ's only positives are on social-programs, childcare, daycare stuff like that but I cannot stomach their Far-Right identity nationalistic stances and separatism of ''us versus them''

I find the CAQ to be flailing arms aimlessly party trying to be more nationalist than the PQ, they may have good positions on cutting spending but their nationalist identity stances are not acceptable

and QS are just communists that I can't take seriously

 

[Apathy]

Good post. The biggest flaw in Canada is how eastern Canada views western Canada. With all due respect, there's a lot of clueless people in this country. Western Canadian conservatives are absolutely nothing like American conservatives. It's insulting when we get that comparison. Canadian political parties are indeed very Centrist. That means all of Canada.

The condescending attitude towards "rural Canada" also usually means east vs west. 4 of the top 8 largest cites in Canada are in the west, so how we all get looked at as a bunch of cow herders is ridiculous.

I've spent my life living in several provinces from BC to PEI, and what some people think of other parts of the country is mind boggling.

Funny you went with 4/8 instead of 4/9, 4/10 hell 4/11 to make your point about how many big cities are out in the west.

While Cons may be a little better than republicans, it's not by much and the conservative backbenchers are some of the most deplorable politicians that we have in the country.

Two days ago we had the people vying for the leadership of the party had their first debate. And while you might not think it was as bad as the republicans, you could probably blindfold a person and sit them down to listen to it and ask them where these people were from and they'd guess the US.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-debate-saskatoon-wednesday-1.3843447

Leitch, as well as Steven Blaney — who wants to ban wearing the niqab — stuck with their focus on protecting "Canadian values" during the debate.

Deepak Obhrai reflected on his own experience as an immigrant and said that being referred to as a good example of immigration by people in his party disturbed him and made him feel like a mutant.

"If somebody wants to wear niqab and be marginalized, it is their problem. I really don't give two hoots," he said.

"It is economic madness when other countries around the world are abandoning the idea of a carbon tax," Scheer said. "We need to fight this."

Brad Trost said the concentration on climate change was not needed, calling it "more of a political issue than a science issue." But he gave Chong credit for at least being clear on his policy. Although he did not think it should be a priority, Trost pointed out that other candidates did not say what the cost of their emissions reductions plans were.

Oh and lets talk Trost a bit more, hes the lovely gentleman who 100% stand by this ad:

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...-draws-ire-for-same-sex-marriage-ad-1.3763569)
(http://www.nationalobserver.com/201...-says-he-wouldnt-repeal-same-sex-marriage-law)

yet claims he wouldn't repeal same sex marriage if he were in power. Really?

Oh and let's not forget hes a anti-abortion advocate and has been endorsed by an anti abortion group

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ship-candidates-brad-trost-and-pierre-lemieux


You really think they wouldn't be up there spouting their nonsense if they didn't know already there are people in their base that believe this?

There is a divide with how the rest of think of rural canada, and when we say that we mean rural canada. The 4 big cities you spoke about, calgary, edmonton, winnipeg and vancouver all voted for at least 1 liberal the last elections. Everything else was conservative. Even within calgary some parts elected conservatives. The big cities in conservative provinces aren't what we refer to as "rural canada". Hell, would you consider Dallas or Philadelphia rural parts of those states? No, and they also didn't vote trump. When we say rural canada we mean rural canada.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Good post. The biggest flaw in Canada is how eastern Canada views western Canada. With all due respect, there's a lot of clueless people in this country. Western Canadian conservatives are absolutely nothing like American conservatives. It's insulting when we get that comparison. Canadian political parties are indeed very Centrist. That means all of Canada.

I honestly wish that were true. I think Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney etc. prove that wrong. They are very similar to the GWB era republicans. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science (climate change, suppressing scientists, suppressing research), dog whistling etc.

These people can never again come into power.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I honestly wish that were true. I think Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney etc. prove that wrong. They are very similar to the GWB era republicans. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science (climate change, suppressing scientists, suppressing research), dog whistling etc.

These people can never again come into power.

Agreed. We cannot be complacent.

 

[PastorOfMuppets]

I honestly wish that were true. I think Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney etc. prove that wrong. They are very similar to the GWB era republicans. Anti-intellectualism, anti-science (climate change, suppressing scientists, suppressing research), dog whistling etc.

These people can never again come into power.

Agreed. We can't continue to get by by saying "Well, at least we're not as bad as the US." That is now a bar that's so low, that you can step over it.

And just remember, when Harper was getting desperate to win in 2015, he tried appealing to the scared white base in Canada by trying to put restrictions on the niqab.

 

[mdubs]

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.

I realized I forgot to reply. So if he is disciplined/prohibited from hearing his turban, where does this leave other Sihks who are forced to choose to between hearing their turban and serving in the military? If they cannot comply because of these religious practices, does that mean that entire group is effectively excluded from being able to serve?

Or as we remember from the previous government's attempts, they pass a law requiring your face to be uncovered during a citizen ceremony despite the wishes of someone wanting to wear a burqua? There was another case in French schools where the school board prevented girls wearing the niqab from participating in gym class on the grounds it would pose a safety risk (tripping and falling etc.). Does that mean if these girls are not willing to take off their niqab or their burqua in cases where there is a competing interest invoked, they can be effectively excluded from gym class, or that citizenship ceremony like that if they don't comply?

What do we do there without 2a, since that would be the justification for challenging a decision like that?

 

[Boogie]

There are places where such a candidate would pick up support. My hometown in rural Southern Ontario, now that big tobacco has basically left and parts of town are empty would probably go for such empty promises (Delhi, Ont). And that's after a Toyota parts plant came in and brought lots of jobs. Farmers always seem to vote against their self interest

hey, never knew you were a fellow "Ontario tobacco belt" native. (Aylmer hometown here)

 

[mo60]

Canada is on average a very Centrist country,

City folks like me tend to believe that it is more Center-Left or Left and Liberal but the truth is it is not.

There is a danger that Urban Canada can cause a Trump affect by being condescending towards Rural Canada

Canada's advantage is that it is more balanced than the US and that balance keeps us healthy

Ontario is a Province that has a huge electorate of Conservative voters and gave Harper a majority.

the Liberal Party must always be vigilant to not repeat arrogant implosions that we have witnessed in the past

Canada is definitely more liberal then the US in terms of social issues currently, but not fiscal issues but that depends on who is governing and what Canadians want from their government at times in terms of fiscal issues. The biggest reason the wild rose in Alberta, the Ontario PC's and even the federal conservatives recently lost one or more elections in the last decade or so because they went to extreme on one or more social/domestic issues even though I'm not sure if the biggest reason the Wildrose lost the recent Alberta election was because of social issues.

 

[mdubs]

Canada is definitely more liberal then the US in terms of social issues currently, but not fiscal issues but that depends on who is governing and what Canadians want from their government at times in terms of fiscal issues. The biggest reason the wild rose in Alberta, the Ontario PC's and even the federal conservatives recently lost one or more elections is because they went to extreme on one or more social/domestic issues even though I'm not sure if the biggest reason the Wildrose lost the recent Alberta election was because of social issues.

Tim Hudak lost the election on promising to fire a million people tho

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I realized I forgot to reply. So if he is disciplined/prohibited from hearing his turban, where does this leave other Sihks who are forced to choose to between hearing their turban and serving in the military? If they cannot comply because of these religious practices, does that mean that entire group is effectively excluded from being able to serve?

Or as we remember from the previous government's attempts, they pass a law requiring your face to be uncovered during a citizen ceremony despite the wishes of someone wanting to wear a burqua? There was another case in French schools where the school board prevented girls wearing the niqab from participating in gym class on the grounds it would pose a safety risk (tripping and falling etc.). Does that mean if these girls are not willing to take off their niqab or their burqua in cases where there is a competing interest invoked, they can be effectively excluded from gym class, or that citizenship ceremony like that if they don't comply?

What do we do there without 2a, since that would be the justification for challenging a decision like that?

The citizenship thing is silly, and different, because it poses no security risk.

If Sikhs can't serve in the military because they refuse to wear a helmet when safety demands it, well, that's on them. Nothing stops them from actually serving, they'd just have to forego their turban for those moments where the helmet is required. If that is still incompatible with their faith, then... why is that our problem, exactly?

 

[Mr.Mike]

Tim Hudak lost the election on promising to fire a million people tho

100,00 mostly by attrition, which is definitely something that should have gone front and center with the number if he was determined to go that route. The million number was the number of jobs he had promised to create. (Although there were less than a million unemployed people).

 

[maharg]

Thanks for the info. But where did I say everyone in Alberta is hicks? Please point to my post where this is inferred as I did not have that intent.

I think it was the "conservative country" part, but looking back I'm not really sure why that led to that reaction and I shouldn't have left that in the post. My apologies, it was definitely out of line.

My only defense is this has been a very frustrating week politics-wise. :/

 

[SRG01]

Correction: BOTH women running for AB PC lead dropped out. I don't know anything about their politics, but that's pretty appalling regardless.

If you listen to As It Happens a couple of days ago as well as some other political sites, everyone knows whose supporters they belonged to, but hasn't said anything on the record about it for some reason...

Anyhow, regarding Alberta provincial politics: I had a whole post typed up last night but deleted it because it got too long. The one thing I'd like to emphasize is that no interim polling number for the past five to eight years has ever predicted the next Alberta government. Similar to the Silent Tory Effect, there's a silent population in Alberta that only shows up during election time -- and they tend to vote centrist instead of right.

In short, no party after Ralph Klein has won by campaigning from the right. Actually, even Ralph Klein didn't win by campaigning from the right during the 2001 and 2004 elections.

 

[mo60]

Tim Hudak lost the election on promising to fire a million people tho

I was referring to John Tory who was the leader of the Ontario PC's in 2007 who got crushed by the liberals because some social issue the Ontario PC's decided to focus on in that election. Yeah hudak lost more because of heavily flawed solutions to provincial issues his party proposed in the last provincial election and I think 2011.

If you listen to As It Happens a couple of days ago as well as some other political sites, everyone knows whose supporters they belonged to, but hasn't said anything on the record about it for some reason...

Anyhow, regarding Alberta provincial politics: I had a whole post typed up last night but deleted it because it got too long. The one thing I'd like to emphasize is that no interim polling number for the past five to eight years has ever predicted the next Alberta government. Similar to the Silent Tory Effect, there's a silent population in Alberta that only shows up during election time -- and they tend to vote centrist instead of right.

In short, no party after Ralph Klein has won by campaigning from the right. Actually, even Ralph Klein didn't win by campaigning from the right during the 2001 and 2004 elections.

Yeah. Polling in Alberta in the last few years or so tends to be more accurate closer to election day even though it wasn't that accurate in 2012.

 

[Parch]

Anyhow, regarding Alberta provincial politics: I had a whole post typed up last night but deleted it because it got too long. The one thing I'd like to emphasize is that no interim polling number for the past five to eight years has ever predicted the next Alberta government. Similar to the Silent Tory Effect, there's a silent population in Alberta that only shows up during election time -- and they tend to vote centrist instead of right.

Thank you. Shitting on Albertans happens way too often in this thread.

 

[mdubs]

The citizenship thing is silly, and different, because it poses no security risk.

If Sikhs can't serve in the military because they refuse to wear a helmet when safety demands it, well, that's on them. Nothing stops them from actually serving, they'd just have to forego their turban for those moments where the helmet is required. If that is still incompatible with their faith, then... why is that our problem, exactly?

So to narrow in a little bit more: you would be ok with someone exercising their religious beliefs contrary to a law or rule if there is not a security justification? That's still premised upon 2a being around to ground that though - without it, what is the justification for the government not being able to say that they believe that people should show their faces as part of principle that you can't cover your face during that sort of thing, which is also a competing interest. Or that if you work in the public service, you can't wear a niqab and such because it doesn't respect the religious neutrality of the state as Quebec argued? You didn't address the burqa in gym class example - do you agree with that?

I'm just curious that you would agree with excluding practicing Sihks in substance from the military by making them choose between the turban and the helmet in those risky situations instead of entering into a balancing act as we have with 2a informing that.

 

[Silent Chief]

The Liberals in Ontario are already imploding with arrogance, there are a lot of angry people on Ontario.

Ontario would like to elect a conservative government, but they keep coming up with stupid ideas that everybody can see through. Like public religious school for everybody, right to work legislation, laying off a 100K public servants and defunding infrastructure programs.

Obviously everybody envies the Catholics, but they have this for historical reasons and they keep religion to a minimum in their curriculum. They don't teach creationism. They accept everyone. It's pretty easy to see that religious groups were financing this idea, but it would create huge integration problems.

Nobody wants right to work in Ontario. Not even the corporations.

Massive layoffs to spark the economy? How many people works for the province directly or indirectly or receive a benefit? Predictably they got wiped out everywhere except in rural areas.

 

[mackaveli]

I think it was the "conservative country" part, but looking back I'm not really sure why that led to that reaction and I shouldn't have left that in the post. My apologies, it was definitely out of line.

My only defense is this has been a very frustrating week politics-wise. :/

yeah no problem. I'm right there with you man. Frustrating week for sure.

 

[SRG01]

Yeah. Polling in Alberta in the last few years or so tends to be more accurate closer to election day even though it wasn't that accurate in 2012.

Allison Redford's victory was correctly captured during the weekend polls, but Mainstreet didn't get a chance to publish those numbers. Internal polling from the PCs also showed them in a comfortable lead.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Won't happen in our lifetime. Contrary to popular belief, at least on this forum, oil is used by a LOT of industry outside of vehicles.
We are tied to oil for the foreseeable future.

But...isn't that ok? Isn't burning the oil for energy kind of the main problem? I never understood this. I'm cool with using oil to make my new iPhone, I just don't want to be burning it and raising the temperature of the planet

 

[mo60]

Allison Redford's victory was correctly captured during the weekend polls, but Mainstreet didn't get a chance to publish those numbers. Internal polling from the PCs also showed them in a comfortable lead.

Never knew that.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

So to narrow in a little bit more: you would be ok with someone exercising their religious beliefs contrary to a law or rule if there is not a security justification? That's still premised upon 2a being around to ground that though - without it, what is the justification for the government not being able to say that they believe that people should show their faces as part of principle that you can't cover your face during that sort of thing, which is also a competing interest. Or that if you work in the public service, you can't wear a niqab and such because it doesn't respect the religious neutrality of the state as Quebec argued? You didn't address the burqa in gym class example - do you agree with that?

I'm just curious that you would agree with excluding practicing Sihks in substance from the military by making them choose between the turban and the helmet in those risky situations instead of entering into a balancing act as we have with 2a informing that.

I really don't know what you want more out of me? I thought my position is clear?

Yes, I'd "exclude" those Sikhs (more like, they'd exclude themselves) if they refused to comply with safety policies in the name of religion.

The burqa in the gym, I don't know -- if it's true that it's a safety risk, then sure, it shouldn't be allowed either. Maybe it's arguable that it's not a real risk, and that can be debated. That said, burqas are oppressive and gross as hell and public schools banning them wouldn't phase me at all, plus they're ridiculously impractical. Earlier you said the niqab though, which is different.

 

[IndoAssassin]

But...isn't that ok? Isn't burning the oil for energy kind of the main problem? I never understood this. I'm cool with using oil to make my new iPhone, I just don't want to be burning it and raising the temperature of the planet

No because the practice of extracting oil is just as damaging to the environment as burning it.

Look at the tar sands in Alberta how much damage it has done.

I really don't know what you want more out of me? I thought my position is clear?

Yes, I'd "exclude" those Sikhs (more like, they'd exclude themselves) if they refused to comply with safety policies in the name of religion.

The burqa in the gym, I don't know -- if it's true that it's a safety risk, then sure, it shouldn't be allowed either. Maybe it's arguable that it's not a real risk, and that can be debated. That said, burqas are oppressive and gross as hell and public schools banning them wouldn't phase me at all, plus they're ridiculously impractical. Earlier you said the niqab though, which is different.

Why is this such a problem for Canada when it isn't for the US, UK, or India's military?

Let's say we ban niqabs, where do we draw the line then? Why should a Christian be allowed to wear a cross? Because Canada is a Christian country?

Sorry dude you can't claim Canada is yours, it's the Aboriginal people's land. We should be asking them what we allow in their land not your race.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Michael Chong actually seems pretty great. Basically he's proposing large reductions in income taxes and a doubling of the Working Income Tax Benefit financed by a carbon tax ($130 per tonne by 2030) and the elimination of a bunch of boutique tax credits. It's like exactly what I've wanted for a while, and I would vote for him over Trudeau. (I suspect that I'm probably to the right of most people here)

I think I might join the CPC just to vote for him. (With the added benefit of helping to stop Trumpism spreading to Canada).

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Why is this such a problem for Canada when it isn't for the US, UK, or India's military?

I don't know, do US Sikhs in the military refuse to comply with safety protocols to wear their turban?

 

[Boogie]

Michael Chong actually seems pretty great. Basically he's proposing large reductions in income taxes and a doubling of the Working Income Tax Benefit financed by a carbon tax ($130 per tonne by 2030) and the elimination of a bunch of boutique tax credits. It's like exactly what I've wanted for a while, and I would vote for him over Trudeau. (I suspect that I'm probably to the right of most people here)

A Chong-run CPC would very likely win my vote back to conservatives as well. He was actually my MP for three years until I moved.

My vote history has been pretty fence-straddling. Three votes for conservatives, followed by two for the liberals.

But they can forget about getting my vote back if it's Leitch. Yuck.

 

[SRG01]

Never knew that.

Yeah, there's a bunch of articles out there if you look on Google... I think threehundredeight also has a few blog posts on it.

Look at the tar sands in Alberta how much damage it has done.

The really interesting thing about oil sands extraction is that many people don't actually know just how intensive its extraction can be. There's the mining, then turning it into dilbit with solvents and water and heat, and the transport of it. Outside of SAGD, it's quite literally the worst kind of extraction out there even compared to fracking.

 

[IndoAssassin]

I don't know, do US Sikhs in the military refuse to comply with safety protocols to wear their turban?

No they don't refuse but it is being fought in court.

The US military has only recently started allowing Sikhs to have a beard and wear Turbans. Now they have an increase in Sikhs joining the military.

 

[Kinsei]

Michael Chong actually seems pretty great. Basically he's proposing large reductions in income taxes and a doubling of the Working Income Tax Benefit financed by a carbon tax ($130 per tonne by 2030) and the elimination of a bunch of boutique tax credits. It's like exactly what I've wanted for a while, and I would vote for him over Trudeau. (I suspect that I'm probably to the right of most people here)

I think I might join the CPC just to vote for him. (With the added benefit of helping to stop Trumpism spreading to Canada).

I'm also thinking about joining the CPC in order to vote for Chong to become their leader. I don't think I'd vote for him to be PM (unless Trudeau massively fucks up in the next 3 years and the new NDP leader ends up being awful) though.

 

[Parch]

My vote history has been pretty fence-straddling. Three votes for conservatives, followed by two for the liberals.

You are representative of a lot of Canadians. Switching allegiances both provincially and federally is not uncommon depending on policies at the time. And really, isn't current issues more important than blind loyalty? The dedicated lifetime party devotion for one party like the US is not a Canadian trait.

 

[mdubs]

I really don't know what you want more out of me? I thought my position is clear?

Yes, I'd "exclude" those Sikhs (more like, they'd exclude themselves) if they refused to comply with safety policies in the name of religion.

The burqa in the gym, I don't know -- if it's true that it's a safety risk, then sure, it shouldn't be allowed either. Maybe it's arguable that it's not a real risk, and that can be debated. That said, burqas are oppressive and gross as hell and public schools banning them wouldn't phase me at all, plus they're ridiculously impractical. Earlier you said the niqab though, which is different.

The reason why I ask is because you seem to be on two different tracks here.

On one hand, you're factoring in the safety justification, which implies that there would be recourse for the religious person if there is some other sort of justification that is not sufficient (which is sort of in the spirit of the religious protections here the first place, they create that balancing act).

But on the other hand, you argue that religion should not be protected ground at all? 2a currently gives religious people the right to have their beliefs weighed against the rationale and outcome of the law, giving protection if the law or rule does not balance favorably against the intrinsic value of their belief.

I'm trying to understand if you believe there should be exceptions for religious people from laws which impinge on their ability to exercise a belief, or not. Do you see the inconsistency in your views there that I'm trying to understand?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

No they don't refuse but it is being fought in court.

The US military has only recently started allowing Sikhs to have a beard and wear Turbans. Now they have an increase in Sikhs joining the military.

So... it is an issue in the US, then?

The reason why I ask is because you seem to be on two different tracks here.

On one hand, you're factoring in the safety justification, which implies that there would be recourse for the religious person if there is some other sort of justification that is not sufficient (which is sort of in the spirit of the religious protections here the first place, they create that balancing act).

But on the other hand, you argue that religion should not be protected ground at all? 2a currently gives religious people the right to have their beliefs weighed against the rationale and outcome of the law, giving protection if the law or rule does not balance favorably against the intrinsic value of their belief.

I'm trying to understand if you believe there should be exceptions for religious people from laws which impinge on their ability to exercise a belief, or not. Do you see the inconsistency in your views there that I'm trying to understand?

I literally have no idea what you're saying. I'm sorry, maybe I'm just tired or too dumb, but I read your words and have no idea what you are even trying to communicate. Especially this part: On one hand, you're factoring in the safety justification, which implies that there would be recourse for the religious person if there is some other sort of justification that is not sufficient (which is sort of in the spirit of the religious protections here the first place, they create that balancing act). --> This is literally mumbo jumbo to me.

Look, I'll try one last time: no special rights for the religious. They follow the same rules as everyone else. If they refuse to comply with safety procedures in the name of religion, they can sod off, either forego their religious garb for that moment, or GTFO. If they want to be allowed to do X, then X should be allowed for the rest of the population too regardless of religion.
It's really that simple (I'm sure I said this exact phrase before). I don't know what more clarification you could possibly want after this.

 

[mdubs]

So... it is an issue in the US, then?


I literally have no idea what you're saying. I'm sorry, maybe I'm just tired or too dumb, but I read your words and have no idea what you are even trying to communicate. Especially this part: On one hand, you're factoring in the safety justification, which implies that there would be recourse for the religious person if there is some other sort of justification that is not sufficient (which is sort of in the spirit of the religious protections here the first place, they create that balancing act). --> This is literally mumbo jumbo to me.

Look, I'll try one last time: no special rights for the religious. They follow the same rules as everyone else. If they refuse to comply with safety procedures in the name of religion, they can sod off, either forego their religious garb for that moment, or GTFO. If they want to be allowed to do X, then X should be allowed for the rest of the population too regardless of religion.
It's really that simple (I'm sure I said this exact phrase before). I don't know what more clarification you could possibly want after this.

So, would it be within the rights of the government to pass whatever laws banning edit: hijab (as an example), from the public service? From flights as a security issue? From schools in general? All of this just generally under whatever justification they can come up with? If not, then why not if no protections for the religious should be allowed?

Would it have been within the right of the previous government to ban the niqab from citizenship ceremonies?

 

[Parch]

Just to chime in as somebody who is retired after a career in the Canadian Armed Forces. As far as I know, Sikhs are allowed to wear beards and turbans at all times. If there is a requirement to wear combat gear like metal helmets, they must wear them, but they have smaller turbans that they can wear under the helmets. In all cases, the CAF makes adjustments to allow for religious beliefs.

I should also add that during my entire career in the CAF, I never once encountered a Sikh so this is an extremely rare occurrence, but as far as I know, the Canadian government and the CAF always tries to respect the religious beliefs of the individual. This policy has not changed during my service, whether Liberal or Conservatives in power.