• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

gutter_trash
(10-05-2017, 07:33 PM)
gutter_trash's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vamphuntr

It's pretty minor for QC politics I would think. Even Couillard was happy about the news and pretty much everyone were against it. Today the more important stuff is about Couillard trying to do a cabinet shuffle while navigating a minefield and QS and ON fusing. Bonus point for dealing the sinking racial discrimination inquiry.

ON and QS fusion only hurts the PQ near exclusively.
The only threat that QS poses to the PLQ rests solely on the riding of Laurier-Dorion. But that is more about the decline of the PQ.

the talking points used to bash the Federal on Energy East on the Federal level pretty much has ended on the Eastern front of the country.
Tiktaalik
Member
(10-05-2017, 09:08 PM)
Tiktaalik's Avatar
RE: The new universal programs and pharmacare discussion:

I don't expect to to see any new universal programs until there's at least a minority government with the NDP involved, but hey look Don Davies is presenting a bill to implement universal pharmacare anyway.

https://twitter.com/DonDavies/status/915970924989513730

NDP tables motion to implement universal pharmacare
Terrell
Member
(10-05-2017, 10:19 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tiktaalik

RE: The new universal programs and pharmacare discussion:

I don't expect to to see any new universal programs until there's at least a minority government with the NDP involved, but hey look Don Davies is presenting a bill to implement universal pharmacare anyway.

https://twitter.com/DonDavies/status/915970924989513730

NDP tables motion to implement universal pharmacare

They're setting up election season bowling pins with that bill, knowing they'll be easy to knock down when Liberals vote against it.
mo60
Member
(10-06-2017, 07:48 AM)
mo60's Avatar

Originally Posted by bremon

Somewhat interesting...the NDP seem closer to centre in AB than the UCP does so any increasing divide probably invites fingers to be pointed at Brian Jean and Jason Kenney. Hearing UCP leaders argue with each other is pretty comical in a way, but doesnít bode well for the future of this province.

Yeah.The divide has been mostly caused by the provincial right in the last two years or so.The AB NDP has contributed to it a bit,but nowhere near as much as the UCP and some of their buddies.Karen literally said on the Ryan jespersen show on Wednesday that she felt that the AB NDP was doing a decent job governing even though they could be handling certain files like healthcare better by running the health care system in Alberta for example more efficiently without making it worse.She mentioned the high provincial defecit in her press release on Wednesday to.She also said that it is way to early to say that the AB NDP will not be reelected in 2019.
lupinko
Member
(10-06-2017, 07:56 AM)
lupinko's Avatar
Games are expensive enough as it is, you better not be adding tax to PSN!
CazTGG
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:30 AM)
CazTGG's Avatar

Originally Posted by lupinko

Games are expensive enough as it is, you better not be adding tax to PSN!

It's an inevitability at this point that all digital services in Canada will charge taxes on one's purchases. Whether or not it happens this year is another matter.
killer rin
Member
(10-06-2017, 04:07 PM)
killer rin's Avatar

Originally Posted by lupinko

Games are expensive enough as it is, you better not be adding tax to PSN!

As much as it may suck to pay the taxes. This is 100% the fault of the companies not paying taxes already. If they were paying the taxes, maybe companies would have actually priced their goods thinking about taxes. The end result being games priced the same as they are. Instead of them looking at the market, seeing they are tax exempt and then raising prices to maximum the market can bear to "collect" the tax revenue themselves for their own coffers.

Also somebody has to pay the taxes or else other industries get angry and begin lobbying for tax code changes in their favour.
Last edited by killer rin; 10-06-2017 at 04:18 PM.
matthewwhatever
Member
(10-06-2017, 05:16 PM)
matthewwhatever's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tiktaalik

RE: The new universal programs and pharmacare discussion:

I don't expect to to see any new universal programs until there's at least a minority government with the NDP involved, but hey look Don Davies is presenting a bill to implement universal pharmacare anyway.

https://twitter.com/DonDavies/status/915970924989513730

NDP tables motion to implement universal pharmacare

Enh. It'll have the same amount of impact as Bill C-349 (which would make it a criminal offence to wear the emblem of a biker gang), Bill C-307 (which would require regulations for tamper-proof bottles on controlled substances), C-223 (which would establish an organ donor registry), Bill C-239 (which would increase the charitable tax deduction)

No reasonable person would look at those bills -- all of which were either defeated or are going to die on the order paper -- and assume that their defeat means that the government is pro-biker gang, pro-tampering with drugs, anti-organ donation, or anti-charitable donations. People can generally differentiate between stunts and actual policy proposals.

I think the more likely way that national pharmacare comes about would be if a few provinces start implementing it. If it's a success in Ontario and it extends from just people under 25 to the rest of the population, for example, or if Horgan does it in BC (was it in their platform?). It helps normalize it, and builds support for it, in a way that trying to impose it from the top down doesn't do.

Originally Posted by lupinko

Games are expensive enough as it is, you better not be adding tax to PSN!

Are taxes really that bad? I always think of government revenue as being a good thing, even if it means paying a little more on goods and services. We get it back in the long-run through health care and roads and whatnot.
_Final_Phoenix_
Member
(10-06-2017, 05:28 PM)
_Final_Phoenix_'s Avatar
Study by Angus Reid Institute about Canadians voting for a Sikh PM.

http://angusreid.org/new-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh/

Among some very interesting results, it looks like 3 in 10 Canadians across the country refuse to even consider a Sikh PM even if they agree with all of their policies. I'm a brown guy from Brampton, so I haven't really had as many issues as some others, but this sounds about right.
mdubs
Member
(10-06-2017, 05:32 PM)
mdubs's Avatar

Originally Posted by lupinko

Games are expensive enough as it is, you better not be adding tax to PSN!

Well, at least weíll still be able to change our Nintendo accounts to Alberta to avoid PST
Terrell
Member
(10-06-2017, 05:57 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by _Final_Phoenix_

Study by Angus Reid Institute about Canadians voting for a Sikh PM.

http://angusreid.org/new-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh/

Among some very interesting results, it looks like 3 in 10 Canadians across the country refuse to even consider a Sikh PM even if they agree with all of their policies. I'm a brown guy from Brampton, so I haven't really had as many issues as some others, but this sounds about right.

It's interesting to see the data get parsed, because the big takeaway a lot of news outlets have taken from this is that, despite the 70% that are OK with it, they're much more pessimistic about their friends, family and neighbours having the same opinion. Disproportionately so, if the numbers reflect the reality.

The Quebec result is unsurprising and pushes the data into a higher percentage in Canada overall. Also important to note that Conservative voters were polled in this as well, so since there's no concern there since he would likely never capture a right-wing voter's attention even if he were white, the numbers aren't as damning. But there is still 1 in 4 Liberal voters who wouldn't and nearly as many NDP voters (though I can't say I'm surprised that some folks aren't as progressive as they'd like to believe), so he's definitely going to need to dazzle some of these voters to get them on-side.

Last edited by Terrell; 10-06-2017 at 06:00 PM.
Sean C
Member
(10-06-2017, 06:08 PM)
Sean C's Avatar

Originally Posted by _Final_Phoenix_

Study by Angus Reid Institute about Canadians voting for a Sikh PM.

http://angusreid.org/new-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh/

Among some very interesting results, it looks like 3 in 10 Canadians across the country refuse to even consider a Sikh PM even if they agree with all of their policies. I'm a brown guy from Brampton, so I haven't really had as many issues as some others, but this sounds about right.

It's possible that those numbers will go down as Canadians become accustomed to Singh as a public figure.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
(10-06-2017, 06:47 PM)
firehawk12's Avatar
I just wonder who would say "No", assuming these are cold calls. lol
Sean C
Member
(10-06-2017, 06:52 PM)
Sean C's Avatar

Originally Posted by firehawk12

I just wonder who would say "No", assuming these are cold calls. lol

You assume that people who would say no are ashamed of it and think it's something to hide.
Buba Big Guns
Member
(10-06-2017, 06:57 PM)

Originally Posted by Terrell

It's interesting to see the data get parsed, because the big takeaway a lot of news outlets have taken from this is that, despite the 70% that are OK with it, they're much more pessimistic about their friends, family and neighbours having the same opinion. Disproportionately so, if the numbers reflect the reality.

The Quebec result is unsurprising and pushes the data into a higher percentage in Canada overall. Also important to note that Conservative voters were polled in this as well, so since there's no concern there since he would likely never capture a right-wing voter's attention even if he were white, the numbers aren't as damning. But there is still 1 in 4 Liberal voters who wouldn't and nearly as many NDP voters (though I can't say I'm surprised that some folks aren't as progressive as they'd like to believe), so he's definitely going to need to dazzle some of these voters to get them on-side.

Jesus those Quebec numbers.

Where's Gutter?

Also, after listening to the Freakonomics podcast about poll numbers, these numbers as a whole are probably a few points too high.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/big-...gs-ask-google/
firehawk12
Subete no aware
(10-06-2017, 06:59 PM)
firehawk12's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sean C

You assume that people who would say no are ashamed of it and think it's something to hide.

That's true, although if 30% of Canada thought this way, you'd think there'd be more Proud Boys around.
Terrell
Member
(10-06-2017, 08:07 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Buba Big Guns

Also, after listening to the Freakonomics podcast about poll numbers, these numbers as a whole are probably a few points too high.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/big-...gs-ask-google/

For those who aren't able to listen (or would prefer not to listen) to the podcast at the moment, would you like to clarify what you mean?
CazTGG
Member
(10-06-2017, 10:06 PM)
CazTGG's Avatar

Originally Posted by _Final_Phoenix_

Study by Angus Reid Institute about Canadians voting for a Sikh PM.

http://angusreid.org/new-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh/

Among some very interesting results, it looks like 3 in 10 Canadians across the country refuse to even consider a Sikh PM even if they agree with all of their policies. I'm a brown guy from Brampton, so I haven't really had as many issues as some others, but this sounds about right.

Can't say i'm surprised by Quebec's numbers given that province's complicated history when it comes to religion in general post-Quiet Revolution.
darscot
Member
(10-06-2017, 10:16 PM)
I wonder how much is just religious vs racism or stereotyping. I know I would have trouble voting for anyone that I felt would let their religious beliefs influence their decision making process. When someone is so openly religious I would want to hear his thoughts on certain topics. Like if the majority of the country was in favour of something against your personal beliefs would you still champion that cause. Everyone has the right to their own faith but I don't like to see much of it politics.
Pedrito
Member
(10-06-2017, 10:23 PM)
Pedrito's Avatar
There are very few Sikh people in Quťbec. A large chunk probably thinks he's muslim and that him wearing a turban means charia law is coming if he's elected.

So the numbers in QC are mostly ignorance + anti-religious sentiments, with a pinch of racism.
NeoZeedeater
Junior Member
(10-06-2017, 10:23 PM)
NeoZeedeater's Avatar

Originally Posted by darscot

I wonder how much is just religious vs racism or stereotyping. I know I would have trouble voting for anyone that I felt would let their religious beliefs influence their decision making process. When someone is so openly religious I would want to hear his thoughts on certain topics. Like if the majority of the country was in favour of something against your personal beliefs would you still champion that cause. Everyone has the right to their own faith but I don't like to see much of it politics.

Yeah, I wonder how much is racism and how much is not wanting a politician wearing religious clothing. BC had a Sikh premier with Dosanjh but he didn't wear a turban so it never seemed like a controversial situation from what I recall.
Tapejara
Member
(10-06-2017, 10:25 PM)
Tapejara's Avatar

Originally Posted by darscot

I wonder how much is just religious vs racism or stereotyping. I know I would have trouble voting for anyone that I felt would let their religious beliefs influence their decision making process. When someone is so openly religious I would want to hear his thoughts on certain topics. Like if the majority of the country was in favour of something against your personal beliefs would you still champion that cause. Everyone has the right to their own faith but I don't like to see much of it politics.

I mean, this could also apply to someone like Scheer too, no? I think I've seen more skepticism towards Singh than I have Scheer for his religious beliefs, even though neither is hiding that they are religious.
darscot
Member
(10-06-2017, 10:27 PM)

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

Yeah, I wonder how much is racism and how much is not wanting a politician wearing religious clothing. BC had a Sikh premier with Dosanjh but he didn't wear a turban so it never seemed like a controversial situation from what I recall.

Yeah Canadians basically only accept you flaunting your religion if its HNIC other than that we kind of expect you to be low key about it. And to be honest if a Priest ran for office and wore robes I think people would not like it.
CazTGG
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:03 PM)
CazTGG's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tapejara

I mean, this could also apply to someone like Scheer too, no? I think I've seen more skepticism towards Singh than I have Scheer for his religious beliefs, even though neither is hiding that they are religious.

Considering how many people think Sikhism is related to Islam, I would chock the difference up to a combination of racial bias i.e. person of color = Moose Lamb and ignorance of what Sikhism constitutes. Whether one follows any Judeo-Christian traditions or not, people understand the basics that inform these beliefs, hence why not as many people are bothered by Scheer's religious beliefs and don't ask him to condemn radical Christians whereas Singh is expected to answer for and disavow Sikh extremists. See also: People who think Muslims aren't condemning terrorist attacks and simultaneously expect them to be responsible for attacks carried out by terrorists but turn a blind eye to Christian extremists when they act on their hateful beliefs.
Terrell
Member
(10-06-2017, 11:42 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by CazTGG

Considering how many people think Sikhism is related to Islam, I would chock the difference up to a combination of racial bias i.e. person of color = Moose Lamb and ignorance of what Sikhism constitutes. Whether one follows any Judeo-Christian traditions or not, people understand the basics that inform these beliefs, hence why not as many people are bothered by Scheer's religious beliefs and don't ask him to condemn radical Christians whereas Singh is expected to answer for and disavow Sikh extremists. See also: People who think Muslims aren't condemning terrorist attacks and simultaneously expect them to be responsible for attacks carried out by terrorists but turn a blind eye to Christian extremists when they act on their hateful beliefs.

Yep. I think Canadians are going to get a crash course in what Sikhi actually is and it's going to be an uncomfortable truth for many, especially the militant or extremist Sikhs or those who put Punjabi traditions ahead of their faith, since it will cast doubts into the adherence to their own religion's principles that they've never had to answer for outside of their own communities. Seriously, what one could call "right-wing Sikhs" aren't even knowingly misinterpreting their religion like Muslim extremists; there's no room for misinterpretation, they are knowingly casting it aside.

Even from what little I know of Sikhi, it's a young religion that doesn't tie itself up in some of the old-world ideas like most religions do that makes people want to be secular in the first place, so the fears from secularists could easily be quelled with a stronger understanding of it, as well as an understanding of the why the less savoury adherents exist.
Last edited by Terrell; 10-06-2017 at 11:54 PM.
Buba Big Guns
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:35 AM)

Originally Posted by Terrell

For those who aren't able to listen (or would prefer not to listen) to the podcast at the moment, would you like to clarify what you mean?

Pretty much according to data scientists who look at polling data, people are much more inclined to give socially 'acceptable' answers rather than their actual views in polls (ie. they lie a lot).

Google search data can be more accurate in determining actual societal views on different topics since it's more anonymous.

It's explained really well in the podcast, highly recommended.
matthewwhatever
Member
(10-07-2017, 01:43 AM)
matthewwhatever's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sean C

It's possible that those numbers will go down as Canadians become accustomed to Singh as a public figure.

I feel like if people haven't become accustomed to Sikhs as public political figures after 25 years of Sikhs being elected MPs (and after we've had Sikhs and turbaned MPs as cabinet ministers in both the Liberals and the Conservatives), then having one lead a party won't do much to change their mind either.

Originally Posted by darscot

I wonder how much is just religious vs racism or stereotyping. I know I would have trouble voting for anyone that I felt would let their religious beliefs influence their decision making process. When someone is so openly religious I would want to hear his thoughts on certain topics. Like if the majority of the country was in favour of something against your personal beliefs would you still champion that cause. Everyone has the right to their own faith but I don't like to see much of it politics.

This is my thinking too. In particular, I have problems with the poll's first question:

At first glance, it sounds totally reasonable. But the more I started thinking about it, the more that question doesn't make sense. Like, one reason why I never supported Harper was his specific religious affiliation. It wasn't the only reason, but it was certainly *a* reason. The same goes today for Scheer, and the same goes for any religious conservative, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever else. Case in point: in 2004, when I was bouncing all over the political map and I was still open to the NDP, I was really glad that I had just moved out of Ottawa South, because the NDP candidate there was Monia Mazigh -- who, in addition to being Maher Arar's wife, is also a conservative Muslim who was anti-choice and anti-same sex marriage. I knew a few very progressive NDPers who lived in that riding who had to think long and hard before they cast their ballots.

I know that I'm probably overthinking it, and that the 23% who disagreed with the first question were largely people who just don't trust Muslims or anyone who could possibly be Muslim (i.e. brown people). But I think it's entirely fair to not support a politician because of their religious beliefs, particularly if they make it clear that their religious beliefs will inform their policies.
Sean C
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:18 AM)
Sean C's Avatar

Originally Posted by matthewwhatever

I feel like if people haven't become accustomed to Sikhs as public political figures after 25 years of Sikhs being elected MPs (and after we've had Sikhs and turbaned MPs as cabinet ministers in both the Liberals and the Conservatives), then having one lead a party won't do much to change their mind either.

I'd argue there's a big difference between electing Gurbax Malhi, who most Canadians couldn't tell from Adam, to the House of Commons, and having a Sikh as the face of one of the country's three major federal parties. Most MPs are virtually unknown outside their own ridings; we've never had a turbaned Sikh politician with a genuine national profile before.

I'm not suggesting that the numbers will go to 100% favourable, or anywhere close. There'll be a hard core of xenophobes out there. But I don't see why the whole country couldn't get to, say, the 78% reached by Saskatchewanians.
IndoAssassin
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:26 AM)

Originally Posted by darscot

I wonder how much is just religious vs racism or stereotyping. I know I would have trouble voting for anyone that I felt would let their religious beliefs influence their decision making process. When someone is so openly religious I would want to hear his thoughts on certain topics. Like if the majority of the country was in favour of something against your personal beliefs would you still champion that cause. Everyone has the right to their own faith but I don't like to see much of it politics.

If Jagmeet is a true Sikh then he must accept and fight for other's beliefs. He is not allowed to push Sikhism on to other people.

However as previously witnessed humans are a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to religion beliefs.
Tapejara
Member
(10-07-2017, 02:38 AM)
Tapejara's Avatar

Originally Posted by matthewwhatever

I feel like if people haven't become accustomed to Sikhs as public political figures after 25 years of Sikhs being elected MPs (and after we've had Sikhs and turbaned MPs as cabinet ministers in both the Liberals and the Conservatives), then having one lead a party won't do much to change their mind either.



This is my thinking too. In particular, I have problems with the poll's first question:



At first glance, it sounds totally reasonable. But the more I started thinking about it, the more that question doesn't make sense. Like, one reason why I never supported Harper was his specific religious affiliation. It wasn't the only reason, but it was certainly *a* reason. The same goes today for Scheer, and the same goes for any religious conservative, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever else. Case in point: in 2004, when I was bouncing all over the political map and I was still open to the NDP, I was really glad that I had just moved out of Ottawa South, because the NDP candidate there was Monia Mazigh -- who, in addition to being Maher Arar's wife, is also a conservative Muslim who was anti-choice and anti-same sex marriage. I knew a few very progressive NDPers who lived in that riding who had to think long and hard before they cast their ballots.

I know that I'm probably overthinking it, and that the 23% who disagreed with the first question were largely people who just don't trust Muslims or anyone who could possibly be Muslim (i.e. brown people). But I think it's entirely fair to not support a politician because of their religious beliefs, particularly if they make it clear that their religious beliefs will inform their policies.

I agree, it's completely understandable for a person to want to vote for a secular candidate. I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for someone like Scheer or Patrick Brown, because even though they've said they won't let their religion inform policy, I consider them to hold very regressive beliefs and there's no guarantee that they will always govern from a secular position (it's not like I would vote for the current CPC even if the candidates were irreligious, but their current beliefs certainly don't help). That said, outside of Singh wearing traditional Sikhi garments, I haven't seen any reason to believe that his religious beliefs would inform his policy (though perhaps I've missed a previous statement of his), at least to the point that it warrants more skepticism from the general public compared to someone like Scheer. I just can't help but think that - outside of Quebec I suppose - this has more to do with race and unfamiliarity towards Sikhism/conflation with Islam than it does with wanting to vote for a secular candidate. Once again, I don't think this means everyone who wouldn't vote Singh due to him being religious is racist, just that if Singh's religion is a problem then the beliefs of someone like Scheer should be as well.
Terrell
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:00 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Buba Big Guns

Pretty much according to data scientists who look at polling data, people are much more inclined to give socially 'acceptable' answers rather than their actual views in polls (ie. they lie a lot).

Google search data can be more accurate in determining actual societal views on different topics since it's more anonymous.

It's explained really well in the podcast, highly recommended.

Considering the first question in Google when you type in his name is "Is Jagmeet Singh married?", I think we're doing just fine so far. And Googling Sikhs leads to articles about how they apparently hate Muslims, so it seems like he's set up quite well to engender himself to racists who use Google as well as the thirsty.

Originally Posted by Tapejara

I agree, it's completely understandable for a person to want to vote for a secular candidate. I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for someone like Scheer or Patrick Brown, because even though they've said they won't let their religion inform policy, I consider them to hold very regressive beliefs and there's no guarantee that they will always govern from a secular position (it's not like I would vote for the current CPC even if the candidates were irreligious, but their current beliefs certainly don't help). That said, outside of Singh wearing traditional Sikhi garments, I haven't seen any reason to believe that his religious beliefs would inform his policy (though perhaps I've missed a previous statement of his), at least to the point that it warrants more skepticism from the general public compared to someone like Scheer. I just can't help but think that - outside of Quebec I suppose - this has more to do with race and unfamiliarity towards Sikhism/conflation with Islam than it does with wanting to vote for a secular candidate. Once again, I don't think this means everyone who wouldn't vote Singh due to him being religious is racist, just that if Singh's religion is a problem then the beliefs of someone like Scheer should be as well.

Well, unfortunately, waving off Christian religions as the acceptable and expected default and distrusting other religions (including Catholicism) is kind of a trend in white North American culture.

Quebec is unique in that it was casting off the religion of their French origins that controlled public schooling until the 60s. One could argue that it's slipped into the same trend as other North American white people from a unique angle, but I'm not a Quebecer, so someone with authority can speak to that for me.

So I think you're probably right to have that worry.

Originally Posted by Sean C

I'm not suggesting that the numbers will go to 100% favourable, or anywhere close. There'll be a hard core of xenophobes out there. But I don't see why the whole country couldn't get to, say, the 78% reached by Saskatchewanians.

I was actually a bit surprised by that number. I had a worry that indigenous people (who make up a strong amount of the population here) might be unsettled by the first non-white party leader not being an indigenous person and not receive the idea favourably. But a number that high in Saskatchewan tells me the worry was probably unfounded. At least I hope so. A rising tide raises all ships, after all.
CazTGG
Member
(10-07-2017, 10:12 PM)
CazTGG's Avatar
Somewhat off-topic but there's really no other thread for this to go in:
Indigenous residential school records can be destroyed, Supreme Court rules
Apathy
Member
(10-07-2017, 10:30 PM)
Apathy's Avatar

Originally Posted by _Final_Phoenix_

Study by Angus Reid Institute about Canadians voting for a Sikh PM.

http://angusreid.org/new-ndp-leader-jagmeet-singh/

Among some very interesting results, it looks like 3 in 10 Canadians across the country refuse to even consider a Sikh PM even if they agree with all of their policies. I'm a brown guy from Brampton, so I haven't really had as many issues as some others, but this sounds about right.

holy shit some of those numbers are bad. Like his Sikhism shouldn't come into play for anyone. Hell, people have been voting for Christian politicians forever and they got some pretty odd beliefs from the bible
Terrell
Member
(10-07-2017, 10:59 PM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by CazTGG

Somewhat off-topic but there's really no other thread for this to go in:
Indigenous residential school records can be destroyed, Supreme Court rules

In an age of digitization, there should be no cause to destroy records. It'd cost almost the same to digitize the records as it would to destroy.
killer rin
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:36 PM)
killer rin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Terrell

In an age of digitization, there should be no cause to destroy records. It'd cost almost the same to digitize the records as it would to destroy.

Well, in this case it's not so much that they are taking up physical space... or that there was a cost associated with preservation. More so that as a society we collectively have decided that we prefer privacy over keeping accurate accessible records for future generations. When these people shared their stories, many of them did it under condition of confidentiality. For those people, whether through death, forgetfulness or negligence, they were never given the chance to decide "Do you want this to be shared or destroyed after 15 years".

So by default the ruling errs on the side of destroying the documents. Even if it goes against what some of the people may have decided if they were given the chance
Last edited by killer rin; 10-07-2017 at 11:38 PM.
Vamphuntr
Member
(10-07-2017, 11:54 PM)
Vamphuntr's Avatar

Originally Posted by Apathy

holy shit some of those numbers are bad. Like his Sikhism shouldn't come into play for anyone. Hell, people have been voting for Christian politicians forever and they got some pretty odd beliefs from the bible

The actual numbers are probably worse because some are too embarrassed to share their racist views on a survey. Seems like the NDP will have to do a lot of work to prevent the CPC and the BQ from attacking him overs his religion.

At least the survey shows that NDP and Liberals voters are quite open on that regard and well that's where most of their votes will come from.
Sean C
Member
(10-08-2017, 12:53 AM)
Sean C's Avatar

Originally Posted by Terrell

In an age of digitization, there should be no cause to destroy records. It'd cost almost the same to digitize the records as it would to destroy.

The issue isnít cost, itís confidentiality. The Court said that the records can be kept if the subjects consent, but not otherwise.

Originally Posted by Apathy

holy shit some of those numbers are bad. Like his Sikhism shouldn't come into play for anyone. Hell, people have been voting for Christian politicians forever and they got some pretty odd beliefs from the bible

The whole issue of visible religious symbols wrongfoots a lot of otherwise liberal people, in my experience, because of different cultural perceptions.
mdubs
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:08 AM)
mdubs's Avatar

Originally Posted by Terrell

In an age of digitization, there should be no cause to destroy records. It'd cost almost the same to digitize the records as it would to destroy.

If you had bothered to read the article linked you would know that was not the issue being considered

Edit: beaten
Terrell
Member
(10-08-2017, 01:15 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sean C

The issue isn’t cost, it’s confidentiality. The Court said that the records can be kept if the subjects consent, but not otherwise.

Yeah, I saw the vague headline and thought they were destroying everything, all the way back to paper enrolment and disciplinary records (which I'm sure actually happened in some cases, but not by court mandate). Considering the country's history on the matter, my brain made a leap.

It also says that people who died and can no longer consent will have their records destroyed, as well. Which sounds like history erasure when the option to anonymize their statements and protect the privacy of the deceased exists. The courts can make the claim that anonymized statements are "appropriation", but destroying the records without consent can easily also be considered appropriation in another direction.

While this order may be inconsistent with the wishes of deceased claimants who were never given the option to preserve their records, the destruction of records that some claimants would have preferred to have preserved works a lesser injustice than the disclosure of records that most expected never to be shared.

It becomes even worse when you consider that many of the individuals who survived residential schools are part of the oldest population demographic and are unfortunately likely to have passed since the records were made.
Last edited by Terrell; 10-08-2017 at 02:30 AM.
Sean C
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:17 AM)
Sean C's Avatar

Originally Posted by Terrell

It also says that people who died and can no longer consent will have their records destroyed, as well. Which sounds like history erasure when the option to anonymize their statements and protect the privacy of the deceased exists. The courts can make the claim that anonymized statements are "appropriation", but destroying the records without consent can easily also be considered appropriation in another direction.

It becomes even worse when you consider that many of the individuals who survived residential schools are part of the oldest population demographic and are unfortunately likely to have passed since the records were made.

These records were not gathered with the understanding that they would be retained as an archive, so it would be deeply unethical to convert them into that without consent. Probably some of the deceased would have been okay with it, but we canít assume that.
Terrell
Member
(10-08-2017, 05:39 AM)
Terrell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sean C

These records were not gathered with the understanding that they would be retained as an archive, so it would be deeply unethical to convert them into that without consent. Probably some of the deceased would have been okay with it, but we canít assume that.

There's really no escaping an ethics question no matter which way you go. Making unilateral decisions for the dead isn't without its own questionable ethics; if it weren't, organ donation would not be a decision made electively by a person prior to their deaths and the last will and testament wouldn't be a thing that exists.

So with that in mind, where there is an ethical problem with either decision, the question is: what decision does the most good? And I can't think of any good coming from this.

I won't say any more than that and will defer to the opinions of the indigenous population, since this effects them more long-term than it does me.
Sean C
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:17 PM)
Sean C's Avatar

Originally Posted by Terrell

There's really no escaping an ethics question no matter which way you go. Making unilateral decisions for the dead isn't without its own questionable ethics; if it weren't, organ donation would not be a decision made electively by a person prior to their deaths and the last will and testament wouldn't be a thing that exists.

So with that in mind, where there is an ethical problem with either decision, the question is: what decision does the most good? And I can't think of any good coming from this.

I won't say any more than that and will defer to the opinions of the indigenous population, since this effects them more long-term than it does me.

Itís not wholly unilateral, though. These documents were not gathered with the understanding that they would be turned into an archive. Theyíre meant to be highly confidential legal documents relating to a settlement process.

That being the default, it is far worse to assume consent from people who did not want their records retained.
matthewwhatever
Member
(10-08-2017, 02:53 PM)
matthewwhatever's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sean C

I'd argue there's a big difference between electing Gurbax Malhi, who most Canadians couldn't tell from Adam, to the House of Commons, and having a Sikh as the face of one of the country's three major federal parties. Most MPs are virtually unknown outside their own ridings; we've never had a turbaned Sikh politician with a genuine national profile before.

I'm not suggesting that the numbers will go to 100% favourable, or anywhere close. There'll be a hard core of xenophobes out there. But I don't see why the whole country couldn't get to, say, the 78% reached by Saskatchewanians.

Fair point (though I'd argue that Harjit Sajjan has a fairly high-profile spot at present). I guess I'm just projecting my personal experience, where I grew up around Sikhs so I didn't think they were some mysterious "other", onto the country as a whole, and I shouldn't be doing that.

I never thought I'd say this, but in a way it's too bad Jason Kenney didn't run for the federal CPC leadership. I think he would've had a much more visibly diverse campaign team than anyone else, and --assuming he probably would've won -- that would've gone a long way towards making CPC members more cognizant of the need to move away from monoculturalism. It's weird that it's only guys like Kenney and Patrick Brown who see the need for their party to expand their base, since they're so regressive in so many other ways.


Originally Posted by Sean C

The whole issue of visible religious symbols wrongfoots a lot of otherwise liberal people, in my experience, because of different cultural perceptions.

Relevant: Quebec man pretty sure hour-long explanation of Quiet Revolution will convince people heís not racist (from The Beaverton, naturally)
Sean C
Member
(10-08-2017, 03:49 PM)
Sean C's Avatar
There is something to the fact that Western culture, which is shaped by mainline Christian denominations, is accustomed to thinking of visible religious symbols very differently than people whose faith traditions require the wearing of visible symbols in daily life. Like, even a theocratic fascist like Roy Moore doesn't walk around with a giant visible cross hanging outside his clothes.

However, that doesn't excuse many people's inability to accept the difference once it's explained to them. It's a warped definition of secularism that would let Moore through (at least in terms of appearance) but ding a conventionally left-wing individual like Singh.
Mr.Mike
Member
(10-08-2017, 08:19 PM)
Mr.Mike's Avatar
Maple syrup cartels
djkimothy
Member
(10-09-2017, 02:39 PM)
Vox posted a video that seems to be well timed with the discussion (yelling?) surrounding the Liberal's tax reform proposals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1vE_LVBx4s

Although the specifics are different, the rhetoric and arguments seem identical.

In this case, it does seem to present data that closing some of the tax loopholes do not discourage investment as the Conservatives like to yell about.

Pretty interesting. Full disclosure, I'm in favour of the tax reforms the government is proposing.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
(10-10-2017, 05:46 AM)
firehawk12's Avatar
Wow, I just saw a clip of the Singh response to Parmar and holy fuck. How do you vacillate on that?
matthewwhatever
Member
(10-10-2017, 03:51 PM)
matthewwhatever's Avatar
A sign of how far the Canada-US relationship has fallen under Trump: the press release from the PMO doesn't mention that Trudeau is meeting with the President until the second-last line, and they're not even holding a joint media availability.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mike

Maple syrup cartels

As silly as it sounds, the maple syrup cartels are a real thing. We also have the world's largest maple syrup reserve, to help keep maple syrup prices high.

Originally Posted by firehawk12

Wow, I just saw a clip of the Singh response to Parmar and holy fuck. How do you vacillate on that?

I know that some places have taken issue with Milewski even asking the question, but reading the Vice background story and finding out that a) Milewski has done a lot of work on Sikh extremism and b) Singh has been heavily involved in Sikh politics, to the point that he was claiming that India was trying to undermine his campaign, it doesn't seem as out of nowhere. Global features a pretty good analysis of the whole thing, though I think the author doesn't go far enough in explaining her conclusion -- Singh doesn't just need a better answer, he's now going to be asked much more regularly about it until/unless he makes a stronger denunciation (and if he doesn't want to, he'll need to find a way of pivoting from the question to something else).
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
(10-10-2017, 03:59 PM)
Iím feeling increasingly nervous about what the result is going to be of these NAFTA negotiations.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
(10-10-2017, 04:02 PM)
firehawk12's Avatar
Yeah, the Air India bombing was a story Milewski has been following for decades now. Assuming people do prep for these kind of interviews (can the NDP afford researchers? :p), they should have expected this question. Particularly if they were demanding the questions beforehand.

I don't know, he sounded exactly the same during the leadership debates in terms of giving politician's non-answers and while I was somewhat sympathetic of him then, he simply doesn't have any excuse now. If he wasn't prepared, then he shouldn't have agreed to do the interview in the first place.

Also, I checked because I was confused why Milewski was doing an interview and yeah, he retired last year. I'm not sure if he's been covering for someone for a while (Barton doing the National soon I guess?), or he just appeared to interview Singh, but someone really should have known that he was the Air India reporter who was sued by the World Sikh Organization.

Thread Tools