News   Apr 19, 2024
45 and 61-Storey Towers Proposed near Oakville GO
 656     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
DRP Reviews Innovative Affordable Housing at Kennedy Station
 634     2 
News   Apr 19, 2024
Lifetime Helping Craft the Future of Toronto's Neighbourhoods
 1K     3 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Slightly more on-point.

The Canadian PM must be seen to engage with all communities; communities do not mean groups linked only by a narrow political or hate-filled agenda.

Rather, they mean communities of various backgrounds, and shared interests encompassing large segments of the population.

Does that mean that the PM should be seen to offer a tacit endorsement to a portion of said community where some of the values embodied/practised seem to be at
odds with what he publicly espouses, particularly if that same community could be engaged with publicly at a place or time where such values are either not in evidence or less so?

I would tend to argue that in terms of photo-ops, better to favour the portion of the community you wish to engage with that most embodies those principles you wish to uphold.

A mosque which either practices no gender separation, or as little as is possible from their theological perspective would seem a preferable choice over one with a stricter or less mainstream
point of view on the issue.

All must be engaged with; but there is room for choose where to hold the photo op.
 
Northern Light said:
We're wandering a bit off-topic................but I'll go with the flow.

I would suggest that the marginalization of minorities in France predates any issue with muslims per se.

Its a long-standing issue that develops out of several different policy choices and widely held beliefs by the broader public as well.

The first of these would be the sincere belief by the French people writ large and by extension their policy makers that everything that makes France, France is sacrosanct.

By which I mean there is not merely a belief that one should learn to speak French; but a strong bias against first or last names that don't look/sound French.

Among the highly educated there is more flexibility, particularly with someone who is visiting or is a temporary (foreign) resident.

But among those who are or would-be citizens of France there is a strong sense of being insulted by the idea that anyone would arrive from outside and not modify their name to reflect
local custom/language.

This is true for people of all backgrounds, including other European ones, though no doubt is more acute in relation to Arab/Muslim/African sounding names, as this is by far the largest and most visible minority community.

Unto to itself, I'm not sure if one can argue the rights/wrongs of the preference, even though it is one I don't share..

It is, however, completely un-tenable in a situation where a large minority was invited/allowed in and not told this was a pre-condition of their acceptance into French society.

***

Likewise there are clearly overlapping issues around skin colour and other points of difference, not merely the religious one.

Though I can say with confidence that eastern Europeans have not been seemly absorbed into mainstream society in France either, notwithstanding a similar complexion
and religious history.

***

The banlieu problem has also been magnified for reasons that don't overtly have to do with discrimination per se; which is that they are often separate administrative zones from Paris, proper, or other larger centres as may be the case; and often have lesser resources and investment.

That along with the disproportionate concentration of poverty and state-owned housing, with those awful and discredited Le Corbusier designs......

Makes the problem much more layered an nuanced that one of faith/secularism alone.
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say secularism was the cause of the banlieus. I said one would see evidence of the adverse effects of the French model of secularism in the banlieus. All this history of discrimination and of the banlieus is interesting, but not really pertinent to what I said.
 
Northern Light said:
Slightly more on-point.

The Canadian PM must be seen to engage with all communities; communities do not mean groups linked only by a narrow political or hate-filled agenda.

Rather, they mean communities of various backgrounds, and shared interests encompassing large segments of the population.

Does that mean that the PM should be seen to offer a tacit endorsement to a portion of said community where some of the values embodied/practised seem to be at
odds with what he publicly espouses, particularly if that same community could be engaged with publicly at a place or time where such values are either not in evidence or less so?

I would tend to argue that in terms of photo-ops, better to favour the portion of the community you wish to engage with that most embodies those principles you wish to uphold.

A mosque which either practices no gender separation, or as little as is possible from their theological perspective would seem a preferable choice over one with a stricter or less mainstream
point of view on the issue.

All must be engaged with; but there is room for choose where to hold the photo op.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by photo op. You mean doing it publicly? I agree you with you all communities must be engaged, but why in secret? It's these particular communities that are most in need of engagement, and for their members (both in this congregation) to see themselves being engaged. If that's what's called a photo op, then more photo ops please.
 
Mislav said:
By addressing the issues of gender equality to these "new Canadians" for starters instead of just going there for a photo-op. What if Stephen Harper did the same? The media would have grilled him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they certainly would have if for ten seconds he'd stepped outside the bounds of filling Canada up with new prisons, shilling for the petroleum industry, going to war with the Supreme Court and that oh-so-inconvenient Constitution, and padlocking the mouths of people supposedly in responsible cabinet positions. Yeah, just imagine what the media would have done if "Harper had done the same"... But we can ONLY imagine...

Mislav said:
What do you expect? He is a media darling and they will never utter a word against him. Do I really have to watch the Rebel in order to see some criticism against Justin.
Click to expand...

He might just be "a media darling" because he doesn't come off as a monster, but as someone who listened to Canadians for years and came up with a platform giving us not only the things we've asked for and been denied for decades, but the things we lost 15, 20 years ago, like going back to peacekeeping instead of just spear-carrying for empire. That he can go abroad and be listened to because he's daring to propose solutions to problems, and get Canada noticed in a positive light again. I feel like I got the Canada I grew up in back, and I could hardly be happier.
 
What happened to "Real Change".....on the environment, the CO2 emission targets that the Liberals criticized/mocked are now to stay in place unchanged....faced with the first real spending "scandal" of their government the party (and the PMs) response is "we did nothing wrong because they also did it when they were in office"....whether one agrees or disagrees that the moving expenses are an issue...defending them on the basis that "they also did it" seems the exact opposite of "Real Change"....or am I missing something?

As for the attendance at the segregated mosque the part that bothered me the most was that he took, what, 4 female MPs with him and agreed that they should only be allowed to enter the mosque by a side door. He literally, took 4 reps of his "because its 2016" gender balanced government (something that we should be proud of) into a situation where they were going to be segregated and forced into a symbolically demeaning act of entering by the "back door". He should have been smart/canny enough to suggest to them that they fulfill other duties that day than subject them to that.
 
On the environmental issue, they've obviously hit the wall of the provinces, whose cooperation/assistance is needed to meet any target. They seem to be moving forward on the carbon tax, and we'll see if they come up with a plan to hit the targets. The past two governments (Liberal and Tory) were good at announcing targets, but neither ever came up with actual plans to actually hit those targets (although they came up with lots of platitudes and generalities) . The Tory targets are not unambitious, a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, even if the Tories never really intended to meet them. In comparison, the EU's target is 40% by 2030, Australia is 26 to 28% by 2030, and the U.S. is 26-28% by 2025 (although the reductions for the EU are based on lower 1990 levels, while the others are based on 2005 levels). If this government actually commits itself to a realistic and concrete plan to hit them, then I will consider that a win. A first step in a long game, but a win. My hope, perhaps naively, is that a real plan to hit 30% by 2030 will make it easier to adopt a more ambitious plan in the medium term. How do we achieve more ambitious targets without first even getting carbon pricing in place nationally? A supporter of the Leap Manifesto would disagree with me here. Fair enough. And I'm no expert.

As for the moving expenses, $200,000 seems terribly expensive to me for costs associated with moving for two households. As for "they also did it", I do actually think that's the issue (or at least half of it). One can only assess this in context, which in this case means: (1) were these expenses permitted by the rules? and (2) has this been the usual practice? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then I think people should go worry about a real issue (although it's certainly fair to argue that the rules and practice should be re-examined on a go-forward basis). The two people involved are two of the most powerful people in the country, and we want the best and brightest people running the federal government and its $290 billion+ in expenditures. Our safety and well-being depend on it. So Canadian, however, to be shocked, shocked, shocked that the people running the country are well compensated and have good benefits. No sure we want to rely on the generosity of "dollar-a-year-men". If this was permitted by the rules, and was the case for past top people in the PMO, then lets focus on something important. If not, then heads should roll.

As for the mosque, I would like to understand more about how these women were "forced" to do what they did. Evidence, please. I assume that they chose to accompany the PM of their own free will, knowing what would be involved. If there was coercion, and they did not act of their own free will, then I would be interested in hearing those details. I've already explained why I think the mosque issue generally represents hypocrisy and short-sightedness (these are the people that the PM should be reaching out to), and I have no desire to get into that again, but I am interested in how these four women were forced to do things.

As for real issues (although GHG-reduction targets *are* a real issue), my concern is that the government does not appear to have a real plan on way too many actually important issues. I might be wrong, they may shift into a new gear, who knows. But they seem to be stalled even on issues for which they should have acted ages ago (e.g. C-51, pot).
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
On the environmental issue, they've obviously hit the wall of the provinces, whose cooperation/assistance is needed to meet any target. They seem to be moving forward on the carbon tax, and we'll see if they come up with a plan to hit the targets. The past two governments (Liberal and Tory) were good at announcing targets, but neither ever came up with actual plans to actually hit those targets (although they came up with lots of platitudes and generalities) . The Tory targets are not unambitious, a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, even if the Tories never really intended to meet them. In comparison, the EU's target is 40% by 2030, Australia is 26 to 28% by 2030, and the U.S. is 26-28% by 2025 (although the reductions for the EU are based on lower 1990 levels, while the others are based on 2005 levels). If this government actually commits itself to a realistic and concrete plan to hit them, then I will consider that a win. A first step in a long game, but a win. My hope, perhaps naively, is that a real plan to hit 30% by 2030 will make it easier to adopt a more ambitious plan in the medium term. How do we achieve more ambitious targets without first even getting carbon pricing in place nationally? A supporter of the Leap Manifesto would disagree with me here. Fair enough. And I'm no expert.

As for the moving expenses, $200,000 seems terribly expensive to me for costs associated with moving for two households. As for "they also did it", I do actually think that's the issue (or at least half of it). One can only assess this in context, which in this case means: (1) were these expenses permitted by the rules? and (2) has this been the usual practice? If the answer to both questions is "yes", then I think people should go worry about a real issue (although it's certainly fair to argue that the rules and practice should be re-examined on a go-forward basis). The two people involved are two of the most powerful people in the country, and we want the best and brightest people running the federal government and its $290 billion+ in expenditures. Our safety and well-being depend on it. So Canadian, however, to be shocked, shocked, shocked that the people running the country are well compensated and have good benefits. No sure we want to rely on the generosity of "dollar-a-year-men". If this was permitted by the rules, and was the case for past top people in the PMO, then lets focus on something important. If not, then heads should roll.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that on both of these their message this week is the very opposite of "Real Change" as they communicate to us "No Change"

Skeezix said:
As for the mosque, I would like to understand more about how these women were "forced" to do what they did. Evidence, please. I assume that they chose to accompany the PM of their own free will, knowing what would be involved. If there was coercion, and they did not act of their own free will, then I would be interested in hearing those details. I've already explained why I think the mosque issue generally represents hypocrisy and short-sightedness (these are the people that the PM should be reaching out to), and I have no desire to get into that again, but I am interested in how these four women were forced to do things.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are picking at an argument or just not picking up on the sentence structure I used (carefully) nowhere in there did I say the PM or the party "forced" anyone to do anything. The only place I used "forced" was in relation to actually entering the Mosque....there is no option for them to enter by the front door so, once there, they are "forced" to enter by the side door...no other choice. What I suggested was that the PM and the party should have been aware of that and in deciding who should attend the mosque with the PM it might have been better to have an all male delegation rather than bring female members that are going to exposed to the segregation and bring further spotlight on it. So, no, they weren't forced to go...but once there they were forced to go in the side door.
 
Videodrome said:
The media is so predictable. They see a minor issue and push it like it is an international incident...
Click to expand...

I agree that this is a minor issue like the Duffy expense thing, and I expect it should garner about the same level of coverage.
 
The Duffy thing started about 2.5+ years before the election. It just carried on until the election.
 
Lone Primate said:
Yeah, they certainly would have if for ten seconds he'd stepped outside the bounds of filling Canada up with new prisons, shilling for the petroleum industry, going to war with the Supreme Court and that oh-so-inconvenient Constitution, and padlocking the mouths of people supposedly in responsible cabinet positions. Yeah, just imagine what the media would have done if "Harper had done the same"... But we can ONLY imagine...
Click to expand...
No Canadian government that lasted for 10 years is without controversy: think about the the Chretien liberals who backtracked on their promise of scrapping the GST and the sponsorship scandal. And yes these same Liberals participated in the bombings of Serbia in 1999 and in the coalition in Afghanistan, the latter force which was withdrawn by Harper, so you can't say that they were all anti-war peaceful loving hippies. But the point is that had Harper gone into a church that demanded men be separated from the women, he would have been grilled, not just by the Toronto Star, but by all the media.

Lone Primate said:
He might just be "a media darling" because he doesn't come off as a monster, but as someone who listened to Canadians for years and came up with a platform giving us not only the things we've asked for and been denied for decades, but the things we lost 15, 20 years ago, like going back to peacekeeping instead of just spear-carrying for empire.
Click to expand...
You're joking right? You actually see Harper as a monster who eats little kids? The guy had no charisma, I'll admit that, but a monster? And what empire did Harper create or try to create? If you're referring to Darth Vader, in what military conflicts did he prove himself to be the bad guy? When you say that Justin came up with a platform that people cared about and then mention Canada's peacekeeping missions, are you saying that people are more concerned about these peacekeeping missions than they are about affordable housing, economic stability and keeping the deficit under control? Yes Justin won the election fairly but then again I think your analysis as to why Justin is so loved by the media is completely wrong. Harper made a few mistakes that alienated some voters (the abuse of the temporary workers program by Canadian banks for example) but Justin's appeal is not in his policy or his intellect since he seems to lack the latter. Justin is a likable guy and he's a yes man to whatever is popular and politically correct. During the G20 summit where you saw Obama and Putin discussing the Paris terror attacks, you saw Justin taking selfies with fans. He's like that hot and friendly but ditzy girl in high school that everybody liked simply because her friendliness and ditzyness made her into a darling.

Lone Primate said:
I feel like I got the Canada I grew up in back, and I could hardly be happier.
Click to expand...
Did your day to day life honestly change ever since Harper, I mean Darth Vader, was dethroned by Justin? And how did you suffer so much under Harper?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top