Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

I feel we should follow the Soviet method. St. Petersberg? No no, StalinBairdgrad.

Fine-able Offense posted:

Hypnagogic Jerk posted:

Right. A crucifix necklace is not "Christian symbols". You can be sure that some Christian symbols are considered antithetical to a religiously neutral state. Read the rest of my post.

Similarly unobstrusive symbols from any religion would also be considered unobjectionable. The idea that a secularism charter seeks to promote White People Religion at the expense of Brown People Religion is just media fantasy.

And in any case, there is nothing to be said about the particulars of this bill, since it hasn't been tabled yet and will probably have changed in drastic ways by then.

eXXon posted:

I stopped reading at 'no allowance for daycare or lost income from a stay-at-home parent', which the Globe helpfully describes as 'frills'.

quote:

After his meeting with Marois, Trudeau said they agreed to disagree. The Liberal leader said the plan was motivated by a defensive "fear of the other" and unworthy of modern Quebec.

"Like we saw with the (recent) soccer turban ban, people laughed at Quebecers," said Trudeau, a Quebec MP.
"And I don't think it's who we are and I don't think it honours us to have a government that does not represent our generosity and openness of spirit as a people."

The Prime Minister's Office, for its part, said: "It's a debate that will occur at the provincial level," while Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney tweeted late Wednesday that "freedom of religion is a universal principle." The previous day NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, whose party has nearly five-dozen seats in Quebec, sidestepped the issue by calling the leaked report a "trial balloon."

Trudeau said the purported plan was responding to a non-existent problem and said he couldn't understand which rights the PQ was seeking to protect that weren't already protected in the Canadian or Quebec charters of rights.

He said state institutions should indeed be neutral, like the Quebec government says, but he added that the individuals who work there are entitled to their religion and freedom of expression.

The best remedy to fear of outsiders, he said, is already taking place in Quebec: kids from all over the world are getting to know each other, learning French, playing hockey, and contributing to a Quebecois culture that doesn't negate their roots.

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

Obama admits to having done cocaine in his past, Trudeau says he's smoked pot a few times. Wow. What a daring statesman.

I'm waiting for the politician to come forward and say yes, I have done krokodil and am at this very moment hosed up on lovely crystal meth I cooked in the alley behind Jean-Couteau.

less than three posted:

What the hell. The proposed federal redistricting in the Vancouver area (stupidly) combines Burnaby with North Vancouver.

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/bc/now/proposals/vancouver.pdf

North Vancouver should be joined with West Vancouver if anything,

Hypnagogic Jerk posted:

Right. A crucifix necklace is not "Christian symbols".

Fatima Mernissi in english preface of The Veil and the Male Elite posted:

Westerners make unconscious religious references constantly in their daily activities, their creative thinking, and their approach to the world around them. When Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts walked on the moon on July 20, 1969, they read to the millions watching them, including us Muslims, the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth ..." They did not sound so very modern. They sounded to us very religious indeed, in spite of their spacesuits.

Helsing posted:

I wish I could understand why Trudeau is willing to speak bluntly about Quebec's proposed new law while Mulcair continues to say nothing. Between this and the pot legalization stuff its outright embarrassing how the Liberals are managing to upstage the pathetically cautious NDP on these token social issues.

Obviously these aren't policies that really matter compared to the economic moves Trudeau has made so far (though it looks like Trudeau is gearing up to talk a lot about inequality, even if his party utterly lacks the conceptual tools or political will to create policies that would really address the problem). But its disheartening all the same. Even more so given that it's been made abundantly clear that even if Mulcair were to win an outright majority he'd have no interest in restoring all the revenue slashed by successive years of Conservative and Liberal governments.

I can't tell if Mulcair is basically just a fairly conservative guy who just wants to lead a party that stands for competent technocratic government or whether the NDP leadership is paralyzed by fear of losing official opposition status and therefore don't want to take any risks, but its getting really grating. I also really like Mulcair's performance in Parliament, he's a great MP it seems, but his tenure as leader is turning out to be extremely disappointing so far.

less than three posted:

What the hell. The proposed federal redistricting in the Vancouver area (stupidly) combines Burnaby with North Vancouver.

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/bc/now/proposals/vancouver.pdf

North Vancouver should be joined with West Vancouver if anything,

mr. unhsib posted:

Why?

less than three posted:

NV and WV are pretty close demographics wise. (Educated, white, above average income) and used to be one municipality. Burnaby is majority-minority and below average on the income scale.

HookShot posted:

edit: but I disagree with you derp, North Vancouver and West Vancouver do share very similar demographics. NV isn't quite as douchey rich, but it's pretty drat close. Even Lynn Valley.

Fine-able Offense posted:

Based on the 2006 census (which is the one I have on my desk at work, so deal):

-The median population age of North Vancouver is 40. The median age of West Vancouver is just under 49.
-Median full-year income in North Vancouver is $43,000. Median full year income in West Vancouver is $60,000.
-42% of people in North Vancouver are legally married versus 57% in West Vancouver.

Pick which one of those are similar.

Edit: I get mad when people handwave the entire North Shore into one big lump, when sizable pockets of North Vancouver are legitimately poor. I grew up there and went to school with kids who couldn't afford clothing and used the food bank- and it was considered normal, not strange. They are two completely different towns.

HookShot posted:

Fair enough. My dad lives in North Vancouver, so I must not be seeing some of it, because sure, there's a slight difference when you cross Cap road into West Van, but there's still a LOT of very, very rich people that live in North Vancouver.

Cultural Imperial posted:

This is what happens when you are born unto parents who think self-esteem is the most important element in raising children. All of a sudden, no matter how dumb or ignorant you are, you're an expert on everything and no possible expert with lofty titles or degrees could ever know more than you.

ocrumsprug posted:

Counterpoint: All the experts the media presents to the public to tell us about real estate.

Still isn't socialism though.

ocrumsprug posted:

Counterpoint: All the experts the media presents to the public to tell us about real estate.

Fine-able Offense posted:

This post is like a perfect little capsule of privilege. It's so easy for you to say that crucifixes are fine and dandy, and that as long as Muslims or Sikhs have some kind of similarly unobtrusive form of religious jewelry, great! They can wear those! After all, Christian religious apparel is the conveniently unobtrusive default, and if those stupid Muslims or Sikhs want to skip the necklaces and insist on wearing their funny hats and poo poo that's their problem, we just so happen to have drawn the line at exactly the place where Christians are comfortable and everyone else is discriminated against. But it's not racist, no sirree!

Hypnagogic Jerk posted:

Christian religious apparel is not unobtrusive by default. Did you even read my post?

Hypnagogic Jerk posted:

Imagine for a moment that francophones in Canada liked wearing some cultural symbol, I dunno, maybe a ceinture fléchée. Now imagine they wanted to wear it all the time, even while playing sports where it's a safety risk.

Hypnagogic Jerk posted:

Christian religious apparel is not unobtrusive by default. Did you even read my post?

Imagine for a moment that francophones in Canada liked wearing some cultural symbol, I dunno, maybe a ceinture fléchée. Now imagine they wanted to wear it all the time, even while playing sports where it's a safety risk. Would you say it's acceptable and anybody who disagrees is a racist? Somehow I think not. Remove the drat belt or gently caress off you dumb frenchie! And I can't say I'd disagree with that.

Paper Mac posted:

And yet, the symbols which are affected are overwhelmingly those of religious minorities. It's almost as though what is considered "obtrusive" and "unobtrusive" by the state is not ideologically neutral!!