Who will replace Harper?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One thing that influences approaches to liberalism (classical or otherwise) is history. Anglo-Canada is very much in the British tradition with respect to societal attitudes and freedoms. Like the UK, with the Magna Carta and what British society has become since then, (Anglo-)Canada has evolved to a relatively happy place without breaking too many eggs.

"Everything's gonna be all right" has turned out to be true more often than not.

If you think of the French experience, hands had to be forced (well, more than hands) in order to attain a similar type of society that other countries evolved into much less tumultuously. The United States' history has been like this as well. (This case might be made for Quebec too, though the level of tumult is of course relative.)

Like it or not, this has an effect on how societal identities and attitudes have developed and continue to develop.

This is definitely true. Britain achieved a liberal and democratic society through centuries of peaceful and gradual reforms (with notable exceptions like the Cromwellian regime). France by contrast required the French Revolution to achieve the same ends.

I'm one of those people who tends to regard the French Revolution as the genesis of the modern age; but from the British worldview it isn't as important as it is to continental Europeans.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The problems France has are a whole other boo-boo going back decades. Problems made worse, not better, by the kind of rhetoric occasionally imported here. But this isn't France and we don't have France's deep issues of alienation and social rigidity.

So why would we be pointing at French anecdotes and advocating for French solutions for problems we don't have? Especially when those solutions are arguably partly responsible for those issues in the first place.


Silly example:

People should arm themselves with assault rifles because pirates in Somalia are wreaking havoc.
Is this Somalia? No.
Are there pirates here? No.
Okay, so your proposed solution is useless and may perhaps even lead to more problems.

But who ever talked about implementing French "solutions" in Canada?

This isn't a binary run-off between the French approach and some type of Canadian free-for-all approach.

In any event, it's far too simplistic to suggest that certain people are committing horrible acts in France (and elsewhere) just because they're feeling unloved by the "host society". Plenty of groups throughout history in many countries were treated like crap (often worse) and did not react in this way, and in many cases even became quite successful. There is something extra at play.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

The thing is, one's rights always end where the other's begin. Even the most "liberal" societies have vestimentary rules (for example, can't go out naked, etc.) and you've lived all your life so far under those rules.

My point is, it's not just one random garment. It's a pretty blatant symbol of women's submission and near-enslavement. We can tolerate it without having to go as far as welcoming it. Ideally, we'd tolerate it but we'd frown. Kinda like minor racism -- in this country everyone's free to be mildly racist in their daily lives if they so choose, but that's going to be frowned upon, yet we're liberal enough to still tolerate it. The difference is that we aren't giving our official govt's blessing to that kind of behavior.

I mean, imagine the following: 1) that neo-nazi party guy ends up elected leader of Austria; 2) the guy visits Canada; 3) the Trudeau government makes sure all the non-white federal cabinet ministers stay away during that visit by this foreign leader, so we don't rub him the wrong way.

I've noticed that no one has posted a reply to this.

So people, how are far are we willing to go in terms of accommodation for different belief systems?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've noticed that no one has posted a reply to this.

So people, how are far are we willing to go in terms of accommodation for different belief systems?

Normally, we have nonveiled female cabinet ministers here in Ottawa, but we're willing to temporarily change that to make sure we don't rub a foreign leader/dignitary the wrong way.

Normally, we have brown-skinned cabinet ministers here in Ottawa, but we're willing to temporarily change that to make sure we don't rub a foreign leader/dignitary the wrong way.

We're really nice! (Self-proclaimed )

[Aylmer]

No one responded because it's a straw-man.

Why would you hold the door open for someone? I mean, if it were convenient for them, would you throw yourself off a bridge too??

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Normally, we have nonveiled female cabinet ministers here in Ottawa, but we're willing to temporarily change that to make sure we don't rub a foreign leader/dignitary the wrong way.

Normally, we have brown-skinned cabinet ministers here in Ottawa, but we're willing to temporarily change that to make sure we don't rub a foreign leader/dignitary the wrong way.

We're really nice! (Self-proclaimed )

Je suis convaincu à nonente-neuf pourcent que tu avais les larmes aux yeux en écrivant ça!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

No one responded because it's a straw-man.

Why would you hold the door open for someone? I mean, if it were convenient for them, would you throw yourself off a bridge too??

So you don't mind making these kind of concessions to people who don't think the same way we do, even when it's on our own soil? I personally don't like the message it sends at all.

Tolerance of intolerance is very real. Maybe you're too sheltered to see it?

[Aylmer]

We might also do well to recall that no one was forced to wear anything. Many (if not most) of the female MPs did not chose to wear a headscarf, but they obviously weren't incendiary enough to warrant an angry editorial.

Originally Posted by lio45

So you don't mind making these kind of concessions to people who don't think the same way we do, even when it's on our own soil? I personally don't like the message it sends at all.

What is the way we think? I certainly don't think like you. My grand parents don't think like me.

Tolerance of intolerance is very real. Maybe you're too sheltered to see it?

Ad hominem is not conducive to intelligent discourse.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

We might also do well to recall that no one was forced to wear anything. Many (if not most) of the female MPs did not chose to wear a headscarf, but they obviously weren't incendiary enough to warrant an angry editorial.

.

I agree with you that it might not have been worth an angry editorial (actually there were two), but one can still surmise that some female MPs are more concerned about winning political points with certain constituencies than giving some serious thought to women's rights around the world, and what certain symbols mean in that debate.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

What is the way we think?

Generally speaking, we think that equality is desirable and that gender/race/age/orientation-based discrimination isn't -- wouldn't that be generally correct?

[Aylmer]

I know hijabi women who fight passionately for gender equality. I know bikini-clad women who definitely do not. I know people who have fled to Canada because they were being persecuted for speaking up for human rights and I have personally been the object very hurtful racist remarks by people who were born here.

There is no causality or even correlation between wearing a headscarf and not being for women's rights. And being born here is neither a prerequisite nor a guarantee of not being bigoted.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've noticed that no one has posted a reply to this.

So people, how are far are we willing to go in terms of accommodation for different belief systems?

To the extent that's reasonable. Just as is the case now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

To the extent that's reasonable. Just as is the case now.

Just make sure to duck your head when that pendulum swings by, mon ami!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I know hijabi women who fight passionately for gender equality. I know bikini-clad women who definitely do not. I know people who have fled to Canada because they were being persecuted for speaking up for human rights and I have personally been the object very hurtful racist remarks by people who were born here.

There is no causality or even correlation between wearing a headscarf and not being for women's rights. And being born here is neither a prerequisite nor a guarantee of not being bigoted.

People misread or are misguided about things all the time.

(Case in point, young women in western countries who wear headscarves on top, and tight cameltoe jeans or pants down below...)

Burqas and niqabs in particular are clear, unequivocal external symbols of a sexually hierarchical belief system. Clerics who don't live in countries like Canada where they need to play nice before the cameras for PR reasons, make no bones about this at all.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just make sure to duck your head when that pendulum swings by, mon ami!

I don't know what that means.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't know what that means.

Only that pendulum that indicates what's acceptable and what isn't is a bit of a moving target.

[Aylmer]

If you'll indulge me an anecdote -

Working at the visitor information centre last summer, I had a very interesting interaction. A gruffy-looking man came in looking for some information about different things to do about town. He said he was bringing in some people from out of town for a conference. He was very polite and we had a bit of friendly chit-chat.
It turned out that the group he was bringing to town was the Ontario chapter of the Soldiers of Odin, an alt-right white supremacist group and he was to be its new president. But we had a pleasant interaction.

But my Canada is one in which the president of a white supremacist group and a francophone black youth can have a pleasant, civil interaction even when our views are very, very different.
Now it's an extreme example. But I think that it highlights that in a country of 35 million, there are going to be very different views and very different people. But we can still be civil and respect the rights and liberties of the other.



I am not too sheltered to not understand the risks of intolerance. But I have the intellectual humility to accept that my views are not the begin-all and end-all of perspectives. That doesn't mean that I have to adopt or even accept the views of others, but I think that our political and legislative institutions have to be flexible enough to mediate and moderate these differences to a reasonable extent.

What is that reasonable extent? I guess that's the big question. For me, it's the extent to which one person's liberties can go before it infringes on those of another. If I'm not infringing on someone else's rights, I don't believe the State should have a role in determining what I can think or believe (whether or not it's in keeping with the rules of good taste is another question).
In my mind, headscarves fall inside that extent: someone wearing something does not have any real impact on anyone else. If some people are somewhat uncomfortable, I think that's more their problem than the problem of those wearing it. After all, people - especially white men - have historically been very uncomfortable with just about everything before eventually getting used to it (Jews, coloured people, gay people, women with the vote, women wearing too little and now women wearing too much, etc.) and it is almost never the fault of the minority group. Christmas didn't disappear because of Jews. Marriage hasn't imploded because of gays. Morality didn't disappear because of bikinis and women's rights will not disappear because of headscarves. The sun will still rise in the east.



So it does not impact others' rights. And it does not have any inherently hateful or discriminatory significance (other than tangential "it's used in places which are bad, therefore it is bad", which, if valid, would also apply to things like atheism in soviet Russia). So I don't think it's my business. That's how I see it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

If you'll indulge me an anecdote -

Working at the visitor information centre last summer, I had a very interesting interaction. A gruffy-looking man came in looking for some information about different things to do about town. He said he was bringing in some people from out of town for a conference. He was very polite and we had a bit of friendly chit-chat.
It turned out that the group he was bringing to town was the Ontario chapter of the Soldiers of Odin, an alt-right white supremacist group and he was to be its new president. But we had a pleasant interaction.

But my Canada is one in which the president of a white supremacist group and a francophone black youth can have a pleasant, civil interaction even when our views are very, very different.
Now it's an extreme example. But I think that it highlights that in a country of 35 million, there are going to be very different views and very different people. But we can still be civil and respect the rights and liberties of the other.



I am not too sheltered to not understand the risks of intolerance. But I have the intellectual humility to accept that my views are not the begin-all and end-all of perspectives. That doesn't mean that I have to adopt or even accept the views of others, but I think that our political and legislative institutions have to be flexible enough to mediate and moderate these differences to a reasonable extent.

What is that reasonable extent? I guess that's the big question. For me, it's the extent to which one person's liberties can go before it infringes on those of another. If I'm not infringing on someone else's rights, I don't believe the State should have a role in determining what I can think or believe (whether or not it's in keeping with the rules of good taste is another question).
In my mind, headscarves fall inside that extent: someone wearing something does not have any real impact on anyone else. If some people are somewhat uncomfortable, I think that's more their problem than the problem of those wearing it. After all, people - especially white men - have historically been very uncomfortable with just about everything before eventually getting used to it (Jews, coloured people, gay people, women with the vote, women wearing too little and now women wearing too much, etc.) and it is almost never the fault of the minority group. Christmas didn't disappear because of Jews. Marriage hasn't imploded because of gays. Morality didn't disappear because of bikinis and women's rights will not disappear because of headscarves. The sun will still rise in the east.



So it does not impact others' rights. And it does not have any inherently hateful or discriminatory significance (other than tangential "it's used in places which are bad, therefore it is bad", which, if valid, would also apply to things like atheism in soviet Russia). So I don't think it's my business. That's how I see it.

I love anecdotes so keep the coming.

Regarding the Soldiers of Odin guy, everything went smoothly because for whatever reason he may have chosen not to act upon his beliefs. (For the record I have no idea if this organization frowns on contact with non-whites.)

In any event, what would you say if he had asked to deal with a white colleague of yours? What about when people say they don't want to deal with women? Or men? Or gays?

All the while invoking belief systems (usually religious).

Religious groups in Montreal (not Muslims BTW) have in the past asked the city police to only send male officers to deal with their members.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In any event, what would you say if he had asked to deal with a white colleague of yours? What about when people say they don't want to deal with women? Or men? Or gays?

I don't think that would constitute reasonable accommodation anymore than I would consider someone refusing to deal with a woman with a hijab (or not, for that matter) reasonable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I don't think that would constitute reasonable accommodation anymore than I would consider someone refusing to deal with a woman with a hijab (or not, for that matter) reasonable.

And yet we've had cases in Canada where such requests have been made, and even some where they've been accommodated.