Politics in 2018

[Remius]

So the shine is coming of the PM (much sooner than I thought I must admit) and the polls seem to be reflecting that.  Still plenty of time to get through it or to make it worse.  Given the PMOs lacklustre ability to manage damage control and poor judgement calls I think it will actually get worse.

That being said, I never thought that Scheer stood a chance and to be frank I still believe Trudeau will win the next election (likely a minority though).

But...

What would happen if Mr. Scheer wins or even if he manages to get the Trudeau Liberals into a weak minority situation?  I can't see him stepping down even in the latter scenario.  This would certainly foil the plans of many conservatives who were waiting in the wings thinking that Scheer would lose and step down.

 

[FJAG]

Just to complete my prior post on the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code in their most recent amendment (assented to June 19th, 2017) added "gender identity or expression" to it's list of prohibited grounds and hate crimes:

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
S.C. 2017, c. 13

Assented to 2017-06-19

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code

SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

R.S., c. H-6
Canadian Human Rights Act
Marginal note:
1998, c. 9, s. 9; 2012, c. 1, s. 137(E)
1 Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:

Marginal noteurpose
2 The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Marginal note:
1996, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 138(E)
2 Subsection 3(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Marginal noterohibited grounds of discrimination
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

R.S., c. C-46
Criminal Code
Marginal note:
2014, c. 31, s. 12
3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

Marginal noteefinition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

Marginal note:
1995, c. 22, s. 6
4 Subparagraph 718.2(a)(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

:cheers:

 

[Lumber]

Just to complete my prior post on the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code in their most recent amendment (assented to June 19th, 2017) added "gender identity or expression" to it's list of prohibited grounds and hate crimes:

:cheers:

Right, that's pretty clear, you can't discriminate against someone based on their gender identity or expression, and I'm behind that 100%.

Is it considered discriminatory, though, to refuse to use someone's preferred pronoun?

Rude; yes. That's like the course instructor choosing to call you Sally because he doesn't want to have to pronounce Zalachenko every time you F*** up. Is that considered discriminatory?

I'm not making a point, I'm legitimately asking. If someone informed me, after calling them "Sir" that they preferred to be call "Mx", I'd oblige. If the guy I was standing next to said "screw that, you look like a Sir, I'm calling you Sir", I'd call that guy and asshole and think less of him, but I'm not convinced, yet, that that should be a human rights violation.

 

[Good2Golf]

...or, use the person's name, not a pronoun. 

 

[Loachman]

"It" - The original gender-neutral pronoun.

 

[pbi]

Right, that's pretty clear, you can't discriminate against someone based on their gender identity or expression, and I'm behind that 100%.

Is it considered discriminatory, though, to refuse to use someone's preferred pronoun?

Rude; yes. That's like the course instructor choosing to call you Sally because he doesn't want to have to pronounce Zalachenko every time you F*** up. Is that considered discriminatory?

I'm not making a point, I'm legitimately asking. If someone informed me, after calling them "Sir" that they preferred to be call "Mx", I'd oblige. If the guy I was standing next to said "screw that, you look like a Sir, I'm calling you Sir", I'd call that guy and ******* and think less of him, but I'm not convinced, yet, that that should be a human rights violation.

Good question. Hopefully, it can be left as a matter of  politeness and consideration, and maybe even logic.

To a certain extent, I can see  the concern transgender people might have. I see it like this. If your name was Bob, but you decide to have it legally changed to "Bill", why would people persist in calling you Bob?  Wouldn't you be right to insist on being called by your correct name, since that's how you want to identify yourself?

In the same way, if people once knew you as male and called you "he/him", but you made the decision to change your gender identity to female (because that's what you really believed you were), doesn't it follow that people should call you "she/her"?

I guess it gets a bit more confusing for people who consider themselves gender neutral, but it seems common decency to me that you refer to people in the way they prefer.

 

[McG]

I don't want to spin this into a male vs female thing. Women should make the same as men for doing the same job, full stop.  Similar jobs? Well that's not the same job (right?).  During the G20 summit some Police officers, which included females, were making something sick like $800 a day they said with overtime and all that when corporals, who at that moment in time were doing the same security task, were making standard corporals pay like $120 a day or whatever.

I picked a male dominated field and my house boss picked a female dominated one. She made $20'000 more than me last year (and 5 of those months I was away from my family).

The mail carrier thing is an interesting point but at first glance that seems to be a matter of urban vs rural rather than male vs female. It would be a story if male mail carriers in the country made more money than female mail carriers.

Here is the article: http://www.macleans.ca/society/why-do-men-make-more-money-than-women/

 

[kratz]

I can work with common decency, allowing my own freedoms of speech.

I did flip when I heard of being forced / compelled to use terms that I never heard of,
nor understand. Why?

The direction laws and policy are headed see the pendulum swinging too far in one direction.

 

[mariomike]

An attractive, attention-grabbing leader can attract votes, even if there is little or no substance behind them. A less flashy leader may have the best judgement and the soundest policies but still not stand a chance.

Reminds of something I read,

“It's seduction, Pete. He'll back the country into a corner with his charm, like it's a woman. When America sees that it's a choice between Jack and twitchy old Dick Nixon, who do you think they'll get between the sheets with?”

James Ellroy.

Perhaps a similar political phenomenon exists in Canada? 

 

[ModlrMike]

India... the trip that keeps on giving:

Gatecrashers and a run on the Crown Royal: The other screw-ups on Trudeau’s India trip

The National Post has also learned that Surrey, B.C., MP Randeep Sarai and Winnipeg MP Kevin Lamoureux posed for pictures with a former Punjab state cabinet minister who is under investigation for his role in an international drug cartel. (Sarai, recall, is already embroiled in controversy for his role in convicted terrorist Jaspal Atwal attending events on the trip.)

 

[jollyjacktar]

Comedy Central of the North.... :

 

[Loachman]

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/ted-morton-the-trudeau-liberals-are-campaigning-on-strangling-our-oil-industry

Ted Morton: The Trudeau Liberals are campaigning on strangling our oil industry

When you replace the National Energy Board with a new agency named the Impact Assessment Agency, the message is clear: environmental impact is replacing economic benefit as Canada’s primary policy focus

March 6, 2018 6:30 AM EST

Last Updated March 6, 2018 6:30 AM EST

"Last month, we learned from Scotiabank that lack of export pipeline capacity and the resulting discount on Canadian oil will cost the Canadian economy $15.6 billion a year, or nearly $43 million a day. That loss affects provincial and federal revenues as much as corporate income. We are all losing.

"Also last month came the unveiling of the Trudeau government’s new suite of policies for reviewing and approving major energy infrastructure projects, such as oil and gas pipelines.

"So is there anything in the new rules that will address our $43-million-a-day leak to our Southern neighbour? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be no. The new process appears to further increase uncertainty for future pipeline proponents and investors.

"At the symbolic level, the messaging is problematic. When you replace an agency named the National Energy Board (NEB) with a new agency named the Impact Assessment Agency (IAA), the message is clear: environmental impact is replacing economic benefit as Canada’s primary policy focus when it comes to new energy projects.

"The details are equally discouraging. The proposed changes broaden the number of criteria that a new pipeline must meet. These now include not just climate change and enhanced Aboriginal consultation, but also “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” For a pipeline?"

 

[Loachman]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeau-is-an-insult-to-feminism-and-to-seriousness/

Trudeau is an insult to feminism – and to seriousness

Margaret Wente

Published March 5, 2018

Updated 1 day ago

"After that, he came home to introduce his relentlessly female-friendly budget (the one that made 358 references to “gender”). The best that can be said is that nobody minded it too much. Few of the females I know seemed particularly grateful for the extra-special treatment. Like the Indians, they just felt condescended to. “I’m sick of gender politics,” one friend groused to me. “What matters is that we can’t get anything in Asia right.”

"But pandering is what Mr. Trudeau does best. He wants to be more feminist than the feminists and more Bollywood than Shah Rukh Khan. The trouble is that he’s trying way too hard. So he just comes off as opportunistic and condescending.

"Both the India trip and the budget - both of which should be routine affairs – have exposed the worst defects of Mr. Trudeau and his team. They are all politics and no policy; all play-acting and no substance. Just last year the international media were styling Mr. Trudeau as “the free world’s best hope,” as Rolling Stone breathlessly put it. Now, he’s Mr. Dressup. The scornful headlines from the global media were nothing short of epic. “Trudeau’s India trip is a total disaster - and he has only himself to blame,” went one headline in The Washington Post.

"We have some hard lessons to learn. The India trip exposed Mr. Trudeau and his team as shallow, fundamentally unserious, and seriously incompetent. The budget document was far less harmful; it merely checked off all the usual social-justice boxes. In addition to a new paternity leave, it included more money for female entrepreneurs, $23-million for new multiculturalism programs and a national anti-racism plan, $214-million to remove racial barriers, promote gender equality, and combat homophobia and transphobia, and other funding for “racialized and immigrant women.”

"Somehow I doubt that the magic incantation of the word “gender” is enough to win the hearts of middle-class women.

"What’s interesting here is not the amounts of money, which are relatively small, but the world view, which comes straight from a gender-studies course. Women as a gender need special help because they are automatically oppressed, and “racialized” women need even more special help. Instead of being individuals with different preferences, goals, beliefs, and interests, all Canadians are defined by our inherent traits of gender, ethnicity, class, race and sexual orientation, and are arranged in a sort of hierarchy of oppression. This appears to be the intellectual framework of Mr. Trudeau’s brain trust.

"The Liberals have a long and robust tradition of pandering to ethnic voters. Now they have divided everyone but white men into minority groups. It’s all about identity politics now. The fight for a colour- and gender-blind society has been replaced by a vision that sees nothing but.

"But people – even women – may be getting tired of it. Maybe people – even women – have higher priorities than being pandered to. A startling new Ipsos poll, taken shortly after Mr. Trudeau’s disastrous India trip, found that the Liberals would get only 33 per cent of the vote if an election were held today − versus 38 per cent for the Conservatives. The Liberal strategy has been to drive a gender wedge between women and the Conservatives. But now they and the Conservatives are tied among women. Meanwhile, the gender gap among male voters has reached a startling 9 percentage points in favour of the Conservatives.

"One opinion poll doesn’t mean much on its own. But somehow I doubt that the magic incantation of the word “gender” is enough to win the hearts of middle-class women. Women, after all, want what men want: leadership in tough times, a steady hand and seriousness of purpose at the top, someone who will not make a complete hash of things that should be relatively easy to pull off. Because if he screws up something simple, what happens when the going gets rough?"

 

[Loachman]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-perhaps-justin-trudeaus-india-trip-could-have-been-salvaged-with-some-elephants

Rex Murphy: Perhaps Justin Trudeau's India trip could have been salvaged with some elephants?

It’ll be a cold day in Delhi before the Indian government shuts down the Taj Mahal for a Canadian dignitary again

"There were a number of first-class opportunities missed on the Prime Minister’s costume tour of the great democratic state of India. The merest child, let alone the wizened sages of the PMO, could have told them that there should have been elephants, with Justin and Sophie doing yoga stands inside the howdah. How much more striking is a namaste from the back of a shrieking pachyderm.

"Most likely his planners were just careless, or what is the same thing, not up on their Kipling, as they very well should be.

"Well, he’s back in Canada now, but as with every good vacation, the memory lingers on. So much indeed, that in this week of Canada’s first full feminist budget (almost scoured clean, as Andrew Coyne has noted of, well, economics) it was the trip not the budget that summoned the eyes and ears of every Canadian.

"Now while debacle, mess, embarrassment, disgrace, waste, stupidity and gaucherie have earned their standing as descriptors of the eight-day folly, the term “odd” has not quite got the exercise it seriously deserves. Above all, the trip was just plain old-fashioned odd - odd, not as opposite to even, but as kissing cousin to weird."

 

[George Wallace]

Saw Trudeau's video promoting Woman's day.  All I could think of was Max Headroom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF9XGtPhWLY

 

[ballz]

Good question. Hopefully, it can be left as a matter of  politeness and consideration, and maybe even logic.

To a certain extent, I can see  the concern transgender people might have. I see it like this. If your name was Bob, but you decide to have it legally changed to "Bill", why would people persist in calling you Bob?  Wouldn't you be right to insist on being called by your correct name, since that's how you want to identify yourself?

In the same way, if people once knew you as male and called you "he/him", but you made the decision to change your gender identity to female (because that's what you really believed you were), doesn't it follow that people should call you "she/her"?

I guess it gets a bit more confusing for people who consider themselves gender neutral, but it seems common decency to me that you refer to people in the way they prefer.

It is common decency, but that's it and that's all. We can't make every action that does not follow common decency illegal. And to not follow common decency to be a human rights violation? The idea is ludicrous. The test is very easy.... is someone committing violence towards someone by not following their pronouns? No? Then the appropriate response is not violence (forcible confinement). This is why the radical left has come up with terms like "microaggression" and tries to say that these things cause "harm," to people.... because aggression is violence, and harm is the result of violence, so therefore, the appropriate response to it is violence. They are literally trying to control language to make the use of violence against deniers legitimate.

Dr. Petersen has already said he'd use someone's preferred pronouns if they asked in a courteous manner. On the TVO clip, he was asked what pronoun he would use for the transgender woman on the panel if she were his student and he said, "she." The transgender woman, by the way, was on Dr. Petersen's side about almost everything (this is important since the left claims to be the official voice of transgender people which is just not the case). I also asked a transgender acquaintance of mine and she is completely on Dr. Petersen's side.

But that's not enough. He is transphobic, vile, Nazi, etc etc etc.... simply for daring to:
1. not support compelling others to do so through force; and
2. for disagreeing that there are more than 2 genders.

On point #2, they still teach in genetics classes there are two biological sexes, male and female. There are anomalies, of course, there are also people born with 9 fingers but we teach that humans have 10 fingers. However, the humanities professors will literally tell people that the science faculty abandoned that idea decades ago. The opening statement of one of Petersen's adversaries on the TVO special was, "Basically, it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex." And on the idea of cis-normative perspective / gender binary (that there are male and female)... "it's not my view I just know that for over 50 years scientist have shown that that's not true." Here is the now infamous TVO clip where he makes this claim (recommend watching the whole thing but the numpty starts making these points @ 10:40) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

If you watch the whole thing you will hear him talk about how Jordan Petersen "abuses" students, etc... again... an attempt to frame Petersen as using violence and therefore violence (locking him up in cage) is a legitimate reaction.

EDIT: I think this is worth a thread split at this point since this is much more than a Politics 2018 issue and I think others also want to continue discussing it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"The details are equally discouraging. The proposed changes broaden the number of criteria that a new pipeline must meet. These now include not just climate change and enhanced Aboriginal consultation, but also “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” For a pipeline?"

If we don't do a proper study we might install a pipeline that identifies as an oiler tanker, how embarrassing would that be.  I'd like to ensure I'm using the proper pronoun when addressing the pipeline too.

 

[Loachman]

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/03/08/priorities-trudeau-says-veterans-asking-can-afford-give-2018-budget-hikes-foreign-aid-spending-2-billion/

PRIORITIES: Trudeau Says Veterans Are “Asking For More Than We Can Afford To Give,” But His 2018 Budget Hikes Foreign Aid Spending By $2 BILLION

Spencer Fernando March 8, 2018

If our country can’t afford to help those who sacrificed everything for us, how can we afford to send billions more in taxpayers money overseas?

 

[McG]

He’s funding the social causes that matter to him.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Dr. Petersen has already said he'd use someone's preferred pronouns if they asked in a courteous manner. On the TVO clip, he was asked what pronoun he would use for the transgender woman on the panel if she were his student and he said, "she." The transgender woman, by the way, was on Dr. Petersen's side about almost everything (this is important since the left claims to be the official voice of transgender people which is just not the case). I also asked a transgender acquaintance of mine and she is completely on Dr. Petersen's side.

I think this is a big part of the issue. The reality is everyone has a different opinion about everything no matter your race, skin colour, gender, sex, etc. Identity politics is the belief that because you are 'X' then your beliefs must be 'X'. You can definitely see a correlation between certain groups and certain beliefs, but in no way is it standard. If you believe that is the case then the reality is you actually might be racist/sexist.

The irony of all these 'tolerant' groups is they actually are the racist/sexist ones who actively attack anyone who is in their minds 'intolerant'. Talks about things like institutionalized racism when they literally are creating it in the education system shows how far as a society we are going from values such as equality.