Quebec is headed for independence, Michael Ignatieff tells the BBC

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by zamler

As for Ignatieff, is he ever right about anything?

There was that time when he shut down the concept of the liberals and NDP fake-unifying and creating a fake government at the very time the recession hit.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by zamler

He could stop coming across as an arrogant entitled doosh that would be just fine with Quebec separating. That would be a good start.

Are you talking about Trudeau or Harper?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The PQ continues digging its own grave



http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...q-comes-clean/

the more I look at that charter the more terrible it is.

There was a slip up a couple of weeks ago where a candidate basically fumbled and said that police would have the option to assist someone wearing a veil or face covering.

Now they're looking at throwing civil servants out of work because of their beliefs and religious requirements. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of civil servants, and I'm certainly a proponent of thinning out the civil service. I'm also not a fan of Burkas and Hijabs and other coverings based religious symbols, but as Canadians we stand proud of our inclusive and accepting nature.

This bill is simply about two things

1) Picking a fight with the federal government, even in using the not withstanding clause, we know that the Feds will have to respond to this bill if it gets passed, something along the lines of what Quebec is doing is not what Canadians believe in. This would allow the Seperatists and the PQ to rally behind Canadian values aren't our values.

2) In a more hideous turn, it gets people who have jobs thrown out of those jobs and we know that employment in Quebec is not good right now. So these people are going to get fired, look at the job market and then leave. That's the sub plot, the seperatists want anyone not on their side out of their voting pool, and it goes back to immigrants being the enemy of a pure Quebec.

This Charter is monstrous bill, and actually has very little to do with religion and a ton to do with suppressing individual rights of expression and in changing the voter dynamic.

I've said it a lot, but if this is a keystone issue in this election which its looking like it is, and the PQ wins the election, that province suddenly looks like its populated by a lot of horrible people.

Here's hoping it doesn't come to pass.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Keep in mind too that it was for charity (cancer research) and he was challenged (by a Conservative). If he had turned it down, the same people bashing him now, would still be bashing him for turning it down. They'd either be calling him a wimp for chickening out, or too self-absorbed about his image to participate in charity events.

Not quite. Trudeau issued the challenge, he was trying to fight Anders or McKay, Brazeau took the challenge. After the fight Brazeau challenged Trudeau to a rematch and Trudeau said no.

Back to the thread topic, Marois is no good.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So, would they be able to fire someone for wearing a tiny crucifix and chain around there necks... as many people do? Or Star of David, or whatever?

I assume that under this law if someone wore a swastika on a chain around their neck, that would be ok since its not a religious symbol?

Are Buddhism and Hinduism not a religion now?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So, would they be able to fire someone for wearing a tiny crucifix and chain around there necks... as many people do? Or Star of David, or whatever?

I assume that under this law if someone wore a swastika on a chain around their neck, that would be ok since its not a religious symbol?

In theory and suppossedly chains around their neck for example as long as the religious symbol was pretty much hidden would be ok.

However a lot of religious symbols are and have to be overt like an article of faith. So and forgive me if I'm wrong, someone who has to display a kirpan isn't going to be able to hide it. Or someone who wears a hijab or Turban can't just take them off.

If this gets passed which hopefully it won't because it will die with the PQ, you're probably going to see a whole new inspectorate opened up with hundreds of spies crawling through federal offices and hospitals.

You'll also see amateur anti religious zealots launching complaints at everything they see.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In theory and suppossedly chains around their neck for example as long as the religious symbol was pretty much hidden would be ok.

However a lot of religious symbols are and have to be overt like an article of faith. So and forgive me if I'm wrong, someone who has to display a kirpan isn't going to be able to hide it. Or someone who wears a hijab or Turban can't just take them off.

If this gets passed which hopefully it won't because it will die with the PQ, you're probably going to see a whole new inspectorate opened up with hundreds of spies crawling through federal offices and hospitals.

You'll also see amateur anti religious zealots launching complaints at everything they see.

Yeah... it'll be worse than the sign police.
Frankly it really makes me wonder about majority of people living in Quebec because from what I've read in the news, it seem like the majority support this. It almost seems like Quebec is turning into 1935 Germany.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Are Buddhism and Hinduism not a religion now?

Huh? Where on earth did I say that? Of course they are.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Huh? Where on earth did I say that? Of course they are.

He's referring to the fact that the swastika is a religious symbol. I'm sure your original implication was that it would be tolerated since it was a symbol of Nazism rather than religion, but it is originally a Hindu & Buddhist symbol that was corrupted by the Third Reich for their own purposes.

In India and other parts of the world, the swastika is still often used as a religious symbol and often prominently displayed on buildings, jewelry and other decorations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yeah... it'll be worse than the sign police.
Frankly it really makes me wonder about majority of people living in Quebec because from what I've read in the news, it seem like the majority support this. It almost seems like Quebec is turning into 1935 Germany.

You seem to be pretty intent on drawing comparisons to Nazism as this is the second one I noticed in as many posts, but you're about as far off the mark as the protesters that carried placards comparing Obama to Hitler when he was being too "socialist" for trying to introduce some form of public health care.

Don't get me wrong, the proposed law is a bad one, but not on the level that it'll turn Quebec in totalitarian regime or invite a holocaust. It's limiting the ability of people to freely express themselves, and should be opposed simply on those merits.

The PQ wants to introduce the law under the guise of a secular government, which, I think, the majority of rational people would see as a good thing. However, that doesn't mean members of the government, or their employees, should have to be secular in personal choices like clothing or jewelry that affect no one but themselves. And that's why this is a bad law. Let's not get sensationalist and over-dramatic with the Nazi stuff.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Rerun

The lack of judgement is in participating in this event at all. This guy wants to be the Prime Minister of Canada. Just because it was for charity doesn't make it any more acceptable for the "PM in waiting" to participate in.

Do you really think it's such a terrible thing to be involved in? Really?

Originally Posted by Rerun

If there was a Charity mud wrestling event would that be an acceptable event for one who dreams and aspires (in the near future) to be PM of Canada?

Well no, since exhibition boxing isn't mud wrestling.

But, since you asked, would it be okay for Harper to be a contestant in a wet t-shirt contest? That is disgusting and absolutely not what he should be anywhere near. As the Prime Minister of Canada, it's just awful!!!!

Originally Posted by Rerun

When you want to be PM, where do you draw the line between good fun and looking like a buffoon?

Me, I'd draw the line between hoaky charity causes and buffoonery. It ain't been crossed yet, and this photo isn't even close to the buffoonery, crookery, and stupiditery of the current government.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

You toss around "Sun Media" as an insult a fair bit. While their style is not for everyone, they deserve credit for a number of their investigations. The financial scandal of Attawapaskat comes to mind.

If you want to raise the quality of debate, start by choosing better discussion points without insults.

It is an insult. I was open to the alternate viewpoint for so long, but I'm going to lay it down now.

You support a paper that has bikini babes. A paper written at the schooling of 12 year olds.

I'm so tired of this false equivalency of the ignornant. Having an opinion that immunizations cause autism is not correct. Having an opinion that global warming is not real and not man made is not an equivalent position. It's been roundly denouced. 33, 000 scientists to one. I am increasingly upset that people that have nothing to do with science are making scientific policy decisions.

This ends now. The Sun is, and always has been a rag. The world is not flat, and no matter how much you whine and cry you are on the wrong and stupid side of history.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Not saying it is for everyone, but not all of their stuff is tabloid.

Their effectiveness as a media outlet is to push populist opinions onto the political plate. Occasionally they come up with a strong investigative story as well - Attawapaskat is one example.

I don't want to derail the thread into a Sun Media debate. However, I don't think it's appropriate to use their name as a derogatory term, thereby implying that there is never any value to their product.

'I pay for my product so I like it.'

Besides a good story or two, your paper is the antithesis of good debate. The Sun Media is the establishment that told Galileo to stay put.

Oh, and to increase readership, it had bikini babes.

I can no longer abide that this is any rational debate. I tried, for years I tried.

The Sun sucks, you suck, the world is not flat. It is not a reasonable quote by any text.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You might have a point if this was a candid pic taken at a moment when he wasn't expecting it, and inadvertently showed him in a unflattering moment.

It wasn't. This was a posed pic taken at a photo op.... which truly shows the lack of judgement (one of many) that this aspiring PM has.

I went on-line to find just a normal pic of JT... and low and behold this one popped up... and I said to myself : What a doofus this guy is!

Do really want this guy as PM of Canada if Quebec decides to separate? This is a guy who has expressed sympathy for the separate cause in the past, shows frequent lapses of judgement and good sense, and is from and elected by, the same province that wants to quit Canada. And as a matter of fact, if Quebec did separate, he would be a PM who was without a riding as would be half of his party.... imagine that.. Canadian MP's who's ridings were no longer part of Canada.... what would they be? Freelance MP's?

Electing this guy with a possible future referendum in the wind would be like leaving the candy store unlocked and unattended with as sign saying "Help yourself. Take what you want". This is not the guy you would want at the helm that you would want to play hard ball with Marios.

Just to clarify, Trudeau Sr. was a stanch federalist. Strongly spoke out against France and the saying that got us here.

And why, wrongly, the NEP began. However, if you think he was a Quebec/French sep sympathizer, you really need to read your history books again.

In fact, that was his election problem on the way out. Quebec didn't like him.

By hey, let's not let facts get int the way of rhetoric.

'Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect[2] and salute his political acumen in preserving national unity against the Quebec sovereignty movement, suppressing a violent revolt, and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution.[3]'

Again you bore me Rerun. Sun Media talking points which are not only incorrect, but completely opposite of reality.

Hey, he's got a french name right?

[Daradon]

Last one, as it seems many here need a history lesson. Trudeau defended a united Canada so strongly, he mused back about the English speaking parts of France.

The newly appointed Canadian minister of justice, Pierre Trudeau, publicly wondered what the French reaction would have been if a Canadian Prime Minister shouted, "Brittany to the Bretons".[12] From then on, de Gaulle remained unimpressed by Trudeau, saying "Nous n'avons aucune concession, ni même aucune amabilité, à faire à M. Trudeau, qui est l'adversaire de la chose française au Canada." ("We have not one concession, nor even any courtesy, to extend to Mr Trudeau, who is the enemy of the French entity in Canada.")[16] De Gaulle was also heavily criticized by a large part of the French media for his breach of international protocol, in particular by Le Monde.[17]

But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of a good story. Or Sun Media propaganda. As it seems with most topics, facts have a liberal bias.

Enjoy your bikini babes gentlemen.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Daradon

'I pay for my product so I like it.'

Besides a good story or two, your paper is the antithesis of good debate. The Sun Media is the establishment that told Galileo to stay put.

Oh, and to increase readership, it had bikini babes.

I can no longer abide that this is any rational debate. I tried, for years I tried.

The Sun sucks, you suck, the world is not flat. It is not a reasonable quote by any text.

Whoa

Did Ezra Levant beat you up and take your lunch money or something?

There is nothing more hypocritical than someone purporting to be so smart and enlightened who is so quick to stereotype and prejudice it's content and readers of an information source contrary to his or her opinion.

Instead of pulling the broad brush to paint pundits who disagree with you, instead of sitting atop all sorts of righteous sanctimony, why don't you take a pill and relax.

Personally, I read a cross section of media and draw my own conclusions. Some I like more than others (example, I quite like Andrew coyne and don braid). Some I don't agree with often (Paula Simons) but I am still prepared to consider her viewpoint. I find it lazy and ignorant to dismiss her out of hand, because occasionally when she writes it makes me uncomfortable because I want to disagree with her, but know that she is right.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Do you really think it's such a terrible thing to be involved in? Really?

Yes... really... for someone who wants to be Prime Minister of Canada in he the near future.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well no, since exhibition boxing isn't mud wrestling.

But, since you asked, would it be okay for Harper to be a contestant in a wet t-shirt contest? That is disgusting and absolutely not what he should be anywhere near. As the Prime Minister of Canada, it's just awful!!!!

The point was made that because it was for charity, this stupid event was now ok... I disagree.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Me, I'd draw the line between hoaky charity causes and buffoonery. It ain't been crossed yet, and this photo isn't even close to the buffoonery, crookery, and stupiditery of the current government.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Just to clarify, Trudeau Sr. was a stanch federalist. Strongly spoke out against France and the saying that got us here.

And why, wrongly, the NEP began. However, if you think he was a Quebec/French sep sympathizer, you really need to read your history books again.

In fact, that was his election problem on the way out. Quebec didn't like him.

By hey, let's not let facts get int the way of rhetoric.

'Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect[2] and salute his political acumen in preserving national unity against the Quebec sovereignty movement, suppressing a violent revolt, and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution.[3]'

Again you bore me Rerun. Sun Media talking points which are not only incorrect, but completely opposite of reality.

Hey, he's got a french name right?

Where did I mention Pierre Trudeau? ... off you go on some big rant about PET, and his name wasn't even mentioned.... by anybody...

...although if I had I certainly wouldn't be the first to criticize his record in politics.

[Vulcan]

There is nothing more hypocritical than someone purporting to be so smart and enlightened who is so quick to stereotype and prejudice it's content and readers of an information source contrary to his or her opinion.

Other than it's sports and comics section, the Sun is not a credible source of information. I'm not saying the Herald is that much better but the Sun is awful.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Daradon

It is an insult. I was open to the alternate viewpoint for so long, but I'm going to lay it down now.

You support a paper that has bikini babes. A paper written at the schooling of 12 year olds.

I'm so tired of this false equivalency of the ignornant. Having an opinion that immunizations cause autism is not correct. Having an opinion that global warming is not real and not man made is not an equivalent position. It's been roundly denouced. 33, 000 scientists to one. I am increasingly upset that people that have nothing to do with science are making scientific policy decisions.

This ends now. The Sun is, and always has been a rag. The world is not flat, and no matter how much you whine and cry you are on the wrong and stupid side of history.

Doesn't Warren Kinsella write for the Sun?