MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Virtue signaling?
How is literally putting our money where out mouth is virtue signaling?
This is the exact opposite. Council has said "This is wrong" and we believe that strongly enough that we will actually commit resources to doing something about it.
I'm actually a little proud that our city council would do that. I think that law is wrong and discriminatory, and I'm glad someone is doing something about it, at least tangentially, on my behalf.
Heck, you could even make an argument, that it's pretty cheap PR for a city that hasn't always had the best reputation.

Whoever wants to do this can put their money where their mouth is.

[Cappy]

The Bill is undoubtedly racist hidden in a secularist cloak.

But, i agree with the sentiment that it is not for the City of Calgary to commit money to fighting this issue.

[You Need a Thneed]

It shouldn’t be for the city of Calgary to join this fight, but obviously the province of Quebec isn’t taking it up, and apparently the Feds aren’t, so a bunch of municipalities across the country are joining up to see if they can do something.

We can definitely have a conversation about weather Calgary should be sending money here, but it should be clarified that this is not JUST Calgary.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It shouldn’t be for the city of Calgary to join this fight, but obviously the province of Quebec isn’t taking it up, and apparently the Feds aren’t, so a bunch of municipalities across the country are joining up to see if they can do something.

We can definitely have a conversation about weather Calgary should be sending money here, but it should be clarified that this is not JUST Calgary.

you're right. seems Calgary is the second of what likely will be many cities in on this. The Mayor of Toronto also wants to do the same.

https://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/...s-bill-21.html

The mayor of Brampton wants the mayors of Canada’s biggest cities to help fund the legal fight against Bill 21, Quebec’s secularism law.

On Wednesday, Mayor Patrick Brown said he would send letters to mayors of the country’s 100 most populous cities — and follow up with phone calls — urging them to join his opposition to the provincial law, which prohibits public servants, including teachers, from wearing religious symbols on the job in Quebec.

Council voted unanimously to donate up to $100,000 to the legal fight, being led by groups like the World Sikh Organization, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...gainst-bill-21

[btimbit]

I'm not too upset about this. Although personally, I would have liked to see the mayor and council members put up their own money and then asked citizens to join them. Sends a stronger message imo and likely raises more.

[CliffFletcher]

So yep, turns out Quebecers hate being told what to do by the rest of Canada, and even the opponents of the bill in Quebec are telling municipalities in the ROC to back off.

Critics of Bill 21 inside the province, however, are asking other Canadians to rethink a strategy they believe could backfire by making Quebeckers feel beleaguered. The mayor of Montreal and the co-spokesperson of Québec solidaire, a major provincial party, have called the cities’ intervention counterproductive and questioned their standing to use public funds against a duly adopted provincial law, even one they oppose.

“This needs to be a discussion of Quebeckers’ fundamental rights, not a Canada versus Quebec issue,” said André Pratte, a former Canadian senator and long-time editorial writer for the newspaper La Presse who strongly opposes Bill 21. “The risk is that people who oppose the law are seen as tools of Canada’s politicians.”…

Quebec opponents of the law are virtually unanimous in objecting to the intervention of English Canadian cities. Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante has said it made her “uncomfortable,” while Québec solidaire co-spokesperson Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois told the newspaper Le Devoir it harms the quality of debate around Bill 21 within Quebec.

The ultimate goal should be for Quebeckers to reform the law themselves, said Mr. Pratte, now a principal at the public relations and crisis management firm Navigator – but that will be more difficult if they feel resentful of intrusions by the rest of Canada.

“We have to be strategic here. It’s not just a matter of expressing our frustration.“

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...rsial-bill-21/

The actions of Calgary city council aren’t just vacuous virtue-signalling; they’re counterproductive.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So yep, turns out Quebecers hate being told what to do by the rest of Canada, and even the opponents of the bill in Quebec are telling municipalities in the ROC to back off.



The actions of Calgary city council aren’t just vacuous virtue-signalling; they’re counterproductive.

Yeah, that doesn't seem surprising. Quebec isn't a hotbed of liking getting told what to do by the ROC.

And to be fair I don't blame them. I wouldn't be happy if Quebec started telling Alberta what laws we should/shouldn't have.

Like I said before, this is a bad law, but it isn't our business.

[cheevers]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Yeah, that doesn't seem surprising. Quebec isn't a hotbed of liking getting told what to do by the ROC.

And to be fair I don't blame them. I wouldn't be happy if Quebec started telling Alberta what laws we should/shouldn't have.

Like I said before, this is a bad law, but it isn't our business.

I find this one a tough one. The city shouldn't have to get involved, but blatant racist, anti human rights laws in our own country should be everyone's business. I wish the government had the cojones to start taking away money from Quebec until they did the right thing, but sadly Trudeau is a useless so here we are.

[Ducay]

This isn't our fight to join, especially so not while property taxes are what they are. I know the funding got defeated, but man, Jyoti has already made a few of my friends regret their decision to vote for her given she's gone ever further off the deep end than advertised.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This isn't our fight to join, especially so not while property taxes are what they are. I know the funding got defeated, but man, Jyoti has already made a few of my friends regret their decision to vote for her given she's gone ever further off the deep end than advertised.

Don't worry, she's just getting started.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So yep, turns out Quebecers hate being told what to do by the rest of Canada, and even the opponents of the bill in Quebec are telling municipalities in the ROC to back off.



The actions of Calgary city council aren’t just vacuous virtue-signalling; they’re counterproductive.

Maybe we should have cleared house on September 13, 1759

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This isn't our fight to join, especially so not while property taxes are what they are. I know the funding got defeated, but man, Jyoti has already made a few of my friends regret their decision to vote for her given she's gone ever further off the deep end than advertised.

Let's not even pretend that $100k is going to make a difference in our property taxes, it's not a point worth making and anyone wanting to argue in favour of this would shoot that point down in a heartbeat. Based on 2016 private dwelling numbers, it works out to 21 cents per private dwelling in Calgary, and I'm all but certain that the numbers have increased since 2016 so as to reduce that amount.

The point is that this isn't the City of Calgary's fight in the first place. Taxpayer money, no matter how miniscule, should be invested toward improving the city and the lives of its citizens, or not collected in the first place. Fighting Quebec in a battle that they will almost certainly win -- using the Notwithstanding Clause if push comes to shove -- is misuse of public funds, period. The City has been entrusted with using tax money for Calgary and its citizens in a responsible way and using that money to fight such a battle is not even close to being aligned with that purpose.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Let's not even pretend that $100k is going to make a difference in our property taxes, it's not a point worth making and anyone wanting to argue in favour of this would shoot that point down in a heartbeat. Based on 2016 private dwelling numbers, it works out to 21 cents per private dwelling in Calgary, and I'm all but certain that the numbers have increased since 2016 so as to reduce that amount.

The point is that this isn't the City of Calgary's fight in the first place. Taxpayer money, no matter how miniscule, should be invested toward improving the city and the lives of its citizens, or not collected in the first place. Fighting Quebec in a battle that they will almost certainly win -- using the Notwithstanding Clause if push comes to shove -- is misuse of public funds, period. The City has been entrusted with using tax money for Calgary and its citizens in a responsible way and using that money to fight such a battle is not even close to being aligned with that purpose.

This is pretty well my take on it as well.

If you have a problem with a policy that Quebec has instituted then tell the Premier to do something about it.

Its not within her Jurisdiction or the range of her duties or responsibilities.

It would be like me canvassing my neighbours to pay for a community project and then using the money to buy a billboard to denounce Chinese Domestic policy.

Sure, I could do it, but thats not what that money was for, its entirely outside of the realm of which I have any control and the end result is going to be ignored (at best) anyways.

Gondek can take her personal vacation days and picket outside the Quebec legislature on her own time if she feels that strongly about it, but dont use the pulpit granted to her by the citizens of Calgary. Thats not her job.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Locke

If you have a problem with a policy that Quebec has instituted then tell the Premier to do something about it.

Its not within her Jurisdiction or the range of her duties or responsibilities.

It's not within the Premier's jurisdiction or range of duties either.

[TorqueDog]

The only way something another province does is any of our business is when it impacts us in some way (eg: trade).

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Let's not even pretend that $100k is going to make a difference in our property taxes, it's not a point worth making and anyone wanting to argue in favour of this would shoot that point down in a heartbeat. Based on 2016 private dwelling numbers, it works out to 21 cents per private dwelling in Calgary, and I'm all but certain that the numbers have increased since 2016 so as to reduce that amount.

The point is that this isn't the City of Calgary's fight in the first place. Taxpayer money, no matter how miniscule, should be invested toward improving the city and the lives of its citizens, or not collected in the first place. Fighting Quebec in a battle that they will almost certainly win -- using the Notwithstanding Clause if push comes to shove -- is misuse of public funds, period. The City has been entrusted with using tax money for Calgary and its citizens in a responsible way and using that money to fight such a battle is not even close to being aligned with that purpose.

This. Sure $100K is just a drop in the bucket for the city, but the point is, it's no different than just burning the money. If we want to waste $100K like this, I'd rather it get donated to a proper charity or something. At least something more useful would come out of it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

This. Sure $100K is just a drop in the bucket for the city, but the point is, it's no different than just burning the money. If we want to waste $100K like this, I'd rather it get donated to a proper charity or something. At least something more useful would come out of it.

Fighting unjust laws isn’t getting something? I’d rather the city didn’t fund it but it is a lawsuit that is required.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Fighting unjust laws isn’t getting something? I’d rather the city didn’t fund it but it is a lawsuit that is required.

I think English Canadian municipalities are one of the worst potential funders from a political point of view.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by GGG

Fighting unjust laws isn’t getting something? I’d rather the city didn’t fund it but it is a lawsuit that is required.

Fighting unjust laws in Alberta that impact Calgary and Calgarians, sure.

[tvp2003]

Don't know if it's been posted but City Council will NOT be providing any financial contributions to the lawsuit. At least not yet -- they've formed a task force to look into ways to support legal challenges like Bill 21:

On Monday night, Calgary city council voted 10-5 to endorse the joint legal challenge to the law being brought by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the World Sikh Organization and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

And its new task force, which includes councillors Jasmine Mian, Raj Dhaliwal and Evan Spencer, will consult with local legal and religious communities on what they are willing to do.

...

Some members of council said while they oppose the legislation they do not want to see any Calgary tax dollars going into the legal challenge.

"Even though I personally think it is wrong, I think by voting for this, we may create further divide between us and the province of Quebec," said Coun. Andre Chabot.

Mayor Jyoti Gondek says the task force's job will be to explore what resources there are in the local community to fight the law.

"There are members of the legal community as well as religious communities who have the ability to either donate time — pro bono — or collect donations for such a challenge," she said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...orce-1.6293382