MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Flames0910]

Bad idea was bad. Chabot and Wong sure are doing everything they can to isolate themselves on this council.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by btimbit

No surprise. Good idea in theory but no way it would actually happen

I personally don't think it was even a good idea in theory to try and cater to such a tiny segment of the population.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

I personally don't think it was even a good idea in theory to try and cater to such a tiny segment of the population.

I don’t think the idea was to make those people happy, but rather to divert them from posing a public menace. Catching people dragging on the street at 2 am is extremely difficult.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don’t think the idea was to make those people happy, but rather to divert them from posing a public menace. Catching people dragging on the street at 2 am is extremely difficult.

yeah. good point. When you look at it that way, it's reasonable to try and find a solution from a public safety perspective.

[btimbit]

The other thing people aren't considering is that it would be fun

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by btimbit

The other thing people aren't considering is that it would be fun

There's no room for fun, this city is serious business.

I mean it was still kind of a silly suggestion and there was no way in the current economic climate that it would go anywhere the way it was proposed.

The problem with the Rocky Mountain Motorsports Park is it's cost prohibitive for most people who would take advantage of it to do so. If Chabot's suggestion was going to be the race track equivalent of the Shaganappi Point Golf Course, Rocky Mountain Motorsports Park is the Glencoe Golf & Country Club.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Politics is all about timing. Had this motion been raised after a heart wrenching street racing fatality - it might have had some momentum.

Not sure why Chabot chose to raise it at this exact moment, 2 weeks from the holidays.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

Politics is all about timing. Had this motion been raised after a heart wrenching street racing fatality - it might have had some momentum.

Not sure why Chabot chose to raise it at this exact moment, 2 weeks from the holidays.

In December too when fun cars are going away and people aren't really thinking about drag racing them

[Looch City]

You’re all missing the point here. It’s December, holidays are around the corner. Why would anyone do any actual work or start a meaningful project?

This is just some meaningless make-work to waste time until days off. Chabot is playing us all!

[Weitz]

Sounds like council is going to vote on sending $100,000 of tax payer dollars to Quebec to fight their bill 21. Pretty terrible decision making in my opinion. I don’t think it’s councils place to be sending taxpayer money elsewhere for legal fights.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sounds like council is going to vote on sending $100,000 of tax payer dollars to Quebec to fight their bill 21. Pretty terrible decision making in my opinion. I don’t think it’s councils place to be sending taxpayer money elsewhere for legal fights.

And yet, it needs to be done.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

And yet, it needs to be done.

Why?

What does spending 100K at a municipal level to protest a completely different provincial legislation accomplish? That is literally virtue signaling for the sake of virtue signaling and inappropriately misusing taxpayer in doing so. Should the city also spend money on a boycott of China while we are at it? Its not within the city's scope of affairs, regardless of how you personally feel on the matter.

Fighting this bill on grounds of racism or discrimination also shows a distinct and absolute ignorance of Quebec culture and its history (see the quiet revolution and the reasons behind it) which only further divides the country. Bill 21 will ultimately cause a constitutional challenge and that's the only place where it should and will be fought, and if will be ugly. But it's not the mayor of Calgary's place to fight.

[TorqueDog]

Yeah no, this is not the City of Calgary’s fight, we have no business being involved with it and Council has no business volunteering Calgarians’ tax dollars to get involved either, no matter the cost individually. That money is for the operations and betterment of Calgary.

Jyoti, you have a City to run and it isn’t in Quebec, enough already.

[CliffFletcher]

Up next: The Willow Park Community Association tables a motion to condemn the crimes of Boko Haram and declare its opposition to child soldiers.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Why?

What does spending 100K at a municipal level to protest a completely different provincial legislation accomplish? That is literally virtue signaling for the sake of virtue signaling and inappropriately misusing taxpayer in doing so. Should the city also spend money on a boycott of China while we are at it? Its not within the city's scope of affairs, regardless of how you personally feel on the matter.

Fighting this bill on grounds of racism or discrimination also shows a distinct and absolute ignorance of Quebec culture and its history (see the quiet revolution and the reasons behind it) which only further divides the country. Bill 21 will ultimately cause a constitutional challenge and that's the only place where it should and will be fought, and if will be ugly. But it's not the mayor of Calgary's place to fight.

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.

[bizaro86]

Yeah, I'd like a little more time/money spent on core city governance concerns and less spent on things that aren't their jurisdiction (climate change emergency, fighting bad provincial laws in QC).

I think this council has a mandate for more progressive local policies - ie raise taxes for local services. I'd be very surprised if the voters thought they were granting a mandate to raise taxes to fight issues outside of the city's jurisdiction.

[Bill Bumface]

This just seems like Gondek trying to set up her future career. I also think labelling this bill as purely racist is a bit ignorant.

Quebec values a highly secular society. Is this the best way to further their values? Probably not. I think there are many good reasons to strongly embrace secularism. Here's a good piece on it:

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...ion-in-canada/

In Quebec, among the most vocal supporters of Bill 21 are Muslim women

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

This just seems like Gondek trying to set up her future career. I also think labelling this bill as purely racist is a bit ignorant.

Quebec values a highly secular society. Is this the best way to further their values? Probably not. I think there are many good reasons to strongly embrace secularism. Here's a good piece on it:

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...ion-in-canada/

Yeah, I don't entirely disagree with you, and I also agree that we should strongly embrace secularism (I think the catholic school system shouldn't exist, and I went there).
That being said, I don't think that should include banning outward religious symbols.

As for whether or not it's racist? It's going to disproportionately impact people who's religion includes some sort of outward display, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, groups that probably have a solid argument that they are being targeted for racial/cultural reasons.

Sure it also means a Christian teacher can't outwardly wear a cross, but that teacher, isn't required to do so by her religious beliefs, and can pretty easily just tuck it into their shirt if they want to. It's pretty tough to hide your turban under your shirt.

Sure this law applies to everyone, but it doesn't exactly affect everyone equally.
I'll 100% eat crow if/when a teacher gets fired for wearing a christmas sweater, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know. I just think outright banning any religious symbol, especially when it's pretty much only going to apply to minorities, isn't the way to go about moving towards a more secular society.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yeah, I don't entirely disagree with you, and I also agree that we should strongly embrace secularism (I think the catholic school system shouldn't exist, and I went there).
That being said, I don't think that should include banning outward religious symbols.

As for whether or not it's racist? It's going to disproportionately impact people who's religion includes some sort of outward display, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, groups that probably have a solid argument that they are being targeted for racial/cultural reasons.

Sure it also means a Christian teacher can't outwardly wear a cross, but that teacher, isn't required to do so by her religious beliefs, and can pretty easily just tuck it into their shirt if they want to. It's pretty tough to hide your turban under your shirt.

Sure this law applies to everyone, but it doesn't exactly affect everyone equally.
I'll 100% eat crow if/when a teacher gets fired for wearing a christmas sweater, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know. I just think outright banning any religious symbol, especially when it's pretty much only going to apply to minorities, isn't the way to go about moving towards a more secular society.

Oh yeah, this is definitely a bad law. But bad things happen in lots of places to lots of people, and the City of Calgary can't fix everything. I think it makes sense for them to focus on the problems where they have control.

If you want to pick a provincial government that's doing a bad job to fight there's one based out of Edmonton that affects the city quite a bit more...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Oh yeah, this is definitely a bad law. But bad things happen in lots of places to lots of people, and the City of Calgary can't fix everything. I think it makes sense for them to focus on the problems where they have control.

If you want to pick a provincial government that's doing a bad job to fight there's one based out of Edmonton that affects the city quite a bit more...

Yeah, I understand.
This is a bit of an odd one.
I wouldn't have suggested they do it. I wouldn't have been upset if they hadn't done it. But now that they've done it, I'm not upset with it. You gotta pick your fights, you can't fight everyone/everything you think is wrong, but if they were gonna make a stand/statement on something, at the very least this isn't one I'm ashamed they got into.