Canadian federal election - October 19, 2015 (Official Campaign Thread)

[politicus]

LPC - 63%
CPC - 61%
NDP - 57%
GPC - 46%

I'm the ultimate Canadian swing-voter.

Surprised you got higher CPC than NDP actually, I would expect Scandinavian centre-right types to get the opposite result.

[politicus]

LPC - 63%
CPC - 61%
NDP - 57%
GPC - 46%

I'm the ultimate Canadian swing-voter.

Surprised you got higher CPC than NDP actually, I would expect Scandinavian centre-right types to get the opposite result.

The Canadian Conservatives aren't crazy, like the Republicans or the Australian Liberals. Being ever so slightly closer to them than a Social Democratic Party based on unionism isn't surprising to me at all.

Okay, I did not know you were critical of unions (assuming that is what you mean by "unionism").

I get a much more leftists score on Canada than I usually do (fx I got the Moderates in the Sweden test), so I guess all those union/environment questions and the crudeness of some of the questions did it (I am fx for longer prison sentences, but I do not believe it is the most effective way to fight crime), also anti-abortion not being CPC policy etc. I suppose some of my answers also cancelled each other out. Fx. I strongly agreed Canada should do more to fight ISIS  and increase foreign aid. They may count that as right wing/leftist. My strong support of indigenous peoples rights probably also cancelled out the anti-immigration/general multiculturalism votes.

BQ 73%
NDP 69%
GPC 60%
LPC 57%
CPC 29%

[politicus]

I think more Conservative candidate may soon be fired - several have been exposed as having ties to fanatical anti-gay hate groups.

Who?

[politicus]

@Hash: Moderating Adam's use of Sleazy Steve is a bit unfair when you yourself have introduced and keep using the whole Panzerdaddy, Panzergirl, Panzermiss meme. Harper is of course a more "respectable" and mainstream pol than the Le Pen family, but there should be a common standard. Either you can nickname pols you detest, or you can't.

[politicus]

Ipsos: 33/32/27.

NDP picking up some steam again? Or just a fluke?

[politicus]

Ipsos: 33/32/27.

NDP picking up some steam again? Or just a fluke?

Neither. They're down from the last Ipsos poll and Nanos, Ipsos and Abacus all have the NDP at 27%.

Yeah, I see. Its just the counterintuitive colour scheme (for a European NDP should be red and the Grits orange).

[politicus]

Also Quebec responds well to racism, evidently.

Well, the only thing worse than people that speak English instead of French, is people who speak neither I guess...

Immigrants to Quebec tend to prefer English, even those from former French colonies with a francophone tradition.

[politicus]

To add to what Njall said, the NDP has been on the wrong end of a wedge issue recently. Banning the niqab in citizenship ceremonies has come up recently. The NDP are opposed to this while the Bloc and Tories are for it. Quebec is the most anti-niqab region of the country, so the NDP has been bleeding support there.

Why did they decide to be against it? It is not like if it was a hijab or chador etc. The niqab makes you  a non-entity to the outside world, while the citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen. Attending it in a niqab is absurd.

Just PC run amok?

[politicus]

Its pure rightwing populist xenophobia and pandering...

That is quite possibly the motive, but since it is basically a reasonable demand it seems stupid to oppose it. "We are against this because we do not want to be on the same side as the bad guys" is always a stupid reason. You need to evaluate issues on their own merit and sometimes you then end up on the same side as people you do not like.

[politicus]

Its pure rightwing populist xenophobia and pandering...

That is quite possibly the motive, but since it is basically a reasonable demand it seems stupid to oppose it. "We are against this because we do not want to be on the same side as the bad guys" is always a stupid reason. You need to evaluate issues on their own merit and sometimes you then end up on the same side as people you do not like.

The Supreme Court struck it down, isn't that evidence against it being a reasonable demand?

No, that only relates to the legal status - not whether it is reasonable. Hiding a woman behind a veil is 
not something that should be backed by progressives. Even if she is indoctrinated to support it herself.

[politicus]

To add to what Njall said, the NDP has been on the wrong end of a wedge issue recently. Banning the niqab in citizenship ceremonies has come up recently. The NDP are opposed to this while the Bloc and Tories are for it. Quebec is the most anti-niqab region of the country, so the NDP has been bleeding support there.

Why did they decide to be against it? It is not like if it was a hijab or chador etc. The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

Just PC run amok?

Strategically, the NDP was/is stuck. The Liberal base is very anti niqab ban, while the Tory and Bloc bases are pro niqab ban. The NDP has a more mixed profile with an Anglo progressive anti-ban wing, and a Francophone pro-ban wing. By staying anti-ban they opened themselves up to attacks from the Bloc and Conservatives, but if they had gone pro-ban, they would have opened themselves up to attacks from the left from the Liberals.

Personally, I think they made the correct choice strategically. The NDP can afford lost votes more in Quebec than ROC. Unless the Bloc really takes off, their decline in Quebec will cost them something like 5-6 seats. A similar decline in ROC would hurt a lot more.

That makes sense. Although the whole idea that it is leftist or progressive to be in favour of accepting women being hidden non-entities is problematic, but an election campaign is no time to fight that battle.

[politicus]

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

[politicus]

What would be likely to happen if the result is like Con 36, Lib 33, NDP 26, the Tories don't have a majority, and Lib/NDP would have a majority? Conservative minority (trainwreck) government, Liberal minority government with outside NDP support, or a Lib-NDP coalition?

Good question. Logically Liberal minority with outside support, otherwise Canada is weirder than I thought (which they may well be).

[politicus]

Has such a situation ever occurred provincially, where a plurality party is shut out by an alliance of smaller parties?

Ontario 1985, Saskatchewan 1929, federal 1925

But all three cases had the first and second place very close and third place far behind second place.  If CPC can win the seat count by 20+ seats and LPC and NDP are fairly close in terms of seats then I have to assume CPC will claim the government.   I have to assume that neither LPC nor NDP after seeing what happened to the UK LibDems want the same thing happening to them if they play second fiddle top the second place finisher. 

Both parties are substantially stronger and with a much larger base than the LibDems, so this comparison seems a bit of a stretch.

[politicus]

Has such a situation ever occurred provincially, where a plurality party is shut out by an alliance of smaller parties?

Ontario 1985, Saskatchewan 1929, federal 1925

But all three cases had the first and second place very close and third place far behind second place.  If CPC can win the seat count by 20+ seats and LPC and NDP are fairly close in terms of seats then I have to assume CPC will claim the government.   I have to assume that neither LPC nor NDP after seeing what happened to the UK LibDems want the same thing happening to them if they play second fiddle top the second place finisher. 

Both parties are substantially stronger and with a much larger base than the LibDems, so this comparison seems a bit of a stretch.

Even if they are stronger, the dynamic remains similar, and I think the Liberals would get most of the praise for the government, while the NDP would be stuck defending whatever unpopular policies came out of it.

Furthermore, Trudeau categorically ruled out any coalition unless he was the dominant party, so it doesn't seem like the NDP ought to enter into a coalition if Trudeau ends up on top, if he won't return the favor if Mulcair ends up with more seats.

Additionally, the closest example to a coalition we have is the 1985 Ontario election, where the NDP supported the Liberals with a formal pact, but didn't enter into a coalition. The next election saw the Liberals turn their minority into a majority, with the NDP losing a few seats.

Well, we are talking outside support here (=guaranteeing it won't be toppled and voting for the budget, not agreeing with or voting for everything), not entering a formal coalition. In most countries letting the enemy (= CPC in this case) form a government would be much more electorally dangerous for the party that got blamed for not blocking it (which would be NDP), than providing outside support, not sure why that would be different in Canada.

[politicus]

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

[politicus]

The niqab makes you a hidden non-entity and a citizenship ceremony is about confirming your new identity as a citizen.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Well, maybe the construction "hidden non-entity" doesn't work in English since you can not hide something that doesn't exist, but the point should be clear. There is nothing bizarre about it. You do not see a person in a niqab as a person - she is hidden and has no identity to the outside world, you then have a ceremony which is about confirming her identity as a citizen in her new country. Attending this ceremony hidden under a veil is an absurd contradiction and should not be allowed.

This remains a non sequitur. Unless you can demonstrate a connection between the way a person dresses and their citizenship I'll have to keep reading your bigotry as just that.

You may disagree, but it is not a "non sequitur". There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction. Doing things openly and frankly are important Western cultural values. Showing your true colours etc. Symbols matter when we are talking about a symbolic ritual, such as a citizenship ceremony.

Using the word "bigotry" for defence of basic Western values (such as openness and gender equality) assumes that it is a result of prejudice or ignorance to consider certain cultural traits and customers unacceptable, which I fundamentally disagree with. If you just mean intolerance, then yes I think one should be intolerant towards certain cultural customs that contradict fundamental Western values. I believe its morally wrong not to be. So you would need to clarify how you define the ambiguous term "bigotry" in this context.

Since when has 'doing things openly and frankly' been part of Western Cultural Values?  They certainly aren't things most governments practice, and corporations, by practice, do the exact opposite as much as possible.  I honestly have no idea where the idea that this is a western cultural 'value' comes from.

Making up values to impose them on people you don't like is the definition of bigotry.

That something isn't followed by powerful institutions in a society doesn't mean it isn't a value, just that such institutions aren't behaving in accordance with said value. Fairness doesn't stop being a cultural value just because someone are being treated unfairly. Doing things in the open, not being deceitful etc. can be found as an ideal long time back, it was part of the ideal of chivalry, but also of Germanic tribal law (swearing before your fellow man etc.) There is an old difference in Nordic law between murder (killing a man during sleep, by poison or from ambush) and killing them openly after stating your intent. Dunno whether that existed in English common law, but I think so.
Transparency in government has been an ideal since rationalism, with Sweden implementing free public access to public documents in the late 18th century as the first - based on the belief nothing the government does should be hidden (with national security an exception, but functioning as an ideal). Other countries have since enacted similar laws. The US Freedom of Information Act is an expression of this ideal.

tl;dr: openness and transparency are old Western ideals, even if not always followed.

[politicus]

@Adam: We can set up a thread on IP if you want to discuss it, but I won't answer you here to avoid a derail. PM me if you want to discuss it further. Same goes for Xahar.

[politicus]

There is a clear logical argument here - a ceremony about confirming a new identity done while concealing your identity by not showing your face is a contradiction.

This is a fallacy of equivocation.

In the sense of "identity" meaning, simply, which individual you are, then the niqab does conceal your identity. However, in this sense, the citizenship ceremony is not about confirming a new identity. You are the same individual, literally speaking, you always were.

In the sense of "identity" meaning which cultural or national group you identify with, the citizenship ceremony is about confirming a new identity. But the niqab does not hide one's identity at all in this sense. Indeed, showing up to a Canadian citizenship ceremony in a niqab boldly broadcasts one's identity as a conservative Muslim Canadian.

Well to me the contradiction is not related to any claim the two types of identity are alike, the absurdity (which was the word I used the first time I mentioned it and better describes my intent than contradiction) is that if an individual is hidden from the world, she can not openly declare her allegiance. A declaration of allegiance done "in disguise" however symbolic and identity revealing that disguise is, is absurd.