Canadian Elections

~ Clarissa

So it looks like the Tories are increasingly likely to win the elections in Canada and even get a lead that is big enough for them to form a majority government.

I can’t say I’m too shocked, either. Based on the policy quiz I took, I disagree with Canada’s Conservatives fiercely on pretty much every subject. And yet, if I were voting in Canada, I’d vote for the Tories.

I’ve been observing Canada (Quebec, especially) all throughout the global economic crisis and I can’t pretend that I didn’t see shockingly great prosperity in the midst of economic woes of planetary dimensions. Whoever made that happen, whoever dragged Canada through the crisis (Americans know it as “the Recession”) so well is very hard to defeat in any election.

Also, the Tories are the only ones standing up for women’s rights (shocking, I know) and denouncing, albeit quite timidly, the degrading habit of dragging around shrouded and animalized women. If you are not a woman, I know you are incapable of comprehending the debilitating effect it has on women to see this kind of thing. Even my husband, a passionate feminist, thinks the issue is funny. Just believe me when I tell you that it is painful, offensive, and deeply humiliating. Whoever manages to squeeze out, “This is not OK” is my hero. (Maybe if you are a Jew you can get what this means to me if you imagine having to see, on a daily basis, Jews who walk off the pavement without raising their eyes and wearing a yellow star on the left side of their chest.)

The opponents of the Tories don’t manage to articulate a convincing set of objections, which is another sign they will not find it easy to win. Their objections are all on the level of “But Benghazi! But the emails! But Bush lied!” And we all know that this kind of childishness loses elections.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

46 thoughts on “Canadian Elections”

  1. I am 100% for the Conservatives, although, in my opinion, they are not conservative enough.

    Hopefully, they will win and the Unions (the NDP) won’t be able to form a coalition with the Liberals.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Nice to hear that! 🙂
        As to the Liberals, I would consider them if they were headed by Pierre Trudeau rather than his son. Justin is not bad, but his father was much more than that – he was brilliant. I was a university student when he was Prime-Minister of Canada.
        It was like yesterday. 🙂

        Like

        Reply

    1. Some of the most pointed exchanges of the night centred on the issue of the niqab and whether government services should only be given to those who reveal their faces.

      Mulcair accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of raising the issue of the niqab as a distraction rather than dealing with troubling economic questions.

      “Mr. Harper is trying to hide his record behind a niqab,” Mulcair said.

      “Mr. Mulcair, I will never tell my young daughter that a woman should cover her face because she’s a woman,” Harper said.

      “Tackle the oppressor if you believe that there is oppression there,” Mulcair shot back, adding that Harper was using the issue as a “weapon of mass distraction.”

      The controversy over the niqab was inspired by a recent court ruling saying a woman can wear the face veil while taking her Canadian citizenship oath. The Conservatives want to fight the decision before the Supreme Court.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-five-party-leaders-1.3242417

      Mulcair is dead to me after this.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Mulcair accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of raising the issue of the niqab as a distraction rather than dealing with troubling economic questions.

    “Mr. Harper is trying to hide his record behind a niqab,” Mulcair said.

    Mulcair is right. Harper and his spin doctors found a controversy to distract from other issues. What is annoying here is that the tories never really discussed the niqab during three mandates. Why is that? This is cleat political opportunism.

    “Mr. Mulcair, I will never tell my young daughter that a woman should cover her face because she’s a woman,” Harper said.

    Harper is right, alongside the very vast majority of Canadians. So really… why talking about the niqab instead of other issues reaging women’s rights?

    “Tackle the oppressor if you believe that there is oppression there,” Mulcair shot back, adding that Harper was using the issue as a “weapon of mass distraction.”

    Mulcair is right here, but what exactly does he propose to tackle the oppressor? I do not think it is clear. So I agree with your last paragraph.

    The thing is that you cannot single out the niqab as the single argument to argue that the tories defend the women’s rights more than the other political parties. They are completely silent regarding the disappearance of and violence against indigenous women. The fragmentation-of-revenue tax policy (I do not remember how it is called in English) encourages women to work less or stay at home, because men usually have higher incomes. The presence of women in the CP cabinet is low. And the tories are far from promoting more generous daycare policies to encourage women to work when they have young children, and thus creating a society with true gender equality.

    Women’s rights go well beyond the niqab. The main Canadian political parties have all unsatisfactory records about the women’s rights. But Harper’s record is way worse than the others, in my view.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “The thing is that you cannot single out the niqab as the single argument to argue that the tories defend the women’s rights more than the other political parties.”

      • All of the other issues are pinpricks compared to the daily degradation women experience when they are forced to watch these horrible scenes. To me, this is THE issue because the suffering it causes to me personally is profound. Women talk about this a lot, and I mean A LOT, but mostly among ourselves because men don’t listen, don’t care, don’t understand, and feel bored with the issue.

      There is no reason for Mulcair not to get behind the fight against this degradation. No reason but what has got to be his indifference to the rights of women.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I agree with you, but you know how the liberals (not only the Liberal party, the liberals in general) think. The moment you disagree with women wearing niqabs (when voting or at any time) you are a bigot or an intolerant human being.

        Mulcair is paying the price for targeting the center and for hoping to gain some seats in Ontario. It will backfire because Ontarians are deeply conservative. It may even backfire in Quebec at some point, because the NDP will not look progressive enough for Québécois. I know many people who hesitate between the Bloc and the NDP precisely because of the niqab. Like the tories, the Bloc does not want women to cover the faces during the citizenship oath.

        So I will probably vote for Mulcair, with not much enthusiasm. And I used to be an enthusiastic NDP-voter.

        What a shitty country… The tories may want women to uncover their faces when voting or during the citizenship oath, but they do not give a shit about these women in public spaces wearing niqabs. They simply do not give a shit about women’s rights in general.

        Like

        Reply

  5. This is provincial politics, but still:

    You heard about the controversial sex-ed program in Ontario? The one about children learning parts of the human body in grade 1, and when homosexuality, concent, masturbation, or gender identity are discussed in elementary schools. Many parents (mostly immigrants) opt out their children from this mandatory course in the GTA because they are opposed to sex education. Children are pulled out from school because of that.

    And of course the Ontario conservative party is opposed to the sex ed.

    And obviously the Canadian conservative party would also be against it f they were asked, but the answer would be that this is provincial jurisdiction.

    Such an education is precisely an excellent way to obtain gender equality. Conservatives are against it.

    Dear friend. I know that the niqab is the issue for you, and that I am not a women and so I cannot speak as such, but I just cannot get over your post.

    Like

    Reply

  6. Correction: the sex ed program is not mandatory. Parents can opt out their children from it. And that sucks beyond belief. So again, we will have kids who will be sexually aware, responsible, and will probably have the tools to enjoy a great sexual life; and others who will be ashamed of their bodies, or raped, or pregnant. Great…

    Like

    Reply

    1. I believe that sex ed is a non-issue. In terms of information, a 3-year-old today can find all the information s/he needs. In terms of models of behavior, people will repeat whatever it is they saw between their parents with the single-mindedness of fanatics.

      I had no sex ed, obviously, or anything even remotely resembling it. And I don’t see how that had any impact. In this specific issue, we are all hostages of our family legacy and that pattern can only be broken, if needed, through long, patient, individual work with a qualified specialist.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes, but at least with the sex ed courses children may see a clash between what is said in public vs private. It may save them a couple of bucks on necessary yet long and painful sessions with a therapist.

        Like

        Reply

  9. The tories could have changed the rules way before the election. They did not. They did not want to. Now the return of the niqab during the election is good for the tories because the Bloc will eat some votes from the NDP in Quebec.

    I simply cannot believe that you do not see a sad political maneuver here. And I definitively cannot get over the fact that you think that the tories are the best at defending the women’s rights.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Of course, all politicians seek to score points and rise to power. That’s what they do, that’s normal. Nobody can expect them to do things out of the goodness of their hearts. Obviously, they exploit the issue because it’s helpful to them. Obviously, it’s a maneuver.

      But so what?

      The question is to which extent the politicians’ goals coincide with mine. I don’t expect honest, sincere, non-hypocritical do-goodiness from any politician. I don’t expect anybody to advance my goals because it’s the right thing to do. That would be beyond naive on my part. But if there is finally a political party that is trying to score points by exploiting an issue I care about, I’m ready to exploit that fact for my own uses.

      What do I care, for instance, if Bernie Sanders’s speech on reproductive rights comes from a profound personal conviction or is a response to the barrage of criticism that feminists have been subjecting him to? I don’t care if he’s manipulating or maneuvering. I care that he says whatever I need him to say. His real beliefs are of zero interest to me.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Everybody’s goal is to win. But this is a party that tries to win by addressing what I believe is the most crucial women’s rights issue today.

          Here’s a question, though. Why aren’t other parties using the same issue to advance their chances? If it’s so easy to attack the niqab and gain support, then why not just do it?

          Like

          Reply

          1. I am most unsatisfied with my answer, but here it is.

            I think it is more complicated than that. I think. Now that I live in Ontario (sigh) I can see that many liberal-minded people here think that being opposed to the niqab = being intolerant and fascist. So my guess is that in Ontario, if Trudeau liberals are against it then they may lose vote to Mulcair NDP, or vice-versa. The tories do not have this problem because their base is so stubbornly conservative that they will always vote conservative. You know, conservative people do not change their minds easily. Even obvious cases of corruption will not make change their minds about the party. The tories know that they have a solid base of 30% of votes in Canada. It is only a matter of picking an extra 5% to win a minority or even a majority government. The question is how and where.

            In Quebec it is slightly different, and here is the thing: the tories may gain some votes in Quebec on that issue, but that will not be enough to win more seats. It may be enough, however, to give more votes to the Bloc and thus making the NDP weeker, making them loosing seats to the bloc. The Bloc may earn more seats, the NDP less… and the tories win. That is my theory. I have not seen recent polls.

            Anyways, I am pretty much annoyed by the NDP ambiguity on that issue. Some NDP candidates in Quebec voiced openly their opposition to the niqab, yet at the end they must follow the party line. There is an obvious malaise regarding the niqab among NDP-voters and candidates in Quebec. I think.

            Like

            Reply

            1. So both sides are pandering but only one of them is pandering to me. 🙂

              I don’t vote in Canada because I don’t think it’s right if I’m not living there, so it’s not like I’m going to influence the outcome here. But these feelings are very present, especially in Quebec, and somebody needs to take them into account.

              Like

              Reply

  10. I promise I will try to stop bombarding you with posts on your (still unbelievable, in my view, support of Harper as a champion of women’s rights), but let me share with you a piece of yesterday debate in French:

    Trudeau: Mr. Harper, will you say at once whether you are pro-life or pro-choice?

    Harper: I do not want to open that debate. (And he never answered the question).

    I let you analyze why Harper never answered the question. So… good for you is this party panders to you.

    And lastly (or not?), if you were voting in Quebec you could vote for the bloc, a party which is clearly against the niqab and clearly defending women’s rights. Now that is a party that definitively takes you most important concern into account.
    !Je je je!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Harper has been in office for years and did nothing that I’m aware of to curtail abortion rights. Is there any reason to believe he’ll want to do that now?

      Like

      Reply

  11. Some tory deputies wanted to pass bills to restrict abortion rights. God knows what may happen if the conservatives win a majority. As for Harper, why was it so complicated for him to say “I am pro-life”? I guess that he wants to pander to his base, and perhaps even leaving a door open for god knows what.

    On abortion (and I did not know that, and I am outraged): abortion is not performed in PEI! There is still a huge stigma attached to abortion there. Doctors refuse to perform abortion. In Canada in 2015.

    Like

    Reply

  13. Harper has been extremely bad for science and education. Both in terms of funding and in terms of silencing federal scientists wiling to speak something uncomfortable for the conservatives. And a lot of money that is still in the system got redirected to programs that facilitate collaborations between science and industry. Meaning in effect that industry gets do decide what is worthy and what is not, and subsidizing private R&D with taxpayer’s money.
    I am not a fan of Trudeau, but I guess I am going to vote liberal. It is very unlikely that NDP will win in our area. Here people voted liberal since the dawn of times. 🙂 So to avoid electing a conservative it is better to vote liberal. Besides, I actually like our Liberal candidate. He is a good mayor. And one of the reasons I think he is a good mayor – he publicly opposed Bill 60.
    As for implementation of various progressive agendas – it is pretty sad if discussion on those issues gets derailed by labeling the opponents fascists and other non-constructive arguments. This obscures the real issue, IMHO. The issue of practicality. Can anyone name a case where progressive agenda was successfully forced upon the population that was not ready for it? How is liberating the women of Afghanistan going? As much as I am not trusting of religion in general and of any manifestations of religious fanaticism, I think that progressiveness cannot be imposed. It can only evolve naturally. I am very wary of progressives trying to further progressive agendas by forbidding, denying, etc. I do not trust people too eager to forbid and deny something to others, no matter what the justification. In fact, if the justification is allegedly “progressive”, it is doubly suspicious. Because it causes cognitive dissonance. Much more so than some conservatives trying to forbid something…

    Like

    Reply

    1. The last thing I ever wanted was to liberate these burqaed creatures. The only person I want liberated here is myself. I want my right not to be exposed to these spectacles of female degradation to be upheld.

      So yes, you are right, things have naturally evolved in a very tiny number of places to a degree where women consider themselves valid human beings and will support politicians who operate from this principle, as well. If we have managed to pass laws that forbid beating women or discriminating against women in the workplace, I see no problem with forbidding further instances of such discrimination. (Again, the woman discriminated against here is me. Nobody is trying to save the burqaed.)

      Are you opposed to laws that forbid housing discrimination of gays, for instance? I’m sure you do. Every legal system is based on a score of prohibitions. And the argument “but there are some blacks who enjoyed being house slaves” never really works, true is it might be.

      Like

      Reply

      1. —Are you opposed to laws that forbid housing discrimination of gays, for instance? I’m sure you do.

        ??? You mean I oppose the laws that forbid discrimination???… This must be a type, too many negatives, I can’t believe you think that of me. I oppose discrimination. Period. Discrimination of gays practicing living together, discrimination of people practicing their religion, etc.

        Yes, there are always some prohibitions, you are right. However, if you look at them carefully, you’ll notice that they are primarily based on preventing harm to someone, harm that is way beyond some witness being offended. Prohibitions primarily based on witnesses being offended are the domain of the Tea Party. But, as we all know, political continuum is not a line but a circle, so extreme progressives are not that different from the extreme right.
        Specifically, domestic violence is forbidden to prevent harm to the one being abused, and not to avoid offending well-meaning bystanders. (Although the latter is a welcome side effect.) If you have reasons to believe that the women in question are wearing niqabs/burqas as a result of domestic violence – there already are laws against the domestic violence. Do your civic duty and call the police. Report the abuse. I actually find this will be an interesting experiment and some useful precedents may be created. But as far as I know neither you nor some other progressive ever did that. I wonder why…

        Anyway, I encounter women in niqabs once in several months. There cannot be many of them. the fate of science is more important.

        Like

        Reply

    1. Oh, let’s be serious. Losing an accent is a great achievement (one that I never made), and people who do make it deserve to be praised. I always feel overjoyed when people say that I don’t have a Russian accent in my Spanish.

      Wouldn’t you notice and appreciate a recent immigrant who speaks really fantastic French?

      Like

      Reply

      1. I really do not care about accents. Comprehension matters first, and then grammar and vocabulary. And what the hell is an unaccented English accent?

        Like

        Reply

  15. Imagine what would have happened if the BQ, QS, or the PQ had praised an immigrant for his unaccented-French. Ohhhh… many federalists would be so outraged.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Well, Ol, context matters. If some political party is known to support a monolingual nation-state (which I fail to see as a progressive concept, by the way), and many supporters of these parties do not hesitate to let people not speaking the language or speaking it with an accent know that they are second-class citizens – this is one story. From them I would not accept any judgment with respect to my accent, negative or positive. Because I reject the very concept that informs their judgment and their compliments.
      If the person is known not to discriminate on the basis of language or accent, I will happily accept a compliment.

      Like

      Reply

      1. If it’s OK to praise a teenager to the skies for managing to move a clump of wires from one box to another, then it’s got to be OK to praise a kid for a really huge achievement of learning a foreign language.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Kid” implies that the one making a compliment is a “grown up”. Does not apply to people who are supposed to be equal. This is actually one of the things I detest about nation-states: the “owners of the land” position themselves as adults who can judge actions of “children” (minorities, immigrants, etc).

          Like

          Reply

          1. I might have misread the original story. I thought we were talking about a 12 – year-old child.

            Every group judges a newcomer. At work, in a neighborhood, among a group of friends. And the newcomer judges the group. I honestly don’t see a problem.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Ad I thought that we are talking about a Tory MP from Ol’s link…
              As about judging – yes, everybody judges, on a personal level. However, to the extent this propagates from private sphere into public/political one, it becomes a legitimate question – what informs the judgements and if it is actually some BS that has to be addressed as a matter of policy change, or protest, or something.

              Like

              Reply

      2. “If the person is known not to discriminate on the basis of language or accent, I will happily accept a compliment.”

        Which is far from true amongst many Anglophones.

        I see your point, however.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Anglophones, at least, never laughed into my face or ridiculed me for my accent. Francophones did. Which is why I stopped speaking French.

          I would have preferred compliments instead of that.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Nah… Your French, as far I could judge, is quite good.

            At the first sentence I heard you say was: I hate French! 🙂

            Like

            Reply

Leave a reply to valter07 Cancel reply