HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Canadian Politics - Part VI Pack Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-27-2013, 02:51 PM
  #101
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
Editorial is spot on. Mulcair is a coward.
Absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, NDP leader Tom Mulcair, consistent with his overall pattern of running scared from anything that might offend the lowest common denominator of Quebec public opinion, has refused to denounce Ms. Marois’ initiative. He broke his silence on the issue on Monday — but only to claim that the whole matter is moot, since the new law would be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That’s an extraordinarily silly thing to say given that Ms. Marois would be only too pleased to trash the Charter if things came to that.
And the Harper government is no better.
As for the federal Conservatives, they have been completely mute — except for a vague tweet last week from Jason Kenney. “It’s a debate that will occur at the provincial level,” was all the Prime Minister’s Office would say. Meanwhile, Andrew Bennett, appointed as Canada’s first “ambassador of religious freedom” by the Conservatives amid much fanfare, refused to comment — because he has eyes only for threats to religious freedom that take place outside Canada’s borders. So, if a law such as Ms. Marois’ were being enacted in, say, Rhode Island, his office would be all over it. In Quebec? Not so much.

This is becoming a farce. Both the NDP and Conservatives trumpet their concern for human rights. Yet here we have a clear case of a xenophobic provincial government trying to restrict the religious freedom of Canadian citizens, and the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition both do nothing but hum and haw. It is a pathetic display of political cowardice, and one that voters should remember, come the next election, when both men sing their well-rehearsed odes to “Canadian values.”
On this one I give thumbs up to Justin Trudeau and Charles Taylor:
In the face of this demagoguery, it is heartening to see some prominent figures criticizing the idea. That includes federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who suggested people were “laugh[ing] at Quebecers,” and renowned philosopher Charles Taylor, who called Ms. Marois’ plan “Putinesque.”

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
08-27-2013, 04:35 PM
  #102
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
I don't get why the Tories aren't speaking out about this, are those handful of seats in Quebec really that important to them?

Concordski is offline  
Old
08-27-2013, 04:44 PM
  #103
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
I don't get why the Tories aren't speaking out about this, are those handful of seats in Quebec really that important to them?
The problem for the CPC is that they have banned face coverings (including the burqa or hijab) in the past.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...hip-rules.html

That blanket policy seems contrary to the 20 December 2012 SCOC decision in the case of R. v. N.S., 2012 SCC 72, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726.
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc...lxYWIAAAAAAAAB
In its 4-3 decision, the court said there are times when even a significant religious belief must bow to other social and legal concerns.

“An extreme approach that would always require the witness to remove her niqab while testifying, or one that would never do so, is untenable,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said, writing on behalf of several of the judges in the majority.

“The answer lies in a just and proportionate balance between freedom of religion and trial fairness, based on the particular case before the court,” she said. “A witness who for sincere religious reasons wishes to wear the niqab while testifying in a criminal proceeding will be required to remove it if (a) this is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the fairness of the trial, because reasonably available alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and (b) the salutary effects of requiring her to remove the niqab outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so.”
...
“However, never permitting a witness to testify wearing a niqab would not comport with the fundamental premise underlying the Charter that rights should be limited only to the extent that the limits are shown to be justifiable,” she added. “The need to accommodate and balance sincerely held religious beliefs against other interests is deeply entrenched in Canadian law.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...8243/?page=all


Last edited by Wetcoaster: 08-27-2013 at 04:53 PM.
Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
08-27-2013, 07:24 PM
  #104
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
No court stay for implementation of the Canada-China Foreign Investment and Protection Agreement (FIPA). A challenge from a BC First Nations band has been dismissed by the Federal Court. here is the full decsion:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca...asath%20En.pdf

The decision seems sound.

The Harper government has concluded or brought into force FIPAs with 14 countries since 2006, and is actively negotiating with 12 others. Currently, Canada has 24 FIPAs in force with countries including Russia, Argentina and the Czech Republic.

The Harper government's strong focus on Asia is to diversify our economy so that if our biggest trading partner, the US sneezes Canada does not come down with a cold but only a case of the sniffles.
The Federal Court has dismissed an application by an aboriginal band in British Columbia to stay the Canada-China investment treaty until First Nations have been consulted.

The court ruled Tuesday that the Hupacasath First Nation, which has about 300 members located near Port Alberni, B.C., has not demonstrated how the agreement signed last September will result in real damages to Aboriginal rights.

In its ruling, the court said any potential adverse impacts are non-appreciable and speculative in nature, adding that the Hupacasath had not demonstrated a causal link between the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection treaty with China and the alleged impacts.

As well, the court said it had the same view on any potential impacts the treaty may have on the band's self-government rights.

"Therefore, the ratification of the (FIPA) by the Government of Canada without engaging in consultations... would not contravene the principle of the honour of the Crown or Canada's duty to consult... before taking any action that may adversely impact upon its asserted Aboriginal rights," said the ruling.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-decision.html

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
08-27-2013, 08:28 PM
  #105
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
I had this discussion almost a decade ago during a previous 'Muslim scarves' flap. This (Muslim) friend at work comes from French North Africa, educated in France, and she defended the state banning of scarves and other religious emblems. She explained the French historical perspective, she agreed with it and she told me I was thinking like a typical Canadian (she understood where I was coming from but disagreed). Anyway, the Quebec thinking parallels that in France, separation of state and religion on steroids (as a consequence of the French Revolution). So Quebec is copycatting French law and thinking, even though I am sure their very catholic ancestors would disagree (resistance to taking down crucifix in schools). The only reason the crucifix remains in l'Assemblee Generale is that it's regarded as a cultural heritage symbol.
The law of the laicite is extremely important in French culture, as you said due to its history. This law was passed in 1905, long before there was any mass immigration of muslims or sikhs/hindus to France.

What people fail to understand is that this is not a racist law. It's an anti-religiosity law, and is applied uniformly to everyone. Therefore to call it racist is ludicrous on the face of it. What people often fail to understand is that it is only applicable to state buildings (ministries, city halls, and so forth, but most notably public schools). It does NOT mean that people are not allowed to wear religious symbols on the street.

As for its application in Quebec, I don't see the point. Quebec does not share its history with France, so it's a little ridiculous to adopt the same principles. I agree with the premise of the law (religion and state should be very firmly separated one from the other), but not with the way it's being applied.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
08-27-2013, 08:53 PM
  #106
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
The law of the laicite is extremely important in French culture, as you said due to its history. This law was passed in 1905, long before there was any mass immigration of muslims or sikhs/hindus to France.

What people fail to understand is that this is not a racist law. It's an anti-religiosity law, and is applied uniformly to everyone. Therefore to call it racist is ludicrous on the face of it. What people often fail to understand is that it is only applicable to state buildings (ministries, city halls, and so forth, but most notably public schools). It does NOT mean that people are not allowed to wear religious symbols on the street.

As for its application in Quebec, I don't see the point. Quebec does not share its history with France, so it's a little ridiculous to adopt the same principles. I agree with the premise of the law (religion and state should be very firmly separated one from the other), but not with the way it's being applied.
Wait, so people who are observant enough to the point of wearing religious symbols essentially can't be employed to public service. You don't see anything wrong with that?

Concordski is offline  
Old
08-27-2013, 11:06 PM
  #107
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
Wait, so people who are observant enough to the point of wearing religious symbols essentially can't be employed to public service. You don't see anything wrong with that?
There's no problem if it's discreet, obviously. But again, it doesn't mean they can't be a teacher - there are plenty of private schools in France where the law doesn't apply.

Again, keep in mind that we're talking about a state that for centuries has acted as a proponent of a particular religion, in this case catholicism, and has engaged in multiple massacres against religious minorities (look up the albigensian crusade, the st bartholomew massacre, or the vendee massacre). It may seem odd for a North American, but even those events took place centuries ago, they had a profound effect on French society, and has led to a very stark belief that the government and the religious institutions should have no influence towards each other. This is merely the application of this belief.

However, since neither Quebec nor Canada has a whole have such a terrible history in its treatment of religious minorities, I wouldn't consider it applicable.

If you want to read more on this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%A...cal_secularism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...nterpretations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...urch_and_state

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 12:43 AM
  #108
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
The law of the laicite is extremely important in French culture, as you said due to its history. This law was passed in 1905, long before there was any mass immigration of muslims or sikhs/hindus to France.

What people fail to understand is that this is not a racist law. It's an anti-religiosity law, and is applied uniformly to everyone. Therefore to call it racist is ludicrous on the face of it. What people often fail to understand is that it is only applicable to state buildings (ministries, city halls, and so forth, but most notably public schools). It does NOT mean that people are not allowed to wear religious symbols on the street.

As for its application in Quebec, I don't see the point. Quebec does not share its history with France, so it's a little ridiculous to adopt the same principles. I agree with the premise of the law (religion and state should be very firmly separated one from the other), but not with the way it's being applied.
I agree. I wouldn't be for the PQ proposal if I was living in Quebec. As a Catholic I think I'd be more along the Charles Taylor view. Merely pointing out to the agnostics on the board that they might actually be ideologically in tune with the PQ thinking if they could get by their first instinct to bash the PQ on everything.

Puck is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 07:00 AM
  #109
Transplanted Caper
Registered User
 
Transplanted Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet Underbelly
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,692
vCash: 500
Banning religious symbols on the person is akin to banning people from wearing hockey jerseys, pride pins, or a wedding ring. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with how individuals choose to self-identify. Since it's religion more people are willing to get aboard (I'm entirely unreligious, but see this as a case of infringing on freedom of expression). Can you imagine the outrage if the federal government banned people from wearing anything on their person with the Fleur-de-Lis on it?

Transplanted Caper is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 07:43 AM
  #110
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper View Post
Banning religious symbols on the person is akin to banning people from wearing hockey jerseys, pride pins, or a wedding ring. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with how individuals choose to self-identify. Since it's religion more people are willing to get aboard (I'm entirely unreligious, but see this as a case of infringing on freedom of expression). Can you imagine the outrage if the federal government banned people from wearing anything on their person with the Fleur-de-Lis on it?
My sentiment exactly.

Gobias Industries is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 08:00 AM
  #111
Fire Everyone
Especially you
 
Fire Everyone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Moreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper View Post
Can you imagine the outrage if the federal government banned people from wearing anything on their person with the Fleur-de-Lis on it?
To be consistent, they would also have to ban anyone from wearing anything with a maple leaf on it, with stars on it, etc.

Fire Everyone is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 08:14 AM
  #112
Vyacheslav
Pro
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dat mitten
Country: United States
Posts: 16,118
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
There's no problem if it's discreet, obviously. But again, it doesn't mean they can't be a teacher - there are plenty of private schools in France where the law doesn't apply.

Again, keep in mind that we're talking about a state that for centuries has acted as a proponent of a particular religion, in this case catholicism, and has engaged in multiple massacres against religious minorities (look up the albigensian crusade, the st bartholomew massacre, or the vendee massacre). It may seem odd for a North American, but even those events took place centuries ago, they had a profound effect on French society, and has led to a very stark belief that the government and the religious institutions should have no influence towards each other. This is merely the application of this belief.

However, since neither Quebec nor Canada has a whole have such a terrible history in its treatment of religious minorities, I wouldn't consider it applicable.

If you want to read more on this issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%A...cal_secularism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...nterpretations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_...urch_and_state
Please feel free to critique what I'm about to say, as I do not have a lot of knowledge about the similarities and differences between the French and the Quebecois. But I don't see how you can say that stuff has no influence on the people in Quebec, that stuff happened before the French speaking people in Quebec left France. How were they not also affected by it?

Maybe it's just different for English speaking peoples, but I do feel a bit of a connection to the rest of the English speaking world, and I think English history has had a profound influence on America even though we broke away from the English a long time ago. It seems like French people want to pretend that Quebec doesn't exist, and they're not real French speakers. I just want to understand where that comes from. Quebec didn't decide to join up with the British, they were a casualty of war.

Vyacheslav is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 08:41 AM
  #113
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper View Post
Banning religious symbols on the person is akin to banning people from wearing hockey jerseys, pride pins, or a wedding ring. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with how individuals choose to self-identify. Since it's religion more people are willing to get aboard (I'm entirely unreligious, but see this as a case of infringing on freedom of expression). Can you imagine the outrage if the federal government banned people from wearing anything on their person with the Fleur-de-Lis on it?
Yes but first, the fleur-de-lis is a political/cultural symbol, not religious. It is something akin to the debate of prayer in public schools, eliminating separate schools, or religious themes at Christmas, Sikh knives in school etc., many here would be for against. If the narrative here didn't start with PQ, some here would be cheering secularism on. Just remember that in another setting. Just sayin'.

Puck is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 08:43 AM
  #114
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Yes but first, the fleur-de-lis is a political/cultural symbol, not religious. It is something akin to the debate of prayer in public schools, or religious themes at Christmas, Sikh knives in school etc., many here would be for against. If the narrative here didn't start with PQ, some here would be cheering secularism on. Just remember that in another setting. Just sayin'.
I feel in no way influenced by who started the narrative.

Gobias Industries is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 08:59 AM
  #115
Not The One
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montréal, Qc.
Posts: 1,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Please feel free to critique what I'm about to say, as I do not have a lot of knowledge about the similarities and differences between the French and the Quebecois. But I don't see how you can say that stuff has no influence on the people in Quebec, that stuff happened before the French speaking people in Quebec left France. How were they not also affected by it?

Maybe it's just different for English speaking peoples, but I do feel a bit of a connection to the rest of the English speaking world, and I think English history has had a profound influence on America even though we broke away from the English a long time ago. It seems like French people want to pretend that Quebec doesn't exist, and they're not real French speakers. I just want to understand where that comes from. Quebec didn't decide to join up with the British, they were a casualty of war.
Any shared sentimental or historical significance of the religious strife in France prior to 1763 is absolutely inconsequential compared to the hundreds of years of Catholic power and influence over the daily lives of french canadians in Québec since then.

The Roman Catholic Church and Quebec

Jean Lesage and the Quiet Revolution (1960-1966)

Education in Québec, before and after the Parent reform

Not The One is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 09:22 AM
  #116
Transplanted Caper
Registered User
 
Transplanted Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet Underbelly
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Yes but first, the fleur-de-lis is a political/cultural symbol, not religious. It is something akin to the debate of prayer in public schools, eliminating separate schools, or religious themes at Christmas, Sikh knives in school etc., many here would be for against. If the narrative here didn't start with PQ, some here would be cheering secularism on. Just remember that in another setting. Just sayin'.
I think there's still a distinction between what one wears on their person, and what we should allow the public school system to teach/impose on students. In my view, for the purposes of freedom of expression, that it's a religious symbol versus a cultural one is immaterial. If a public school has a picture of the Pope over the front door, that's different than an individual in the school wearing a crucifix.

Transplanted Caper is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 09:37 AM
  #117
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Please feel free to critique what I'm about to say, as I do not have a lot of knowledge about the similarities and differences between the French and the Quebecois. But I don't see how you can say that stuff has no influence on the people in Quebec, that stuff happened before the French speaking people in Quebec left France. How were they not also affected by it?

Maybe it's just different for English speaking peoples, but I do feel a bit of a connection to the rest of the English speaking world, and I think English history has had a profound influence on America even though we broke away from the English a long time ago. It seems like French people want to pretend that Quebec doesn't exist, and they're not real French speakers. I just want to understand where that comes from. Quebec didn't decide to join up with the British, they were a casualty of war.
First of all, I don't think you recognize the extent of cultural difference there is between the US and the UK. For example, the notion of social class is far more historically imposed in the UK culture than it is in the US. This is a direct consequence of the two countries' history, and even though many Americans are descended from Brits, the UK culture has been expunged and replaced.

The same is true between Quebec and France. While many Quebecers are descendants of France, most came from very specific regions or socio-demographic backgrounds - this is noticeable in the surnames that are common in Quebec but are quite rare in France. The name Lemieux is a good example.

Those who decided to emigrate to the Americas (because of course, there is also Acadia, Louisiana, and other pockets like Manitoba to consider) did so to escape poverty or persecution. They wanted to let go of their history and create a new one on the other side of the Atlantic. This is why I wouldn't consider French history to be applicable to Quebecers, even if referring to events prior to the emigration.

*Injektilo is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 10:15 AM
  #118
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,180
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transplanted Caper View Post
I think there's still a distinction between what one wears on their person, and what we should allow the public school system to teach/impose on students. In my view, for the purposes of freedom of expression, that it's a religious symbol versus a cultural one is immaterial. If a public school has a picture of the Pope over the front door, that's different than an individual in the school wearing a crucifix.
I think rights change incrementally over time. Recently we've seen a regressive change in the communications front on the basis of security. And yet people defend it. People don't think the same way pre-9/11 as post 9/11. Just say terrorism or pedophilia (Toews narrative) and people change frequencies. Debates are always ongoing. Society has also seen huge changes on the religious dimension; many things thought inconceivable in 1950 and wouldn't pass then are acceptable today and considered progress. I'm not challenging you TC, I agree (I also disagreed with the French regulations a decade ago). I'm just saying that if this discussion was framed using other narratives, you'd be getting different responses. BTW, my workplace friend that defended the French law so vehemently a decade ago is now wearing a scarf (I know she is a secular Muslim (and drinks wine) so the protest is political; I have avoided asking her so far, with great diffficulty, it might come across as an I-told-you-so).

People change. Societies change. Rights change and religious Commandments change (at least their interpretation).

Puck is offline  
Old
08-28-2013, 05:52 PM
  #119
Vyacheslav
Pro
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dat mitten
Country: United States
Posts: 16,118
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
First of all, I don't think you recognize the extent of cultural difference there is between the US and the UK. For example, the notion of social class is far more historically imposed in the UK culture than it is in the US. This is a direct consequence of the two countries' history, and even though many Americans are descended from Brits, the UK culture has been expunged and replaced.

The same is true between Quebec and France. While many Quebecers are descendants of France, most came from very specific regions or socio-demographic backgrounds - this is noticeable in the surnames that are common in Quebec but are quite rare in France. The name Lemieux is a good example.

Those who decided to emigrate to the Americas (because of course, there is also Acadia, Louisiana, and other pockets like Manitoba to consider) did so to escape poverty or persecution. They wanted to let go of their history and create a new one on the other side of the Atlantic. This is why I wouldn't consider French history to be applicable to Quebecers, even if referring to events prior to the emigration.
Thanks for the insight. I certainly didn't mean to imply that there aren't cultural differences between Britain and American, but just that I feel some kind of kinship with them.

Vyacheslav is offline  
Old
08-29-2013, 03:53 PM
  #120
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
The name rhymes with Gob Pickleson.
Hey I think that may well be Defence Minster Rob Nicholson.
Another federal politician is moving to distance himself from a conference taking place next month organized by a fringe religious group accused of anti-Semitism.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's name appears several times in a brochure, letter and news release for the "Path to Peace" forum being put on in his riding by a southern Ontario group called the Fatima Centre.

His communications director, however, said Wednesday that Nicholson never intended to participate, never agreed to lend his name to the event and will seek to have it removed.

On Monday, CBC News reported that Senator Roméo Dallaire had been booked to speak at the event without realizing who was behind it, and pulled out when his staff were alerted to the background of the Fatima Centre and some of the other conference speakers.

The conference has come under fire from a U.S. non-profit that campaigns against organizations it deems to be hate groups. On its website, the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center calls the Path to Peace symposium an "anti-Semitic conference" and says the Fatima Centre is "part of the 'radical traditionalist Catholic' movement, perhaps the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in North America."
...
The Fatima Centre had stated in literature for its conference that Nicholson and several legislators from various U.S. states "have already announced that they will attend."

A separate press release said, "We have already received the endorsement of the Minister of Defence for Canada, the Hon. Rob Nicholson."

But Nicholson's communications director, Genevieve Breton, said in emails to CBC News that the minister "was never scheduled to attend this event."

"No indication was ever given to the conference organizers that the minister would participate," she said. "The minister never endorsed this conference and we never agreed to have his name referenced in literature," she added. "We will be taking steps to have his name removed."
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/d...c-conference-1

As the CBC notes there are some far right extremists and conspiracy wingnuts featured:
Conspiracy theorists, extremists

Speakers named in the schedule for the conference next month in Niagara Falls include the president of the U.S.-based John Birch Society, a right-wing American group that campaigns against the U.S. Federal Reserve, says the UN is trying to control "all human activity" and claims Nelson Mandela is "carrying forward a communist program of terrorism and genocide."

Others listed in the program are a pair of Italian politicians from radical right-wing movements.

One, Mario Borghezio, belongs to a party striving to preserve Italy's "Christian culture," and said earlier this year that Italy's first black cabinet minister "wants to impose her tribal conditions from the Congo." He later apologized. British and Italian newspapers have reported he was convicted of arson for his role in a 2001 incident where some people set fire to a makeshift camp set up by immigrants living beneath a Turin bridge.

The other, Roberto Fiore, co-founded Italy's extremist Forza Nuova party, which has campaigned for the expulsion of immigrants and has been widely characterized as neo-fascist. The European press has reported he was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to nine years in prison (commuted on appeal to 5½) for his ties to a political faction associated with a fascist militant group.

The Fatima Centre recently posted a statement online saying that "Mr. Fiore is concerned about the loss of national identity in Italy and other European countries as a result of the influx of immigrants from Islamic nations. There is nothing uncharitable about loving one's heritage and desiring to preserve and protect it." It has since been taken down, and Fiore has pulled out of the conference, Graham said.

The conference's website and brochures state its keynote speaker is Ron Paul, the former U.S. congressman and three-time candidate for president. Photos of Paul and Senator Dallaire featured in ads for the conference on the internet and on a billboard near the Peace Bridge to the U.S. The Fatima Centre is now rejigging those ads to remove Dallaire.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-dallaire.html

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
08-29-2013, 04:00 PM
  #121
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Hey I think that may well be Defence Minster Rob Nicholson.
Another federal politician is moving to distance himself from a conference taking place next month organized by a fringe religious group accused of anti-Semitism.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's name appears several times in a brochure, letter and news release for the "Path to Peace" forum being put on in his riding by a southern Ontario group called the Fatima Centre.

His communications director, however, said Wednesday that Nicholson never intended to participate, never agreed to lend his name to the event and will seek to have it removed.

On Monday, CBC News reported that Senator Roméo Dallaire had been booked to speak at the event without realizing who was behind it, and pulled out when his staff were alerted to the background of the Fatima Centre and some of the other conference speakers.

The conference has come under fire from a U.S. non-profit that campaigns against organizations it deems to be hate groups. On its website, the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center calls the Path to Peace symposium an "anti-Semitic conference" and says the Fatima Centre is "part of the 'radical traditionalist Catholic' movement, perhaps the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in North America."
...
The Fatima Centre had stated in literature for its conference that Nicholson and several legislators from various U.S. states "have already announced that they will attend."

A separate press release said, "We have already received the endorsement of the Minister of Defence for Canada, the Hon. Rob Nicholson."

But Nicholson's communications director, Genevieve Breton, said in emails to CBC News that the minister "was never scheduled to attend this event."

"No indication was ever given to the conference organizers that the minister would participate," she said. "The minister never endorsed this conference and we never agreed to have his name referenced in literature," she added. "We will be taking steps to have his name removed."
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/d...c-conference-1

As the CBC notes there are some far right extremists and conspiracy wingnuts featured:
Conspiracy theorists, extremists

Speakers named in the schedule for the conference next month in Niagara Falls include the president of the U.S.-based John Birch Society, a right-wing American group that campaigns against the U.S. Federal Reserve, says the UN is trying to control "all human activity" and claims Nelson Mandela is "carrying forward a communist program of terrorism and genocide."

Others listed in the program are a pair of Italian politicians from radical right-wing movements.

One, Mario Borghezio, belongs to a party striving to preserve Italy's "Christian culture," and said earlier this year that Italy's first black cabinet minister "wants to impose her tribal conditions from the Congo." He later apologized. British and Italian newspapers have reported he was convicted of arson for his role in a 2001 incident where some people set fire to a makeshift camp set up by immigrants living beneath a Turin bridge.

The other, Roberto Fiore, co-founded Italy's extremist Forza Nuova party, which has campaigned for the expulsion of immigrants and has been widely characterized as neo-fascist. The European press has reported he was convicted in 1985 and sentenced to nine years in prison (commuted on appeal to 5½) for his ties to a political faction associated with a fascist militant group.

The Fatima Centre recently posted a statement online saying that "Mr. Fiore is concerned about the loss of national identity in Italy and other European countries as a result of the influx of immigrants from Islamic nations. There is nothing uncharitable about loving one's heritage and desiring to preserve and protect it." It has since been taken down, and Fiore has pulled out of the conference, Graham said.

The conference's website and brochures state its keynote speaker is Ron Paul, the former U.S. congressman and three-time candidate for president. Photos of Paul and Senator Dallaire featured in ads for the conference on the internet and on a billboard near the Peace Bridge to the U.S. The Fatima Centre is now rejigging those ads to remove Dallaire.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...-dallaire.html
Holy ****, I'm a reputable source now.

And they call Harper a friend of the Jewish Community.


Last edited by Concordski: 08-29-2013 at 04:07 PM.
Concordski is offline  
Old
08-29-2013, 04:07 PM
  #122
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
Holy ****, I'm a reputable source now.
Well a source in any event.

BTW I alerted a news editor I know at CBC after your post - I am not sure if that was the impetus for the investigation or if it came from elsewhere.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
08-29-2013, 04:18 PM
  #123
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
PM Harper has announced that sex crimes against children will see increased penalties in legislation to be introduced this fall.

This announcement follows remarks earlier this year in February from former Justice Minister Rob Nicholson who said amendments were being reviewed by his department.
The Conservative government will bring in stronger penalties for people who commit sexual offences against children, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said today in Toronto.
...
Justice Minister Peter MacKay was with Harper to make the announcement, pledging to offer help to victims and their families.

The new measures being proposed would:
  • Require those convicted of child pornography and related offences to serve their sentences consecutively. A press release from Harper's office notes that would "apply particularly to offenders who have victimized multiple children."
  • Increase maximum and minimum penalties for child sexual offences.
  • Increase penalties for violation of conditions of supervision orders.
  • Ensure that if a crime was committed while on parole or statutory release, it would be a mandatory factor to be considered in sentencing.
  • Ensure that the spouse of a person charged with child pornography offences could be obliged to testify in court.

"I cannot even begin to comprehend why those who sexually prey on children do the heinous things they do," Harper said, noting there are "truly evil people out there."

"We don't understand them and we don't particularly care to. We understand only that they must be dealt with. We must deal with them to protect our children."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...questions.html

Here is the press release from the PMO:
PM announces plan to toughen laws against those who exploit children

29 August 2013
Toronto, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the Government’s plan to introduce comprehensive legislation that will better protect children against sexual exploitation. The Prime Minister was joined by Peter MacKay, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs.

“Our Government continues to help make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on predators who abuse and exploit children,” said the Prime Minister. “New legislative amendments will be introduced this fall to better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while ensuring that offenders receive tougher sentences.”

The proposed amendments to Canadian legislation would:
  • Increase penalties for offenders who commit sexual offences against children, especially those who violate the conditions included in probation orders, prohibition orders and peace bonds; and,
  • Ensure that sentencing takes into account each young life that has been devastated by a predator through ending sentence discounts for multiple child sexual offences.

This announcement is part of a broad range of actions our Government has taken since 2006 to protect communities from child sexual offenders, punish offenders to the full extent of the law, hold violent criminals accountable, enhance the rights of victims, and increase the efficiency of our justice system.
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=5639

I have a deep and abiding antipathy for any person who sexually abuses or exploits children.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
08-29-2013, 04:26 PM
  #124
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 8,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Well a source in any event.

BTW I alerted a news editor I know at CBC after your post - I am not sure if that was the impetus for the investigation or if it came from elsewhere.
I can't imagine, every politician in Ottawa must have received that letter.

Concordski is offline  
Old
08-29-2013, 04:43 PM
  #125
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
And truly scary news... Justin Trudeau is trying to recruit Vancouver Mayor Moonbeam (aka Gregor Robertson) to run federally for the Liberals. Moonbeam is a former BC NDP MLA.

He would be a welcome addition for Justin because Moonbeam also has a habit of silly statements and ill-thought out policies.


Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has made a pitch to Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson to jump to national politics and run for the federal Liberals in 2015.

That’s the word from sources at Vancouver City Hall, where the mayor last met with Trudeau in June.

The political courting makes sense when you consider Vancouver will get an extra riding in the election and the redrawn boundaries are not favourable to the Liberals.

Trudeau could use Robertson’s profile and popularity to maintain the Liberals’ presence in the city.

Consider also the existing links between Robertson’s Vision Vancouver party and the federal Libs — from Vision-mayor-turned-Liberal-senator Larry Campbell, to Vision councillor Raymond Louie’s support for former Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh.

Robertson and Trudeau are on the same page on marijuana legalization and other issues.

But Robertson’s official position, always carefully worded, is that he intends to run for a third term as Vancouver mayor in 2014.

Asked if he had any interest in federal politics, Robertson told The Georgia Straight last month: “Not presently.”

Robertson has also said he’s not interested in the provincial NDP leadership, currently held by Adrian Dix.
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Mich...103/story.html

Wetcoaster is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.