Intention - Reaction - Result

Consultant Julie Lalonde suggests on Twitter:

The woman in question does not identify as a victim, did not call it sexual assault and wanted to be left alone.  

The media and partisan pundits hounded her, gave away private info and forced her to go public.

That is what is setting women back.

All due respect for her expertise as an activist and public educator, I disagree.

In an interview with CBC's The House, Ms Lalonde says (to paraphrase) she approves of Justin Trudeau's statements regarding the incident, because by giving the space between intent and impact, he has acknowledged that people can experience things in ways that were not intended and that's an important aspect of this conversation.

And I totally agree. There are lots of times when people offend without meaning to. All of us have said and done things that were taken in a manner that was unexpected and perhaps the negative reaction of the other person has caught us off guard.

But Justin Trudeau created more than *space*... he created doubt. Everything he said and how he said it rang of denial. "I'm confident I did nothing wrong" is a denial. Adding afterwards that the woman is entitled to her own version of events is hardly a validation of her feelings, it's a dismissal them. It's minimizing the *impact* and magnifying the *intent*. It goes to self-preservation, not self-reflection.

No doubt Ms. Lalonde's seminars were intended to have people reflect on their actions. Justin Trudeau has done that, and found himself faultless. The only explanation when the accused says: "I am confident I have done nothing inappropriate" is that either the accuser is lying or delusional. He has left no room for the possibility he might have done something inappropriate. He is confident he did not. Therefore, it is not his memory or his actions that are suspect, but the woman's perception.

On Twitter, Ms. Lalonde suggests that the media and pundits pushed the woman to relinquish her request for privacy and come forward with a statement.

How does she not see the PMO's initial statement that the PM *recalled no negative interactions that day* as being the main factor that has kept this issue at the fore these several weeks?

How does she not see that the Prime Minister's responses to questions have been so tone-deaf, so insulting and demeaning to the *impact* the event had on the woman, that those responses have fanned the current firestorm around the issue?

Justin Trudeau is to blame for the woman having to come forward to make a statement.

Despite contacting her to verify, as is their job, media respected her privacy and did not report her name.

The media received corroboration of the woman's version of events from the two editors she reported the incident to at the time.

The media was in no doubt the incident happened, naming her or interviewing her were not important anymore. What finally drew her out into the public was Justin Trudeau's repeated denials (I am confident I did not act inappropriately) (even after the editorial came out, I did not know to what she was referring) and his *ifpology* (variously admitting to apologizing and then qualifying it - If I apologized, it would have been because I knew she was uncomfortable -- even though he wasn't sure why).

Only after Justin Trudeau put doubt to her word, did the woman feel the need to make a statement to defend her honour and integrity in having reported the incident at all. It is Justin Trudeau who disrespected the woman initially, and through his words, goaded her into the spotlight.

The media did their job -- their questions to him were never about her. They were about the double standard he is applying to himself as opposed to the members of his party who have been brutally disciplined for lesser issues. He's barely been asked what he did or what he remembers about the incident at all.... he's been asked about his handling of it since it resurfaced... and he has reflected on himself and come up pristine.

The blame in all of this needs to be put where it belongs. Not with Warren Kinsella. Not with the media who picked up on it and asked questions. Not with the public as we try to square the Prime Minister's feminist rhetoric with his anti-woman actions. This all comes down to Justin Trudeau. Period. To suggest otherwise is to give him a pass on something that initially, was a minor issue that might have gone away if he'd accepted responsibility.

Having listened to Ms. Lalonde on The House, I suspect that she cannot put the blame on Mr. Trudeau, because he was simply parroting platitudes from her seminar. We know he has trouble thinking for himself, but he can memorize a line. Her interview contained a lot of the stock phrases he's been coming out with. I don't believe Ms. Lalonde's intent was ever to minimize the impact of any incident on the woman, but rather to enlighten men that they must be careful how they interact with women in order not to be perceived in an inappropriate way. Instead, Mr. Trudeau has taken it as a means to vindicate himself and imply over-reaction on the part of the woman. Not Ms. Lalonde's intent, but the impact is disrespectful to the woman, and the consequence is that she was forced to come forward again to defend her original statement.

Perhaps the people excusing the PM and blaming the media have forgotten that the editorial wasn't a response to being groped, but to being disrespected. It was written on the heels of the sketchy *ifpology*. It's intent was not to expose him for *handling* her, but to expose his lack of manners in the way he apologized, given the privilege of his upbringing. 

Everything the Prime Minister has said on this issue from June onward has been a continuation of the contempt and disrespect he showed this woman eighteen years ago. Blame the media for pursuing the issue if you want, but it could have been over with the words, *I concede I might have done something that could be taken as inappropriate, and I'm sorry*. Instead, all we hear is that he's confident he did nothing wrong. When the media told him she had no desire to speak about the issue again, he felt sure he could say whatever he wanted. His statements practically dared her to come forward to set the record straight.

THAT is what's setting women back.

canadianna

Trudeau's shameful lack of respect

If you read the original editorial about the groping incident, the writer is as incensed with the apology as she was with the actual incident. The man apologized --- why did the woman still write the editorial? Why wasn't she over it? Because the apology disrespected her as much as the touch did.

And he's still doing it.

The fact that in apologizing, Trudeau felt the need to let her know that her status as a national reporter would have prevented his *alleged* lechery, is disrespectful to ALL woman, not just the woman he touched. Any woman should be able to live and work without having do deal with some lout's hand on her, and Mr. Trudeau's apology showed that he didn't get it. He still doesn't.

The incident itself has become secondary to Prime Minister Trudeau's dismissal of the woman's reaction. In his interview on CBC Morning, he's still saying *if* I apologized (because apparently he's still not sure sometimes) (questions about it start around 9:12). In an interview with CP24 he even says:

Who knows where her mind was?

Seriously Mr. Prime Minister? What is that meant to imply? What else could have been going on in her head except what she wrote in that editorial? That you have no manners.

First you disrespected her by touching her. Then you disrespected her with some back-handed apology, and now, eighteen years later, you disrespect her yet again, minimizing her experience by repeatedly denying it happened but giving her permission to see things differently from you. Your inability to even concede that you MIGHT have been inappropriate forced her out of privacy to defend her integrity in having brought this incident to light in the first place.

As a feminist, you should be ashamed of what you have put his woman through, when you could simply have said, I accept that I might have behaved in an inappropriate manner. But you are so smug, so arrogant, you cannot see your way to yielding even a bit. No grace. No class and certainly no regard for the feelings of the woman.

The Prime Minister's obtuse ramblings, and his attempts to school the rest of us are just unbelievable. I am not a 'believe the women' woman. I believe every situation deserves to be viewed on its own merit. The fact that Mr. Trudeau is a 'believe the women' advocate -- except now -- is telling.

In this particular case, even if nothing happened -- the Prime Minister's condescension is disrespectful attitude toward the woman, and toward ALL women in his *ifpology* and his disrespect of the men he unceremoniously tossed from their jobs for lesser alleged transgressions is galling.

To use a line from his own phrase book, Prime Minster Justin Trudeau is a sanctimonious *piece of shit*.

Two days ago I could have given him a pass if he'd managed to own up in any way. There is nothing he could say now that would make me think any differently.

And before anyone starts suggesting this is partisan, I've stayed pretty quiet lately and the couple of times I've mentioned Trudeau on this blog, I've defended him. This isn't about Liberal or Conservative because I hold no party affiliation --- this is entirely about a smug, entitled, privileged man who has never had to face the consequences of his stupidity.

Shame.

canadianna

Justin Trudeau's feminist credentials #upfordebate

So what we have learned about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's brand of feminism is that, women take things differently from men, particularly in a professional context, and therefore, upon reflection, Mr. Trudeau is confident that the woman who accused him of groping/handling her eighteen years ago, is just, well, wrong.

But that's okay.

She's allowed to have her point of view and he's not going to speak for her on that.

So, young men of the #metoo generation, here is your takeaway from this, as brought to you by a leading feminist and the Prime Minister of Canada:

You're going to do things that women are going to misinterpret, because, well, they see things differently. They think that if you wouldn't touch a guy in the same situation, then you shouldn't be touching them. I know... dramatic, right? But still.

Reflect on that. You'll probably come to the conclusion that you did nothing inappropriate because if you thought it was inappropriate, you wouldn't have done it, right? You are the arbiter of your truth. You know you're not that kind of guy. She might not be making it up, she's just misinterpreting your moves.

She might accuse you anyway. That's okay. Give the lady permission to feel how she feels, because well, you know women -- especially professional women (the other ones you can use situational judgment, but hey, if they're working when they say you did the deed, acknowledge that you maybe did or did not offend them, but that you're pretty sorry that you forgot to note their employment situation.) Let them know you're alright with them being wrong. You've thought about it, and it's okay.

In the end, just be aware... so long as you are confident you did nothing inappropriate (which of course you are, because you're not that kind of guy, right?) you're in the clear (if you're fortunate enough that the woman just wants to put it all behind her).

It's 2018. It's time we realized that men and women are different, view things differently and when there is a discrepancy of memory, so long as you are confident that she's just wrong, and you reflect on that, you'll be fine.

I could say, okay... you've learned, you get it, if Justin Trudeau had said:

I was young and drunk and I really don't remember. I know myself and I feel like I wouldn't have done anything to offend this woman, and obviously I wouldn't have if I'd realized it would offend her. I'm still not exactly sure what happened, but obviously it upset her enough that she brought it forward, therefore, I apologize unreservedly because whatever my feelings on the situation are, it was obviously a negative interaction for her. If I was not truly sorry then because I was not aware enough of how this might affect her, I have grown as a man, as a husband and a father, and I am truly sorry now that whatever my actions were, that they caused her to feel discomfort and disrespect. It is not the person I am now, and I would like to say that it is not the person I ever was, but I accept this woman's version of events as truth, and offer my sincerest apology. In the future, I will be more sensitive to both women and men, accusers and the accused. I have been short sighted and unfair in my rush to judge others. I apologize for this also.


As it stands, he's practically dared a woman who has asked for privacy to challenge  him.

She said her piece 18 years ago. This is not someone coming out of the woodwork 18 years later and accusing when things are murky. This is someone who reported an incident immediately in a generation that was not yet woke to sexual harassment. She shouldn't have to come forward again, and if he'd have just have given the tiniest acknowledgement that he MIGHT have done something that could be perceived as untoward, I could accept it.


These are not the words or actions of a feminist in 2018.


canadianna

Who's the real sexist?

How is it I find myself defending Liberal MP for his alleged 'sexist' remark to a Conservative MP when her phone rang during an in-camera meeting last month.

Dianne Watts quotes exactly what was said to her in this audio interview. Her phone, with a generic ringtone, prompted a fellow MP to say "Where's your pole to slide down?" He was asked to repeat the comment, and asked again "Where's your pole?"

Although this wasn't part of any commentary, one might supposed Ms Watts, recognizing the ring tone as specific to one person, might have smiled and said "my daughter" before any comment was made. A clip of the ringtone does not sound like any bump and grind stripper song, or anything that might be taken as such.

Could it be that we're just so conditioned to assuming that every remark has some nefarious meaning if it's directed to a woman? All the headlines make reference to a 'stripper pole' yet even in her retelling of the incident, Watts doesn't use the word 'stripper'. She, and the other MPs who heard the remark, either inferred it at the time, or afterward when they were discussing what had been said.

Could it be that MP Nicola di Iorio was thinking of a fire fighter? Or Batman even? Watts was answering a call from her daughter... how many times are we called upon to rescue our kids when we are otherwise occupied. Did her hear her say it was her daughter and make the remark thinking how many times we rush to accommodate our kids? There is nothing remotely sexual about the ringtone, or about the ringing of a phone -- but there is definitely something parental in it.

I would never have thought he meant stripper pole, unless he used those words exactly.... why was the immediate reaction to assume THAT kind of pole? Who is the sexist here?  If a person makes a comment that is not overtly sexist, are they sexist because someone decides to take it that way? Or is it sexist to impute sexist meaning to it because it was made by a man to a woman?

di Iorio has not come to his own defense on this matter from anything I've read, although it is under investigation so perhaps that's why. Maybe though, it never occurred to him that it could be taken badly and the shock of having been called out on it has silenced him, the way being accused of something often does to innocent people.

canadianna

Not my kind of conservative

Over the years, I have written about both my own personal values, and about Canadian values in general. On some of these issues, my position has changed, as has the party in power, at least twice since I started this blog. Regardless of which party was governing, I felt comfortable expressing my opinions.

Many of the posts linked to in that first sentence or so are lamenting the Liberal tendency to define Canadian values by what they themselves believe. I felt excluded. I felt vilified. It frustrated me that my own government could say that my beliefs on say, abortion or criminal sentencing or whatever -- were un-Canadian. While it bothered me that they might say that my view were un-Canadian, never once did I feel the need to change my opinion or hide from my belief system.

Leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch is tone deaf when it comes to the issue of immigration and values. Much as I believe we must be vigilant when granting citizenship, and I believe that terrorism is reason enough to strip citizenship from a new Canadian, some arbitrary, bureaucratic 'values' test that many Canadian born people might not pass, is insulting to all Canadians, and particularly to conservatives -- the people 'expected' to support such an asinine idea.

I can't stand PMJT. I think he's narrow minded, elitist, smug and stupid. I believe his policies and will damage the economy. I think  wrong headed on immigration. I believe he is self serving and foolish.

If Kellie Leitch were Conservative leader during the next election, I would vote for Justin.

If we must have an opponent in the seat of government, let him be one we can actually oppose and for whom we are not responsible.
                                                                                    Alexander Hamilton

Happily, it seems most conservatives agree. Now let's just hope Kevin O'Leary isn't made a serious candidate by the media the way Trump was in the US.

canadianna

Trump vs the World

Recently my son and I were discussing Donald Trump. We both detest the man, and cringe if our political opinions align with something Trump says. But my son is young. He's an optimist. When I saw the rally on CNN in 2015, before Trump had even announced his intention to seek the nomination, I told my son I was worried because he would win. My son didn't believe it. And later, when Trump single-handedly decimated the Republican leadership pool for a generation, I told my son I thought he'd win the election. Despite my assertion, we were both astounded when he actually did.

 

Now, not quite two months in, my son is sure that despite everything, Trump can't ruin America. On most things political, I defer to him. He knows history, the constitution, the actual workings of the political machinery. He loves America. Admires the political system. He's a smart kid. But on Trump, he's wrong.

 

We all know that Trump is an anomaly. The rules of basic human interaction and decorum don't apply and obviously neither do the political conventions that have helped shape the western world as we know it. Yes, Trump can ruin America. In fact, he has the power to ruin the world.

 

On one hand, we have the GOP, giddy with power, acquiescing to Trump and (with a few exceptions) falling all over themselves to defend the indefensible. To my mind, Trump is always indefensible. As ad hominem a statement as that might be -- it's my blog and that's how I feel. These Republican politicians seem eager to stand by their leader regardless of how hapless his moves and bizarre his behavior, applauding politely from the sidelines at announcements that should make them pause.

 

Despite Trump's relatively normal demeanour during a joint address to congress, he is both an enigma and a threat by virtue of his capricious and unstable personality. And let's remember who lurks behind his curtain. While some of the people who Trump has surrounded himself with are not in league with the devil, more are. Those who see themselves as simply serving their country, are not strong enough personalities to challenge the new status quo.

 

On the other hand, so many political actions are in fact, reactions. Rather than being sound policy, some laws and even entire belief systems are a response to past policy. Germany today, with its open borders and extreme hate laws, is still reacting to Hitler and its Nazi past. One can argue whether the law against Holocaust denial is good for preventing hate or bad for assailing free speech, but it exists because of Germany's history.

 

Within the confines of law and politics, I don't believe that Trump alone can ruin America. I do believe that because he is extreme in everything he does, reactions to him are also extreme. As time goes on, regardless of his stance on issues, moderate people all over the world, not wanting to be tied to his brand of 'conservatism' will edge further and further away from positions that Trump taints by holding them. People whose vision is already decidedly to the other extreme, will be emboldened, perceiving their views, regardless how extreme the other way, as being the only decent and respectable ones.

 

To begin, Trump has destroyed the possibility of discussing borders and immigration rationally in the same way Nazism prevents Germans from taking anything less than its polar opposite stance. And with Trump, that was just the campaign. The first week's work solidified it and it only gets weirder from here.

 

Trump alone can't change America or the world, but strange and extreme alliances are bound to form as part of the 'resistance' to Trump. The societal shift that causes, and the changes it brings, will be no better than the world the resisters fear that Trump will foist upon them, but at least they will be able to feel good about themselves.

 

canadianna

Return to Sender

We've lived in our home for about a year and a half. In that time, we've received a bunch of mail for at least a dozen different people. I dutifully scrawl "MOVED" or 'Not at this address' on each envelope and drop them back into the post.

Recently we received one for a new name, this time from Service Ontario. I handled it the same as always.... wrote on the front and dropped in a mail box. A few days later, there it was back in my mailbox. SO.... I drew lines through the address. Like this.

Guess what just came in the mail?

 How does this happen?

I'm gonna try one more time. I shouldn't have to black out the address for them to understand it shouldn't be delivered here.

canadianna

Fare to Scarborough?

Those of us who live in the suburbs often commute a long way to our jobs. We are encouraged to curb the car and use transit.

Now Metrolinx is examining the idea of charging fares by the kilometre.

While two of the previous options included some form of distance-based charge, the new proposal would charge all riders a per kilometre rate.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Taxis charge by distance -- only . . .  they go pretty fast and have all the convenience of a car. You pay a premium because the ride is door to door, pretty much on your terms and not a communal experience. Not true of public transit.

GO Transit already uses that fee scheme . . . except of course that the people who can afford to use GO trains for their daily commute probably aren't the sort who are scrounging change in order to ride. They get a tax break for having bought passes, and they probably make enough per year that the tax break actually makes a difference at refund time.

Who really benefits from this fantastic idea of charging based on distance?

Well... chances are it won't hurt people who live downtown .... they tend to work and play down there.

It likely won't hurt the people who live in the bedroom communities outside of the city who already use their Presto cards and will continue on in the same way they have been.

So then, who will it hurt?

Scarborough.

We have the largest area geographically so even if we commute only within Scarborough, it can be further than most people need to travel if they're going from one of the former boroughs to another. Many lower income people travel via TTC to North York, Etobicoke and downtown for work and school.

A per km fee for someone who lives in Malvern to say the Eaton Centre? By transit, that's almost 40 km for someone in the northeast of the city. While the proposal has yet to lay out a per km rate, it would definitely put a lot of the city out of reach for many people in Scarborough.

Thankfully, John Tory doesn't seem to be warm to the proposal.

Let's hope this goes the way of the DVP/Gardiner tolls.

None is too many ... again

The first concentration camp became operational in 1937. At least three more were opened for business over the next two years. If Germany had stayed within its own borders, then the arrest, detention and subsequent extermination of Jews would have been a domestic issue of no concern to the international community.

We know this is true because in the years leading up to WWII, the world community was given countless warnings, witnessed the abominable treatment of Jews and had ample time and opportunity to step up. With a few exceptions, the international community's answer was to close the doors to Jewish immigration.

For those who are willing to give Trump a pass on his EO because it's America's business:
NO. This is what they meant about 'never again' and 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' This... this is the time when those sayings are relevant.

For those who say not to get hysterical because it's 'temporary':
NO. It was also sudden and without warning... an election promise to handle an issue is not the same as making a proclamation and having people's lives stand still.

For those who say that Obama picked the countries and Trump just followed through:
NO. I know he wants to prove he has yuge hands, but a sweeping ban (albeit and lately clarified) is not reasoned and not helpful to the security of your nation. While I don't believe it will create more terrorists (those so inclined need no excuses) I believe those already inclined will now have more 'justification' and 'rationalization' for their insanity and that might end up in escalation.

For those who say that it isn't actually a #MuslimBan because there are other religions affected:
NO. You know who he meant. It doesn't matter if you feel Trudeau and Obama unfairly excluded Christians. This should make you even more mad because Christians are still affected.

For those of you who say they're savages who brought it on themselves:
NO. The people affected by this have been vetted, are residents, hold green cards, have family. I live within walking distance of three mosques so please don't tell me I'm being naïve.

For those who say that Saudi Arabia and its ilk take in no refugees:
YES and is that who you aspire to be?

For those of you saying that it's only right to want to secure your borders:
YES. But this wasn't the way to go. For sure put a temporary halt to new refugee claims, rethink the vetting system, do what you need to do to feel safe--- but don't say while people are awaiting their flights, or have already boarded their planes, or have gone on vacation for a couple of weeks ... they won't be welcomed in when they land. That's just insanity.

We all want a safe world. Making it unsafe and unsettling for some of its most vulnerable populations is never going to be ok with me.

For those of you who say condemnation of Trump is hysteria...how long do you wait before you call out a tyrant?

canadianna

Let's talk, because this is awkward

Trudeau did the right thing by meeting with indigenous leaders after the suicides of two children earlier this month, but read the piece in The Star. This band asked for funding for what they knew was an impending crisis ... existing crisis ... and the answer they got from Health Canada was, sorry, no, because the timing for their budget was 'awkward'.

You know what's awkward? That two little girls chose death over life in Canada. That's pretty awkward.

The not quite $400k in funding might not have saved those girls, but seriously??? A Canadian community makes a plea for help -- and we ALL KNOW they need it. We pay it lip service and ink and clicks -- but from our government, the answer is no, and yet "Between 2012 and 2017, the Aga Khan Foundation Canada received $75 million from Global Affairs Canada to fund the Partnership for Advancing Human Development in Africa and Asia".

That's pretty awkward, eh? We have millions to shovel over across the ocean and not a pittance for some little girls here at home.

Don't get me wrong. I know we fund the reserves and I know that in many cases monies are handled abysmally by the leaders who live high while their people suffer.

You know, the only thing Pierre Trudeau was ever right on was his White Paper on "Indian Policy". Some of his more lamentable and ruinous ideas were born and festered for generations, but this idea never got off the ground -- that native peoples deserve true equality instead of the never ending paternalistic head-patting they're still getting in the name of preserving their culture. I think we should be asking their children instead of their Chiefs -- they're showing us they're not happy and let's not pretend that the squalor they live in is anything like the cultures that existed before Canada was Canada.

We've done some real damage to our First Nations people through attempted assimilation in the wrong way, and then by apartheid via the reserve system. There has to be a better way. Forget worrying about a cultural genocide where you might not remember the languages or stories or old ways of life ... a real genocide of despair is going on here and we can't even shell out a few hundred thousand dollars to feign concern.

We have to talk. Mental health is a huge issue in all communities and it's laudable what Bell does yearly, reminding us. Maybe, since our government has failed this Indigenous community, maybe @Bell_LetsTalk will consider using some of the money it raises on January 25th to support the mental health initiative requested by this community last summer.

How many more little kids have to kill themselves before this becomes more than just a talking point.

canadianna   

Choosing each other

Immigration is like a marriage.

The potential immigrant chooses Canada and applies to become a citizen (the proposal). Canada accepts the proposal and after some time and paperwork, welcomes the new immigrant as a citizen (the wedding). There's even a ceremony where an oath is sworn. It is a covenant . . . a promise . . . a two sided promise. I, the immigrant promise to uphold the laws of the land and we, Canada promise to ensure your rights.

Divorces happen.

Covenants can be broken.

A Canadian is not a Canadian when he has broken the covenant.

That covenant is with US. All of us. It is a promise to the people, not to the government and when someone CHOOSES to renounce US, it seems entirely appropriate that we should have the right to renounce THEM.

While it might not seem fair that a homegrown terrorist can't be deported, I'm grateful that those who have opted to remain dual citizens must keep their promises or be booted.

It might seem simplistic. It is. You chose us. Then you turned on us. In whose rationale are we bound and obligated to your sorry ass?

canadianna

On the niqab

I live in Scarborough where a lot of women wear hijab*** or the niqab. Hijabs*** don't bother me. The niqab forces me to look away. It says the wearer doesn't want to meet me, has no interest in the world outside of her culture. I respect that-- their business. That might not be the message she is trying to send but it's the one I'm receiving as a Canadian raised in Toronto during the 70's.

That said, I'm in a pretty heavy twitter argument over whether Harper's response to the niqab is right. I'm actually being mistaken for a Liberal. Should a woman in our free society be allowed to cover her face during the oath of citizenship. Harper says no. I believe he's wrong.

I believe the person taking the oath is ID'd prior to the oath-taking and the choice to cover her face during the oath taking (if based on religious or cultural tradition) should be respected. Who am I to say it goes against Canadian culture? My schooling told me that our culture was whatever we said it was... well ... we said we were pluralistic, we embraced multiculturalism ... Would we say 'no' to a kilt or a sari? A turban or a kirpan? The covering of the face by some Muslim women, except in the presence of their immediate families, seems foreign or strange.... but we invited them... we said come: keep your traditions so long as they are non-violent and don't infringe on the rights of others .... and now we want to say "EXCEPT" ... except Muslim women who choose a niqab.

This is not about oppression. If you are against the niqab because it symbolizes the forced submission of women ... then be against the niqab but you can't pick and choose and say it's fine for women to be subjected to oppression every day except when they are swearing an oath of citizenship.

If it is the garb of oppression, then be like France and get rid of it altogether... don't be wishy-washy and pretend we are enlightening anyone when in fact we are just subjecting them to OUR will instead of the will of their husband or culture ... either way they are not free, so why the moral indignation?

In the end we non-Muslims will never know the dynamic within families where this is the norm, but since many of our families are also messed up in so many different ways... are we really going to get in the way of people exercising their freedoms?

The niqab is not honour killings, it isn't FGM -- it isn't any of our business. If we are going to pick and choose the cultural or religious traditions of our immigrants, it should be in matters that affect the public or their potential safety. A woman wearing a niqab is disconcerting.... to us. Maybe women walking down the street topless is disconcerting to them but by law, we can. But the niqab is not, as some on my twitter feed have suggested, equivalent to chains or KKK robes.

If I was a Canadian, born to a culture where the niqab was expected or acceptable, and I was told that in order to be allowed to swear the oath of citizenship in our free country, my mother was stripped of her choice and her dignity and forced to submit to the will of the government, I might not think this was such a free country after all. I might in fact, choose a niqab as a form of political protest. By pushing back when people test the limits of our willingness to accommodate, we risk alienating the very people we hope will learn to embrace our values of inclusiveness, acceptance, understanding, diversity. It's a lose-lose and Harper should re-think his position.

*** Edited -- originally read burqa, Was corrected by commenters. I actually meant hijab.
canadianna

Toronto Pylon Service

Can someone explain why, whenever there is construction, or stop light maintenance, at least one police officer, if not two, are needed to hover around the workers, chat a little, wear the neon vest and do nothing police-like?

I see it all the time, all over the city. For over week in York Region, on Yonge just north of Steeles, every weekday morning there has been at least one, sometimes two YRP cruisers on the west side of the street, acting as pylons (although there are traffic cones available and being used) while a Bell Canada service van is parked and the worker goes about his business.

Seriously... we talk about police budgets... who pays for this? Is Bell paying for their worker to be 'protected' for now seven weekdays? The first day I saw them I thought the poor guy had been pulled over in his work van. Now |I see that these police officers have been assigned to sit in their car and.... what exactly? Insanity.

Then, just a few minutes ago at Neilson and Ellesmere, workers are adjusting the traffic lights and two cops in glowing vests are standing chatting. The lights are working. No one is directing traffic. They're all standing on a sidewalk where the electrical box is. Who's paying for their 'services'?

This is a regular occurrence on just about every road construction site. Surely there is a more cost-effective way to have done whatever 'job' the police in question are supposed to be doing. I'd have taken pictures, but in each instance I've been driving and I'm not inclined to whip out my cell phone.

I haven't been paying much attention to the mayoral race, perhaps this is an issue that has been or should be addressed.

canadianna

Liberal Confusion re: Nomination Process

According to the Toronto Star and other publications, Justin Trudeau says people seeking a Liberal nomination will be subject to questioning regarding conscience issues, and if they aren't in line with party thinking, they will be excluded from running in 2015:

Trudeau says that while the Liberal party has always tried to appeal across a broad range of the political spectrum when it comes to economics, he does not believe it’s too much to ask MPs to embrace the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is, in fact, part of the screening process for new candidates.

“We check on a number of issues: how do you feel about the Charter of Rights and freedoms, how do you feel about same-sex marriage, how do you feel about pro-choice, where are you on that?” Trudeau said.

“And we make sure that the people who are stepping forward are consistent with the Liberal Party as it is now, as it stands under my leadership and under the feedback we’re getting from Canadians across the country.”

This morning I had a twitter conversation with Gerard Butts, a close policy advisor of Trudeau's, who seemed to be unaware of this fact. He stated on Twitter that it is not what a person believes that matters, it's how they will vote on the issue in Parliament.

Although Butts has been active on Twitter since I posed the question to him (twice) about whether potential nominees could declare themselves pro-choice and still be allowed to run for nomination or serve as an MP in the Liberal Party, *crickets*.

Butts' original Tweet tagged the National  Post:

The @nationalpost has also been told, repeatedly, that the policy applies to votes in Parliament, not personal belief, but has ignored that.

So it seems clear in his opinion, that under this new Liberal edict, that a person may follow their conscience (in their private lives) so long as they are aware they must vote along party lines if it ever comes to a vote. When asked directly if that was the case, he simply ignored the question. I guess he isn't as sure as he seemed to be.

Perhaps Gerard Butts believed the question had been asked and answered, but when his position is at odds with that of the Liberal leader, the Liberal position is about as clear as mud.

Regardless, I believe abortion is a conscience, not a rights issue and that people should not have to check their brains at the door of the House of Commons. Some people do that anyway.

Canadianna

The 43 KADRI -- At Kennedy Station

Last night in Scarborough . . .My kid's way of celebrating the Leafs making the playoffs.