"have a few quibbles about aspects of multisexual mutual respect" ...what does that even mean? Nobody is telling you to marry a dude. If you have "quibbles" about that, the solution is fairly straightforward. If rednecks and old-people and bigots aren't comfortable... so what?
You have this habit, Kimmy, of assuming all retrograde social views are attributable to old people and rural rednecks. I can tell you that's total bullshit. I spent most of the time working with people a generation younger than I was, people in their early twenties, and anti-gay feeling was a lot higher in them than any of the seniors I know, particularly among women come to think of it. And it's not pensioners out beating up gays in parks, you know.
It's not a few people who think the government stepping in to force everyone to let confused transgendered people into women's locker rooms, or make it illegal to not call them by their chosen pronoun is loony, it's the majority. It's not a rare few old doddering seniors half a step from the grave who would like there to be some rules on abortion, you know, like those fascists in Sweden and Norway and France have, its the majority of the population. And your 'who gives a
**** what they say attitude' is a flat out contradiction of how democracy works.
I reject the premise that having fiscally conservative policy means accepting socially conservative policy along with it. There's no ideological reason for the two to be linked.
Reject it all you want. The linkage is there, nonetheless. I've been following politics since I was a teenager and would go to the HoC to watch Diefenbaker spar with Trudeau Senior. Progressives, for the most part, don't give a
**** about the budget. In fact, they consider it immoral to care about what something costs, when they're 'doing good'. They tend to sneer at those who worry about what things cost, or running up debts. It's the traditionalists who care, and a big chunk of those traditionalists also look askance at some of the progressives social views.
A lot of people think it's contradictory that the same people who want "small government" and "personal accountability" are also the people who think the government needs to be involved in controlling what people can smoke or what they do in their bedroom.
How would anyone know what's going on in a bedroom? That's not what they care about. They care about what goes on in their schools, their churches, and their streets, to say nothing of swimming pool locker rooms and hospitals. As for smokers. I'm fine with potheads, as long as they surrender their driving licenses and aren't allowed jobs where their mistakes could cause harm to others.
I'm part of the 70% of the population that doesn't like niquabs. I don't just not like them, I hate them. I think it's disgusting that some people feel that women should wear a bag over their head to go out in public. But the thing is, that's completely irrelevant. A woman can wear a bag on her head, or high-waisted acid-wash jeans, or a Hooters uniform, or a pancho and a sombrero, or a chicken-suit, or whatever the **** she wants... it's really not an issue for public policy.
Banning it might not be, discouraging it and the attitudes which go with it, should be.
A piece in an article I read today said that 90% of Canadians, in a recent poll, said they feel that in order to be truly Canadian you have to adopt Canadian customs and traditions. Which means 90% of Canadians reject those wearing things like this as not being truly Canadian. In democracy, government policy is, or should be a reflection of the will of the people.
Home
Contact
Login
Register