Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: segnosaur on June 16, 2017, 02:25:18 pm
-
Homosexual acts between 2 consenting adults were illegal up until the end of the 1960s. At that time, Trudeau Sr. decriminalized it.
Now, Trudeau is issuing a formal apology to the LGBT community and giving official pardons to those adversely affected by the law.
Its been roughly 5 decades, so there probably aren't a lot of people still alive who would have been charged under the law, so its partially a symbolic gester (although one that I think was deserved.)
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/06/14/trudeau-says-legislation-apology-coming-for-past-wrongs-against-lgbt-community.html
-
I wonder about the value of these apologies.
Do people appreciate them?
-
I wonder about the value of these apologies.
Do people appreciate them?
Yes, they do.
They also appreciate that they no longer have a criminal record.
-
Trudeau JR is big on symbolic gestures that don't have do anything concrete. Pope please apologize for the residential schools while I order a study on murdered & missing aboriginal women...meanwhile studies & apologies don't feed mouths. Thing is, these types of things create good will but have little or no political or economic cost so it's easy to do & makes you look good.
But I'll give Trudeau credit for Bill C-16 which is actually something other than words.
-
Trudeau JR is big on symbolic gestures that don't have do anything concrete. Pope please apologize for the residential schools while I order a study on murdered & missing aboriginal women...meanwhile studies & apologies don't feed mouths. Thing is, these types of things create good will but have little or no political or economic cost so it's easy to do & makes you look good.
Indigenous people are the ones asking for the apology and the inquiry. It obviously means a lot to them.
-
I wonder about the value of these apologies.
Do people appreciate them?
I'm sure the practical value is very close to zero, but I think acknowledging that an injustice was done, and acknowledging the government's role in it, is important.
I also think the police participation in Toronto's Pride Parade is important, for more or less the same reason. As I understand it, police antagonism of Toronto's gay community was a foundational cause of Toronto's gay rights marches that spurred gay rights activism across Canada. Police participation now kind of says "never again" and "we're on your side now, bro."
As for the MMIW... I have a strong hunch that by far the biggest threat to aboriginal women is aboriginal men. If the inquiry reaches that finding... is that going to make people happy?
-k
-
As for the MMIW... I have a strong hunch that by far the biggest threat to aboriginal women is aboriginal men. If the inquiry reaches that finding... is that going to make people happy?
There will be root causes - residential schools, systemic racism, etc.
-
As for the MMIW... I have a strong hunch that by far the biggest threat to aboriginal women is aboriginal men. If the inquiry reaches that finding... is that going to make people happy?
What bothers me the most about MMIW is not so much who is killing the women, it's the the way police don't care to bring the perpetrators to justice. It's similar to the Pickton murders where police allowed 50 women get killed and didn't follow up on leads because the women were mostly drug-addicted prostitutes.
It bothers me that their lives are deemed too inconsequential to investigate and to bring closure to their families.
Whatever they find as the biggest threat to aboriginal women, I'm sure the investigation will also show a systematic ambivalence to solve their murders.
I'm not aboriginal so I can't speak for the community, but the ambivalence is the bigger issue as far as I'm concerned than who is doing the killing.
-
Yes, they do.
They also appreciate that they no longer have a criminal record.
I see the value of expunging the criminal record, of course. But the apology itself seems to do more to comfort the comfortable than to help those who were wronged. I am following a parallel issue, which is the Trudeau government's aboriginal programme and I see that it's very tempting for any government to make statements in place of taking action. This is my concern here.
-
I also think the police participation in Toronto's Pride Parade is important, for more or less the same reason. As I understand it, police antagonism of Toronto's gay community was a foundational cause of Toronto's gay rights marches that spurred gay rights activism across Canada. Police participation now kind of says "never again" and "we're on your side now, bro."
Does this mean 'we will never target gays again ?' or 'we will never target groups again ?'. If it's the former, then that's pretty narrow. It means that LGBTQ have now graduated to the protected class, but other groups will remain outside. If it's the latter, then will this community say something about concerns for the Black community also ?
-
Does this mean 'we will never target gays again ?' or 'we will never target groups again ?'. If it's the former, then that's pretty narrow. It means that LGBTQ have now graduated to the protected class, but other groups will remain outside. If it's the latter, then will this community say something about concerns for the Black community also ?
Well, hopefully the lesson learned in regard to the gay community will be remembered in other cases as well.
-k
-
Well, hopefully the lesson learned in regard to the gay community will be remembered in other cases as well.
So why is there a backlash against BLM for protesting carding and having TPS removed from the parade ?
-
So why is there a backlash against BLM for protesting carding and having TPS removed from the parade ?
If BLM were just protesting carding, I don't think they would be facing a backlash. First off, as many have pointed out, you don't build bridges by excluding people. Second, the stunt last year-- holding the whole parade hostage-- was not well received.
Furthermore, the leader of BLM Toronto is an idiot. She is bringing shame and discredit upon the BLM movement. She's simply an ****. This was discussed here in another thread:
http://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/canada-discussion-forum/justin-trudeau-the-white-supremacist/
I think Pride Toronto would be doing themselves a disservice in capitulating to a person like this.
But beyond that, the Toronto police has worked hard to build bridges with the gay community — by formally apologizing for the 1981 bathhouse raids, by regularly participating in Pride parades, by raising a rainbow flag outside headquarters for the first time and so forth. Not allowing them to wear their uniforms at Pride is a step backwards for the relationship.
What's more, Pride Toronto has worked hard to create safe spaces for gay LGBTQ people of colour. For instance, for the last near-20 years, Pride has hosted "Blockorama" during the weekend of the parade — an area specifically for black artists, musicians, writers, singers, dancers and regular folk to celebrate black and African cultures. By contrast, there has never been an official program for LGBTQ people during the Toronto Caribbean Carnival, formerly (and colloquially) known as "Caribana."
Indeed, I can honestly say I feel uncomfortable at Caribana due to black homophobia, which Black Lives Matter casually ignores. I am constantly looking over my shoulder in fear of being attacked, simply because I am a gay man. In recent years, I have stayed away entirely. Yet there is virtually no dialogue about anti-LGBTQ prejudice within the black community.
from "I'm black and gay. BLM Toronto doesn't speak for me." http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/blm-pride-toronto-1.4153736
So maybe instead of trying to ruin the Pride Parade, BLM could show they give a crap about gay black people by getting down to Caribbana.
-k
-
I think the protest was effective and unfortunately for Pride, the leadership agreed to the BLM demands last year.
To me it says that Pride is now part of the mainstream, and therefore a target of protest. If carding ends, I would expect BLM to give up the exclusion of police. Shouldn't the LGBTQ community stand in solidarity with another oppressed group ? I think so.
-
I think the protest was effective and unfortunately for Pride, the leadership agreed to the BLM demands last year.
To me it says that Pride is now part of the mainstream, and therefore a target of protest. If carding ends, I would expect BLM to give up the exclusion of police. Shouldn't the LGBTQ community stand in solidarity with another oppressed group ? I think so.
The BLM-Toronto demand to exclude police isn't just about carding. They contend that the presence of police in the parade is intimidating to non-white participants. They have a laundry list of issues with police.
Not content with banning Toronto police from participating in the Toronto Pride parade, some are now mad that Toronto police are participating in the New York City Pride parade.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/police-not-at-pride-1.4176878
Yesterday, two Toronto women who wore police-like costumes to the Dyke March and carried signs supporting police and first-responders were harrassed and threatened.
Audrey Kouyoumdjian and Carol Pasternak came to the Dyke March wearing costume police hats and toting large signs that said, “My pride includes the police” and “Thank you first responders,” though they are not part of those groups.
“We’re here in support of pride for all,” said Kouyoumdjian. “We don’t want any exclusion. We want everyone to be celebrating Pride and the love of who we are.”
Two women confronted Kouyoumdjian and Pasternak about their sign before the march kicked off.
Parade-goer Martine Genier said she saw the signs spark more conflict later on.
“I saw these two people kind of tearing the signs and throwing them on the ground,” Genier said. “No actual violence (followed), but somebody was trying to push those ladies back.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/24/the-dyke-march-and-more-heres-what-you-need-to-know-on-saturday-at-pride.html
This is an article about Kouyoumdjian and Pasternak from 2010. They're in their early sixties now, and have run a support group for a long time.
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/01/lateblooming_lesbians_find_different_kind_of_love.html
Who goes around assaulting 60 year old ladies?
-k
-
Well, there are a lot of angry people out there.
I don't know what the list of BLM demands was, but I would wager that carding was a major problem for them.
-
Well, there are a lot of angry people out there.
If they keep assaulting 60 year old ladies, they're going to meet some angry people in return.
I don't know what the list of BLM demands was, but I would wager that carding was a major problem for them.
They had a bunch of demands regarding more funding and more representation for minority groups at Pride, which fine, fair enough. But regarding police, they'll never be satisfied.
I notice that the Black Leopard Movement crashed the Pride Parade today, despite not being registered to attend, just to prove the point that they don't really give a crap and they know no rules apply to them. If Pride organizers had any spine they'd decide that this stunt renders last year's agreement null and void, but they don't, so they won't.
-k
-
Here are the demands:
https://blacklivesmatter.ca/demands/
I am sorry to say that I wasn't up to date on these, but then again I am not in the LGBTQ+ community, just an ally. My feeling is that the two main paths to group conflict are violence and dialogue. Protests are a crossroads, and if the groups want to lead to dialogue then the first step is to know the issues.
-
They don't want to ban police from participating as members of the LGBTQ community. They don't want them participating in uniform because that uniform is a symbol that to many people signifies brutality, violence, and oppression. It's a reasonable request given current circumstances with police in North America. You remember Rodney King and the subsequent riots? Asking that cops don't wear their uniforms in the pride parade because many people of colour don't feel safe around them is a hell of a lot better than destroying a city in protest to disgusting police behaviour.
-
Yes, this is an important distinction.
-
They don't want to ban police from participating as members of the LGBTQ community. They don't want them participating in uniform because that uniform is a symbol that to many people signifies brutality, violence, and oppression. It's a reasonable request given current circumstances with police in North America. You remember Rodney King and the subsequent riots? Asking that cops don't wear their uniforms in the pride parade because many people of colour don't feel safe around them is a hell of a lot better than destroying a city in protest to disgusting police behaviour.
If this were a BLM march, I'd see your point. It's not though. Many people are having uniformed officers as a point of reconciliation and change between the police and the gay community gst they previously marginalized. I think it really undermines that to give in to demands from a group of people whom the day is not primarily about in the face of opposition to demands form many members of the gay community, who the day is actually about.
-
My understanding was that last year's protesters were from both communities.
Also, I feel that any discussion of whether the protest/result had value needs to acknowledge the demands on some level. Otherwise, it's the same refrain that protesting shouldn't happen.
-
Also, I feel that any discussion of whether the protest/result had value needs to acknowledge the demands on some level. Otherwise, it's the same refrain that protesting shouldn't happen.
The demands were certainly acknowledged. They've been agreed to. And aside from the demand to end police participation, most of them weren't even controversial. Does "acknowledgment" necessarily mean "agreement"?
Maybe I don't fully appreciate how awful the Toronto police are to black people. Maybe I would feel differently if I knew the whole story. I'd certainly have no complaint about excluding a racist organization from Pride events, I just don't view the Toronto police as a racist organization. If it were the Baltimore police, I might feel differently, but maybe I am looking at the Toronto police through rose-colored glasses. I'm under the impression that they're trying to engage positively with both the gay community and the black community. Maybe that doesn't match with the reality.
My understanding was that last year's protesters were from both communities.
Ah yes. "Intersectionality". In today's super-competitive victimhood sweepstakes, being just one thing isn't enough. You need "intersectionality"!
This reminds me of a Daily Show skit in the 2004 US presidential election, in which a reporter (perhaps Stephen Colbert) talks with a Demographically Diversetm panel of voters. He talks to them, addressing them as "Jew", "Senior", "Female", "College Student", "Asian", and "Black Man -- oh wait, you're Black AND Christian! You're TWO things!"
-k
-
I mean anybody discussing the issue needs to acknowledge the demands. I see too many comments on the 680 News page for example that don't say whether there's any validity to their grievances. In effect, that just says 'don't protest my event' which isn't productive dialogue.
Pride did themselves in by agreeing to not allowing uniformed police - they agreed to it on the spot - and so had to live up to their agreement. It seems that some of the demands have been met, so maybe next year will be different.
-
If this were a BLM march, I'd see your point. It's not though. Many people are having uniformed officers as a point of reconciliation and change between the police and the gay community gst they previously marginalized. I think it really undermines that to give in to demands from a group of people whom the day is not primarily about in the face of opposition to demands form many members of the gay community, who the day is actually about.
So what you're saying is black protesters should shut up and know their place?
-
BLM should only protest BLM marches.
Protests shouldn't bother people, otherwise we'd have to listen to what they're saying.
-
So what you're saying is black protesters should shut up and know their place?
I'm actually fine with BLM protesting pride. I'm more upset with Pride giving in to the demands of BLM when it wasn't really their deal.
-
BLM should only protest BLM marches.
Protests shouldn't bother people, otherwise we'd have to listen to what they're saying.
Personally I'm not sure why they decided to pick on Pride. It seems like Pride has been unfairly singled out for some reason. Native protesters attempting to set up a teepee on Parliament Hill makes sense to me. BLM disrupting Pride I don't get. The message seems to be "Our marginalized group hasn't received the respect we deserve, so we're going to take it out on your marginalized group's annual event."
They're now saying that Pride has been taken over by privileged white gays who don't care about black people. So why not disrupt the Christmas parade? Surely the Christmas parade has also been taken over by privileged whites.
They're now saying that Pride actually belongs to the black community because trans blacks started the Stonewall Riots in New York. Ok, why not disrupt Caribana? They say that as members of both the black and gay community they should feel accepted at Pride. Ok, as members of both the black and gay community they should also feel accepted at Caribana. But the writer I linked to earlier indicated that as a gay black man he feels unsafe at Caribana due to overt and aggressive homophobia in the Caribbean community. If BLM-TO are such great allies to the gay community, why haven't they made a peep about that?
-k
-
They don't want to ban police from participating as members of the LGBTQ community. They don't want them participating in uniform because that uniform is a symbol that to many people signifies brutality, violence, and oppression.
What if some people didn't want the participation of Black men because they felt intimidated and endangered by groups of Black men? Would it be okay to ban them?
Any argument which can be made against police because of individual misuse of authority by members of police services can be made against Black men for the disproportionate amount of violence perpetrated by individual members of the Black community. The same could be said of Native men in other cities like Winnipeg.
-
Personally I'm not sure why they decided to pick on Pride. It seems like Pride has been unfairly singled out for some reason.
Once you show you can be bullied and intimidated, certain groups - especially those which make a habit of bullying and intimidation - will keep coming back to the well again and again.
-
They're now saying that Pride actually belongs to the black community because trans blacks started the Stonewall Riots in New York. Ok, why not disrupt Caribana?
-k
Police aren't participating in Caribana parade. Which makes sense. I wouldn't want to be a policewoman on a float at Caribana.
-
Maybe I don't fully appreciate how awful the Toronto police are to black people. Maybe I would feel differently if I knew the whole story. I'd certainly have no complaint about excluding a racist organization from Pride events, I just don't view the Toronto police as a racist organization.
The complaints against Toronto police are identical to the complaints against police in the US and arise from the fairly predictable human and bureaucratic response to lawbreaking, particularly violent lawbreaking coming from the Black community in both areas (and where I live). In New York city, for example, the somewhat startling statistic released by police this year is that Blacks and Hispanics were responsible for 97% of all gun violence in the city. Whites represent about 6.5% of suspects. In ****, whites represent 10% of suspects. Toronto keeps no such statistics, but in the past, remarks made have shown that most street violence, particularly gun violence is of a similar nature. The last time I heard any stats was when a Divisional inspector told a neighborhood group that Blacks made up 5% of the population in the division but were responsible for 95% of the street crime.
The reaction of police is fairly predictable. They step up patrols in areas of high crime, which in most cases is areas where non-whites live. They focus their attention on young men, principally young Black men, since most of the extreme violence comes from that community. Law abiding black men resent being constantly stopped and questioned by police and push back, which draws a heavy handed response. When a cop stops you and asks a question he doesn't like to be told to screw off, regardless of what colour you are. While not defending the actions of police misuse of authority, especially a number of (IMO) unjustified police shootings, a similar feature of virtually all of them is the shooting victim not obeying police instructions/resisting arrest/threatening police/running from police. BLM encourages such behaviour, which in essence encourages police violence in response.
Do I need to point out most of the victims of murder/**** and robbery are also non-White, and that the police are trying to protect them? When police slack off as they've done in Chicago, does that make the Black community feel safer? I don't see it.
One thing I can say with some certainty, the root of the problem is the preponderance of crime, not skin colour.
-
Police aren't participating in Caribana parade. Which makes sense. I wouldn't want to be a policewoman on a float at Caribana.
Or, apparently, an openly gay woman.
-
Feminism went into several different ideologies, but the underlying thought is equality of men and women.
Likewise, BLM is bound to veer into different branches too but it was founded on the grievance of police brutality against blacks. That's the thing all BLM around the world share in common.
I don't have an opinion one way or another whether BLM is doing the right thing protesting Pride Parades but I don't think the comparison of why Caribana and not Pride isn't really apt just because of certain interpretations of BLM.
That's not what BLM represents universally whereas protesting a police participation in a parade does represent BLM as far as their principle message goes.
-
Personally I'm not sure why they decided to pick on Pride.
Between Pride, Caribana and Santa this makes the most sense.
Pride at least is about oppressed people, so they might think to have a better chance of success there and they did.
-
Between Pride, Caribana and Santa this makes the most sense.
Pride at least is about oppressed people, so they might think to have a better chance of success there and they did.
By oppressing and intimidating them?
-
Protesting isn't oppressing somebody, it's inconveniencing them.
If you want to have a strawman argument, go back to MLW I'm not interested....
-
Protesting isn't oppressing somebody, it's inconveniencing them.
If you want to have a strawman argument, go back to MLW I'm not interested....
If you want to get snarky any time anyone disagrees with you or offends your sense of political correctness, maybe you should go back to MLW, where you can just suspend them.
When you block a freaking parade, forcing it to stop dead in its tracks, and refuse to move, and make demands to avoid violence that is moist definitely oppressing and intimidating people.
It is using the threat of violence to get your way. I don't approve of the threat of violence even if I agree with the ends, which in this case I don't anyway.
-
I am not offended, I just find the point obtuse. I was explaining to Kimmy why they want to target Pride is all.
Who exactly cares if protesters stop a parade, shoot a pack of babies or destroy the city ? I don't. Not here.
-
I am not offended, I just find the point obtuse. I was explaining to Kimmy why they want to target Pride is all.
Who exactly cares if protesters stop a parade, shoot a pack of babies or destroy the city ? I don't. Not here.
Your point confuses me when you bring in shooting babies and destroying a city. I would presume the answer to the question is nearly everyone.
The pride parade isn't my parade, but people have volunteered their time and worked on this thing for months. Many, many others have come out to see it, to express their support. I appreciate their efforts and know their time is of value. To have some activists basically take over the event, block it, and demand their own opinions on participation be observed or else refuse to let the parade go on is, to me, utterly crass and outrageous. And yes, it was intimidation, because the Pride organizers were left with little choice but to obey, or have police forcibly remove the protestors. Given they were all a bunch of anguished progressives that really wasn't a choice at all.
-
Your point confuses me when you bring in shooting babies and destroying a city. I would presume the answer to the question is nearly everyone.
Really. Well I guess we're not on the same page, then.
-
Feminism went into several different ideologies, but the underlying thought is equality of men and women.
Likewise, BLM is bound to veer into different branches too but it was founded on the grievance of police brutality against blacks. That's the thing all BLM around the world share in common.
I don't have an opinion one way or another whether BLM is doing the right thing protesting Pride Parades but I don't think the comparison of why Caribana and not Pride isn't really apt just because of certain interpretations of BLM.
That's not what BLM represents universally whereas protesting a police participation in a parade does represent BLM as far as their principle message goes.
BLM-TO says their duty is to make black gay people welcome at Pride... do they not have a similar duty to black gay people when it comes to making them welcome at Caribana?
BLM-TO presented Pride with numerous demands that had nothing at all to do with the police so clearly they don't feel their mandate is limited to protesting the police. Many of BLM-TO's demands centered around providing more funding and more space for gay black performers and artists at Pride. Have they ever asked Caribana for more space for gay black performers? Considering Caribana's history with bringing Jamaican dancehall bands that sing about killing homos, and considering the Caribbean community's notorious homophobia, I kind of doubt Caribana is exactly living up to BLM-TO's standards for making gay blacks welcome...
To me it seems like they picked Pride because it's an easy target, and creates the appearance that their big talk of being great allies is self-serving.
-k
-
Between this and the Body Blitz thread, I'm honestly feeling a little put off and alienated. In the space of about two weeks I've gone from being an ardent advocate for LGBT rights and a member of the community, to being a privileged white cisgendered TERF. I guess I'm out of the "movement".
-k
-
Do you know any trans people ?
-
No, I don't. I often wear men's cologne and sometimes men's dress shirts... I'm the most trans person I know.
-k
-
So... my thoughts on the subject were just that... thoughts. Based on intellectual ideas of rights and so on. Until I read my friend's posts on her life before she changed.
Laws and economics can sometimes be ends in themselves, but they exist to make lives better overall. Trans people have very painful lives.
-
I've responded in the Gender Culture thread.
-k
-
BLM-TO says their duty is to make black gay people welcome at Pride... do they not have a similar duty to black gay people when it comes to making them welcome at Caribana?
BLM-TO presented Pride with numerous demands that had nothing at all to do with the police so clearly they don't feel their mandate is limited to protesting the police. Many of BLM-TO's demands centered around providing more funding and more space for gay black performers and artists at Pride. Have they ever asked Caribana for more space for gay black performers? Considering Caribana's history with bringing Jamaican dancehall bands that sing about killing homos, and considering the Caribbean community's notorious homophobia, I kind of doubt Caribana is exactly living up to BLM-TO's standards for making gay blacks welcome...
To me it seems like they picked Pride because it's an easy target, and creates the appearance that their big talk of being great allies is self-serving.
-k
Yes, as I agreed, BLM has other schools of thought, but their principle message is police brutality against blacks. When they disrupted Pride last year it was police *participation* in the parade. Police do not participate in Caribana.
The key words for BLM movement here are police and blacks, anything LGBTQ is an afterthought.
Again, I don't agree that BLM is doing a great thing disrupting the parade, I even thought it was a bit over the top TBH.
But for a movement that started on the notion of police brutality against black, I can clearly see the difference between disrupting a parade with police participation and Caribana no matter what schools of thought they've veered onto thereafter.
The police presence at Caribana is on guard, not dancing and waving rainbow flags.
-
No, I don't. I often wear men's cologne and sometimes men's dress shirts... I'm the most trans person I know.
-k
Do you wear checked lumberjack shirts? ;D
-
It's called "buffalo plaid".
-
Do you wear checked lumberjack shirts? ;D
I have several plaid work shirts, but I only wear them when working outdoors on cool days.
-k
{ ps-- No, I don't have a flat-top haircut. :P }
-
Yes, as I agreed, BLM has other schools of thought, but their principle message is police brutality against blacks. When they disrupted Pride last year it was police *participation* in the parade. Police do not participate in Caribana.
The key words for BLM movement here are police and blacks, anything LGBTQ is an afterthought.
Again, I don't agree that BLM is doing a great thing disrupting the parade, I even thought it was a bit over the top TBH.
But for a movement that started on the notion of police brutality against black, I can clearly see the difference between disrupting a parade with police participation and Caribana no matter what schools of thought they've veered onto thereafter.
The police presence at Caribana is on guard, not dancing and waving rainbow flags.
It sounds to me like the short version is that BLM-TO only cares about providing gay blacks with inclusiveness and safety when it gives BLM-TO an opportunity to protest the police.
-k
-
What if some people didn't want the participation of Black men because they felt intimidated and endangered by groups of Black men? Would it be okay to ban them?
What if context never mattered to any discussion?
-
What if context never mattered to any discussion?
What if there was a hill, and it rained so the slope was slippery ? What then ? What if a real problem needed to be discussed but people brought in non-analogous hypotheticals to confuse the dim ? What if ?
-
What if context never mattered to any discussion?
How is the context different?
It's interesting that everyone argues against stereotyping, against profiling, against presuming the individual is guilty of the alleged sins of the group, but only when the group is a member of some sort of protected group. When the group is, say, the police, or Catholic clergy, then this is not supposed to apply? That's not logical.
-
What if there was a hill, and it rained so the slope was slippery ? What then ? What if a real problem needed to be discussed but people brought in non-analogous hypotheticals to confuse the dim ? What if ?
What if there was a snobby elitist progressive who liked to talk in vague generalities in order to sneer at participants in conversations because he thought it beneath him to descend from his lofty heights to discuss issues in a way which could be construed as mere ordinary?
-
What if there was a snobby elitist progressive who liked to talk in vague generalities in order to sneer at participants in conversations because he thought it beneath him to descend from his lofty heights to discuss issues in a way which could be construed as mere ordinary?
We don't know any people like that.
I have never heard anyone who called something 'boring' described as a snob. Usually it's the opposite, ie. a plebian calling a foreign film, the opera, or classical music 'boring'. Strange.
-
How is the context different?
It's interesting that everyone argues against stereotyping, against profiling, against presuming the individual is guilty of the alleged sins of the group, but only when the group is a member of some sort of protected group. When the group is, say, the police, or Catholic clergy, then this is not supposed to apply? That's not logical.
I think this is an interesting point.
In another thread women who don't wish to share locker-rooms and showers with biologically male individuals are called "radical". In this thread it's taken to be obvious that the presence of police in the parade is chilling and oppressive to non-white individuals.
-k
-
I think this is an interesting point.
In another thread women who don't wish to share locker-rooms and showers with biologically male individuals are called "radical". In this thread it's taken to be obvious that the presence of police in the parade is chilling and oppressive to non-white individuals.
Uhhhh... I don't think anybody here called such women 'radical' per se. You looked up the term and said it probably applied to you, and I explained what TERF meant but nobody used the term to call women a name.
But SJ is right - people can't rail on about generalizations, and then use them on people THEY don't like. It's wrong and people should admit it... except...
- some generalizations can be proven, so they are true but still impolite... except...
- some generalizations are true and complimentary, so you CAN say those... except...
- you still can't generalize outside your group like to say a certain ethnic group is good at math... except
- if it's in an academic setting, say, and the insights are true and positive....
Anyway... those of us who can deal with context don't freak out so much about a little generalizing, but we don't find it to be mind-blowingly brilliant when somebody posts that black people commit more crime. It's not a breath of fresh air to post stuff like that....
-
Uhhhh... I don't think anybody here called such women 'radical' per se. You looked up the term and said it probably applied to you, and I explained what TERF meant but nobody used the term to call women a name.
There seems to be a judgment made that Megan Murphy and other women who say they're feminists but aren't down with showering with chicks with dicks are "trans-exclusionary radicals". As it happens, I fall into that group as well. I don't personally feel like a radical, but who knows. Maybe living out here in the sticks has left me out of touch with the mainstream.
But the message seems to be that you cisgendered white women are the establishment now, the privileged, and you need to give up your hard-won victories to make way for the underprivileged.
But SJ is right - people can't rail on about generalizations, and then use them on people THEY don't like. It's wrong and people should admit it... except...
- some generalizations can be proven, so they are true but still impolite... except...
- some generalizations are true and complimentary, so you CAN say those... except...
- you still can't generalize outside your group like to say a certain ethnic group is good at math... except
- if it's in an academic setting, say, and the insights are true and positive....
Anyway... those of us who can deal with context don't freak out so much about a little generalizing, but we don't find it to be mind-blowingly brilliant when somebody posts that black people commit more crime. It's not a breath of fresh air to post stuff like that....
I don't think Sir John's point is to pursue an argument of "black people commit more crime".
I think his point is that the argument "(group X) should be excluded from the parade because they make (group Y) feel uncomfortable" falls apart pretty quickly when you start experimenting with different values of X and Y.
-k
-
There seems to be a judgment made that Megan Murphy and other women who say they're feminists but aren't down with showering with chicks with dicks are "trans-exclusionary radicals".
But the message seems to be that you cisgendered white women are the establishment now, the privileged, and you need to give up your hard-won victories to make way for the underprivileged.
Judgment made where ? Not on that thread. The term was defined but not used to name-call, no way. TERF is another label like SJW and snowflake. As a moderator I used to call it an IAN: insult against no one, a strawman..
I don't think Sir John's point is to pursue an argument of "black people commit more crime".
I think his point is that the argument "(group X) should be excluded from the parade because they make (group Y) feel uncomfortable" falls apart pretty quickly when you start experimenting with different values of X and Y.
SJ talked about the double standard of stereotyping. That you can't use it sometimes but that people can use it against police etc. Whether or not he wants to pursue that particular argument, it bears examination in the context of what is and isn't allowed when it comes to stereotyping.
As to whether cops make people feel a certain way or not, you can actually do something about that a lot more easily than you can change a racial or religious group... because we PAY cops to be cops. So if citizens protest and tell them they can't card black people anymore, then they won't be able to do it.
That's a case of Group Y being intimidated by Group X, so they legally shoot them and get off.
-
I have never heard anyone who called something 'boring' described as a snob.
Really? You've never heard of those people who roll their eyes and give a world-weary sigh whenever television is discussed, and then says something like "I don't watch television" in a snobby voice indicating he is far too much the intellectual to enjoy such trivial and unsophisticated pursuits?
Maybe you were out of the room when the 'snob' term was used.
-
Anyway... those of us who can deal with context don't freak out so much about a little generalizing, but we don't find it to be mind-blowingly brilliant when somebody posts that black people commit more crime. It's not a breath of fresh air to post stuff like that....
No, it's uhm, context. When the major complaint is that there are more police-involved shootings with blacks than their statistical numbers would call for it's more than proper to bring into the discussion that this group's over-involvement in violent/street crime inevitably brings them into greater conflict with policing.
Likewise to suggest some individuals from this community might feel discomfort around police is true. It's also true to say some individuals might feel discomfort around Black men. The reply to both such individuals should be "deal with it", not "aww, mommy make all your fears go away, my precious".
-
Really? You've never heard of those people who roll their eyes and give a world-weary sigh whenever television is discussed, and then says something like "I don't watch television" in a snobby voice indicating he is far too much the intellectual to enjoy such trivial and unsophisticated pursuits?
Maybe you were out of the room when the 'snob' term was used.
Where is the word 'boring' in this plaint?
-
No, it's uhm, context. When the major complaint is that there are more police-involved shootings with blacks than their statistical numbers would call for it's more than proper to bring into the discussion that this group's over-involvement in violent/street crime inevitably brings them into greater conflict with policing.
Likewise to suggest some individuals from this community might feel discomfort around police is true. It's also true to say some individuals might feel discomfort around Black men. The reply to both such individuals should be "deal with it", not "aww, mommy make all your fears go away, my precious".
I have never seen it necessary to deny facts. But you jump from talking about flawed discussion to what you say the solution 'should be, which is an error in logic.
-
I'm sure the practical value is very close to zero, but I think acknowledging that an injustice was done, and acknowledging the government's role in it, is important.
I also think the police participation in Toronto's Pride Parade is important, for more or less the same reason. As I understand it, police antagonism of Toronto's gay community was a foundational cause of Toronto's gay rights marches that spurred gay rights activism across Canada. Police participation now kind of says "never again" and "we're on your side now, bro."
As for the MMIW... I have a strong hunch that by far the biggest threat to aboriginal women is aboriginal men. If the inquiry reaches that finding... is that going to make people happy?
-k
Well, I guess introductions are not necessary, therefore no need to wade in.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/70-per-cent-of-murdered-aboriginal-women-killed-by-indigenous-men-rcmp-confirms/article23868927/
Anyway, of course it's FN's men doing the killing of FN's women...FN's men are killing other FN's men too...and FN's women can be pretty violent as well. Every study that has been done has come to that conclusion, the problem is; that's not the info that people want. That's not what JT or Gord Downey want to hear, but it's not only fact, it's logical sense. Most killing, regardless of race, is perpetuated by members of that persons own race. In that study, it shows that 70% of FN"s women are killed by FN"s men, it also shows that 64% are killed by people they know. I haven't checked, but these numbers are probably in line with most other murders or a certain race. Frankly, I'm surprised that the %'s aren't higher, but then it occurred to me that in my experiance, many Fn's, because of their lower financial standings, hang out with lower income white men - meaning that any killing of FN's women is more of a "class" problem, than a racial one. It is family or community violence, it's hitchhikers being killed by scumbags, it's prostitutes, it's crimes of alcohol...or passion, it's trying to cover up a ****...it's many things, but it's not racism.
IOW, there aren't any "middle or upper class, white, racist men" going around killing FN"s women.
-
I have never seen it necessary to deny facts. But you jump from talking about flawed discussion to what you say the solution 'should be, which is an error in logic.
My proposed 'solution' is clearly to ignore it. Everyone is uncomfortable in various situations and for various reasons at various times. It's not up to society at large to pat their heads and give them a hug and make their (unreasonable) anxieties go away.
I mean, what exactly is the legitimate concern? That uniformed police who are marching (there are always uniformed police at events on duty anyway) will stop and frisk Black guys who are also marching? That they'll beat them up and shoot them? I mean, seriously? Did minorities stay away from Canada Day celebrations due to the enormous police presence? Nope. Did they stay away from Pride because of uniformed cops on crowd control and there to protect 'sodomites' from crazy Muslims? Nope. The demand to not allow uniformed cops to march wasn't due to discomfort but simply BLMs way of getting other groups to join them in their condemnation of and disdain for police.
-
They have a list of demands.
-
They have a list of demands.
And what gives them the right to make demands?
"Nice little parade you've got here. I understand it took you all year to organize? Well, it's not going anywhere until you do as I say."
-
I think his point is that the argument "(group X) should be excluded from the parade because they make (group Y) feel uncomfortable" falls apart pretty quickly when you start experimenting with different values of X and Y.
-k
The problem is X does not equal Y, nor Z nor A, B, nor C. You want to flip things around and mix and match, but that violates the context of the grievances.
Think about it this way, A teacher sees a kid who has no coat in the winter and finds out that his single mother lost her job and couldn't afford one. She was embarrassed to turn for help. The teacher buys the kid a coat. Another kid finds out. He's from a well to do family and has a really nice jacket already. However, he stomps his feet and complains that ALL the kids should get a free coat if the teacher is going to give one to the first kid. After all, it's only fair, and if she doesn't give everyone a free coat then she's discriminating against the other students.
That's what it sounds like when you want to mix and match variables.
-
IOW, there aren't any "middle or upper class, white, racist men" going around killing FN"s women.
Ok. What do we do with that ?
-
My proposed 'solution' is clearly to ignore it. Everyone is uncomfortable in various situations and for various reasons at various times. It's not up to society at large to pat their heads and give them a hug and make their (unreasonable) anxieties go away.
Ok, well with respect your solution doesn't seem at all politically viable to me.
I mean, what exactly is the legitimate concern?
Calling for legitimacy of concerns is not part of the political process. Lots of people point out that there is an irrational fear of terrorism, however we all still have to live in a society that fears being attacked so it's reasonable to expect that we all will make sacrifices.
You may see leftist posters putting out information that fewer people die from terrorist attacks than barber pole accidents or whatever... it's no comfort.
-
And what gives them the right to make demands?
Freedom of self-expression.
"Nice little parade you've got here. I understand it took you all year to organize? Well, it's not going anywhere until you do as I say."
Peaceful protest. We should at least listen to what is being said. The fact that things have come to that point indicates that people are upset, right ?
-
Ok, well with respect your solution doesn't seem at all politically viable to me.
What level of public support do you imagine BLM has in the community?
Calling for legitimacy of concerns is not part of the political process.
You can't eliminate the test of reasonableness in assessing grievances. Look, if you say that police resort to the use of firearms too easily I consider that to be a reasonable complaint. I'm on record stating their training is grossly inadequate and that both training and instructions should be greatly altered so they have other means of disarming people with weapons, and know how to talk a situation down without resorting to violence at all. The death of Robert Dziekanski shows just how little time and patience police put into trying to convince people to calm down. And that's by training, not racism.
But most of what BLM demands is not reasonable, and it's even less reasonable to try and achieve any of those aims by forcing another group to join them in 'shunning' police.
Lots of people point out that there is an irrational fear of terrorism, however we all still have to live in a society that fears being attacked so it's reasonable to expect that we all will make sacrifices.
The elected government can require that you make sacrifices. Some independent, unaccountable private group has no right to force you to make sacrifices for them.
-
Freedom of self-expression.
Your freedom ends where it violates mine.
Peaceful protest.
Nope. If you use force to stop people from doing what they want to do, if you use force to block them from going where they want to go, that is, by its very nature, violent. If I stand in your path and block you from moving you're not going to think sweet thoughts about what a peaceful guy I am.
We should at least listen to what is being said. The fact that things have come to that point indicates that people are upset, right ?
I'm upset at my cable company. Should I have the right to block your car and demand you listen to my demands? You might say, hey, it's got nothing to do with me, and you'd be right. But I'm upset. So does that mean you have to stop and listen and then sign whatever paper I put in front of you?
-
The problem is X does not equal Y, nor Z nor A, B, nor C. You want to flip things around and mix and match, but that violates the context of the grievances.
Think about it this way, A teacher sees a kid who has no coat in the winter and finds out that his single mother lost her job and couldn't afford one. She was embarrassed to turn for help. The teacher buys the kid a coat. Another kid finds out. He's from a well to do family and has a really nice jacket already. However, he stomps his feet and complains that ALL the kids should get a free coat if the teacher is going to give one to the first kid. After all, it's only fair, and if she doesn't give everyone a free coat then she's discriminating against the other students.
Again, there's the test of reasonableness. The rich kid complaining is not reasonable. I ignore unreasonable complaints. Why shouldn't society? A guy complaining that he feels uncomfortable having police marching in a parade is not being reasonable - especially when there are lots of uniformed cops along the parade route anyway. In fact, would you even hold a gay pride parade without police assistance? Without police blocking the roads with sand trucks and on the alert for suicide bombers and the like?
-
What level of public support do you imagine BLM has in the community?
I have no idea.
You can't eliminate the test of reasonableness in assessing grievances.
Ok, but you can't make that the only test of whether to even listen, because of a think called subjectivity.
Look, if you say that police resort to the use of firearms too easily I consider that to be a reasonable complaint. I'm on record stating their training is grossly inadequate and that both training and instructions should be greatly altered so they have other means of disarming people with weapons, and know how to talk a situation down without resorting to violence at all. The death of Robert Dziekanski shows just how little time and patience police put into trying to convince people to calm down. And that's by training, not racism.
I think we should have a discussion about whether the politics are at all viable and finish that one before we assess the validity of the complaint. I may not even have anything to say on the second question.
-
Your freedom ends where it violates mine.
I answered your question - what gives them the right to make demands.
Nope. If you use force to stop people...
We're back to the question of politics.
-
Ok, but you can't make that the only test of whether to even listen, because of a think called subjectivity.
I understand that 'reasonable' can be subjective, but it's not like it can't be established or it wouldn't play a part in any number of laws which depend on whether a person acted reasonably, given circumstances. Besides, you have to listen before you can judge the demands reasonable or unreasonable.
I think we should have a discussion about whether the politics are at all viable
Reasonable is not a political judgement. BLM is not Pride. They are different organizations with different goals and different memberships. BLM has no more a right to demand Pride agree with them on something than it does in demanding a Chinese festival or the Toronto Public Library agree with them.
-
I answered your question - what gives them the right to make demands.
Force, apparently.
I'm not moving, so until you do as I say your parade goes nowhere, bud.
-
I understand that 'reasonable' can be subjective, but it's not like it can't be established or it wouldn't play a part in any number of laws which depend on whether a person acted reasonably, given circumstances. Besides, you have to listen before you can judge the demands reasonable or unreasonable.
You are taking it back to the legal system, which is understandable as the system works for you. Or does it ? Do you trust the HRC to treat you fairly ?
At a certain point, the problems with the system evoke a human reaction which take the discussion to a different level, right or wrong.
Reasonable is not a political judgement.
You have to look at your own subjectivity to understand that it is absolutely political. White people fight tooth and nail to ensure that the system doesn't treat them unfairly and they are listened to, for the most part.
BLM has no more a right to demand Pride agree with them on something than it does in demanding a Chinese festival or the Toronto Public Library agree with them.
They have a right to ask for whatever they want.
Force, apparently.
I'm not moving, so until you do as I say your parade goes nowhere, bud.
Force happens. Non-violent is an iteration/evolution of violent protest.
Once there was 'Taxation without representation' ... and war ... and now we are so lucky as to have non-violent protest to call attention to things like this.
-
You are taking it back to the legal system, which is understandable as the system works for you.
I'm only mentioning the legal system because it revolves around fine-points of interpretation of words and acts. Reasonable would not be included if it couldn't be defined according to community standards.
You have to look at your own subjectivity to understand that it is absolutely political. White people fight tooth and nail to ensure that the system doesn't treat them unfairly and they are listened to, for the most part.
Everyone fights to ensure the system treats them fairly. But why single out White people? Society in generally seeks fairness, and, for the most part, achieves it.
Force happens. Non-violent is an iteration/evolution of violent protest.
But it's only non-violent if the other party surrenders. What would happen if BLM tried to block a parade by Trump supporters and there were no police there? We both know the answer to that one.
Once there was 'Taxation without representation' ... and war ... and now we are so lucky as to have non-violent protest to call attention to things like this.
Things like what? Black criminals being treated badly by police? My sympathy is lacking. I have seen video after video of alleged police violence against Blacks. A few are unquestionably wrong. But I have seen only a single one where a Black person, acting reasonably, obeying the law, responding to the requests of police, has been shot. Chris Rocks' advice still holds in almost all cases.
-
I'm only mentioning the legal system because it revolves around fine-points of interpretation of words and acts. Reasonable would not be included if it couldn't be defined according to community standards.
Ok.
Everyone fights to ensure the system treats them fairly. But why single out White people? Society in generally seeks fairness, and, for the most part, achieves it.
Especially for white people, like you and me. That's my point. You look at the justice system as the arbiter of questions because it mostly works... for you.
But it's only non-violent if the other party surrenders.
No, there are lots of outcomes. It's not binary. What happened to Occupy Wall Street ? It just stopped.
My sympathy is lacking.
Yes, that's clear and I'm not trying to change your mind. But your solution is still not workable, regardless of how you feel about it:
My proposed 'solution' is clearly to ignore it.
The difference between you and me is that I want to work within a process, whether I believe in the matter at hand or not. I didn't agree with the court ruling on Trinity University but you have to take the wins with the losses and trust in dialogue above all.
-
Ok.
Especially for white people, like you and me. That's my point. You look at the justice system as the arbiter of questions because it mostly works... for you.
I dare you to find a single point in time where I've ever said ANYTHING good about our legal system.
No, there are lots of outcomes. It's not binary.
No, it IS binary. Either they move, or there's no parade. Which leaves another binary decision. Either you do what they say so they agree to move, or you force them to move.
What happened to Occupy Wall Street ? It just stopped.
They were repeatedly arrested and broken up by the police.
Yes, that's clear and I'm not trying to change your mind. But your solution is still not workable, regardless of how you feel about it:
My proposed 'solution' is clearly to ignore it.
Absent evidence of disproportionate violence committed by police on Blacks (disproportionate to their interaction with police, nor their numbers in the population) I see no need to take action.
The difference between you and me is that I want to work within a process, whether I believe in the matter at hand or not. I didn't agree with the court ruling on Trinity University but you have to take the wins with the losses and trust in dialogue above all.
I'm fine with dialogue, even if the head of BLM Toronto is clearly a racist, but I'm not for punishing police because so many Blacks are involved in criminality and run afoul of... the police.
Police misuse of authority and the use of violence against innocent people infuriates me. I just seldom see it. In the closest case to me, geographically speaking, which has got BLM upset, the death of a Somali man, I literally could not care less. He was sexually harassing women, fought off those who tried to hold him for police, ran from police, and resisted arrest. The SUI has laid what I regard as a politically influenced charge against an Ottawa cop for manslaughter. I have little doubt he'll be found not guilty by a jury.
-
I dare you to find a single point in time where I've ever said ANYTHING good about our legal system.
Fair enough. From memory, you seemed to be taking the concerns of BLM to the arena of past legal decisions or at least I thought. If you don't think the legal system is good, then BLM doesn't either.
No, it IS binary. Either they move, or there's no parade. Which leaves another binary decision. Either you do what they say so they agree to move, or you force them to move.
No - YOU said the choices are:
1) Violence
2) Surrender
There are lots of other outcomes. OWS eventually gave up as their demands were untenable and they just stopped. At least that's how I remember it, ie. no large beat-downs, no concessions. There was no, or not enough, political will behind their protest.
The rest of your post reiterates your opinion on this, which is separate from mine.
-
Bumping this thread to post this opinion piece:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-coin-1.5100177
The mint is issuing a new dollar coin to celebrate the 50th of anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969. The only problem is, the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969 is a big fat myth.
The author explains that the supposed "reform" just made it legal for consenting adults to have homosexual contact in private. But in practice, they always could; the state had no ability to police that sort of thing anyway.
While the 1969 debates in the House of Commons focused on whether homosexuality was a dangerous threat or a medical disease, members from all political parties agreed on one thing: the reform accomplished nothing.
Ralliement créditiste MP Bernard Dumont said, "When two homosexuals want to commit such acts privately, nobody will denounce them and no sentence will be passed on them, I cannot see why are being led to believe that this bill is going to change anything." Progressive Conservative Eldon Woolliams agreed: "Two consenting adults are not going to go out and report what they do in private to the law officers."
NDP MP David Orlikow quoted an academic study of gross indecency in Toronto and found there were no charges against two adults in private, concluding "I do not believe this change in the Criminal Code will really do very much."
Even the governing Liberals admitted this. MP Gilles Marceau stated, "Gross indecency is still a criminal act which may be punishable by five years in jail. And the amendment which will enable consenting adults to do certain acts in private only confirms the inviolability of private life."
Justice Minister John Turner was more emphatic, stating that the reform does not promote homosexuality, "it does not advocate such acts, it does not popularize such acts, it does not even legalize this kind of conduct."
When the reforms became law in August 1969, the headline in the Toronto Star read, "State leaves bedrooms, but little has changed." A morality squad detective with more than 18 years experience was interviewed and could not recall a single arrest for two consenting adults having sex in private.
Homosexuality was not "decriminalized" because homosexuals were still targeted using other laws.
Not only did charges for gross indecency continue after 1969, they escalated. In one example from 1976, two young men were arrested at 5 a.m. in an Edmonton park because they were kissing in their parked vehicle. Over an eight-month period in 1982, a group of gay activists attended the Old City Hall courthouse in Toronto and tracked 74 charges of gross indecency against adults for having gay sex.
Charges also escalated for other 19th century Criminal Code relics that were untouched in 1969, including indecent acts, vagrancy, obscenity, and the bawdy-house law. From 1968 to 2004, more than 1,300 men were charged under the bawdy-house law for being in a gay bar or bathhouse. They could not claim protection using the 1969 reform because more than two people were present in these instances, even if they were behind closed doors.
The author is a historian who has studied the Toronto bath-house raids of the 1980s, and points out that far from decriminalizing homosexuality... police harassment of gay people actually increased in the following decade.
So why is the Canadian Mint releasing a coin commemorating an event that led to the mass criminalization of LGBTQ2 communities in the decades after 1969? Whom does this commemoration serve?
It does not serve lesbians, who were not captured by these Criminal Code provisions. Nor does it serve Two-Spirit and Indigenous communities, who in 1969 mobilized against the White Paper, which called for the destruction of their sovereignty and treaty rights.
It does not serve the gay and lesbian community, which, in 1971 gathered on Parliament Hill for their first national protest organized in direct opposition to the 1969 reform. They called for an actual decriminalization and the repeal of all "indecency" laws. This commemoration also ignores LGBTQ2 members of the military and civil service, who continued to be purged until as recent as 1992.
Instead, this commemoration celebrates the so-called accomplishment of a Liberal named Trudeau, a myth that is literally going on our dollar.
-k
-
Bumping this thread to post this opinion piece:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-coin-1.5100177
The mint is issuing a new dollar coin to celebrate the 50th of anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969. The only problem is, the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969 is a big fat myth.
Instead, this commemoration celebrates the so-called accomplishment of a Liberal named Trudeau, a myth that is literally going on our dollar.
historian is he? ;D I've read a number of articles describing the coin/commemoration - PM {Pierre} gets a relatively minor note in passing given his i1967-69 initiative as Justice Minister. The Canadian Mint provides history and a timeline that certainly speaks to a shared accomplishment involving many persons/organizations... and doesn't even mention Pierre Trudeau by name/ministry! (https://www.mint.ca/store/microsite/?site=equality&lang=en_CA&rcmiid=tf|hpto|equality|microsite)
clearly, this opinion writer feels "slighted": There were many gains gained by the gay community before this, but this coin gives all the credit to Pierre Trudeau and 1969. It should be about our community, not the federal government
Finance Minister Bill Morneau unveiled the loonie... with an accompanying tweet that speaks of reflecting historically on "steps TOWARDS equality" while emphasizing, "the work still to do"
(https://i.imgur.com/sxbGSqW.png)
does the opinion writer actually think his inaccurate/biased spiel helps his agenda/cause?
-
It’s a well designed loonie, even if based on fictional events.
-
historian is he? ;D
You wish to argue that he isn't?
I've read a number of articles describing the coin/commemoration - PM {Pierre} gets a relatively minor note in passing given his i1967-69 initiative as Justice Minister. The Canadian Mint provides history and a timeline that certainly speaks to a shared accomplishment involving many persons/organizations... and doesn't even mention Pierre Trudeau by name/ministry! (https://www.mint.ca/store/microsite/?site=equality&lang=en_CA&rcmiid=tf|hpto|equality|microsite)
clearly, this opinion writer feels "slighted":
Finance Minister Bill Morneau unveiled the loonie... with an accompanying tweet that speaks of reflecting historically on "steps TOWARDS equality" while emphasizing, "the work still to do"
They made a coin that says Equality 1969 - 2019 on it. But far from providing equality, the changes in 1969 were actually pretty much meaningless as Mr Hooper's article, and the mass arrests of the following years, demonstrate.
does the opinion writer actually think his inaccurate/biased spiel helps his agenda/cause?
What inaccuracy?
-k
-
You wish to argue that he isn't?
They made a coin that says Equality 1969 - 2019 on it. But far from providing equality, the changes in 1969 were actually pretty much meaningless as Mr Hooper's article, and the mass arrests of the following years, demonstrate.
What inaccuracy?
definitely an agenda driven "historian of Toronto bathhouse raids" ...crafting his own reality; a reality that has him place an over-emphasis on the initial role played by former PM Pierre Trudeau (as then Justice Minister) - an emphasis the Canadian Mint certainly doesn't place... an emphasis I haven't read in any articles that speak to the commemoration/coin. Your favoured "historian of Toronto bathhouse raids", apparently, believes his stated "community" is being denied its due recognition - something I've certainly not read/heard anywhere. Your favoured "historian of Toronto bathhouse raids", apparently, wants to take the story away from accomplishments and, in effect, within the media/public work to negate & deny everything positive that has occurred during the period. Again, the Canadian Mint clearly includes notice on "the communities" efforts/participation in its timeline link I provided earlier.
I certainly haven't read anything suggesting the commemoration/coin marks an Equality point; rather, as I read/interpret, it speaks to an event to commemorate 50 years since Canada took the first step towards decriminalizing homosexuality. In your typical scrambling manner you reference an extended period, 1969 - 2019, and then zero in on the starting year 1969 to speak to it in terms of, as you say, "far from providing equality".
waldo pro-tip: a 50 year period of commemoration presumes upon recognizing the totality of the period in question/review - not placing an ignorant agenda driven emphasis on the starting year of the commemoration period. C'mon kimmy, don't deny the LGBTTQQIAAP community its rightful due to commemorate... to celebrate... positive gains made during the period.
-
I'm sure individual gay police officers are as welcome at Pride as anyone.
I still don't understand why police demand to be there in numbers wearing their uniforms! Are they on duty and being paid? If so, what is their assignment? If not, they're on their own time, so why are they in uniform?
Unclear and intimidating.
-
The only problem is, the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969 is a big fat myth.
Very true, but it was a significant step forward. Changing society is very difficult, but someone needs to take the [first*] step.
*Yes, you may argue there were other important steps beforehand. From a legal standpoint however it is one of the most significant first steps.
-
Very true, but it was a significant step forward. Changing society is very difficult, but someone needs to take the [first*] step.
*Yes, you may argue there were other important steps beforehand. From a legal standpoint however it is one of the most significant first steps.
I'm reading twitter/blog dipshytes fronting the coin/commemoration as an attempt to positively position & portray PM Justin Trudeau. As I'm aware PM Trudeau has not released any related official statement, has not tweeted about it, has not been quoted in the media about it... and stepped back from the actual ceremony where Finance Minister Morneau announced the coin release and commemoration. Trudeau haters going to hate! But hey, let the malcontents rally behind the social conservative policies of Scheer/CPC... hey kimmy - yes?
-
Um, why do they say LGBTQ2, now? I've often wondered why we don't just call ourselves the Q-community for short. Or the q-continuum, that sounds snazzier. Personally I hate having to recite all those letters.
Are the Canadians who don't like Trudeau assuming the Mint is releasing this coin just to prop him up? I mean, his face isn't on the front is it?
-
I'm sure individual gay police officers are as welcome at Pride as anyone.
I still don't understand why police demand to be there in numbers wearing their uniforms! Are they on duty and being paid? If so, what is their assignment? If not, they're on their own time, so why are they in uniform?
Unclear and intimidating.
1. I've never heard the Police "demanding" to be included into a Gay Pride event.
2. It's a large enough event that Police presence is required. Every festival/crowded event has a Police presence to keep the peace.
3. How are they intimidating?
-
Yes, they do.
They also appreciate that they no longer have a criminal record.
I can't speak for gays on the former so ultimately they must decide whether Trudeau is simply pandering for votes or not with their history.
I think he is myself because of his pattern of pandering to interest groups with his transparent fluff. Ultimately though on this issue its up to gays to decide not me.
Ironically he has suppported Israel's right to exist equally to his support of other Middle East groups so fair is fair, he is neutral on the Middle East and has been helfpul to both sidses of the Palestnian conflict being absolutely neutral. I also agree with what he did to support the Kurds in Iraq on the ground which in retrospect appears far more beneficial than the previous air mission. Fair is far. I just don't have much confidence in him though and see such manouvers as desperate pandering attempts to get votes now he is in a free fall.
I can not speak for gays but as a Jew I wouldn't vote for him only because he supports Israel's right to exist. I look at other issues too. My major reasons for not voting for him will not be foreign policy it will be his running up huge deficits, his handling of Lavalin, his mishandling of the oil pipeline, Hua Wei, and the F35 jet fighter issue.
I see no real reason to bad mouth him over this issue its just I don't trust him anymore in anything he does.