Author Topic: On Canadian Values  (Read 9860 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Peter F

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 153
  • Location: I'd rather be in Quebec...
Re: On Canadian Values
« on: March 08, 2017, 06:20:46 am »
I assume that nobody objects to the questions themselves, and are laughing because the answers are patently obvious.

For the sake of argument, I'd suggest that this might be why Ms Leitch thinks its important that these issues be discussed in person with a human agent, as opposed to answered in a multiple choice questionaire.

...

I mention my own experience by way of pointing out that it's a lot harder to lie to a human than it is to lie to a multiple choice questionaire. A human can read your expressions as you talk. A human can ask follow-up questions. I mean, everybody knows the right and wrong things to say to a border agent too, yet a surprising number of people screw up.

Is it bad that she wants people to talk to a trained interviewer before coming into the country?

 -k

I do not dispute that the vetting process would include questioning - mostly just routine stuff. But Leitch isn't merely suggesting that something that is already in place be put in place. She has given us three examples of questions that aren't dealing with unmasking terrorists or criminals but the questions are aimed to expose people that supposedly don't share Canadian Values. I think its ridiculous since even the questions she proposes won't  get her the results she thinks they will. She has no sense of nuance or empathy for that matter.

Example 1: “Are men and women equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?”
   Which law? Canadian law not sharia or (i guess) Roman Civl Law? Canadian law then...well Yes, in Canadian Law (so the interviewee has been told since she doesn't actually live in Canada to experience it) men and women are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law.
  That is not a question about Canadian values. That is a civics question about the law in Canada.  It may be that really what Leitch means is does the interviewee agree with the statement 'men and women are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law'.   If that is what she meant then she still has it wrong because many Canadians don't actually agree with that statement. They agree initially but then come up with many exceptions to the general rule. Gays, immigrants, poor people, ****, anyone named Khadr , natives and on an on ad nauseam. 
Such ideas are also Canadian Values which is why there are debates in the house of commons over gay marriages; abortion; equal pay legistlation; motions on Islamophobia; the Lords Prayer in schools etc etc. 
 
Example 2: “Is it ever ok to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?”
Everyone immigrant in the world will answer No to that question. She thinks its a Canadian Value. Yet many Canadians, while agreeing to that statement, would then come up with exceptions to that general rule. If their views are a threat to their way of life like feminism, gays, muslims, atheists, the chinese language, hell even the French. Then there are all sorts of exceptions. Thus to disagree with the statement by assuming exceptions, is also a Canadian Value. Again its why there are debates and votes in the House of Commons because its a closely held Canadian Value that one gets to disagree.

Example 3: “Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard for yourself and your family, and that you can’t expect to have things you want given to you?”

Again, who would answer that stock Conservative Values loaded question negatively? why no one of course. But it is not a Canadian Value and has nothing to do with Canadian Values. Everyone would agree with the statement but then there'd also be all the exceptions to the rule: Tax breaks, Student loans, Health-care, subsidized housing, Lotteries !.  Hell, even Leitch would have a raft of exceptions to that particular supposed Canadian value.

It all boils down to Leitch , amongst others, assuming her values are Canadian values and then losing an election when standing up to promote those values. But I don't think she is thoughtful enough to ever wonder why that happened.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 06:23:27 am by Peter F »
"Never take on the role of management"
-- C.A.W. Shop Steward's manual.