Canadian Politics Today

Maybe the Americans started it.  They start things.  Like reality show Presidents.

In reality it's more of a human ideal. Humans like people to be more or less like them. We've discussed this before and I've posted a number of cites to this. We are still in our minds, somewhat tribal. We're never going to be as comfortable around 'outsiders' as we are around our own tribe.

You think treating them as if this is normal is going to get them to change? The only thing that gets a large community to change its group dynamic is overwhelming condemnation from others. Why else would they? Do you think this person, who was born and raised in Canada has been impacted by the generally respectful multicultural treatment of her family in Canada? I mean, she's clearly no shrinking violet, and fully politically aware and awash in the politics of the zealous social justice warrior. Yet she still covers herself in black bedsheets in allegiance to a belief that it is the duty of women to cover themselves so as to not cause male lust.

I suppose she can cover herself in any way she chooses; she lives in Canada and has that right, along with the right to speak out about what she sees as injustice to Aboriginals.   Who are you to also demand that she dress according to your standards, and thereby discount the rest of her existence?  it's no different than commenting on a woman's very revealing outfit, and ignoring all her accomplishments.

it's true that social disapproval can help 'keep people in line' but the notion that overwhelming condemnation will persuade an individual or a group to behave differently is wrong.  If that were true, blacks would still be slaves and women still wouldn't have the vote - and Trump would also be changing his behavior.   

it's true that social disapproval can help 'keep people in line' but the notion that overwhelming condemnation will persuade an individual or a group to behave differently is wrong.  If that were true, blacks would still be slaves and women still wouldn't have the vote - and Trump would also be changing his behavior.

Trump has lived a lifetime as a guy everyone else was afraid to say no to. He is the perfect example of the spoiled brat no one ever scorned, mocked and ridiculed, and who thus never learned to amend his behaviour. And are you under the impression slavery was abolished despite overwhelming support or that women were given the vote despite overwhelming public opposition? Because you'd be wrong. Politicians are not notably a brave group of individuals. People stopped using words like **** and kike and **** in public when it became socially unacceptable to do so. Why is it the Left has no issue with heaping scorn and abuse on those who act in ways they disapprove of, even imposing regulations and rules to prohibit that behaviour, and yet when it comes to Islam they completely reverse course?

The problem with that is it's fairly evident it has no real impact. Else the numbers of hijabi/chador/burqua wearers among Canadian Muslim women would not be steadily rising. Clearly the number of Muslims who believe in the more rigid, Wahhabi/salafist version of Islam continues to grow.

Most of the middle east was progressing very nicely toward secularism until the 'clash of the civizliations' (aka battle for oil) started. 

I think the rise of militant Islam is a response to western invasions.  Have a look at Afghanistan circa 1950's.

Slaves and women had to fight for the rights they gained against considerable social disapproval, not just from politicians but also from others within their group to get where they are.

Slaves didn't gain their freedom by fighting. They gained it by their oppressors deciding it wasn't the morally proper thing to do. It became socially inappropriate. The slaves didn't get Britain to ban slavery or start hunting down slave ships, and they didn't get Lincoln to ban slavery either.

Why else would it take 100 years of activism before women in the States were allowed to vote freely?

First, voting was only for landowners for quite some time. So neither women nor the poor got to vote. Then it was for men because men were the ones who had always made all the decisions forever and didn't see the sense in asking the wife's opinion. Neither, for the most part, did the wife. Then when some women began to agitate for the right to vote there was a lot of discussion, and both men and other women were gradually won over to the idea. It became, in other words, the socially agreed upon thing to do.
 

Yes, social disapproval can help keep people in line, as I said. 

Then why is it not a valid  tool to use against misogynistic cultural practices imported from the third world and wrongly instilled with a religious symbolism?

Why is this claim made so often about "the left", while "the right" busily imposes their view of morality on people through bathroom bills, blocking LGBT rights, blocking abortion access, imposing dress codes?

Is the right saying that boycotts and social disapproval is only acceptable against certain targets? It seems to me the Left enthusiastically supports it in some cases, then in others blithely says it would not be acceptable.

it's the concept of "Personal freedom"; perhaps you've heard of that?

Sure. I'm not saying women in these goofy shrouds should be forced not to be goofy. Let them wear clown masks if they want. Just don't ask me to have any respect for them. 

My dislike or disapproval of certain practices does not give me the right to demand that those people change unless those practices present a clear danger to someone.

I largely feel the same. If the Amish want to live their quaint lifestyles with their period piece costumes, that's no skin off my nose. But there aren't very many Amish at all. There are LOTS of Muslims, and their numbers are growing by leaps and bounds. They will probably be our largest minority group, surpassing natives, in the next few years. They have a  high birth rate, compared to the rest of us, and we are importing a hundred thousand more every year. I do not think it is in the interest of a secular, peaceful, Western oriented Canada to continue to grow a nation of rabid religious fundamentalists in our midst whose social views are diametrically opposed to ours.

Your Islamophobia is showing.

Well, maybe we should have just kept this guy out. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41699245

Or would that have been Islamophobic too?

If we are going to characterize entire groups of people based on news stories, then I declare Caucasian men **** and rapists.  The proof is in the news every week: men almost always described as Caucasian grabbing, groping and assaulting preteen and teen girls and adult women.  Clearly, you and Sir John belong to a group of people whose belief system allows them to terorize znd **** females of any age; your barbarity is completely at odds with a civilized society.  And sure, you will probably tell me that's not you and you disapprove of such behavior, but even if you aren't lying, you certainly aren't doing enough to stop the rapists and ****.   Just because the vast majority of men haven't **** anyone, its only a matter of time because men are basically rapists and ****.

And that is essentially the argument of SJ against Muslims.

Just the ones who deserve it.  I trust you are the same, and are not really as Caucophobic as you like to make out.

Just the ones who deserve it.

Some people don't think 'it's just the ones who deserve it', they think it's all but (maybe) a few who are 'rabid fundamentalists with values diametrically opposed to ours'.  It's a long-winded way of saying "They are less human than we are."   That kind of attitude comes just prior to treating them with less humanity.