I haven't heard much in the way of positive statements by Canadians about Stephen Harper during his tenure as prime minister of Canada, and from what I've read about him over the years, I would say that I have negative opinion of the man myself. I don't know much about Justin Trudeau yet, so cannot give an informed opinion on this result.*
"Canada's Trudeau topples PM Harper in shock election win" |
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/20/us-canada-election-idUSKCN0SD17X20151020)
QuoteCanada's Liberal leader Justin Trudeau rode a late surge to a stunning majority election victory on Monday, toppling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives with a promise of change and returning a touch of glamor, youth and charisma to Ottawa.
Harper conceded defeat and the Conservative party announced his resignation, ending a nine-year run in power and the 56-year-old's brand of fiscal and cultural conservatism that voters appeared to sour on.
The Liberals seized a Parliamentary majority, a turn in political fortunes that smashed the record for the number of seats gained from one election to the next. The center-left Liberals had been a distant third place party before this election.
[Continues . . . (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/20/us-canada-election-idUSKCN0SD17X20151020)]
*Though this (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28372-canadas-new-government-heralds-freedom-of-speech-for-scientists/) seems like an excellent start.
I'm not really informed about Canadian politics either, but this little piece of information sounds like a positive change. This as a first careful statement.
Quote from: Recusant on October 20, 2015, 10:29:17 PM
I haven't heard much in the way of positive statements by Canadians about Stephen Harper during his tenure as prime minister of Canada,
You probably haven't been hanging out with the right people.
Can (is Can a thing? surely it is, it's a marketer's dream) and Oz are like in many ways.
No there's nothing more
a birthing hump back whale and a plastic bottle top are alike in many ways...
I'm curious what my Canadian friends think of this blog post. This is an ex-Muslim Pakistani woman who lives in Canada, writing "about sexuality in South Asia, religion & politics." A lot of her postings admittedly descend too much into rants, but I've also found some of her material interesting.
http://nicemangos.blogspot.ca/2015/03/an-open-letter-to-niqab-supporting.html
I didn't really follow this closely, but there was a Muslim woman who insisted on taking the Canadian citizenship oath while wearing a niqab, which was against the rules, and Harper pushed back against it, causing a counter-reaction from the liberal media for exploiting Islamophobia (the woman was eventually allowed to leave the niqab on) and was apparently a big campaign issue. The blogger was pissed because she felt liberal Canadians were betraying their values by making exceptions for misogynistic behavior that they would normally decry, but because this was a minority, felt the need to "protect them" without regard for women inside the community that don't feel they have a choice. Reminds me of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in many ways.
Do you think her perspective was accurate? Or was Harper really just exploiting the issue for his gain? I have to admit I see her point and don't think they should have allowed her to leave the niqab on, but I don't know what the political situation was like. My wife pointed out that they could easily have made arrangements to take the oath uncovered with a female judge present but no one else from the public.
Excellent blog post, Firebird, thank you for posting that link. I'd heard about the niqab thing with Harper, but hadn't dug into it.
I have to wonder whether a Liberal politician would have got the same reaction. There is somewhat of a tendency among an element on the left to defend Islam against what they see as unwarranted criticism (Ben Affleck is an example of this), so perhaps a Liberal would have heard the same noise.
Is there a compelling reason for requiring women to take an oath without a covering? I can't think of one.
Quote from: jumbojak on November 29, 2015, 11:57:04 PM
Is there a compelling reason for requiring women to take an oath without a covering? I can't think of one.
The only reason I can think of for needing someone's face exposed is identification. Maybe they were afraid of the oath being taken by proxy, tho I'm not sure what real difference that would make.