9 Responded To This Post

10595. paul said on November 28, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Kind of like a certain provincial election I remember where religious school funding was deemed "segregation" while funding a "gay school", the Catholic school system, a number of other Christian schools and now tacitly approving a "black school".

I agree with you. Politicians who play these games are whores. Especially the ones who target "thousands".

10601. Cam Holmstrom said on November 28, 2007 at 9:44 pm

Scott….  you of course, as I have come to expect, only gave one side of this story. You left out the part where your party’s leader was pushing for this very thing back in September, and he has yet to say how the Liberals are going to vote this time. Of course, I bet that you will be just as outraged with Mr. Dion and the Liberals if and when they finally come out with their position again.

10602. Scott Tribe said on November 28, 2007 at 9:58 pm

I didn’t present any side of the story, Cam. I pointed out there were plenty of left-wing and NDP blogs who are publicly dissenting against this very unprogressive position that the NDP and Jack Layton has taken.

 That’s unlike at your blog on the other hand, where you claimed it was all the Liberal blogs condemning the act, and only a couple of NDP bloggers.

I was against this when the issue first came up, by the way.

10603. Cam Holmstrom said on November 28, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Scott, I did not claim that all Liberal Blogs were condemning the act… My exact words were "some hyper-partisan Liberals", to which you pointed out my mistake on the affiliation of one of the blogs, which in turn corrected in the comments section. The NDP blogs I quoted were the only ones that I had read to that point.

I’m glad to hear that you’re against this issue, because if you read the blog, i’m not doing summersaults of joy over this bill either. But, as I point out, if the group that it will directly affect is not upset by this, then what should I object to? I also pointed out that I was unable to find any reports in the media of Muslim groups that were opposed to this, and invited anyone who knew of some to please point them out. That was not said out of sarcasm or ignorance, I really want to know if there are. That information will help me sort through this whole thing better and further form my opinion.

10604. Dan said on November 28, 2007 at 10:35 pm

You might want to look at this article too Scott.  Seems Jack Layton is clamoring for the center.  Probably a little too much for most dippers.

10609. Dr.Dawg said on November 29, 2007 at 8:18 am

Cam’s sloppiness on this would be forgiveable if he had the grace to retract and apologize when caught out. He describes me at his place as another "hyper-partisan Liberal," which gave me a much-needed early morning laugh. He then frames the debate as though it’s stealth Liberal politicking rather than what it of course is: a bigot’s bill, about to pass with NDP support.

The question of electoral fraud was always a non-issue. The Elections Act was duly modified, with Marc Mayrand twice flagging the issue of photo ID for the politicos, but no one cared to make a move. (What caused him to raise the issue with them in the first place is of increasing interest for me, but that’s another thread.) In any case, two pieces of non-photo ID or someone to vouch for you was sufficient in the first iteration. Then someone asked Mayrand at a meeting whether the law would permit niqabi to vote without lifting their veils, he answered–quite correctly–that it would, and the fat was in the proverbial fire.

In the second iteration, Bill C-6, nothing has been done to fix the ID question at all. Two pieces of non-photo ID or someone to vouch for you is still sufficient. So, then, what does unveiling achive? It has nothing to do with identification or electoral fraud any more, if it ever did. Now it’s about playing to the rednecks and yokels who relish the thought of humiliating those damned Muslims.

For the NDP to get mixed up in this is shameful. They didn’t play a great role in the grilling of Marc Mayrand at the Parliamentary committee a few months ago, and they’re looking a lot worse right now.  And to get the hacksters and trained seals out trying to excuse them almost brings this to the point of no return.

My challenge to you, though, Scott: I’m returning my Party card if the NDP supports this piece of trash when it comes to a vote. Will you do the same if the Liberals support the Bill?

10610. Dr.Dawg said on November 29, 2007 at 8:31 am

Update: Cam apologized to me at his place.

10611. JimBobby said on November 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

Whooee! Well Dawg an’ Scott, if you fellers turn in yer party membership cards, there’s ahome for you at the only party to publicly denounce the bill and its supporters. ProgBlogger and GPC candidate Chris Tindal wrote the Greens’ official statement.  Greens denounce support of veiled voters bill

JB

10613. ALW said on November 29, 2007 at 11:24 am

"Fearmongering against Muslims"?  Was it or was it not Dalton McGuinty who just won a provincial election by doing precisely that - but pretending not to - with respect to religious schools?  Where’s your outrage there?  Oh, right: subordinate to your partisanship. 

Leave A Reply

Go Back To Home Perception is everything. | A good start.

 Username(*required)

 Email Address(*private)

 Website(*optional)

Subscribe without commenting

Please Note: comment moderation may be active, so there is no need to resubmit your comments