leftists want peace and equality.

but, we realize that you have to dismantle the systems of power before you can have that - of which religion is the most egregious.

the caq's logic around the issue may be somewhat warped, but the policy is firmly on the left, and the opposition to it is purely conservative, in both intent and content.

for some reason, i tend to get through to people better when i include a dialogue.

conservative: yay! multiculturalism is great! everybody getting along in god's great kingdom, in perfect harmony - just so long as they all know their place. let's everybody sing in harmony! smile on your brother now...

leftist: i guess it looks nice at first glance, if you have no analysis. but, on the left, we don't believe in utopias, we see the world in terms of conflict.

conservative: well, we think so long as everybody knows their place, there's no conflict, just harmony. because god. qed.

leftist: ok. but, what happens when the religious people - the muslims and the christians - start actually enforcing their beliefs on everybody else?

conservative: well, they wouldn't. because harmony.

leftist: but, clearly they would, because the world is not about harmony and unity, it's about different classes of people in conflict,

conservative: there you go, it's all about class.

leftist: struggling for primacy over each other.

conservative: nope. harmony. god.

leftist: do you have an example of your kind of society actually working? because we focus on history quite a bit, and all we see are all of these different groups in conflict.

conservative: they just need to love each other. you need to have faith.

leftist: ok, so let me get this straight, then - you're essentially proposing just taking all kinds of people that are in perpetual conflict with each other, and asking them to live peacefully together on an article of faith, and with absolutely no contingency plan whatsoever in case it completely fails?

conservative: smile on your brother, everybody let's get together...

the reality is that canada is the elite institution that you need a 98% average to get into.

so, why do we promote ourselves as a community college?

regarding the optics, this image of the friendly rcmp officer is actually a misrepresentation of the country's actual immigration policies, which are some of the strictest in the world; there is a contradiction, here, in our global image as this safehaven escape and the actual reality that we reject 95% of applicants. this contradiction appears to be driving the problem. so, a little bit of a tougher image at the border may actually be exactly what we need.

but, i actually agree that we can't be eliminating or overturning due process, here, and that the court isn't likely to uphold any decision or process that prevents it. can you use the notwithstanding clause on a treaty? don't answer that, i don't want to know. the problem isn't that all of these people are flooding in, but that we don't have the infrastructure to deal with it; if we want canada to be a global leader in quality of life, we're going to attract a lot of people that we're not going to let in, and have to find a way to deal with it. the flow isn't going to stop.

after decades of neglecting the system, we are long overdue in the need to build more low income housing, and it's not entirely clear to me why this government is doing everything it possibly can to avoid that, besides being ideologically opposed to it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-us-moves-to-open-talks-with-canada-on-asylum-seeker-treaty/

this is really not remotely what i signed up for.

i wanted industrial decay and social collapse as a pre-requisite for social progress, and have instead found myself in a time warp back to the dark ages.

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/windsor-third-fastest-growing-city-in-latest-census

no.

this is itself reactionary and conservative, and will likely erode much of their support.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/with-new-position-on-secularism-quebec-solidaire-redefines-left-wing-politics-in-the-province-1.5079087

i mentioned that we did thomas more in grade 8, although i've since found some evidence that this may have been grade 13. that is indeed a large space in time, which goes to uphold my point that i am having difficulty ordering these events chronologically.

and, i did attend catholic middle and high schools in the meadowlands area of ottawa, which is historically an italian district, even if the schools were at that point overrun by irish kids from barrhaven.

is thomas more mentioned in shakespeare's henry VIII? that might be the source of the confusion. i'll figure this out...

if i read about more as a teenager, i should have sympathies with the religious minorities being forced to choose between their ideology and their career, right? quite the opposite... 

while i can't place this in time, i do remember my reaction, which is quite visceral: i thought that thomas more was a complete fucking idiot, and that his death was entirely his own stupid fault. all he had to do was cite a fucking pledge; he lost his head, instead. what a moron. we're not even talking about some deep theological point of debate, here, although if we were it would be equally damning to his intellect; anglicanism, and especially at that time, was theologically identical to catholicism, so there was no clash of ideas here. thomas more died solely for his allegiance to the pope, a murderous and tyrannical despot that was driven by conquest and plunder; he was a serf that could not free himself from his master, not even when threatened with death. that is not valour, it is stupidity, and he should be pitied rather than revered. even now, merely thinking of it, i remain enraged by his idiocy, and rather disappointed in the teaching decision, which lionized him as some kind of saintly martyr, who was marched to the lions for the sanctity of his beliefs. what nonsense. you might even make the argument that teaching such a thing mere kilometres from the border with quebec is politically irresponsible. vive le quebec stupide.

likewise, i have little sympathy for the person who is so stupid as to make the conscious choice that adherence to their silly religious beliefs is more valuable than their own self-interest in secular society; i may pity such a fool, but in the end i will only condemn their for their own absurdity. they have this choice in front of them between the past and the future, and if they choose the past then we must move on without them.

again: i support the thrust of the legislation, and think it is mostly defensible. we already have strong restrictions on free expression in the public service; this is not fundamentally different from what already exists.

however, i oppose the use of the notwithstanding clause to circumvent judicial oversight and eliminate due process.

we may have to get rid of that clause.

it is up to the courts to decide if the legislature is going too far or not, not the legislature itself.

these "lengthy court battles" are called due process.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-premier-defends-secularism-bill-to-the-public-in-short-video-1.5078782