HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 1:26 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,215
It's almost amusing the way that some people try to turn this into a reason that Canada sucks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 1:28 PM
flipv's Avatar
flipv flipv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit View Post
For all the grief about Trump, though, please do keep in mind that Hillary is as committed a proponent of the regime-change doctrine as you can get. Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria – she's never seen a strategic location she didn't want to fuck around in. Also, Canada shares a border with Russia; this could become something one notices a little bit more eventually (what with Vicky Nuland doing all those things she loves doing).

Trump may be "Islamophobic", but Hillary's interventions have actually maimed and killed tens of thousands of Muslims.

There are days on which I can almost imagine I'd rather endure a few ignorant tweets than sit heat-dreaming of my mother in a Sabha sub-basement with half my leg blown off and gangrene riding in on green horses.

But then I remember how serious online harassment is.
Yep.. Hit the nail on the head. Clinton is a proven dangerous woman.. Trump is hot air.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 1:33 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,797
Canada might not voice the kind of nativist ideas we hear in Western Europe or the USA, but I have seen first hand that a large number of people will indeed voice them when they feel that it isn't taboo. I door-knocked in both the 2014 Quebec election and the 2015 Federal where the Charter of Values and the Niqab 'issue' respectively came up in public discourse and I was utterly shocked at the things I heard from people who were educated and causally centre-left (i.e.: not very politically active/thoughtful). Now that the issue has been forgotten and gone away, these same people go about their business, interact quite nicely with their muslim co-workers and extol the virtues of multiculturalism. But god, that experience really unsettled me - if a narrative of us-vs-them were to set in permanently (immigrants taking our jobs/women/money/way of life/whatever), I'm now fairly certain that it would find its constituency.

The saving grace is that people may hold these views and even voice them in very limited contexts, but people don't consider these boogeymen big enough of a threat to vote on that one issue. In both cases I experienced, people ended up voting for the party that was actually in favour of their boogeyman because people care about a whole lot of things (jobs, services, etc. etc.) before they care about the fashion choices of religious minorities.
However, to the people who were susceptible to being affected (mainly middle-class muslim communities, but also other visible minority groups), this was a major issue, if only because it felt targeted. And in both cases, groups mobilized against these policies.

So nativist policies are not completely without constituency. It's just that their constituency doesn't care enough to get mobilized whereas the opposition does. And I think I'll be able to sleep at night so long as that's true.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 1:38 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Canada might not voice the kind of nativist ideas we hear in Western Europe or the USA, but I have seen first hand that a large number of people will indeed voice them when they feel that it isn't taboo. I door-knocked in both the 2014 Quebec election and the 2015 Federal where the Charter of Values and the Niqab 'issue' respectively came up in public discourse and I was utterly shocked at the things I heard from people who were educated and causally centre-left (i.e.: not very politically active/thoughtful). Now that the issue has been forgotten and gone away, these same people go about their business, interact quite nicely with their muslim co-workers and extol the virtues of multiculturalism. But god, that experience really unsettled me - if a narrative of us-vs-them were to set in permanently (immigrants taking our jobs/women/money/way of life/whatever), I'm now fairly certain that it would find its constituency.

The saving grace is that people may hold these views and even voice them in very limited contexts, but people don't consider these boogeymen big enough of a threat to vote on that one issue. In both cases I experienced, people ended up voting for the party that was actually in favour of their boogeyman because people care about a whole lot of things (jobs, services, etc. etc.) before they care about the fashion choices of religious minorities.
However, to the people who were susceptible to being affected (mainly middle-class muslim communities, but also other visible minority groups), this was a major issue, if only because it felt targeted. And in both cases, groups mobilized against these policies.

So nativist policies are not completely without constituency. It's just that their constituency doesn't care enough to get mobilized whereas the opposition does. And I think I'll be able to sleep at night so long as that's true.
That would be our "best" recent example, although the "niqab thing" and all that was associated with it during the last election campaign shows that at least part of the population can be riled up. Fortunately, that too ended in electoral defeat for the party responsible ("niqab thing" being only one element of larger reasons).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 1:54 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
I used to be THAT guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 28,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
It's almost amusing the way that some people try to turn this into a reason that Canada sucks.
Canada isn't perfect isn't the same as Canada sucks.
__________________
Va où il y a des livres. - Robert Sabatier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:06 PM
vincefort vincefort is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: sherbrooke
Posts: 195
I used the term pseudo-intellectual just because they usually don't go very deep and there is no big philosopical debates on issues they present. Things are presented to affect our emotions rather than our intelligence which is the purpose of a news channel I guess. There is really an insidious control of Radio-Canada by the left if it's a good thing or not that I don't know, history will tell us. IMO Canadians should be intelligent enough to have a fair and honnest view of issues presented to them so they can figure out what to think for themselves. If you don't trust them that's where you start lieing, presenting one side of the story and ignoring subjects you don't judge "politically correct". There is this tv show in France "On n'est pas couché" and they sometimes receive guests that are considered right wing thinkers on their set and the things that are being discussed would never be said on air in Québec. Most thinkers that go on this show are very intelligent and logical, rightists and leftists, and it makes some very good "clashes". So from what I see there is far more freedom of speech in french medias than here in Canada and that could explain why there is no right wing movement here, if it's a good thing or not well... Radio-Canada was always talking against Harper because he was cutting their budget under his reign and since Trudeau has been elected he gave them the credit card and a 675 millions budget on five years, just that should make us doubtful of their parity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:12 PM
Vorkuta's Avatar
Vorkuta Vorkuta is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Moncton, NB
Posts: 1,142
It's not rocket surgery. I don't think journalism as a career attracts as many conservatives as liberals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:16 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,947
I've never thought that it matters in any event. The idea of "unbiased media" always seemed strange to me. All I want is a reasonable understanding of the outlet/journalists'/commentators' editorial position/political bias so that I can read and filter the information accordingly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:26 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,797
Impartiality does not mean that both sides of an argument get 50%. If I'm arguing against gravity and a physicist is arguing for it, RC would not and should not give us equal airtime. That's not to say that RC is totally objective (I'm of the opinion that such a thing doesn't exist), but if an idea comes from a source with little credibility or evidence to back it up, then I think it would be irresponsible to give it equal weight to one that does.

I'd also like to add that I'm actually quite glad that our media landscape is less bombastic (and dare I say more even-headed) that what one finds in France. Watching French television, I sometimes feel it's a race to be both the loudest and the most extreme, each side indulging its constituency as if reality never requires compromise. Canada is a country borne of compromise and cooperation and we do pretty well by it. It certainly isn't perfect, but I think that France has a lot more to learn from us in terms of social cohesion that we do from them.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:28 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is online now
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: See post below...
Posts: 24,542
Yeah, bias is always more of concern to me in terms of its impact on what gets covered, not how it's covered. The how is easy to navigate.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:48 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,797
And for sure, it often feels like we don't cover some of the big issues of our time. But these issues are rarely sexy or easy enough to grasp in a 90-second news feature, nor do they unfold quickly enough to provide enough new material for the week-long cycle of things like Fort Mac or political dramas.

There really is only so much the media can do - we can't have in-depth discussions about serious issues AND have it be easily digestible. And if we were to devote more time to a particular issue, there would be a million others we didn't look at. I don't see it as some large conspiracy to censor or repress - it's the simple reality that choices must be made and are made to look at one thing and not another. That becomes a problem when those choices are made with an ulterior motive in mind, but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that that is the case at the CBC/RC.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 2:51 PM
mistercorporate's Avatar
mistercorporate mistercorporate is online now
The Fruit of Discipline
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,115
I find the CBC highly biased and left leaning but i think id be more annoyed if we as Canadians had a Fox News like outlet being taken seriously.
__________________

Tosin007: "I know I need to get laid"
WhipperSnapper: "My seriousness is simply a veil hiding a true comedic genius."
OutOfTowner: "I live in Villeray - a block from Marché Jean Talon. And my choice of hairstyle is none of your business."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 3:01 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by manny_santos View Post
It's always interesting reading about multiculturalism in Canada. From my observations it's a phenomenon of the larger cities while in much of the rest of Canada it's a foreign concept. You don't have to drive that far out of Toronto to find homogeneous white communities. When I lived in Kingston, multiculturalism was literally something you only saw on TV.

Since moving to Toronto, Kingston literally feels like an entirely different country. There really are two Canadas - a dense urban multicultural society and a rural/medium urban white society.
So far, they have at least got somewhat along and avoided racism or hard tactics. But as the dense urban society takes more hold (nearly all the growth in Canada outside Alberta has been in those areas), will rural discontent reach the point of nativism? I know economically it is starting to happen in Ontario, but hasn't spread into social issues yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 3:05 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Remember as well, many of these "far-right" nationalists are left of their socialist parties on many issues in their respective countries. On trade and economic issues, UKIP is left of Labour, and Trump is left of Clinton and most Democrats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 3:52 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
I used to be THAT guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 28,707
So the consensus answer is that, yes, Canada is an outlier. And will be forever?
__________________
Va où il y a des livres. - Robert Sabatier
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 4:29 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 29,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Impartiality does not mean that both sides of an argument get 50%. If I'm arguing against gravity and a physicist is arguing for it, RC would not and should not give us equal airtime. That's not to say that RC is totally objective (I'm of the opinion that such a thing doesn't exist), but if an idea comes from a source with little credibility or evidence to back it up, then I think it would be irresponsible to give it equal weight to one that does.

I'd also like to add that I'm actually quite glad that our media landscape is less bombastic (and dare I say more even-headed) that what one finds in France. Watching French television, I sometimes feel it's a race to be both the loudest and the most extreme, each side indulging its constituency as if reality never requires compromise. Canada is a country borne of compromise and cooperation and we do pretty well by it. It certainly isn't perfect, but I think that France has a lot more to learn from us in terms of social cohesion that we do from them.

Well put.

Strangely, Climate Change Deniers are given a hell of a lot of space in the press, despite the fact that an extremely minuscule proportion of scientists (never mind pseudo-scientists*) deny anthropogenic climate change.

Conrad Black has an opinion on climate change? Thinks it is a hoax? Well thanks for that, Lord Crossharbour, but your self-anointed expert opinion carries no authority.

*e.g., the discredited Lord Monckton, always trotted out by deniers, even though he isn't a scientist.

Same goes for Creationists and (un)Intelligent Design advocates.
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 4:34 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Canada isn't perfect isn't the same as Canada sucks.
It seems to be almost a hoping desperation from some that Canada be just not quite to the nativist sentiment. Just not yet - maybe in 25 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 4:37 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
So the consensus answer is that, yes, Canada is an outlier. And will be forever?
Forever is such a long time..... Can triggers be imagined that might make Canada less of an outlier? Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 4:51 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Car-oriented Toronto
Posts: 1,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
So far, they have at least got somewhat along and avoided racism or hard tactics. But as the dense urban society takes more hold (nearly all the growth in Canada outside Alberta has been in those areas), will rural discontent reach the point of nativism? I know economically it is starting to happen in Ontario, but hasn't spread into social issues yet.
That's a good point. In the US and Europe, right wing nativist movements have been supported by disenfranchised working class white men, who find themselves to be increasingly irrelevant to those countries' economies.

In Canada, we were given a bit of a reprieve because this same demographic of young, less-than-average educated white men were given a decade of high paying jobs in the oil sands and in a construction boom in most of our major cities. We also have a much more urbanized population (as in, living in large cities, not just "cities" of 10,000 people), so fewer Canadians lived in economic backwaters. Now that the oil boom is over and a lot of the housing-related construction boom might be built on a bubble (or, at least, can't go on at this pace forever), things are looking a little more tenuous.

There are more threats to the working class white male on the horizon; more threats than opportunities, really. Inventions like self-driving cars, and therefore self-driving trucks, buses and delivery vans means that tens of thousands of Canadian men might be thrown out of work, for example.

Whether it will result in a nativist backlash is another thing, but whatever will happen probably won't be pretty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2016, 4:54 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by eternallyme View Post
So far, they have at least got somewhat along and avoided racism or hard tactics. But as the dense urban society takes more hold (nearly all the growth in Canada outside Alberta has been in those areas), will rural discontent reach the point of nativism? I know economically it is starting to happen in Ontario, but hasn't spread into social issues yet.
How so?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:54 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.