The rise of right wing nativism and Canada as an outlier

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, the meaning of this question definitely varies depending on where you are. In places like Vancouver, some ethnic communities get so large though that they don't have to assimilate, which is where I suspect a lot of the responses would stem from here.

Yup.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by lio45

If you're in favor of a big, costly government that monitors and enforces all these things, then you're most definitely not "actual right wing".

Again, you're confusing the right with libertarians. Right wingers enjoy big talk about less government and less regulation, but they're hypocrites who don't actually walk the walk. In practice they have always been eager to use lots of government to keep everyone "else" in line (non-whites, business competitors, other countries, etc.).

Originally Posted by lio45

The hallmark of the right is a smaller, leaner, less invasive government -- that means less laws regarding turbans and hijabs, less language police, etc. Basically, keep the govt out of people's daily lives as much as possible. That's the idea.

You're talking about obscure theoreticians and ranting blogs in the dusty libertarian corners of the internet. There has never been a right wing government in history that could be characterized as being minimized and keeping out of people's daily lives as much as possible.

[lio45]

I think you're confusing the right with "social conservatives".

[Marshal]

This thread should be closed. Nothing new or interesting has been said for a long time. It's just arguments in circles, like two cats chasing each other's tails.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

There has never been a right wing government in history that could be characterized as being minimized and keeping out of people's daily lives as much as possible.

Well, obviously not if you define "right wing" as "heavily involved in trying to regulate various aspects of people's lives" as you seem to do. That's totally circular.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, obviously not if you define "right wing" as "heavily involved in trying to regulate various aspects of people's lives" as you seem to do. That's totally circular.

You have a very pure definition of what being right-wing is. Most people's experiences with right-wing politics, from the Conservative Party and especially the Republican Party, is very different from the libertarian ideal of the right-wing.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

You have a very pure definition of what being right-wing is. Most people's experiences with right-wing politics, from the Conservative Party and especially the Republican Party, is very different from the libertarian ideal of the right-wing.

The Republican Party isn't really right wing, or if it is, it's because you're warped your definition to fit the party. There's an actual Libertarian Party that fits the definition better. It's like you're saying the Democratic Party is the party of environmentalists, when you actually have a Green Party competing in the same election.

The GOP is a "conservative" party, sure.

In Canada as well, there are the (centrist, somewhat socially conservative) federal Tories, and there's the LPC (Libertarian Party of Canada) that also exists.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Marshal

This thread should be closed. Nothing new or interesting has been said for a long time. It's just arguments in circles, like two cats chasing each other's tails.

If the discussion is civil, why on Earth would you be in favor of less content and less activity on this forum? Even a blind conversation can sometimes happen to find a nut, and there's no downside to an "uninteresting" conversation (also, all you have to do is to not click on that thread).

[Acajack]

We're in a bit of a weird situation in the western world right now with respect to immigrants, integration, etc. and how the approaches to them are viewed in left-right, racist and non-racist, etc. terms. Canada in particular (and perhaps to the extreme, Anglo-Canada) is particularly passionate about this.

Traditionally, it was the right wing conservatives and even racists who did not want immigrants to assimilate. They wanted to keep them apart from their communities. Segregation in the U.S. and apartheid in South Africa were about preserving the cultural specificity of each group (especially the dominant white one of course). They didn't have good intentions it is true but the thinking was still the same. The old francophone Catholic "vieux fond bleu" power base in Quebec was also like this. They were ok with immigrants keeping to themselves because they didn't want them mixing with ''their'' people.

In most places in the world it was the left and organized labour that fought for integration and to break down barriers. And paved the way for people with names likes Antonelli to be considered Americans, or Lipschitz to be considered French.

It's odd today how the roles have reversed and that it's considered right wing and even borderline racist to want to fully encourage newcomers to meld into the fold to the point where they could become members of society indistinguishable from the rest.

Back in the old days, most immigrants to western countries couldn't have dreamed of a better offer.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

If the discussion is civil, why on Earth would you be in favor of less content and less activity on this forum? Even a blind conversation can sometimes happen to find a nut, and there's no downside to an "uninteresting" conversation (also, all you have to do is to not click on that thread).

Voltaire had a great phrase for this: cachez ce sein que je ne saurais voir.

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by lio45

If the discussion is civil, why on Earth would you be in favor of less content and less activity on this forum? Even a blind conversation can sometimes happen to find a nut, and there's no downside to an "uninteresting" conversation (also, all you have to do is to not click on that thread).

You find this interesting? Well, enjoy waiting for that rare nut.
And yes, "don't click." I don't for long stretches and then decide to see if something insightful is happening. But no, just the same as four weeks ago. And you're also right, there's no downside . . . unless it makes no sense to you to waste time when there are more fruitful discussions to be had. In four more weeks I'm sure I won't be able to help myself, and I'll check in again. It's all my own fault.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by lio45

The Republican Party isn't really right wing, or if it is, it's because you're warped your definition to fit the party. There's an actual Libertarian Party that fits the definition better. It's like you're saying the Democratic Party is the party of environmentalists, when you actually have a Green Party competing in the same election.

The GOP is a "conservative" party, sure.

In Canada as well, there are the (centrist, somewhat socially conservative) federal Tories, and there's the LPC (Libertarian Party of Canada) that also exists.

I agree with you theoretically, but when the media (and the parties themselves) brand the Democrats as left and the Republicans as right, most people have that system imprinted in their heads. In practice, those two parties do represent the mainstream left and right (as defined by their own identity and electoral success), even though traditionally the Democratic Party has been more neoliberal than left-wing and the Republican Party has been authoritarian, not right-wing.

I agree that Libertarianism is a more accurate depiction of the left-right spectrum, being an ideology that follows the more accurate spectrum of extremes being between communism and anarchy, not communism and fascism as is commonly referred to. But for whatever reason, fiscal conservatism has become tied to social conservatism, which inherently involves bigger government. Somehow, this became the more mainstream ideology. So while Libertarianism better fits the form of theoretical right-wing though, with the Republican Party claiming the vast majority of the right-wing vote, it's hard to argue that they're not right wing. I would instead just say that they're not truly conservative.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Marshal

And you're also right, there's no downside . . . unless it makes no sense to you to waste time when there are more fruitful discussions to be had.

Can't speak for you, but in my case there's a very tangible ESL benefit to the time spent (or "wasted", if you prefer) reading vocabulary-rich posts from highly educated SSPers and having to craft my own while debating with them. Now yes, if this conversation were taking place in French it would be a true waste of time, and you wouldn't see me participating in that.

So, I suppose, in a sense, we agree.

See you in here in four weeks, more or less

[eemy]

lio45, I don't think the term right-wing has ever been used in the sense that you seem to use it (seemingly with libertarianism as the purest expression of right-wing politics). The fact of the matter is that since the emergence of the concept, it has been associated with preserving traditional institutions and values (so-called social conservatism). It's association with free-markets and small government is a more recent phenomenon brought to the fore by Reagan and Thatcher. Their commitment to small government and free market didn't really extend that far in the end and neither was particularly interested in reducing government interference in social issues so much as they were interested in reducing government interference in business.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Sounds good, except when the bad guy lies and says 'yes.'

First of all, I think you misinterpret my defence of the test. I am not saying throw out any and all immigration process and instead replace it with a simple yes or no question. The test can simply be used as a tool in our toolbox.

Now, you want to claim that since someone can lie, the entire concept is useless and should be thrown out. Fair enough. I suppose you have a similar view towards the written driving test, where one is asked if the speed limit is 50 km/h, how fast should you drive? No one would ever lie about their behaviour on such a test, and if someone were to lie and misrepresent their driving behaviour in such a test, according to you, the entire concept of that test in the first place is useless.

Finally, you want to say bad guys lie, therefore the test as a tool is useless. I would agree with the former, bad guys do lie. But I think you also misunderstand the nature of some of these responses, and the place they are coming from. The answer "yes" to a question of whether it is moral for your spouse to be denied the same rights as you comes from a moral place. The individual does actually believe, by religious belief and religious traditional, that it is "right" and "moral" and indeed "God's will" that a human being be systematically denied basic human rights. While you and I interpret this as "bad", this individual is not a cartoonish Bond villain "bad guy" who is feverishly plotting bank heists and nuclear threats - it is generally a normal person who has been conditioned to believe this is the right thing to do, and believe it or not, this person may consider lying on such a test a much worse sin than depriving their spouse of basic human rights.

I am not saying such a values test is a be all end all solution to immigration and attracting high quality immigrants who respect our values. But there is potential there in it being used as a tool to see if indeed immigrants who are interested in living in Canada have a consistent moral framework that respects human rights and our own charter of rights and freedoms.

Maybe the test is a bad idea, maybe not. But the core of what the test is trying to tease out - that is, are individuals entering the country prepared to respect basic human rights - is not such an outlandish concept.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

First of all, I think you misinterpret my defence of the test. I am not saying throw out any and all immigration process and instead replace it with a simple yes or no question. The test can simply be used as a tool in our toolbox.

Now, you want to claim that since someone can lie, the entire concept is useless and should be thrown out. Fair enough. I suppose you have a similar view towards the written driving test, where one is asked if the speed limit is 50 km/h, how fast should you drive? No one would ever lie about their behaviour on such a test, and if someone were to lie and misrepresent their driving behaviour in such a test, according to you, the entire concept of that test in the first place is useless.

Finally, you want to say bad guys lie, therefore the test as a tool is useless. I would agree with the former, bad guys do lie. But I think you also misunderstand the nature of some of these responses, and the place they are coming from. The answer "yes" to a question of whether it is moral for your spouse to be denied the same rights as you comes from a moral place. The individual does actually believe, by religious belief and religious traditional, that it is "right" and "moral" and indeed "God's will" that a human being be systematically denied basic human rights. While you and I interpret this as "bad", this individual is not a cartoonish Bond villain "bad guy" who is feverishly plotting bank heists and nuclear threats - it is generally a normal person who has been conditioned to believe this is the right thing to do, and believe it or not, this person may consider lying on such a test a much worse sin than depriving their spouse of basic human rights.

I am not saying such a values test is a be all end all solution to immigration and attracting high quality immigrants who respect our values. But there is potential there in it being used as a tool to see if indeed immigrants who are interested in living in Canada have a consistent moral framework that respects human rights and our own charter of rights and freedoms.

Maybe the test is a bad idea, maybe not. But the core of what the test is trying to tease out - that is, are individuals entering the country prepared to respect basic human rights - is not such an outlandish concept.

I don't see the proposed values test as some evil, unfair "thought police" thing. But I am not sure of its usefulness.

When you say that the people you want to weed out via such a test tend to be people who see lying as unacceptable behaviour, I am not sure of this.

The type of people you want to weed out do generally subscribe to strong and strict values systems, but these value systems are more often than not "geometrically variable" in the most self-serving way possible.

So an entirely plausible scenario is that word quickly gets around about which answers you should give in order to get into Canada, and also that lying on this test doesn't really *count* because, after all, it's "the other guy's" test and as we all know they're all depraved heathens anyway.

[kwoldtimer]

If anyone knows what the content of a "values test" would be, they should share it because they know much more than I do.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If anyone knows what the content of a "values test" would be, they should share it because they know much more than I do.

I suppose it could be a bunch of fairly basic questions, say, "Your daughter has just dishonored your family. What do you do?" with a few possible answer choices, including "I kill her, of course."

etc.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by lio45

I suppose it could be a bunch of fairly basic questions, say, "Your daughter has just dishonored your family. What do you do?" with a few possible answer choices, including "I kill her, of course."

etc.

You consider women dishonouring their family to be a Canadian value?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

lio45, I don't think the term right-wing has ever been used in the sense that you seem to use it...

Well, if we want to literally stick to the original definition, when the terms were introduced, the people who were sitting on the right-side wing of the assembly were the royalists, and the ones gathered on the left side were anti-monarchy.

So, by those definitions, any right-wingers in the USA ended up all relocating to Ontario after the American revolution, and since then there has only been left-wingers remaining in the States for the last couple centuries.