2017 Canadian Politics Megathread - Sesquicentennial Edition

[MERIZoC]

Past evidence being that countries with PR have not developed excessive regionalism because of it.

Mathematical hypothesis being that regionalist parties do worse under PR because instead of being able to focus on a few districts, the whole nation is now the electorate.

All you've done so far is provide your opinion. All I've done so far is provide mine. For everyone else, it's a question of who they feel makes the stronger argument, who has more legitimacy. I'm under no impression that I can convince you of anything.

But you said you have evidence. That means citations. Data. Peer review.

I can go find some, I'm more than willing to. This is my field, it's what I've studied for. No trouble whatsoever.

But you said you already have it. Said you already posted it. Either pony up or walk it back.

Denmark. No regionalism. New Zealand. No regionalism. Argentina. No regionalism. Brazil. No regionalism. Greece. No regionalism. Mexico. No regionalism. Russia. No regionalism. Norway. No regionalism. All these and more have some form of proportional representation.

[Camicon]

All you've done so far is provide your opinion. All I've done so far is provide mine. For everyone else, it's a question of who they feel makes the stronger argument, who has more legitimacy. I'm under no impression that I can convince you of anything.

But you said you have evidence. That means citations. Data. Peer review.

I can go find some, I'm more than willing to. This is my field, it's what I've studied for. No trouble whatsoever.

But you said you already have it. Said you already posted it. Either pony up or walk it back.

Denmark. No regionalism. New Zealand. No regionalism. Argentina. No regionalism. Brazil. No regionalism. Greece. No regionalism. Mexico. No regionalism. Russia. No regionalism. Norway. No regionalism. All these and more have some form of proportional representation.

Enough with the bullshit, you know how this works.

Citations. Data. Peer review.

[MERIZoC]

Denmark. No regionalism. New Zealand. No regionalism. Argentina. No regionalism. Brazil. No regionalism. Greece. No regionalism. Mexico. No regionalism. Russia. No regionalism. Norway. No regionalism. All these and more have some form of proportional representation.

Enough with the bullshit, you know how this works.

Citations. Data. Peer review.

No, this is sufficient.

[Camicon]

Enough with the bullshit, you know how this works.

Citations. Data. Peer review.

No, this is sufficient.

No, it really isn't, and if you keep insisting that kind of nonsense then this conversation is over.

[MERIZoC]

No, this is sufficient.

No, it really isn't, and if you keep insisting that kind of nonsense then this conversation is over.

*shrug*

I've backed up my argument with examples, you havent. Nonetheless, sovcan and I took a look at something.

http://ac.els-cdn.com/0261379488900157/1-s2.0-0261379488900157-main.pdf?_tid=82b562b8-ec9b-11e6-96cf-00000aacb360&acdnat=1486406513_a358bc8e340eb25343e5855b70de91e7

"In electoral systems which reward the winning of a simple plurality, governing parties can be electorally unsuccessful in large regions of the country and, consequently, unable to represent those regions in government."

"From a policy-making perspective, proportional representation will give a government antennae in all the regions of a country and will make the government sensitive to varying regional perspectives on government policy. From the perspective of the citizens, proportional representation affords everyone an equal weight in political calculations and will prevent any group from being mechanically excluded from the policy process. This combination of factors should enhance the legitimacy of central government."

[Camicon]

No, it really isn't, and if you keep insisting that kind of nonsense then this conversation is over.

*shrug*

I've backed up my argument with examples, you havent. Nonetheless, sovcan and I took a look at something.

http://ac.els-cdn.com/0261379488900157/1-s2.0-0261379488900157-main.pdf?_tid=82b562b8-ec9b-11e6-96cf-00000aacb360&acdnat=1486406513_a358bc8e340eb25343e5855b70de91e7

"In electoral systems which reward the winning of a simple plurality, governing parties can be electorally unsuccessful in large regions of the country and, consequently, unable to represent those regions in government."

"From a policy-making perspective, proportional representation will give a government antennae in all the regions of a country and will make the government sensitive to varying regional perspectives on government policy. From the perspective of the citizens, proportional representation affords everyone an equal weight in political calculations and will prevent any group from being mechanically excluded from the policy process. This combination of factors should enhance the legitimacy of central government."

An unsourced example is worth nothing, as you know full well. This is the first actual piece of evidence you've provided.

Once I'm done reading the article then I'll have my own thoughts and sources to share.

[MERIZoC]

*shrug*

I've backed up my argument with examples, you havent. Nonetheless, sovcan and I took a look at something.

http://ac.els-cdn.com/0261379488900157/1-s2.0-0261379488900157-main.pdf?_tid=82b562b8-ec9b-11e6-96cf-00000aacb360&acdnat=1486406513_a358bc8e340eb25343e5855b70de91e7

"In electoral systems which reward the winning of a simple plurality, governing parties can be electorally unsuccessful in large regions of the country and, consequently, unable to represent those regions in government."

"From a policy-making perspective, proportional representation will give a government antennae in all the regions of a country and will make the government sensitive to varying regional perspectives on government policy. From the perspective of the citizens, proportional representation affords everyone an equal weight in political calculations and will prevent any group from being mechanically excluded from the policy process. This combination of factors should enhance the legitimacy of central government."

An unsourced example is worth nothing, as you know full well. This is the first actual piece of evidence you've provided.

Once I'm done reading the article then I'll have my own thoughts and sources to share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Norway

Here are sources for the examples lol

[Camicon]

An unsourced example is worth nothing, as you know full well. This is the first actual piece of evidence you've provided.

Once I'm done reading the article then I'll have my own thoughts and sources to share.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Norway

Here are sources for the examples lol

Do you get a kick out of shitposting? Because that seems to be all you do as of late.

[MERIZoC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Denmark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Norway

Here are sources for the examples lol

Do you get a kick out of shitposting? Because that seems to be all you do as of late.

Yes but that's unconnected. I have backed up my examples, have I not?

[Camicon]

Do you get a kick out of shitposting? Because that seems to be all you do as of late.

Yes but that's unconnected. I have backed up my examples, have I not?

With a site that is about as insightful as Buzzfeed, and pages that don't actually address the point of contention. We're talking about the effects that particular electoral systems might have on Canada, not what kind of electoral system a handful of other countries have. Those links are just flak.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Yes but that's unconnected. I have backed up my examples, have I not?

With a site that is about as insightful as Buzzfeed, and pages that don't actually address the point of contention. We're talking about the effects that particular electoral systems might have on Canada, not what kind of electoral system a handful of other countries have. Those links are just flak.

Well how else are you supposed to see the effect that a system might have on Canada without looking at the effect on other countries. All you can do without those comparisons is take shots in the dark and that's hardly a productive exercise.

[Camicon]

With a site that is about as insightful as Buzzfeed, and pages that don't actually address the point of contention. We're talking about the effects that particular electoral systems might have on Canada, not what kind of electoral system a handful of other countries have. Those links are just flak.

Well how else are you supposed to see the effect that a system might have on Canada without looking at the effect on other countries. All you can do without those comparisons is take shots in the dark and that's hardly a productive exercise.

Those wikipedia pages don't detail the effects of those electoral systems on their countries, merely what the electoral systems are and how they are run. Wikipedia is good for trivia and some facts. Comparison and analysis? Not even slightly.

[MERIZoC]

Well how else are you supposed to see the effect that a system might have on Canada without looking at the effect on other countries. All you can do without those comparisons is take shots in the dark and that's hardly a productive exercise.

Those wikipedia pages don't detail the effects of those electoral systems on their countries, merely what the electoral systems are and how they are run.

None of the countries have significant regionalist parties. I could post the wikipedia links for "political parties in [country]" for each of them but i dont think you want me to do that.

[Camicon]

Those wikipedia pages don't detail the effects of those electoral systems on their countries, merely what the electoral systems are and how they are run.

None of the countries have significant regionalist parties. I could post the wikipedia links for "political parties in [country]" for each of them but i dont think you want me to do that.

None of those countries are Canada, or have Canada's particular geographic profile or historical context. If you want to know how a PR system would affect Canada then you need to take that into consideration. Examining the differences within the same state before or after and, most importantly, while it uses a PR system provides insight into how PR electoral systems affect countries. You can use that data to theorize about how a PR system would affect Canada.

[MERIZoC]

None of the countries have significant regionalist parties. I could post the wikipedia links for "political parties in [country]" for each of them but i dont think you want me to do that.

None of those countries are Canada, or have Canada's particular geographic profile or historical context. If you want to know how a PR system would affect Canada then you need to take that into consideration. Examining the differences within the same state before or after and, most importantly, while it uses a PR system provides insight into how PR electoral systems affect countries. You can use that data to theorize about how a PR system would affect Canada.

Then by all means, go ahead.

[Camicon]

None of those countries are Canada, or have Canada's particular geographic profile or historical context. If you want to know how a PR system would affect Canada then you need to take that into consideration. Examining the differences within the same state before or after and, most importantly, while it uses a PR system provides insight into how PR electoral systems affect countries. You can use that data to theorize about how a PR system would affect Canada.

Then by all means, go ahead.

I don't get paid to write papers. Nobody's giving me a research budget, or staff. I'm going to do what I can, but I'm limited by the amount of time I can spend on something like this - between my classes, family, and hockey - and by what research has already been conducted. If I don't have access to peer-reviewed journals that have compared countries before and after they've implemented a PR system then there won't be much I'm able to do.

Just so we're all clear.

Though, really, it's the advocate of a PR system that should be taking up efforts to determine how it would affect Canada.

[AsReil]

​​

Actually under the CHRA it is still illegal for a business owner to refuse service to someone on a proscribed prohibited ground of discrimination, there is no exception for religious stances or "just being a dick".

1.) As aforementioned: "...extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief."(taken directly from the CHRA).
The appeal for an extended act [c-16] is to also include "gender identity or expression" under the prohibited grounds of discrimination... Last I checked, sex and sexual orientation are both already on that list. Why don't we add specific genders and sexualities as well? Easy, It's unnecessary, and would be for the sole purpose of being inclusive.

2.) It is entirely legal for, say, a catholic priest to refuse to marry a gay couple- because if he was forced to, that would infringe on his religious freedom. Not sure if this is credible, but I'd like you to take a look anyway.

2.) I meant that people 100% can discriminate, that's free speech, but it's against the law in production/service terms. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

5.It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Nobody is asking for extra rights, or for people to "be nice" to them. Discrimination in provision of services, goods, and accommodations isn't a case of rudeness... it's discrimination.

Oh, but they are. Under my given scenario:

"You have to serve me, even if i'm being disrespectful or it's against your religion, because i'm transgender and refusing service to me would be discrimination!"

refusing service isn't discrimination. I was giving an example of how that term is used loosely.

Discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." which has nothing to do with services, but social treatment.
Of course workplace or PS discrimination is not only illegal, but abhorred. No one thinks it's acceptable,except the few loons...

This is updating a law to explicitly state a right that already exists, not "forcing a new one". It's a minor housekeeping bill to update the text to ensure that there is no room for misinterpretation.

Haha, so say it louder this time?

Hate crimes against trans people are fundamentally rooted in their being trans.

Not my best wording, i'll clarify.
The hate crimes aren't because transgenderism is illegal or immoral or should be shunned, it's because that single attacker is intolerant of them- more often than not, it's based on religious beliefs. This entire issue is painting the false portrait that these people aren't normal and are incessantly harassed because they are different- coincidentally, in today's liberal society, they're praised and put on a higher pedestal than the 1%, the president, or even friggin Ghandi and alike.
You can see for yourself, go into twitter or your handy dandy social media and look under the tag 'trans', see how many hateful remarks are spewed in comparison to the love and even admiration.
In all, that's just hate, and yes, ultimately discrimination.

I think you've forgotten my point here: discrimination isn't legal and is entirely the attacker's fault, therefore, no extra laws need to be set specifically for them -as this this is already outlawed.
Perhaps I've gotten ahead of myself...

People should feel entitled to the rights guaranteed to them, that's sort of the cornerstone of liberal democracies, and that their rights will apply equally across federally regulated and provincially/territorially regulated sectors. Under section 15 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law".

again, error on my part, I was rushing.
I meant I feel they feel they're entitled to special treatment because they go against 'social norms'. And again, equal rights are not extra rights- they shouldn't have laws pertaining to just them; they fall under the 'all persons' category in said human rights.

[Camicon]

​​

Actually under the CHRA it is still illegal for a business owner to refuse service to someone on a proscribed prohibited ground of discrimination, there is no exception for religious stances or "just being a dick".

1.) As aforementioned: "...extending the law to ensure equal opportunity to individuals who may be victims of discriminatory practices based on a set of prohibited grounds such as sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, creed, age, colour, disability, political or religious belief."(taken directly from the CHRA).
The appeal for an extended act [c-16] is to also include "gender identity or expression" under the prohibited grounds of discrimination... Last I checked, sex and sexual orientation are both already on that list. Why don't we add specific genders and sexualities as well? Easy, It's unnecessary, and would be for the sole purpose of being inclusive.

Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing as gender and gender identity. Adding gender and gender identity to the CHRA is not about "being inclusive", it's about providing legal protections to an intrinsic part of someone's personhood.

2.) It is entirely legal for, say, a catholic priest to refuse to marry a gay couple- because if he was forced to, that would infringe on his religious freedom. Not sure if this is credible, but I'd like you to take a look anyway.

Incorrect. A priest can refuse to marry a couple because marriage is a government service, and not a private one. Their personal religion doesn't factor into it.

2.) I meant that people 100% can discriminate, that's free speech, but it's against the law in production/service terms. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with this little gem:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
This is why the CoRaF can guarantee "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" while also placing upon that freedom the restriction of "you can't refuse service to someone because they are X". Contrary to what you seem to believe, being a bigot is illegal in some circumstances.

5.It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or
to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Nobody is asking for extra rights, or for people to "be nice" to them. Discrimination in provision of services, goods, and accommodations isn't a case of rudeness... it's discrimination.

Oh, but they are. Under my given scenario:

"You have to serve me, even if i'm being disrespectful or it's against your religion, because i'm transgender and refusing service to me would be discrimination!"

refusing service isn't discrimination. I was giving an example of how that term is used loosely.

Discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." which has nothing to do with services, but social treatment.
Of course workplace or PS discrimination is not only illegal, but abhorred. No one thinks it's acceptable,except the few loons...

Nobody is required to serve anyone if they are being disrespectful. They are required to serve someone even if they claim exemption on religious grounds, because religious freedom do not include the freedom to be a discriminatory dickwagon. Refusing service can be, but is not necessarily, discrimination.

Hate crimes against trans people are fundamentally rooted in their being trans.

Not my best wording, i'll clarify.
The hate crimes aren't because transgenderism is illegal or immoral or should be shunned, it's because that single attacker is intolerant of them- more often than not, it's based on religious beliefs. This entire issue is painting the false portrait that these people aren't normal and are incessantly harassed because they are different- coincidentally, in today's liberal society, they're praised and put on a higher pedestal than the 1%, the president, or even friggin Ghandi and alike.
You can see for yourself, go into twitter or your handy dandy social media and look under the tag 'trans', see how many hateful remarks are spewed in comparison to the love and even admiration.
In all, that's just hate, and yes, ultimately discrimination.

I think you've forgotten my point here: discrimination isn't legal and is entirely the attacker's fault, therefore, no extra laws need to be set specifically for them -as this this is already outlawed.
Perhaps I've gotten ahead of myself...

You seem to have absolutely no clue as to what transgender people face on a daily basis. And your personal opinion on how the transgender community is treated online in no way translates to how they are treated in reality.

What you don't seem to grasp is that for "discrimination" to be illegal, we need to specify what it is illegal to discriminate against. For instance, it is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because you think they are an asshole, because being an asshole is not protected under the law. I can't discriminate against someone because they are a man or woman, because a person's sex is protected under the law. Bill C-16 will make a person's gender and gender identity protected under the law, because it currently is not and it is as intrinsic to a person as every other protected status on the books.

People should feel entitled to the rights guaranteed to them, that's sort of the cornerstone of liberal democracies, and that their rights will apply equally across federally regulated and provincially/territorially regulated sectors. Under section 15 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law".

again, error on my part, I was rushing.
I meant I feel they feel they're entitled to special treatment because they go against 'social norms'. And again, equal rights are not extra rights- they shouldn't have laws pertaining to just them; they fall under the 'all persons' category in said human rights.

This isn't "special treatment", this is "preventing assholes from discriminating against people because of gender or gender identity". This change protects cisgender people as much as it does transgender people, because everyone has a gender and gender identity.

[Oneracon]

Camicon already posted pretty much everything I was going to say, but I do have something to add to this:

​​
2.) It is entirely legal for, say, a catholic priest to refuse to marry a gay couple- because if he was forced to, that would infringe on his religious freedom. Not sure if this is credible, but I'd like you to take a look anyway.

Given how explicitly anti-gay FRC is I'd caution you on using them as a source, however the bigger issue with that source is that it deals with American law rather than Canadian. Legislative authority over marriage and divorce in Canada is held solely by the federal government as per section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, while the provinces and territories have legislative authority over the solemnization/procedures of marriages. In the United States, legislative authority is solely held by the states.

First of all religious institutions (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples) are not businesses, they will be the first to tell you that, so discuss them in terms of the CHRA is moot. It's important to remember that marriage in Canada is a secular and civil matter, explicitly so after 2005, that happens to overlap with religious ceremonies. The right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriages that do not align with their religious beliefs (such as a Catholic priest) is explicitly clarified in section 3 of the federal Civil Marriage Act, because marriages are also performed civilly by justices of the peace or other officiants.

[MERIZoC]

Then by all means, go ahead.

I don't get paid to write papers. Nobody's giving me a research budget, or staff. I'm going to do what I can, but I'm limited by the amount of time I can spend on something like this - between my classes, family, and hockey - and by what research has already been conducted. If I don't have access to peer-reviewed journals that have compared countries before and after they've implemented a PR system then there won't be much I'm able to do.

Just so we're all clear.

Though, really, it's the advocate of a PR system that should be taking up efforts to determine how it would affect Canada.

I don't get paid either, but managed to bring up something, which you have still not addressed.

[Camicon]

I don't get paid to write papers. Nobody's giving me a research budget, or staff. I'm going to do what I can, but I'm limited by the amount of time I can spend on something like this - between my classes, family, and hockey - and by what research has already been conducted. If I don't have access to peer-reviewed journals that have compared countries before and after they've implemented a PR system then there won't be much I'm able to do.

Just so we're all clear.

Though, really, it's the advocate of a PR system that should be taking up efforts to determine how it would affect Canada.

I don't get paid either, but managed to bring up something, which you have still not addressed.

I have actual school work to do before I spend time looking over a thirty year-old journal article you posted. I'll get to it when I get to it.

[MERIZoC]

I don't get paid either, but managed to bring up something, which you have still not addressed.

I have actual school work to do before I spend time looking over a thirty year-old journal article you posted. I'll get to it when I get to it.

That's fine, but don't tell me "it's the advocate of a PR system that should be taking up efforts to determine how it would affect Canada." when I've done just that.

[Geilinor]

Those wikipedia pages don't detail the effects of those electoral systems on their countries, merely what the electoral systems are and how they are run.

None of the countries have significant regionalist parties. I could post the wikipedia links for "political parties in [country]" for each of them but i dont think you want me to do that.

Spain does. There could be a full-blown constitutional crisis if Catalonia tries to secede.

[Zoice]

Kind of pisses me off that they're not going to look at electoral reform. Ah well. Still better than Harper.

Also annoying to see anyone ever taking Jordan Peterson seriously. His understanding of the law is absurd, and he's just paranoid. He's like those Christians who freak out about the War on Christmas every time someone says Happy Holidays.

[AsReil]

Given how explicitly anti-gay FRC is I'd caution you on using them as a source, however the bigger issue with that source is that it deals with American law rather than Canadian. Legislative authority over marriage and divorce in Canada is held solely by the federal government as per section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, while the provinces and territories have legislative authority over the solemnization/procedures of marriages. In the United States, legislative authority is solely held by the states.

First of all, religious institutions (churches, synagogues, mosques, temples) are not businesses; they will be the first to tell you that, so to discuss them in terms of the CHRA is moot. It's important to remember that marriage in Canada is a secular and civil matter, explicitly so after 2005, that happens to overlap with religious ceremonies. The right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriages that do not align with their religious beliefs (such as a Catholic priest) is explicitly clarified in section 3 of the federal Civil Marriage Act, because marriages are also performed civilly by justices of the peace or other officiants.

I believe I said the source was questionable, but still worth looking into; seeing how both sides think, an alt-right source in this case, is a good strategy to forming a solid and educated opinion.
err, yes, it's the priest's choice