I guess you have the luxury of not giving an arse about the Republicans. When you live right next to them its a little different. Anyway, you are right, we have reached that point in the debate. Cheers
Left-Wing Folk
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
No [MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] I don't live in a rural area. I'm Canadian, so what happens in the US impacts on me. As one of our prime ministers put it: "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt (Pierre Trudeau, 1969)
In the words of the Canadian Prime Minister on being asked why he wishes to install female quotas in government roles: "Because it's 2015".
I rest my case. Well done Canada for electing a man that thinks discrimination can end discrimination. He's a very typical example of 'Left-wing folk'.
I rest my case. Well done Canada for electing a man that thinks discrimination can end discrimination. He's a very typical example of 'Left-wing folk'.
Last edited:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] You don't like Justin? There's a surprise. You also can't comprehend that a cabinet should be representative of the people that elected them? Also no surprise. If you think the Canadian Tories that preceded the Liberals chose their cabinet based on the most qualified people available and no other criteria, all I can say is that you are a dreamer.
Proud to say the current Liberal government is an example of "Left-Wing folk" I voted for them and would do so again
Proud to say the current Liberal government is an example of "Left-Wing folk" I voted for them and would do so again
A government cabinet hiring people based on what genitalia they were born with is not exactly how one would define representation. I think rational people would prefer to vote for a government that put views, qualifications, principles and intellectual capacity above whether or not they were born with a vagina.
Why are you so obsessed with the notion that one can only represent people of the same gender as them? Isn't that a bit...hmm...what's the word....
...bigoted?
...Not very liberal?
...Pseudo-liberal?
...Regressive?
Your usual cop-out response is bringing conservatives into the topic under the assumption that I actually care about them. I commented on why I think the current Prime Minister is a regressive pseudo-liberal, not why I think the Canadian Tories were better. Try harder.
Appendix: Now that you've enlightened me on how representation and equality works, I shall now go and vote for Hillary!
What do you like about Justin Trudeau? I don't intend to argue with you. I'd like to hear a Canadian perspective on him mainly.
I agree.
Here is the population by sex in Canada - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm
It’s about even (there are actually more women).
So a cabinet made up of the same percentages would be more than fair and representative.
It isn’t hiring anyone based on their genitalia, that would infer that other more qualified candidates were all men and that there were not enough intelligent or qualified women to hold the positions - which I severely doubt is true and would love to see some statistics showing otherwise.
Last edited:
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] Gender should be a consideration along with many other factors in choosing a cabinet. Justin was not choosing a cabinet based on solely on gender. Your argument is classic Reductio ad absurdum. I expect nothing less from Conservatives, or whatever it is you choose to label your views.
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] I like Justin and Liberals. Its been too long since Canada has had a progressive government that prioritizes the things I care about, a more liberal immigration policy, less emphasis on a false "law and order" mentality when it come to justice issues, more progressive view on the governments role in the economy. I could go on.
[MENTION=12656]Elegant Winter[/MENTION] I like Justin and Liberals. Its been too long since Canada has had a progressive government that prioritizes the things I care about, a more liberal immigration policy, less emphasis on a false "law and order" mentality when it come to justice issues, more progressive view on the governments role in the economy. I could go on.
That is exactly what he was doing, hence the 50/50 quota.
I am not a conservative. I'm a Classical Liberal. I value the rights of the individual over the collective definitions of gender equality which is a branch of left-leaning Liberalism.
Last edited:
If the 50/50 split is representative of the people of Canada and the women chosen were just as qualified as their male counterparts - then what is the issue?
If they are qualified, then why the need for a quota? There doesn't need to be a quota if the women are able to do the job. It's a bit degrading to them if they have to be guaranteed a work placement without having to actually earn it in the traditional sense. What kind of example is the government setting if women will now assume they will be given a job based on their gender? Just hire them based on their skills. If a man gets hired over a woman, it will be because the man displayed a quality that the employer didn't see in the woman. Not because of their genitals.
Last edited:
I think one of the key issues is that there are much fewer women in politics and that by establishing a quota you have to reach deeply into an already shallow pool of candidates. It's obvious why that's not wise. Also, while a perfect meritocracy likely does not exist, this makes the entire system much less meritocratic than before.
What can you expect from someone like Justin Trudeau though? It's clear how he's made it this far.
Last edited:
How do you know if the women on the cabinet earned it “in a traditional sense” or not?
I would guess that a good many of them have not only studied, but busted their asses to get to where they are today.
It isn’t degrading if they are qualified.
What is wrong with women being represented as equal to men and the population of Canada?
I highly, highly doubt that there isn’t a just as qualified, just as hard working, just as deserving woman as any male counterpart…so if it is more representative of your population in general then that is a more democratic solution.
But you are making the assumption that there is a “shallow pool of candidates”.
I think that would be a highly insulting statement about women in general.
@ Elegant Winter Meritocracy is a pure myth. Never existed and never will exist. I don't know what you talking about when you say
[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] Again you are reducing the argument to a single absurd argument. The women were not chosen just because they were women. I think we need to agree to disagree. Now my head is starting to ache.
Show me proof that there are fewer qualified candidates and that women were chosen over men based solely on their sex and not qualifications.
Of course that is next to impossible so I will spare you trying to find those statistics.
You don’t think there are just as many qualified women as men to hold political positions?
And if this is democracy that represents the will of the people, then the voices influencing those decisions that effect the people should also match to the best of your ability (so long as they are qualified) who best represents your population.