With the end finally nearing in sight with this interminable election, and the logjam still present in the polls, this nasty undercurrent of identity politics has been creeping in. What started out with the niqab ban issue has been growing, all of it with seeds laid in the last parliament. That niqab ban challenge has been inflaming passions, but when Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi called out the xenophobia behind it, Jason Kenney retorted that the mayor “and people like him” are politicizing it. While people could take this as a racist jab, knowing Kenney it is more likely this dismissal of Nenshi as some bleeding-hearted liberal who is too politically correct for his own good. Or as Nenshi responded, “thoughtful people.” Elsewhere, Pierre Poilievre wouldn’t rule out the idea of banning face coverings in the public service period, which start to sound a lot like the PQ “Charter of Quebec Values” proposal. But it’s more than the niqab issue – it’s also this citizenship-stripping process that they’re pushing, and trying to deport people despite the fact that in at least one case, it’s involving a person who was born in Canada and has lived their whole life here – deporting him to Pakistan, where he has never lived or visited but only has a connection there though his parents – it’s a perverse and hugely unconstitutional measure. It’s also a big problem because it no longer becomes a question of dual citizenship, but rather the presumption that this person can get it with another country, so we would insist that they do and then deport them there. Not only does it not make any sense – if you really think that rehabilitation isn’t possible, why does dumping these terrorists into another country that doesn’t have our security services or monitoring regime for recent parolees, then you’re asking for them to join a terror group in that other country. To make it worse, Harper was musing openly on a radio show about extending this to other heinous crimes. But when you boil it all down, this is more security theatre – it looks like it’s keeping us safe, while it’s really just putting on a show and likely making things worse in the long run. But it’s just about looking tough, right? Damn the consequences.
"People like me", eh? Let's just assume @jkenney means "thoughtful people", shall we? https://t.co/rkN9xyPHHi
— Naheed Nenshi (@nenshi) October 1, 2015
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649729354918985729
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649729812194570240
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649730053836812288
https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/649730543643455488
On the campaign:
- In Harper’s stead, Joe Oliver promised more mandatory minimums for fraud under the rubric of protecting seniors.
- Thomas Mulcair promised home energy retrofits, while the party also announced plans to tackle student debt.
- Justin Trudeau promised more transit funds for the greater Montreal area.
- Here’s the Thursday campaign roundup.
Good reads:
- Despite constantly denigrating “bureaucrats” for everything wrong with Canadian society, Harper wrote an open letter to public servants to reassure them in the election.
- The Conservatives promise to draw up formal lists of criminal gangs, like they do with terrorist groups. I’m not sure what it will accomplish, but sure.
- Trudeau said it could take months or years to get marijuana legalization policy done right.
- The Prime Minister gets letters – angry letters about the Victims of Communism Memorial plans.
- Some marginal data analysis shows that Trudeau’s riding will benefit most from his proposed child benefit plans. So his riding has a lot of child poverty – so what?
Odds and ends:
An NDP candidate wrote a sordid book about teen revenge, rape and abortion.
Laura Stone has lunch (well, breakfast) with Conservative incumbent Larry Miller (video).
There are allegations that Conservative incumbent Rick Dykstra was buying underage girls booze, and then having a friend try to cover it up with a bribe.
This is pretty stupid, guys. The amount of money we're talking about is minuscule when you think about it. http://t.co/zJx4srwhDb #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 2, 2015
Trying to insinuate that people got appointments for a one-off $200 donation is ridiculous and insulting to the political process. 3/n
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 2, 2015
Their analysis also ignores where appointees donated to more than one party, and never mind that some people do it for tax reasons. 5/n
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 2, 2015
It would be great if we could have adult conversations about this rather than flinging mud. This "analysis" is the latter. 7/7
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 2, 2015
Any indication that the ‘sudden’ rise of niqab, citizenship and ‘others’ correlates with the appearance of the Lizard of Oz?
Not really as all of this started in the last parliament with the passage of C-24 and the improper ministerial instructions on the niqab ban. The timing of the court case for the latter was certainly out of their control.