Walt was surprised, during the late campaign for the presidensity, to find that pompous pundit Andrew Coyne, who previously masqueraded as a centrist, was a liberal in disguise. Mr Coyne is frothing at the mouth, even today, angry and incredulous that Americans could have had the temerity to disregard his (and 99% of the chattering classes') endorsement of Hellery Clinton.
I trust Mr Coyne is aghast, if not apoplectic, to read, in the very same pages as his latest rant, the excellent article by Tristin Hopper in today's National Post headed ""We'd cried wolf too many times": Eight ways liberals can blame themselves for President Trump". For those too busy to read the article, Walt reproduces here, in Letterman style, the eight-fold list.
8. Post-election protests. (You have to read the article to see how this fits in.)
7. All the damned celebrities.
6. All the political correctness talk.
5. Flawed candidate.
4. Demonizing conventional conservatives.
3. Mocking poor white people.
2. Flirting with identity politics.
1. Calling everything racist all the time.
I hope Mr Coyne and those who appear with him on CBC-TV's "At Issue" panel will have read Mr Hopper's article before next Thursday's telecast, in which they would do well to bring some salt for the large helpings of crow that should be on the menu.
Worth reading (and also from today's National Post): Rex Murphy "It wasn’t misogyny that caused Clinton’s downfall, it was all the baggage she dragged around"
Showing posts with label At Issue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label At Issue. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Monday, September 28, 2015
UPDATED: VIDEO: Niqab ban becomes hot Canuck election issue
On Thursday night, the leaders of Canada's Big Three political parties (plus the Little Two parties -- the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party) had another in what promises to be an enervating series of debates on issues which Canuck voters may care about -- or not -- come October 19th, the date set for a general election.
This debate, conducted entirely in French and aired on the French-language media with translations on some of the English channels, was supposed to cover the everything from soup (economic issues) to nuts (Canada's so-called foreign policy). Most of the two hours was taken up with MM Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau talking over each other, repeating the same talking points viewers had heard 100 times already, with Ms May and M Duceppe getting in the occasional jab.
There was only one surprise, that being the vehemence of the five minutes spent discussing (?) the question, pushed by M Duceppe (the Bloc Head), of whether Muslim women should be forced to remove the niqab -- the head-covering and facial veil worn by the more devout of them -- before taking an oath of citizenship or receiving or giving other government services.
This may seem like a small point, but it's a hot question in Québec, and only less so in TROC (The Rest Of Canada) because the ultra-PC Canuck media refuse to acknowledge that it's a sore point with non-Muslim Canadians right across the country.
The issue came to the fore earlier this month, when the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the government's rule requiring all women to show their face at citizenship ceremonies. See "Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies" (WWW 19/6/15). To no-one's surprise, the court found the regulation violated Muslim women's freedom of religion, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The ink was barely dry on the judgment before Mr Harpoon's minions announced there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And so the issue was joined in the debate, with Ms May and M Trudeau clearly pandering to the Muslim minority, Mr Mulcair doing the same rather tepidly, and MM Duceppe and Harper vying to see who could out-nigger the other, as George Wallace would have put it.
In the post-debate analysis on CBC's "At Issue" segment of the national news, Andrew Coyne, who writes good columns for the National Post, expressed surprise that the election campaign had become so fixated on something that will have zero impact on nearly every single voter, a point made during the debate itself by the Greens' Ms May.
"It’s ridiculous," he said. "It’s not an issue that is germane to the future of this country. It is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things." That brought a withering response from one of Walt's favourite Canadian pundits, Chantal Hébert, who writes for the Toronto Star. Normally Ms Hébert is cool and unflappable, but she answered Mr. Coyne's point by telling him that it was not a trivial issue to something like 75% of Canadians outside Québec who supported the idea of a ban on the niqab, according to a recent opinion poll.
We have video of the entire "At Issue" segment (running time 15:13), including clips from the debate itself, with voice-over in English. The heated exchange between Ms Hébert and Mr. Coyne starts at 5:45 and ends at 9:50 -- about a minute less than the time spent on the issue in the debate itself.
As for the polls to which Ms. Hébert refers, Maclean's tell us that one, conducted in March by Forum Research, found that 67% of Canadians oppose the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. An Ipsos poll found a whopping 88% support for the government’s stance. A Leger survey, commissioned by the Privy Council Office over the winter but not released until last week, tallied similar results: 82% in favour of the no-niqab policy.
The Big Three leaders will appear in another debate this evening, ostensibly on questions of foreign policy. It will be amazing if the niqab issue doesn't arise, less amazing if MM Mulcair and Trudeau, having read the numbers, find ways to alter their views to be more in line with those of their countrymen/women/persons.
Further reading:
"Niqab debate leading to wider discussion on religious, cultural accommodation": Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star.
"The niqab: Trivial politics, or election difference-maker?": Michael Friscolanti in Maclean's.
UPDATE (30/9/15) from Ed.: We're still catching up from Walt's absence over the weekend. Turns out that the afternoon before the debate referred to above, the Harper government released a poll, kept secret until now, showing strong support for banning the niqab at citizen ceremonies. Click here to read the report on CBC News.
This debate, conducted entirely in French and aired on the French-language media with translations on some of the English channels, was supposed to cover the everything from soup (economic issues) to nuts (Canada's so-called foreign policy). Most of the two hours was taken up with MM Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau talking over each other, repeating the same talking points viewers had heard 100 times already, with Ms May and M Duceppe getting in the occasional jab.
There was only one surprise, that being the vehemence of the five minutes spent discussing (?) the question, pushed by M Duceppe (the Bloc Head), of whether Muslim women should be forced to remove the niqab -- the head-covering and facial veil worn by the more devout of them -- before taking an oath of citizenship or receiving or giving other government services.
This may seem like a small point, but it's a hot question in Québec, and only less so in TROC (The Rest Of Canada) because the ultra-PC Canuck media refuse to acknowledge that it's a sore point with non-Muslim Canadians right across the country.
The issue came to the fore earlier this month, when the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the government's rule requiring all women to show their face at citizenship ceremonies. See "Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies" (WWW 19/6/15). To no-one's surprise, the court found the regulation violated Muslim women's freedom of religion, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The ink was barely dry on the judgment before Mr Harpoon's minions announced there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
And so the issue was joined in the debate, with Ms May and M Trudeau clearly pandering to the Muslim minority, Mr Mulcair doing the same rather tepidly, and MM Duceppe and Harper vying to see who could out-nigger the other, as George Wallace would have put it.
In the post-debate analysis on CBC's "At Issue" segment of the national news, Andrew Coyne, who writes good columns for the National Post, expressed surprise that the election campaign had become so fixated on something that will have zero impact on nearly every single voter, a point made during the debate itself by the Greens' Ms May.
"It’s ridiculous," he said. "It’s not an issue that is germane to the future of this country. It is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things." That brought a withering response from one of Walt's favourite Canadian pundits, Chantal Hébert, who writes for the Toronto Star. Normally Ms Hébert is cool and unflappable, but she answered Mr. Coyne's point by telling him that it was not a trivial issue to something like 75% of Canadians outside Québec who supported the idea of a ban on the niqab, according to a recent opinion poll.
We have video of the entire "At Issue" segment (running time 15:13), including clips from the debate itself, with voice-over in English. The heated exchange between Ms Hébert and Mr. Coyne starts at 5:45 and ends at 9:50 -- about a minute less than the time spent on the issue in the debate itself.
As for the polls to which Ms. Hébert refers, Maclean's tell us that one, conducted in March by Forum Research, found that 67% of Canadians oppose the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. An Ipsos poll found a whopping 88% support for the government’s stance. A Leger survey, commissioned by the Privy Council Office over the winter but not released until last week, tallied similar results: 82% in favour of the no-niqab policy.
The Big Three leaders will appear in another debate this evening, ostensibly on questions of foreign policy. It will be amazing if the niqab issue doesn't arise, less amazing if MM Mulcair and Trudeau, having read the numbers, find ways to alter their views to be more in line with those of their countrymen/women/persons.
Further reading:
"Niqab debate leading to wider discussion on religious, cultural accommodation": Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star.
"The niqab: Trivial politics, or election difference-maker?": Michael Friscolanti in Maclean's.
UPDATE (30/9/15) from Ed.: We're still catching up from Walt's absence over the weekend. Turns out that the afternoon before the debate referred to above, the Harper government released a poll, kept secret until now, showing strong support for banning the niqab at citizen ceremonies. Click here to read the report on CBC News.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The chiefs meet the Dear Leader -- right out of Seinfeld
First, for those following the progress (?) of the Idle No More protests, an update from the Great White North. When last we looked into the tipi of Chief Theresa "What Money?" Spence, she was demanding some face time with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Apparently she didn't offend him by calling him "Steve", so Harpoon said he'd meet with her. And he didn't even say, "Show me the money!" -- that which vanished down the Attawapiskat rathole. Request granted.
Apparently flummoxed by her success -- not to mention the prospect of having to look into the Dear Leader's icy blue eyes -- Chief Spence and Shawn Atleo, the Biggest Chief of All, upped the ante. The Governor-General has to come to the meeting too, they said, because he represents the Great White Mother Over the Waters.
Reference was made to a number of treaties made with the Indians in the name of the GWM. The original GWM (Queen Victoria) died over a century ago, but the present GWM is her great-granddaughter, so nothing would do but the Chiefs meet with her viceroy. And, said Spence, if the G-G doesn't attend, then I'm not attending!
Surprise surprise, His Excellency David Johnstone said the chiefs -- or some of them, at least -- could come to a big potlach at Rideau Hall (his residence) after the meeting with Harper. Said the chiefs, that's not good enough! The G-G has to come with the PM to the same table at the same time, otherwise we won't meet with them. Or maybe some of us will, but not Chief Spence. Or not. We'll see.
As I write, a meeting of some kind is set to begin. The CBC reports that it's to be held in Harper's office in the Langevin Block, across from Canada's Parliament Buildings. Again, not good enough! The chiefs think the meeting should be in the nearby Château Laurier so that more of them could attend -- larger quarters, you see -- and those that couldn't get in the meeting room could repair to one of the hotel's very agreeable bars. Canadian taxpayers would pick up the tab, of course.
What everyone wants to know is not whether the meeting will come off, but exactly what will be discussed if it does. CBC-TV's famous "At Issue" panel of pundits attempted to make sense of the whole thing last night, and fell short...way short. All they could say was that if the meeting didn't happen, it would look bad for Shawn Atleo, who might even lose his position as Grand Chief.
Would it matter? Oh yes, the panel said, because then the Canadian government would be left with no-one to talk with. Which begs the question: talk about what? What is it that the First Nations people want? Chief Atleo finally held a presser yesterday and answered the question in a word -- more. Whatever it is the FNs are getting, it's not enough. They want more!
Walt would love to be a fly on the wall in Harper's office right now. My guess is that the meeting will be just like the famous Seinfeld episode in which Jerry and George are asked what their proposed TV show is going to be about. Even the At Issue panel should remember their response.
Footnote from Ed.: We were going to headline this post "Walt is puzzled", because it is so. The idea was to segue into a little math puzzle to amuse you while we wait to see what happens today, but Walt has already gone on too long... much too long. So the puzzle -- "The Missing Dollar" -- will appear, errr, later.
Apparently flummoxed by her success -- not to mention the prospect of having to look into the Dear Leader's icy blue eyes -- Chief Spence and Shawn Atleo, the Biggest Chief of All, upped the ante. The Governor-General has to come to the meeting too, they said, because he represents the Great White Mother Over the Waters.
Reference was made to a number of treaties made with the Indians in the name of the GWM. The original GWM (Queen Victoria) died over a century ago, but the present GWM is her great-granddaughter, so nothing would do but the Chiefs meet with her viceroy. And, said Spence, if the G-G doesn't attend, then I'm not attending!
Surprise surprise, His Excellency David Johnstone said the chiefs -- or some of them, at least -- could come to a big potlach at Rideau Hall (his residence) after the meeting with Harper. Said the chiefs, that's not good enough! The G-G has to come with the PM to the same table at the same time, otherwise we won't meet with them. Or maybe some of us will, but not Chief Spence. Or not. We'll see.
As I write, a meeting of some kind is set to begin. The CBC reports that it's to be held in Harper's office in the Langevin Block, across from Canada's Parliament Buildings. Again, not good enough! The chiefs think the meeting should be in the nearby Château Laurier so that more of them could attend -- larger quarters, you see -- and those that couldn't get in the meeting room could repair to one of the hotel's very agreeable bars. Canadian taxpayers would pick up the tab, of course.
What everyone wants to know is not whether the meeting will come off, but exactly what will be discussed if it does. CBC-TV's famous "At Issue" panel of pundits attempted to make sense of the whole thing last night, and fell short...way short. All they could say was that if the meeting didn't happen, it would look bad for Shawn Atleo, who might even lose his position as Grand Chief.
Would it matter? Oh yes, the panel said, because then the Canadian government would be left with no-one to talk with. Which begs the question: talk about what? What is it that the First Nations people want? Chief Atleo finally held a presser yesterday and answered the question in a word -- more. Whatever it is the FNs are getting, it's not enough. They want more!
Walt would love to be a fly on the wall in Harper's office right now. My guess is that the meeting will be just like the famous Seinfeld episode in which Jerry and George are asked what their proposed TV show is going to be about. Even the At Issue panel should remember their response.
Footnote from Ed.: We were going to headline this post "Walt is puzzled", because it is so. The idea was to segue into a little math puzzle to amuse you while we wait to see what happens today, but Walt has already gone on too long... much too long. So the puzzle -- "The Missing Dollar" -- will appear, errr, later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)