Another bombshell for Frau Merkel ?

[Emil Miller]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ?

https://youtu.be/tHoH25bwICw

[Clopin]

I think it's ****ing awesome.

[YesNo]

I first saw Nigel Farage during the Brexit vote process. He was amazing. I am going to have to start paying attention to politics. As the guy said in the video, "Gotta love karma."

[Pompey Bum]

I think it's ****ing awesome.

I concur with my Canadian colleague.

[Clopin]

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6a5e2458b85525ec232ed74664e3dc5fcb2de91c/0_59_4096_2459/4096.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&

Brexit [x]

Trump Presidency [x]

FN Presidential Victory [?]

Gotta go for a 3peat.

[Emil Miller]

I think it's ****ing awesome.

So do I but, even as the Old World (dis ) Order begins to crumble, such an appointment seems too good to be true.

[Clopin]

http://www.ronpaul.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/its-happening.jpg

[Clopin]

https://youtu.be/5n8zn-R10qM

Damn, even Torontonians are rising up against all of the PC ideologues.

[Pompey Bum]

https://youtu.be/5n8zn-R10qM

Damn, even Torontonians are rising up against all of the PC ideologues.

I finished the video and immediately (within seconds) began watching the monolithic Sunday morning network news programs. The difference in terms of the physical experience of truth that Peterson mentions was like the feeling you get when you first get out of a pool and feel the gravity is pulling your body down. The colleague who had already fallen under suspicion and would not speak out because: "the cost to me would be near infinite and the social consequences would be zero" reminds me of our thread about the Salem witch trials and even an earlier one about the torture and murder of religious partisans in the 16th century. Speaking truth to lies takes courage and, unfortunately, sacrifice. But I'm encouraged to see people beginning to find the guts to speak up and stick together. Thanks, Clopin.

[Clopin]

Glad you liked it. I've recently been watching everything I can on this guy, and he's clearly a national treasure. Toronto is genuinely ground zero for all of the rampant ideologies he hates so much too, which I find quite amusing. It's really refreshing, honestly, to see someone with a clear emotional reaction confront this insanity and make the firm declaration that: "all of these radical PC newspeak terms are flagrantly indicative of an extreme ideology that I hate and will never be a part of". I certainly wouldn't do that in public right now.

[OrphanPip]

I'm rather indifferent about the whole Peterson thing, it's being overblown by the media in Canada, which even mainstream papers in the most part supporting Peterson's views. However, I don't think his position is really all that daring considering his views are generally those of the majority. Even many trans activists I've known don't tend to support the new pronouns craze that started up about a decade ago as an offshoot of academic Queer Theory. Queer theory has always had a disconnect between the lived experiences of queer people (who are like most people working class, multi-ethnic, and diverse) and the ideas of queer theorist (who are predominantly upper class white people). I personally don't object to using gender neutral pronouns for people who prefer neither male or female one. It's not really a PC thing to me, I've known trans people who don't want to do transition surgery because of the cost to their health and their wallet, but who also have trouble seeing themselves fully as their desired gender because their bodies don't align. They in a sense don't feel male or female so they prefer a gender neutral term, or maybe they're still trying to figure it all out. On the other hand, I've also known privileged white kids who kind of seem to be latching on to trans identities as part of a craze. Being a little tomboyish doesn't entitle you necessarily to latch onto the trans identity and all the years of violent oppression those more visibly trans people have faced. I tend to roll my eyes at someone like that who wants to be called "ze". English already has a gender neutral pronoun used when the gender of a person is unknown: "I got a parking ticket the other day, they left it on my windshield." No need to invent new words when the capacity to acknowledge gender ambiguity is already in the language.

I'm a little old school I suppose, I believe in the power of identity politics and community building. Labels and acknowledgement are important for minority groups, its a power dynamic to assert the right to name ourselves rather than go by the titles society imposes. Thus, I support legislation that acknowledges the rights of trans people to be identified by their gender of choice if they've gone through the process of having their documents changed. However, this control of imposing pronouns should be limited to agents of the state which have a duty to represent the values of equality and nondiscrimination that are charter law. I also think this is generally the thrust of the proposed legislation. The HRCs in Canada are a stupid subjudicial body that imperfectly apply the antidiscrimination laws which occasionally lead to absurd judgments which never should have passed judicial review, which is why most of them end up overthrown on appeal with a proper justice. No one has gone to jail under Canada's existing human rights legislation, the Human Rights Act is mostly about regulating federal bodies to maintain the secular values of the state.

The antidiscrimination laws are important in Canada to ensure the state acts in an impartial way that upholds the secular values we've enshrined in law. Now the major issue with Peterson and all the ridiculous adulation he's getting from the professionally outraged right wing, which are just as whiny and ridiculous as the professionally outraged left, is that he is complaining about a non-issue. He's not going to be criminalized for not using gender neutral pronouns. Peterson is arguably employed by the government of Ontario as a UoT professor, but academics are not treated in the same way as most federal employees. The passing of Bill C-16 will change practically nothing in Ontario. The Ontario civil rights act already included gender identity and expression as a recognized minority. The majority of provinces and territories in Canada already have laws which enshrine these rights. Bill C-16 is similar to the same-sex marriage act passed a few years back, the majority of Canadians already live in territories where it was law, the federal government is simply normalizing the practice by extending it to federal institution. When gay marriage was finally passed by Ottawa only Alberta had not yet legalized gay marriage on its own.

Will Bill C-16 criminalize Peterson's refusal to use gender neutral pronouns? No, it won't.

Will Bill C-16 make it illegal to voice criticism of Trans people on moral and religious grounds? No, it won't.

Will Bill C-16 make it illegal to incite violence against Trans people, such as the protections already accorded to racial and religious groups in Canada? Yes it will.

Will Bill C-16 normalize banking standards federally so that a Trans person can more easily relocate to another province without having to use different identification papers in a province without legal recognition of trans people? Yes, it will.

Will Bill C-16 ensure that a federal agency can not discriminate against employees on the grounds of being Trans? Yes, it will.

Will Bill C-16 substantially change the current legal situation in 70% of the country? No, it won't.

Given all of this, why is everyone getting their panties wet over Peterson swinging at windmills.

[Clopin]

Given all of this, why is everyone getting their panties wet over Peterson swinging at windmills.

Maybe try watching some of the Peterson interviews or some of the debates surrounding the issue, because he addresses basically everything you wrote out rather well. He's said on multiple occasions that the fact that this blew up to such an extent indicates that it has relatively little to do with Bill C-16 specifically (after all, as you admitted, he didn't do or say anything particularly revolutionary or inflammatory), and everything to do with the overwhelming, and stifling, culture of political correctness that's present on major North American university and college campuses.


Thus, I support legislation that acknowledges the rights of trans people to be identified by their gender of choice if they've gone through the process of having their documents changed. However, this control of imposing pronouns should be limited to agents of the state which have a duty to represent the values of equality and nondiscrimination that are charter law.

Not the issue. Peterson has said himself that he hasn't received all that much vitriol (and, in fact, quite a bit of support) from people he considers "classically" trans (those who want to alter the pronoun by which they're referred from he to she, or vice versa), but rather from people who are political agitators and subscribe to radical academic 'queer theory' doctrine. He hasn't said that he'll refuse to call a person who transitions by their preferred pronoun, but rather that he refuses to refer to anyone by these 'gender neutral' pronouns like xe, xer, xim, etc, etc.


that he is complaining about a non-issue.

Sorry, but give me a ****ing break. What's a non issue? Faculty are resigning from institutions as distinguished as ****ing Yale over 'unacceptable' Halloween costumes and their refusal to go along with all this nonsense. And you seriously think the HRC's are a 'non-issue' because nobody has served jail time? What a joke. I suppose losing your job due to bad publicity because some radfems didn't like your use of twitter is a total 'nonissue' for everyone involved. How about paying a $14,000 fine? It's important that we don't accept these precedents before people actually are jailed for speaking their minds. Your stance that: "well hardly anyone has actually gone to jail for what they choose to say, so until that happens it's just a nonissue" is pretty absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel#Trials_in_the_1980s

[OrphanPip]

Maybe try watching some of the Peterson interviews or some of the debates surrounding the issue, because he addresses basically everything you wrote out rather well. He's said on multiple occasions that the fact that this blew up to such an extent indicates that it has relatively little to do with Bill C-16 specifically (after all, as you admitted, he didn't do or say anything particularly revolutionary or inflammatory), and everything to do with the overwhelming, and stifling, culture of political correctness that's present on major North American university and college campuses.

I've read Peterson's own writing on the subject for Rebel media. My spouse is sleeping at the moment and I don't want to wake him, I'll take the time to listen to the interview in question later. I don't take much issue with Peterson over this nonsense, I think he's gotten too much publicity and too much scorn over something minor and inconsequential and it's done more to muddy any proper debate about the issue than it has to help. He was immediately picked up on as a rallying point for people to legitimize more radical and regressive views, even though he himself doesn't support those views. Likewise, he's become a target for radical idiots on the opposing side to attack for no apparent reason because they're also mostly after visibility.




Not the issue. Peterson has said himself that he hasn't received all that much vitriol from people he considers "classically" trans (those who want to alter the pronoun by which they're referred from he to she, or vice versa), but rather from people who are political agitators and subscribe to radical academic 'queer theory' doctrine. He hasn't said that he'll refuse to call a person who transitions by their preferred pronoun, but rather that he refuses to refer to anyone by these 'gender neutral' pronouns like xe, xer, xim, etc, etc.

Yes, but like I said above, no one is really going to force him to use those pronouns either. Did he ever personally receive a request to be forced to use those pronouns. On what legal grounds did he decide to voice opposition to something which no one has raised? Honestly, no one likes the oblivious special snowflakes who love to make up new little pronouns to challenge heteronormative society or whatever it is they think they're doing. They're naive kids who mean well because they see themselves as promoting diversity of identity categories to make people more comfortable. However, a very small number go overboard with the pronoun craze. I've taught these kids, they're not promoting a destructive pernicious ideology, they're just out of touch. They're not as radical as the anti-pc crowd thinks they are either. I taught the SCUM Manifesto in a college class about sexuality and radical texts and even the most burgeoning and unjaded little feminist will state outright that feminism needs to be inclusive of men and women. They aren't man hating rabid monsters like the alt-right makes them out to be. Peterson's hyperbole of language and pre-emptive supposition that he will be forced to use a neologism to refer to someone is silly. I don't like how he paints his opposition and I don't like how his opposition paints him either. There's a whole lot of arguing over non-issues at play that don't reflect any potential real fallout of this legislation.




Sorry, but give me a ****ing break. What's a non issue? Faculty are resigning from institutions as distinguished as ****ing Yale over 'unacceptable' Halloween costumes and their refusal to go along with all this nonsense. And you seriously think the HRC's are a 'non-issue' because nobody has served jail time? What a joke. I suppose losing your job due to bad publicity because some radfems didn't like your use of twitter is a total 'nonissue' for everyone involved. How about paying a $14,000 fine? It's important that we don't accept these precedents before people actually are jailed for speaking their minds. Your stance that: "well hardly anyone has actually gone to jail for what they choose to say, so until that happens it's just a nonissue" is pretty absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel#Trials_in_the_1980s

I didn't say the HRCs were unproblematic. I said they were stupid and their rulings don't usually stand up once something is appealed to an actual court. They are not a proper judicial body because the courts are already overburdened with other matters to resolve civil violations of the HR Act. Are they a necessary evil? It's debatable whether they do a valuable service in policing what we consider to be the standards of minimum decency in Canada. Bill C-16 is a non issue because it doesn't add anything new to the law, it's just standardizing the federal law since most provinces already include gender in their individual human rights acts.

I also don't think the situation is as dire as you think. At Mcgill a few years back there was a case of a professor who was tape recorded by one of his grad students calling him a terrorist and finishing with a death threat. That professor didn't lose his job over it, and it barely made the news. So, a professor with tenure can still get away with racially motivated insults and threats of violence against students in Canada. I knew Prof. Dunphy personally as a student at McGill back in the day as well, and I was sad to hear about his case because he's honestly a generally nice guy from a small town in New Brunswick, he brought the class donuts for our final exam in our entomology class. However, even knowing the man and how nice he can be, the way he treated his grad student was unacceptable. Prof. Peterson probably has an equally rock solid contract with the UoT making him virtually immune to firing and free to do almost anything within reason. I have difficulty feeling sympathy for him. Most jobs offer far less freedom of expression than what Peterson is complaining about losing. McDonald's employees don't even get to choose what greetings they are allowed to use with clients, let alone pronouns.

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2013/11/professor-in-el-orabi-case-appeals-harassment-ruling/

[Clopin]

He was immediately picked up on as a rallying point for people to legitimize more radical and regressive views, even though he himself doesn't support those views.

Yes, exactly, and these views are gaining momentum every day that this climate of political correctness is present, especially on college campuses. Peterson made the point that the calm and logical critique of one's ideas and opinions, especially within a university classroom, is a pretty fundamental thing when it comes to formulating one's viewpoints, and doing so accurately and critically. What happens when even relatively mild positions (I think there are only two genders, for example) are confronted with massive, personal, hostility (you are a bad person, shut up; I've seen this very frequently, and you're kidding yourself if you think PC brigades don't frequently engage in blatant racism or sexism) is that people are afraid to express their viewpoint in public, or at school, which is precisely where they should be engaging with other ideas and positions. This is why you see so much of the discourse turn online, where people get increasingly radicalized because their views are NEVER challenged, but only encouraged by the communities they interact with. I also don't agree with your position that there isn't a relatively large and vocal minority of PC thugs who are everything the 'alt-right' accuses them of being (just like I, a very right-wing person, do not deny that neonazis exist). Maybe you're just not using the right (wrong?) websites. Furthermore, I'm assuming you haven't taught any queer-theory, or related gender studies courses in Canada within the last five years, which is where and when this stuff really blew up. If I'm mistaken then I apologize of course.


Honestly, no one likes the oblivious special snowflakes who love to make up new little pronouns to challenge heteronormative society or whatever it is they think they're doing.

There are, unfortunately, entire 'academic' disciplines which revolve around pandering to, upholding, and contributing to to these specific viewpoints.


https://www.tumblr.com/

(For all the anti-white racism and anti-male sexism you can handle. Die cis scum!)

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/

(Fringe, radical, rightwing spawning point of the alt-right with nodes of neonazism, and a strong bent towards white supremacy. I should tell you that I've been a pretty heavy 4chan user for almost a decade now, and even as recently as three or four years ago the politics board was dominated almost exclusively by cultural libertarians, with none of this alt-right, racially charged, stuff that's the main focal point today. Do you think this is accidental? Did the cultural consensus of disenfranchised young men shift from libertarian to fascism by accident? No, it's a direct push back against identity politics which are unashamedly (proudly) anti-white and anti-male. And it's the exact same push back that we're currently seeing everywhere else. The FPO will win their election in Austria, and the FN will win theirs in France; meanwhile, everyone who can't seem to figure out why it's happening will be continuously shocked and appalled.)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets

Jailed for racist tweets. I mean, come on bro. This is what you're tacitly supporting.

[Pompey Bum]

Faculty are resigning from institutions as distinguished as ****ing Yale over 'unacceptable' Halloween costumes and their refusal to go along with all this nonsense.

Although I find these issues important, I am distancing myself a little from the conversation since it primarily involves Canadian norms and laws. As an American, however, I feel it important to note that Yale has always sucked. :)

[Clopin]

Honestly, Smithers, I don't know why Harvard even bothered to show up. They barely even won!

http://i.imgur.com/VffLh1x.jpg


Their cheating was even more rampant than last year sir.

[Pompey Bum]

http://i.imgur.com/VffLh1x.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Pompey Bum]

May has apparently said no dice (or I guess no vacancy) to Trump's suggestion. It seems a bit cold, but I suppose she was in a difficult position. May's not on a position to piss Farage off, but if she jumped at it she'd be pilloried by the Yank haters as the next Tony Bear.

[Emil Miller]

May has apparently said no dice (or I guess no vacancy) to Trump's suggestion. It seems a bit cold, but I suppose she was in a difficult position. She's not on a position to piss Farage off, but if she jumped at it she'd be pilloried by the Yank haters as the next Tony Bear.

Theresa May doesn't like Nigel Farage because he's not an insider and she was miffed when Trump invited Farage to support him on the hustings.
Farage is undiplomatically indiscreet but, like Trump, speaks his mind come what may.
As for Tony Blair, Nigel has publicly stated that: 'He can go to Hell.'

[Pompey Bum]

Theresa May doesn't like Nigel Farage because he's not an insider and she was miffed when Trump invited Farage to support him on the hustings.'

Somehow I don't see Roosevelt and Churchill here. But it looks like Farage and Trump have their own special relationship now. I imagine that's politically good for Farage. Speaking of Churchill, Trump is supposed to have returned to the Oval Office the bust of Churchill that Obama removed. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.

[Emil Miller]

Somehow I don't see Roosevelt and Churchill here. But it looks like Farage and Trump have their own special relationship now. I imagine that's politically good for Farage. Speaking of Churchill, Trump is supposed to have returned to the Oval Office the bust of Him that Obama removed. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.

Interestingly enough Farage isn't a career politician but one whose sole motivation was to remove the UK from the EU: having achieved that goal, he sees Trump's victory as a means of reinforcing Brexit and, perhaps more importantly, a major blow to globalisation.
Regarding Churchill's bust in the Oval Office, there may come a time when a bust of Donald Trump is placed in 10 Downing Street.

[Pompey Bum]

Hopefully it will earn its place there, but obviously it is too early to talk about it. I thought Brexit was being held up in Parliament. Is that a stonewalling or just the process? Is there a timetable yet?

[OrphanPip]

Somehow I don't see Roosevelt and Churchill here. But it looks like Farage and Trump have their own special relationship now. I imagine that's politically good for Farage. Speaking of Churchill, Trump is supposed to have returned to the Oval Office the bust of Churchill that Obama removed. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.

To be fair to Obama he never had the bust removed, the bust from the Oval Office was property of the British government and on loan to the Bush administration, when Bush left office the loan expired and the bust was returned to Britain. There happens to be another Churchill bust that does belong to the Whitehouse in another room and there was apparently confusion at first because people thought that bust happened to be the same one that used to be in the Oval Office.

[prendrelemick]

Edit: This was about the Peterson thing - but fits with the Churchill's bust "story" too.


This is exactly how politics works nowadays, a circus of nonsense, a pretence of outrage. Meanwhile people are sleeping on the streets.

The most disheartening thing is that it is almost impossible to counter with reason. Take Orphan Pip's reply, well mannered, well reasoned and I think gets to the root of things. It is just the kind of reply that will make no headway against all the shouty bollocks.


As for Farage, he's the man "Post-truth" was invented for.

[Pompey Bum]

I'm not following you, Prend. I appreciate Pip's clarification that there were two busts. I think my tone has been fairly reasonable throughout. Honestly, all the outrage I have heard has come from you. I don't say that in a polemical way. You just seem to be reacting to things that haven't happened yet (shouty bollocks in response to Pip's polite response, for example). Brother, chill. Politics is a dirty game. Don't let it get under your skin.

[prendrelemick]

Sorry pompey, you are always fair, open and reasonable. I'm actually horrified you thought I meant you! Or anyone else on this thread. I never seem to be able to put into words what I mean.

My post was about the Peterson thing and Pip's reply to that. I forgot to press the "Reply With Quote button" and hadn't even read the Bust bit when I first posted it.

On re-reading I see the addendum is clumsy and easily misconstrued, that is my bad and I apologise again.

My point was that Pip's is the kind of reply that carries no weight because it is well mannered. It is volume not veracity that counts these days.

[Pompey Bum]

Sorry pompey, you are always fair open and reasonable.

Well, let's not get carried away. Heh.

Your apology is uncalled for but accepted. And I think LitNet has done a good job staying calm in these discussions. As you know, my point of view is let's make the best of it. For me, that means moving beyond the passions of the moment. That's why (for example) I support dropping the Clinton prosecution. The war's over. At least THAT war is. There are more important fights to be fought.

[YesNo]

My point was that Pip's is the kind of reply that carries no weight because it is well mannered. It is volume not veracity that counts these days.

Listening to people support Trump or Clinton recently, I've noticed, again, that people can't hear the other side's arguments, because they are too busy trying to defend their own positions. By way of full disclosure, I am aware that I am no better than these people.

Regarding the discussion that Clopin and Orphan Pip are having about some Canadian law, it seems that the side Orphan Pip is supporting is politically naive. They are counting on the Canadian federal government to be able to defend them and to police whatever that legislation is they want to pass. It doesn't matter what that legislation is. What matters is they are annoying a psychology professor and others like Clopin enough to generate a potential backlash and they are too dumb to see coming.

This reminds me of a dead cat story about some chickens and a dog.

The chickens had free range of the yard. The dog was legally chained to his dog house. The chickens took advantage of this situation because they trusted that the globalist chain would protect them--forever--and so they tormented the dog, bullied him and thoroughly pissed him off. They knew how far his chain stretched and they would step just across the boundary, wait for him to lung and then wiggle their fat behinds at him as they ran off squawking at the big, bad dog on the chain. It was a lot of fun. Then one day when they least expected it, and frankly they never expected it ever to happen, the dog got off his chain.

End of story.

Now that unfortunate event (from the chickens' perspective) could have happened in multiple ways that someone with a bit of imagination could have anticipated. There could have been a regime change. Someone could have felt sorry for the dog and unsnapped his chain. That would be like Trump winning the Presidency and freeing the free market. Or, alternatively, there could have been some fundamental rot in the economy of his dog house where the chain was bolted and when the dog lunged that very last time at those chickens the bolt popped right out. That would be similar to a market crash.

[Emil Miller]

Hopefully it will earn its place there, but obviously it is too early to talk about it. I thought Brexit was being held up in Parliament. Is that a stonewalling or just the process? Is there a timetable yet?

There is a timetable but the phenomenal circumstances surrounding David Cameron's departure, left Mrs May little time to get something detailed together.
Basically it comes down activating article 50 to begin formal negotiations on leaving the EU in two years time. Article 50 is to be activated by April 2017.
During the interim we are seeing the remainers, led by big business, trying to delay the issue by application to the courts on a spurious charge that the government doesn't have the right to start G50 without parliament's approval.
They would say that, considering that a large majority of MPs want to remain: giving them a chance to scupper Brexit.
It's a bit more complicated but that's the gist of it.

[Pompey Bum]

During the interim we are seeing the remainers, led by big business, trying to delay the issue by application to the courts on a spurious charge that the government doesn't have the right to start G50 without parliament's approval.
They would say that, considering that a large majority of MPs want to remain: giving them a chance to scupper Brexit.

Thank you. That clarifies what I had heard. If France goes with Le Pen, maybe Parliament will begin to see the hand writing on the wall. And of course if AfD beats Merkel it's game over. But I think that (an AfD victory, not one for FN) is unlikely.

[Clopin]

Although I don't follow much non-English political drama, I think the next election to watch is coming right up. Austrians are redoing their vote on the 4th of December and, it seems to me, that the FPO and Hofer have a slightly above 50% chance to win the thing outright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_presidential_election,_2016

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks Clopin. The American networks don't cover this sort of thing at all, and even BBC America (which I watch every night) is surprisingly sparse. I also watch Deutsche Welle news (from Berlin), which does cover it, but they are so pro-globalist that I have to decode everything they say. It's really amazing how much is not said in the supposed age of information.

[YesNo]

My understanding is that the next big vote is an Italian referendum on December 4th although I don't have much detail on it.

[Emil Miller]

Thank you. That clarifies what I had heard. If France goes with Le Pen, maybe Parliament will begin to see the hand writing on the wall. And of course if AfD beats Merkel it's game over. But I think that (an AfD victory, not one for FN) is unlikely.

I follow French politics closely because they are the key to the whole European situation. Two days ago, the conservatives elected Francois Fillon, a former Prime Minister under Sarkozy's presidency, as their standard bearer to fight Marine Le Pen.
Le Pen has a 25% possibility of winning but French politics are a very devious affair with all sorts of shifting alliances, so nothing's certain.
The AfD is Germany's best hope of saving the country from the annihilation which is mad Merkel's aim. Merkel has just said she intends to run for a forth term: it beggars belief that any indigenous German would vote for the most destructive politician in Europe but the German MSM have been grooming the populace for some time.

[Pompey Bum]

it beggars belief that any indigenous German would vote for the most destructive politician in Europe but the German MSM have been grooming the populace for some time.

I got that impression very strongly watching Deutsche Welle News. The American MSM just failed epically in its attempt to coronate Clinton, though, so perhaps there's hope for Germany. Sometimes network overreach insults viewer intelligence, or sometimes people just figure it out. Do you really think AfD has a shot?

[Clopin]

I follow French politics closely because they are the key to the whole European situation. Two days ago, the conservatives elected Francois Fillon, a former Prime Minister under Sarkozy's presidency, as their standard bearer to fight Marine Le Pen.
Le Pen has a 25% possibility of winning but French politics are a very devious affair with all sorts of shifting alliances, so nothing's certain.
The AfD is Germany's best hope of saving the country from the annihilation which is mad Merkel's aim. Merkel has just said she intends to run for a forth term: it beggars belief that any indigenous German would vote for the most destructive politician in Europe but the German MSM have been grooming the populace for some time.

I've heard mixed reviews from Frenchies I interact with on a different message board; some are saying that Fillon is the worst possible result because he's the sort of right wing politician who might draw votes from a significant overlap with some potential FN voters (a Hillary Clinton he is not, apparently), and he's most likely the 'lesser evil' candidate for those who just don't want to see France made great again under Le Pen. Others, though, tell me that (aside from getting Sarkozy) this is possibly the best news for the FN as Fillon's socially conservative views are a hindrance. Most of the individuals I talk to say they think FN will win, and I don't think it's a simple matter of bias because the same users of the same board were laughing at the very notion just a few years ago. I'm sure the reporting in France is similar to what we've just seen in America and the UK during their recent votes. Poll rigging and a total media embargo.

[Emil Miller]

I got that impression very strongly watching Deutsche Welle News. The American MSM just failed epically in its attempt to coronate Clinton, though, so perhaps there's hope for Germany. Sometimes network overreach insults viewer intelligence, or sometimes people just figure it out. Do you really think AfD has a shot?

It's difficult to say. Frauke Petry, the AfD leader, like Merkel, is an 'Ossie': that's to say that she was born in East Germany where there is a sociological divide from the 'Wessies' which is where Merkel's support lies.
There is a feeling in the west of the country that the 'Ossies' should be grateful for having their part of Germany bailed out by the Bundesrepublik following the collapse of Communism and not rock the boat about mass immigration.
So while AfD have significant support in the former communist Germany, the well-heeled, comfortable western half appears to be Merkel's domain.

[Emil Miller]

I've heard mixed reviews from Frenchies I interact with on a different message board; some are saying that Fillon is the worst possible result because he's the sort of right wing politician who might draw votes from a significant overlap with some potential FN voters (a Hillary Clinton he is not, apparently), and he's most likely the 'lesser evil' candidate for those who just don't want to see France made great again under Le Pen. Others, though, tell me that (aside from getting Sarkozy) this is possibly the best news for the FN as Fillon's socially conservative views are a hindrance. Most of the individuals I talk to say they think FN will win, and I don't think it's a simple matter of bias because the same users of the same board were laughing at the very notion just a few years ago. I'm sure the reporting in France is similar to what we've just seen in America and the UK during their recent votes. Poll rigging and a total media embargo.

Yes it's amazing that Fillon got such massive support. Although he has been lying low for some years, he has never completely disappeared from the scene.
Alain Juppé the Mayor of Bordeaux, had been given lots of coverage in the French media as the man to save France from the FN, but while he and Sarkozy spent all of their time fighting each other, Fillon came through to overtake both in the final months of the of the campaign.
I was hoping Sarkozy would win because he would have been likely to have done a deal with the FN but it's being acknowledged that the FN has a better chance against Fillon than Juppé
.

[Pompey Bum]

Who says we don't want immigrants?

http://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-planning-to-move-to-us-ambassador/

[Emil Miller]

Who says we don't wan't immigrants?

http://www.politico.eu/article/nigel-farage-planning-to-move-to-us-ambassador/

No you can't have him, he belongs in the country he saved from the 4th Reich.

[Pompey Bum]

How about if we make him ambassador to Great Britain?

[Emil Miller]

How about if we make him ambassador to Great Britain?

If, like Boris Johnson, he'd been born in the US, he would probably be President by now.

[Clopin]

How funny would it be if BOJO was prime minister right now? Trump and Trumper, lol.

[OrphanPip]

Regarding the discussion that Clopin and Orphan Pip are having about some Canadian law, it seems that the side Orphan Pip is supporting is politically naive. They are counting on the Canadian federal government to be able to defend them and to police whatever that legislation is they want to pass. It doesn't matter what that legislation is. What matters is they are annoying a psychology professor and others like Clopin enough to generate a potential backlash and they are too dumb to see coming.

If we don't trust the government to effectively enforce laws why would we pass legislation of any kind? The idea that the problem can be reduced to the fact that it annoys Clopin and a psychology professor (not to negate their experiences) is what is naive. Whose life is more affected by this legislation? This legislation will protect trans people from employment discrimination in federal services and standardize the treatment of trans people by federal regulated sectors like banking or immigration. On one hand, the legislation will provide tangible protections and help to a group of people who, I feel, deserve that help. On the other hand, the opposition is annoyed at an impossible scenario that will never happen. When I weigh the two sides in simple utilitarian terms, the bill does far more good than any imagined harm.

Also, Canadian law already provides ample grounds for provincial governments to oppose the charter change if they see fit. Provinces can enact the not-withstanding clause to ignore the federal charter of rights for legislation as long as they keep voting on the act in 5 year intervals. Quebec does this with Bill 101, the protection of the french language law, with respect to the regulation of schools which states the language of education in Quebec is restricted to French for immigrants. The only people who could be educated in an English public school in my home province were members of the "historic minority" of anglos like my family, this was later amended to allow the children of parents educated in English elsewhere in Canada as well. This is unconstitutional but the Quebec government votes regularly to maintain the act.

Section 33 of the Charter:

Section 33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

[Emil Miller]

How funny would it be if BOJO was prime minister right now? Trump and Trumper, lol.

The hilarious thing is that about year ago, Boris was asked for his autograph by someone who spotted him in New York and had mistaken him for Donald Trump.
It's the hair that does it.

[YesNo]

If we don't trust the government to effectively enforce laws why would we pass legislation of any kind? The idea that the problem can be reduced to the fact that it annoys Clopin and a psychology professor (not to negate their experiences) is what is naive. Whose life is more affected by this legislation? This legislation will protect trans people from employment discrimination in federal services and standardize the treatment of trans people by federal regulated sectors like banking or immigration. On one hand, the legislation will provide tangible protections and help to a group of people who, I feel, deserve that help. On the other hand, the opposition is annoyed at an impossible scenario that will never happen. When I weigh the two sides in simple utilitarian terms, the bill does far more good than any imagined harm.

What I am saying is, don't bully the chained dog. Trans people need to get the non-trans people on their side if they want that law to be enforced or to last and that would mean in this case to make explicit, since the issue has been raised, that there is no threat to freedom of speech by any interpretation of this legislation. Address the issues raised by that psychologist who is apparently getting a lot of publicity. Make sure it is clear to him and those who support him that their freedoms are explicitly protected. I don't see why that should be hard to do unless there is more going on in this legislation than protecting the freedoms of trans people.



Also, Canadian law already provides ample grounds for provincial governments to oppose the charter change if they see fit. Provinces can enact the not-withstanding clause to ignore the federal charter of rights for legislation as long as they keep voting on the act in 5 year intervals. Quebec does this with Bill 101, the protection of the french language law, with respect to the regulation of schools which states the language of education in Quebec is restricted to French for immigrants. The only people who could be educated in an English public school in my home province were members of the "historic minority" of anglos like my family, this was later amended to allow the children of parents educated in English elsewhere in Canada as well. This is unconstitutional but the Quebec government votes regularly to maintain the act.

I think what you are saying here is that the provincial governments can overrule the federal government. Then the law protecting trans people will need to be defended at the provincial level. It might as well stay at the provincial level.

Also Clopin talked about "anti-male sexism". This needs to be addressed. I think it has been established over the past 40 years that homosexuality is more biology than culture. Being homosexual is not a "sin" nor is it something that "social construction" is going to modify. If that is true for homosexuals, it is also true for heterosexuals as well as the pair-bonding nature of our species. Continuing with old metaphors, such as, "homophobia", "sexual preference" or "patriarchy", can be viewed as "sexist" based on that same brain scan research. There is no "fear" of a heterosexual "turning" homosexual that underlies the old 1960s concept of "homophobia". There is no cultural "preference" or choice over a particular gender of sex partner. Male pair-bonding behavior is not "patriarchy".

[Clopin]

On the other hand, the opposition is annoyed at an impossible scenario that will never happen.

Are you just nuts or something? What impossible scenario will never happen? If you look at freedom of expression on a scale from the U.S to Europe you can see that fears over regulation of what can, can not, or must be said are thoroughly grounded in reality and very possible situations. Again, people are spending time in prison for their use of twitter. What do you mean 'impossible scenario'?

[OrphanPip]

Are you just nuts or something? What impossible scenario will never happen? If you look at freedom of expression on a scale from the U.S to Europe you can see that fears over regulation of what can, can not, or must be said are thoroughly grounded in reality and very possible situations. Again, people are spending time in prison for their use of twitter. What do you mean 'impossible scenario'?

Innuendo and vagueries.

In what way does this bill effect speech. I would like you to outline with reference to it how this fear is justified. The bill literally changes nothing about the application of existing human rights law in Canada. The bill makes one change to the charter, it adds gender identity as a recognized minority group in the antidiscrimination clause. And this is ignoring the fact that Ontario already recognizes gender identity at the provincial levels.

Speech about trans people is not addressed in this act in any way. This is an act that regulates the operation of federal institutions.

[Emil Miller]

Poor old Angela, just as she began drinking a celebratory glass of Niersteiner Gutes Domtal over Norbert Hofer's defeat in the Austrian presidential election, the Italian president fell in a referendum; leaving the way open for Italy's anti EU 5 star movement.
One imagine's that the bibulous Jean Claude Junker will be consoling himself with something a little stronger, notwithstanding the five stars that indicate the quality on the cognac bottle.

[YesNo]

I was just reading about that Italian referendum. I think Italy wants to go back to whatever its currency was prior to the euro, but I don't understand all the ramifications. What would happen to its euro-based debt?

[MANICHAEAN]

Emil. You slay me man !!

[Emil Miller]

I was just reading about that Italian referendum. I think Italy wants to go back to whatever its currency was prior to the euro, but I don't understand all the ramifications. What would happen to its euro-based debt?

Before Italy joined the Eurozone, the exchange rate against the £ sterling was in excess of L.2000. While this made tourists feel like millionaires' it also made one rather cautious about walking around Naples with a wallet full of banknotes.
As for Italy's the European debt, Mad Merkel is probably planning a dawn raid on the European Central Bank as her dream of German economic hegemony becomes increasingly less likely.

[YesNo]

Based on what the markets did today it looks like the European Central Bank is going to be raided tomorrow so that Santa Claus can come early this year. I wonder where they get all that money? It is probably best that I don't understood economics.