As most of the screen shots that will follow originated on PEGIDA Canada's Facebook page (or the personal pages of members/supporters) we would like to contribute to our reader's daily dose of irony:
Remember the commitment to, "intellectual propensity" and see just how that pans out.
Though it looked like Justin Trudeau's Liberals had the momentum during the dying days of the federal election and would likely win a plurality of seats, it seems few predicted the scope of the victory. The Liberals were able to win a very strong majority at the expense of both the Conservative Party and the NDP.
At one point though it looked like the Conservatives might be able to pull off a victory in spite the the distrust many Canadians had for the government and Mr. Harper in particular. Taking advantage of the court ruling that a woman could take the Oath of Citizenship wearing a niqab, the Conservatives used identity politics to appeal especially to hard supporters in their base to get out to vote. The Conservatives implied that they, and they alone, could protect Canadians from the Islamist hordes at the gates of Canadian culture and that Mulcair and Trudeau could not be trusted to do what was necessary to safeguard Canada.
There were a lot of voters who bought into these arguments and, combined with a campaign focused on highlighting the leader rather than Conservative Party positions of any substance, the rhetoric of some hardline anti-Muslim Conservative supporters had a feeling of a cult of personality:
As it turns out, some Conservative operatives were concerned about the monster they were letting loose by playing the identity politics game:
....In order to motivate their base, the Conservative campaign used the niqab issue, which played well in Quebec and rural Ontario, while also stoking fears of Islamic terrorism that disgusted some Tories.
“We didn’t need to go there. We should have been talking about pocketbook issues not jihadists,” complained the Conservative operative.
Beyond the divisive debate over Muslim veiled women’s right to wear a niqab during citizenship ceremonies or in the public service, there was the Syrian refugee crisis, which painted the Harper government as uncaring.
But a senior Conservative who spoke on background said it was clearly a tactical mistake to push the niqab message so hard because it alienated voters outside Quebec.
Similarly, the Tories’ “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line undermined the party in some ethnic communities that had rallied to them in 2011....
A problem with running a divisive campaign such as that which Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party engaged in that, once over, it's hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
The reaction to the election wasn't unexpected from people who have come to accept Stephen Harper as the only person protecting them from the dangers constructed prior to and during the campaign. Fear. Rage. Questioning legitimacy of the election. Calls for violence and retribution against those responsible for the loss; Muslims, "liberals" and progressives, the media. Suggestions of armed insurrection:
Some time ago the Conservative government eliminated Sec. 13 from the Human Rights Act. We noted at the time that the legislation could be reinstated by a new government. BCL proposes the new Liberal government do just that.
Posts such as these encouraging violence (including what seems to be advocating the assassination of Mr. Trudeau before he assumes office) suggests why the legislation was needed in the first place.
We conclude with our second dose of irony:
Remember the commitment to, "intellectual propensity" and see just how that pans out.
Though it looked like Justin Trudeau's Liberals had the momentum during the dying days of the federal election and would likely win a plurality of seats, it seems few predicted the scope of the victory. The Liberals were able to win a very strong majority at the expense of both the Conservative Party and the NDP.
At one point though it looked like the Conservatives might be able to pull off a victory in spite the the distrust many Canadians had for the government and Mr. Harper in particular. Taking advantage of the court ruling that a woman could take the Oath of Citizenship wearing a niqab, the Conservatives used identity politics to appeal especially to hard supporters in their base to get out to vote. The Conservatives implied that they, and they alone, could protect Canadians from the Islamist hordes at the gates of Canadian culture and that Mulcair and Trudeau could not be trusted to do what was necessary to safeguard Canada.
There were a lot of voters who bought into these arguments and, combined with a campaign focused on highlighting the leader rather than Conservative Party positions of any substance, the rhetoric of some hardline anti-Muslim Conservative supporters had a feeling of a cult of personality:
 |
| There is something especially disturbing about pledging one's allegiance to a single man |
....In order to motivate their base, the Conservative campaign used the niqab issue, which played well in Quebec and rural Ontario, while also stoking fears of Islamic terrorism that disgusted some Tories.
“We didn’t need to go there. We should have been talking about pocketbook issues not jihadists,” complained the Conservative operative.
Beyond the divisive debate over Muslim veiled women’s right to wear a niqab during citizenship ceremonies or in the public service, there was the Syrian refugee crisis, which painted the Harper government as uncaring.
But a senior Conservative who spoke on background said it was clearly a tactical mistake to push the niqab message so hard because it alienated voters outside Quebec.
Similarly, the Tories’ “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line undermined the party in some ethnic communities that had rallied to them in 2011....
A problem with running a divisive campaign such as that which Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party engaged in that, once over, it's hard to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
The reaction to the election wasn't unexpected from people who have come to accept Stephen Harper as the only person protecting them from the dangers constructed prior to and during the campaign. Fear. Rage. Questioning legitimacy of the election. Calls for violence and retribution against those responsible for the loss; Muslims, "liberals" and progressives, the media. Suggestions of armed insurrection:
Some time ago the Conservative government eliminated Sec. 13 from the Human Rights Act. We noted at the time that the legislation could be reinstated by a new government. BCL proposes the new Liberal government do just that.
Posts such as these encouraging violence (including what seems to be advocating the assassination of Mr. Trudeau before he assumes office) suggests why the legislation was needed in the first place.
We conclude with our second dose of irony:
No comments:
Post a Comment