Clever Clogs
Posts: 647 
February 7th, 2006, 09:19 AM
It strikes me that these cabinets seem very “white” for a country that prides itself on its enlightened multiculturalism. As a comparison one might look at Bush’s cabinet which is very racially diverse and proportionally is representative of America. Should Harper have selected a more diverse cabinet? I know his objective was regional diversity but should the “visible minorities” have been given larger roles and more places at the table.
I included the shot of Martin's cabinet so we wouldn't be distracted by liberal/conservative finger pointing. Neither cabinet was diverse. The woman front row middle of the Harper cabinet is Governor General Michaëlle Jean, a Martin pick which was a brilliant choice.
It strikes me that these cabinets seem very “white” for a country that prides itself on its enlightened multiculturalism. As a comparison one might look at Bush’s cabinet which is very racially diverse and proportionally is representative of America. Should Harper have selected a more diverse cabinet? I know his objective was regional diversity but should the “visible minorities” have been given larger roles and more places at the table.
I included the shot of Martin's cabinet so we wouldn't be distracted by liberal/conservative finger pointing. Neither cabinet was diverse. The woman front row middle of the Harper cabinet is Governor General Michaëlle Jean, a Martin pick which was a brilliant choice.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
February 7th, 2006, 09:32 AM
Agreed sanch, I thought the conservatives were saying that they were the most diversified party.
Now the Liberals were no better, all their was the health minister wasn't it?
2 ethnic minorities in the Conservative cabinet, and X number of in a Liberal cabinet show how far we have come in multural culturalism, not much.
Agreed sanch, I thought the conservatives were saying that they were the most diversified party.
Now the Liberals were no better, all their was the health minister wasn't it?
2 ethnic minorities in the Conservative cabinet, and X number of in a Liberal cabinet show how far we have come in multural culturalism, not much.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
February 7th, 2006, 09:40 AM
I don't think the NDP candidates can be bribed.
And also, not only ethnic minorities but 6 women. In total only 21 women were elected for the Conservatives.
But only 6 women got cabinet positions, kind of makes me shutter.
I don't think the NDP candidates can be bribed.
And also, not only ethnic minorities but 6 women. In total only 21 women were elected for the Conservatives.
But only 6 women got cabinet positions, kind of makes me shutter.
the clan of the claw
Posts: 1,976
February 7th, 2006, 10:16 AM
I think it is far more important to have people capable of doing the ministerial job than anything else.
People get too carried away with irrelevent aspects of the ministers.
It is good to have "regional representation" within the cabinet, but the colour/gender/age/etc of the people is not important.
If there is an issue with the cabinet, it is an issue with who runs for and who supports the cons in the first place.
I think it is far more important to have people capable of doing the ministerial job than anything else.
People get too carried away with irrelevent aspects of the ministers.
It is good to have "regional representation" within the cabinet, but the colour/gender/age/etc of the people is not important.
If there is an issue with the cabinet, it is an issue with who runs for and who supports the cons in the first place.
Genius
Posts: 859
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
February 7th, 2006, 10:29 AM
Personally I don't care what gender or race the cabinent ministers are. It is completely bogus that we should have 50% women or proportional representation from different ethnic groups.
They should appoint people who are the best people for the job. For Harper's cabinent, there should have been at least one more woman, and that would be Diane Ablonczy and that is only because she was very qualified for a position.
What does it really matter what these folk look like, what body parts they have and where they live?
It isn't like these women or non-caucasians are being passed by because of the fact they are women or non-caucasian. People want more women in parliament, when then more women should run. Same with minorities, if they don't run, how can they be elected?
As for regionalism, are these guys national ministers. Is Mr. Cannon going to only oversea Transport issues in Quebec only? Is Ms. Ambrose going to protect the environment in Alberta only?
As an Ontarian from the GTA, I could care less if every single cabinent minister came from Alberta, BC or Nunavut, as long as they are honest, competent and perform well, I could care less.
Personally I don't care what gender or race the cabinent ministers are. It is completely bogus that we should have 50% women or proportional representation from different ethnic groups.
They should appoint people who are the best people for the job. For Harper's cabinent, there should have been at least one more woman, and that would be Diane Ablonczy and that is only because she was very qualified for a position.
What does it really matter what these folk look like, what body parts they have and where they live?
It isn't like these women or non-caucasians are being passed by because of the fact they are women or non-caucasian. People want more women in parliament, when then more women should run. Same with minorities, if they don't run, how can they be elected?
As for regionalism, are these guys national ministers. Is Mr. Cannon going to only oversea Transport issues in Quebec only? Is Ms. Ambrose going to protect the environment in Alberta only?
As an Ontarian from the GTA, I could care less if every single cabinent minister came from Alberta, BC or Nunavut, as long as they are honest, competent and perform well, I could care less.
Genius
Posts: 859
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
February 7th, 2006, 10:33 AM
If Harper really wanted to be bold, he should have appointed Emerson into his cabinent without having him cross the floor.
Correct me if I am wrong, but could not Harper appoint any MP from any party as a Minister?
He should have appointed one minister from each of the opposition parties. Perhaps a low level ministry, but the gesture would have been good.
If Harper really wanted to be bold, he should have appointed Emerson into his cabinent without having him cross the floor.
Correct me if I am wrong, but could not Harper appoint any MP from any party as a Minister?
He should have appointed one minister from each of the opposition parties. Perhaps a low level ministry, but the gesture would have been good.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 647
February 7th, 2006, 10:42 AM
I am referring to ideals and practices that conflict with these ideals. An ideal of multiculturalism is laudable but practices that ensure power is retained by a certain group undermines the ability to achieve that objective.
The Governor General slot does seem to be reserved for a visible minority but that is a very symbolic position. One of the advantages of having groups represented politically is that then members of those groups identify more with those leaders rather than with local leaders who advocate other forms of political expression. We saw an example of this brand of multiculturalism in Paris recently. Another advantage of diversity is that there are a lot of talented entrepreneurs in the visible minority communities and their expertise could be tapped for the national good. These individuals would fare well in any competition and so one hardly needs to pander to racial or gender quotas as is being suggested.
I am referring to ideals and practices that conflict with these ideals. An ideal of multiculturalism is laudable but practices that ensure power is retained by a certain group undermines the ability to achieve that objective.
The Governor General slot does seem to be reserved for a visible minority but that is a very symbolic position. One of the advantages of having groups represented politically is that then members of those groups identify more with those leaders rather than with local leaders who advocate other forms of political expression. We saw an example of this brand of multiculturalism in Paris recently. Another advantage of diversity is that there are a lot of talented entrepreneurs in the visible minority communities and their expertise could be tapped for the national good. These individuals would fare well in any competition and so one hardly needs to pander to racial or gender quotas as is being suggested.
Newbie
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary
Location: Calgary
February 7th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Who cares about the persons skill or abilities. We should just hire all minorities so we can pride ourselves on being diverse. In fact I think Harper should resign is PM to make way for a minority PM.
Then once thats done we should change Canada day to minority day then we should re-write history to make it more diverse. Then to top it all off we should tar and feather any white canadian for being a honky.
Is anyone else sick of these self rightoes humanitarian wannabes that are constantly bitching about diversity and multiculuralism? Do these people not live in the real world. How many of these idiots is canada currently breeding?
Who cares about the persons skill or abilities. We should just hire all minorities so we can pride ourselves on being diverse. In fact I think Harper should resign is PM to make way for a minority PM.
Then once thats done we should change Canada day to minority day then we should re-write history to make it more diverse. Then to top it all off we should tar and feather any white canadian for being a honky.
Is anyone else sick of these self rightoes humanitarian wannabes that are constantly bitching about diversity and multiculuralism? Do these people not live in the real world. How many of these idiots is canada currently breeding?
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366 
February 7th, 2006, 10:55 AM
http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/index_e.asp
Quoting
The Governor General slot does seem to be reserved for a visible minority but that is a very symbolic position.
I can agree that the Liberals have wanted to turn the position into that, but if your going to say that then you would also have to say it has been reserved for former CBC employees.The Governor General slot does seem to be reserved for a visible minority but that is a very symbolic position.
http://www.gg.ca/gg/fgg/index_e.asp
Clever Clogs
Posts: 647
February 7th, 2006, 11:10 AM
Quote:
I take it you are referring to me. Canada’s multiculturalism is recognized globally and it is something Canadians are generally proud of. It is not something I invented and should I go away, or if I decide to have fewer children, there will still be an ethnically diverse population in Canada. That is reality.
Is anyone else sick of these self rightoes humanitarian wannabes that are constantly bitching about diversity and multiculuralism? Do these people not live in the real world. How many of these idiots is canada currently breeding?
Genius
Posts: 859
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
February 7th, 2006, 11:27 AM
They think that if more minorities are in government, they will be entitled to more benifits and what not. I've seen this firsthand.
I am no better in tune or represented by an Indian-Canadian than a Welsh-Canadian MP.
This is the same garbage argument that the Black communities tried to use to get Black-only schools a while back. Total crap. 2+2 =4 no matter if taught by a white, red, yellow or black person.
Quoting
This isnt the right mentality to have. Minorities shouldn't think that only people of their own race or ethnicity will speak for them. In fact many minorities expect / want more similar minorities in places of power for their own advancement alone.
One of the advantages of having groups represented politically is that then members of those groups identify more with those leaders rather than with local leaders who advocate other forms of political expression.
They think that if more minorities are in government, they will be entitled to more benifits and what not. I've seen this firsthand.
I am no better in tune or represented by an Indian-Canadian than a Welsh-Canadian MP.
This is the same garbage argument that the Black communities tried to use to get Black-only schools a while back. Total crap. 2+2 =4 no matter if taught by a white, red, yellow or black person.
Genius
Posts: 859
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Location: Whitby, Ontario
February 7th, 2006, 11:34 AM
We all know that Canadian very rarely vote for the person who would make the best MP in their riding. Most of it is based on the party leader and the party platform.
Anybody can join any political party and work themselves up, nobody is stopping them. If seeing other visible minorities as MP is the only motivating stopping these talented diamonds in the rough, then they aren't MP material. How many current MPs do you think ran for office cause they saw a lot of white folk in parliament?
Quoting
Well if they don't run for office, then it really makes no different how smart they are if they can walk on water.
Another advantage of diversity is that there are a lot of talented entrepreneurs in the visible minority communities and their expertise could be tapped for the national good. These individuals would fare well in any competition and so one hardly needs to pander to racial or gender quotas as is being suggested.
We all know that Canadian very rarely vote for the person who would make the best MP in their riding. Most of it is based on the party leader and the party platform.
Anybody can join any political party and work themselves up, nobody is stopping them. If seeing other visible minorities as MP is the only motivating stopping these talented diamonds in the rough, then they aren't MP material. How many current MPs do you think ran for office cause they saw a lot of white folk in parliament?
