面纱议题分化加人：除了拉票还能有啥

[annei]

在大选大幕刚刚拉开时，谁也不会想到面纱会成为大选的主议题，但自从9月中旬以来，保守党竞选团队请来澳洲军师后，无论是党领辩论还是竞选宣传，联邦大选的路数直接走上了面纱议题的快车道，有预言家称甚至会左右大选最后的格局。
无忧资讯



昨日保守党党领哈珀对外宣称若他赢得大选，将立法规定民众在接受政府服务时不准戴面纱。本周初，哈珀在接受CBC采访时说，未来有可能不准联邦公务员穿戴面纱或罩袍，这与他在之前的法语辩论时所言类似。昨日他又进一步强调，赞扬魁省的64号法案，该法案要求在公共部门工作的人除去面纱，在与政府官员洽谈公务时也不能戴面纱。在离大选越来越近之时，屡次在公开场合提及面纱议题，并强硬地表达自己的立场和观点，哈珀葫芦里卖的是什么药？
无忧资讯



面纱议题分化加拿大人，除了拉票还是拉票
51.CA 加国无忧


一些政治观察家认为，哈珀之所以变本加厉地针对极少数有戴面纱和穿着罩袍习俗的女穆斯林，是为了迎合加拿大的保守派，同时也能讨得对面纱和罩袍颇为反感的很多魁北克人欢心，因而有助于拉抬保守党的民意支持率，可谓一箭三雕。

无 忧 网 - 51

实际上，哈珀所在的保守党对于“极少数”有可能会戴面纱的女穆斯林这么兴师动众，到底这个极少数有多少？根据加拿大统计局2011年统计数据，在25万7000名联邦政府雇员中，只有1.8%是女穆斯林，而且迄今为止没有一个人戴面纱，这不是议题的议题，却引领了大选议题，自由党领袖特鲁多和新民主党领袖唐民凯均严厉谴责哈珀此举是分化加拿大人，希望借此将选民的注意力从保守党政府对经济管理不善等更严肃的议题上引开，转移大众和选民的注意力。
51.CA


“狗哨政治”的践行者 51.CA 加国无忧

其实自从9月中旬，澳洲人柯罗斯比(Lynton Crosby)加入保守党团队，联邦大选的议题就直上面纱、ISIS等“恐怖”议题，这是柯罗斯比惯用的吓唬选民手法，也是他“救驾”哈珀的奇招，用“恐怖分子”的议题去搏选民眼球，让选民的眼光一致对外，转移加拿大经济衰退的内部矛盾，坚定哈珀的固有形象，从中获利。 51.CA

今年58岁的柯罗斯比秉承的两大竞选策略，除了上述制造恐怖议题，吓唬选民以外，其二是拣选民爱听的话说。一个政党只需要针对有可能支持自己的选民拉票，因此要找到潜在支持者关切的议题，其他选民不必花精力理会。一个政党或者候选人给选民什么形象是既定的，临时抱佛脚去改善形象等于做虚功，竞选时只需要找到支持者爱听和关切的资讯，不断重复灌输，直到他们坚定无移地在投票日投出支持的一票。他的至理名言是对于潜在的支持者“不能等到上市场卖猪时才去喂肥那头猪(You can't fatten a pig on market day)。”目前看来，保守党的竞选团队在践行这一策略。 - 多伦多 51 网

面纱之所以成为大选议题，原因在于魁北克的民调对戴面纱的女穆斯林有意见，哈珀总理就用立法强制公务员不准带面纱；如果有一天，魁北克的民调不喜欢锡克教徒包头巾，是不是我们的总理也会立法不允许公务员包头巾？如果有一天，魁北克的民调不喜欢黑色包住人的皮肤，我们的总理会不会不允许黑人做公务员？如果像我们黄色人种被包住了皮肤呢？……总有一天，我们的总理会把身在加拿大的各族裔移民分得七零八落。 - 多伦多 51 网

综上所述，个中的道理是常识：面纱之有无，是脑袋里面的歧视，是竞选策略的践行，跟头、脸无关。

 

[Chasee]

如果面纱议题能拉票，就证明这是个好议题。

 

[CHRIS88]

面罩问题实际上一直是左党左媒在炒。保守党不过是被动应付而已。

左党左媒将把加拿大带向何方？

 

[otgo]

现在没政府公务员戴面纱，不代表将来没有啊。这都是什么逻辑啊。
早立法早预防有什么坏处啊？早立法，人家木木早点调整心态，想让孩子长大进政府，就要融入当地文化啊，起个导向的作用啊。

 

[明的凡]

Niqab本来不应该是个问题，但是在左党左媒的恶意炒作之下，它显然已经成为一个严重问题。

一个身长六英尺的男人，戴上穆斯林女性才戴的 niqab 和墨镜，到安大略省 Richmond Hill 投票站投票。投票站官员居然不做任何验明身份的工作让他投了! 是什么原因使得投票站官员不敢要求该位伪装的穆斯林取下 niqab 验明身份？

这一次是 niqab，穆斯林在左党左媒的吆喝下完胜。下一步是什么？！

 

[谷歌大侠]

面罩问题实际上一直是左党左媒在炒。保守党不过是被动应付而已。

故意混淆事实，不太好吧。
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...-seinfeldian-election-about-nothing-1.2592687

The niqab has become the Conservative's most successful re-election rallying cry, particularly in Quebec where it's now a referendum on banning the Muslim veil at citizenship ceremonies.

But as this churns on, I can't help but recall the 2012 incident when Jason Kenney's immigration bureaucrats faked a citizenship ceremony for a now-defunct TV network run by the Conservative campaign's current spokesman......

No ministerial apology was forthcoming. It was shrugged off as much ado about nothing.

Yet this moment of Canadian family assimilation is now so sacred, Conservatives refuse to even allow women to remove their veil and take the oath in a room without men.

Pretend oath-takers are fine. Real cultural or religious practices are not. But I digress.

Some polls see the Conservatives edging toward a majority on the back of a ban which the government says has resulted in precisely TWO women refusing to take the oath.

As one Twitter wit noted when news broke of a Toronto Zoo panda being pregnant with twins, there will soon be twice the number of pandas in Canada as women who refused to unveil for the ceremony.

Here's my point: Let's make this election about more than a Seinfeldian show about nothing.

If, as Conservative heavyweight Pierre Poilievre suggested yesterday, more restrictions on the niqab are coming, let's accommodate a reasonable debate on the question now.

Ditto for stripping convicted terrorists of citizenship for symbolic deportation to countries which almost certainly won't take them.

Now that the minister says it will apply to those born in Canada whose parents hold dual citizenship, where does it stop? Will having grandparents with dual citizenship be enough to deport a convicted bomb-builder? Interesting question. Let's talk about the end game now.

Keep in mind, a majority Canadian prime minister is among the most powerful democratic positions in the world. Over time, they can unilaterally stuff the bureaucracy with handpicked preferences, fill up the Senate with lapdogs and stack the courts with like-minded judges.

So let this leadership referendum be about the best plan for the economy, health care, greenhouse gas reduction or coping with the oncoming tsunami of baby boomer seniors.

If voters want to give Stephen Harper an historic fourth mandate and second majority, they're absolutely right to do so.

Just don't do it for the wrong reasons.

That's the Last Word.

 

[谷歌大侠]

因为 Support for Conservatives' niqab ban is deep and wide, even among immigrants，所以保守党要把niqab做为一竞选议题。

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/co...ab-ban-is-deep-and-wide-even-among-immigrants

According to some observers, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are playing a dangerous game on at least two fronts with their opposition to the niqab. First, singling out a small group of Canadians and saying their choice of dress is unacceptable is to potentially expose them to scorn and harm. Second, it is potentially harmful for the Conservatives themselves because it risks a backlash from immigrant voters, a group — or more accurately, a set of groups — that the party has so strongly courted.

It is too early to know the risk of the first danger, though we should hope that it does not materialize. But what of the risk of losing the ethnic vote? Data from our Local Parliament Project surveys suggests this is far from likely. Indeed, it suggests that Harper’s niqab move appears to have more upside than downside. There is overwhelming support for the Conservative positions on the niqab. And, perhaps for the first time, the Conservatives are experiencing a measurable electoral advantage among immigrants.

(The Local Parliament Project surveys between 600 and 800 different Canadians each day. Readers can find detailed information on our methods and can try our survey at www.localparliament.ca.)

Beginning this week, we asked respondents two questions on the niqab. First, we asked them if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “Women wearing a niqab or face covering should be forced to reveal their face when giving an oath of citizenship.”

Then we asked if they agreed or disagreed with this statement: “Women working in the federal civil service should not be allowed to wear a niqab or face covering when interacting with the public.”

On the citizenship oath measure, 72 per cent of Canadians agree. Just 14 per cent disagree. (Another 14 per cent either don’t know or are ambivalent.) This opinion is not isolated to “old stock” Canadians. Among those citizens born outside the country, 70 per cent agree with forcing women to reveal their faces.

Even when we break out the results according to how individuals voted in the 2011 election, we find widespread support in every category: 62 per cent of Liberals, 85 per cent of Conservatives, 72 per cent of New Democrats, 85 per cent of Bloc Québécois voters and 69 per cent of Green voters support a ban on niqabs in citizenship ceremonies.

It is a similar story when we ask whether the public service should ban niqabs. Sixty-four per cent of people we surveyed support such a ban. Just 19 per cent oppose it. Support is undiminished among immigrants, where two-thirds (66 per cent) would support a ban and just 16 per cent would not. And, once again, support is strong across all 2011 voter groups: 56 per cent of Liberals, 74 per cent of Conservatives, 66 per cent of New Democrats, 86 per cent of Bloquistes, and 51 per cent of Green voters would support such a ban.

Some have noted that the niqab is an effective issue, not only because it garners wide support but also because it is largely irrelevant to voters. It is, at best, a useful distraction. But this misses something important about voters: they often take their cues from politicians about what is important. By the time we surveyed voters, the niqab had been a point of discussion for more than two weeks. When we asked our respondents how important the issue is to them, 78 per cent indicated that the niqab in citizenship ceremonies is a somewhat or very important issue. We got the same results when we asked about a niqab ban in the public service.

We now have a situation in which opinion-leaders – newspaper columnists, pundits, commentators – almost uniformly insist that a policy is both wrong and unimportant while voters disagree on both accounts.

Our data tell a broader story about multiculturalism and Tory support. Political scientists – especially André Blais and Richard Johnston – have long noted that the 20th century dominance of the Liberal party was attributable to outsized support among Catholics and visible minorities, perhaps especially immigrants (to the extent that those categories overlap). Consequently, the Tories have spent considerable effort courting various groups of immigrants to their party.

Data from both the 2011 Canadian Election Study and Ipsos-Reid’s massive 2011 exit survey suggest that the Tories may have finally closed this “immigrant gap” in the last election. Our data suggest that they have now not only closed the gap, but have created a significant advantage of their own among immigrant Canadians.

To test this, we calculated the odds of Canadians voting Conservative that controls for a respondent’s age, income, education and gender, province of residence and, importantly, religion.

The results, which draw on massive sample sizes, show that a native-born citizen has a 27 per cent likelihood of voting Conservative. The likelihood for an immigrant Canadian voting Conservative is 34 per cent.

Because we controlled for religious affiliation, we can also estimate these effects. Compared to the non-religious, Jews and non-Orthodox Christians have a greater likelihood of voting for the Conservative party. But among Muslim Canadians, there is a clear aversion to the Conservative Party of Canada.

The niqab has become a campaign issue in this election, and perhaps the issue. The are several reasons for this, but public opinion research points to one of the more important ones: given the consistent, widespread support across the political spectrum for the Conservatives’ stated position, the Tories can only stand to gain from the issue playing prominently in the public discourse.

 

[明的凡]

故意混淆事实，不太好吧。
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...-seinfeldian-election-about-nothing-1.2592687

The niqab has become the Conservative's most successful re-election rallying cry, particularly in Quebec where it's now a referendum on banning the Muslim veil at citizenship ceremonies.

But as this churns on, I can't help but recall the 2012 incident when Jason Kenney's immigration bureaucrats faked a citizenship ceremony for a now-defunct TV network run by the Conservative campaign's current spokesman......

No ministerial apology was forthcoming. It was shrugged off as much ado about nothing.

Yet this moment of Canadian family assimilation is now so sacred, Conservatives refuse to even allow women to remove their veil and take the oath in a room without men.

Pretend oath-takers are fine. Real cultural or religious practices are not. But I digress.

Some polls see the Conservatives edging toward a majority on the back of a ban which the government says has resulted in precisely TWO women refusing to take the oath.

As one Twitter wit noted when news broke of a Toronto Zoo panda being pregnant with twins, there will soon be twice the number of pandas in Canada as women who refused to unveil for the ceremony.

Here's my point: Let's make this election about more than a Seinfeldian show about nothing.

If, as Conservative heavyweight Pierre Poilievre suggested yesterday, more restrictions on the niqab are coming, let's accommodate a reasonable debate on the question now.

Ditto for stripping convicted terrorists of citizenship for symbolic deportation to countries which almost certainly won't take them.

Now that the minister says it will apply to those born in Canada whose parents hold dual citizenship, where does it stop? Will having grandparents with dual citizenship be enough to deport a convicted bomb-builder? Interesting question. Let's talk about the end game now.

Keep in mind, a majority Canadian prime minister is among the most powerful democratic positions in the world. Over time, they can unilaterally stuff the bureaucracy with handpicked preferences, fill up the Senate with lapdogs and stack the courts with like-minded judges.

So let this leadership referendum be about the best plan for the economy, health care, greenhouse gas reduction or coping with the oncoming tsunami of baby boomer seniors.

If voters want to give Stephen Harper an historic fourth mandate and second majority, they're absolutely right to do so.

Just don't do it for the wrong reasons.

That's the Last Word.

我只看事实，并在事实的基础上形成自己的观点而不以别人的观点为自己观点。如果你对长期以来以及在这次选举中谁在恶意炒作穆斯林话题有异议，我们不妨一起收集证据比较一下。

自由党用它培植起来的左派媒体炒作魁独问题，在过去50年中造成至少三次国家分裂危机。现在他们又在穆斯林问题上玩火，到时候就不再是投票不过那麽简单了。

 

[明的凡]

这里有左党左媒长期恶意炒作穆斯林问题的部分证据。

左党左媒将把加拿大带向何方？

 

[Ottawa005]

一个身长六英尺的男人，戴上穆斯林女性才戴的 niqab 和墨镜 。。。

差点联系到女浴室女更衣室什么的。