Major Canadian city elects Muslim Mayor.

[ViperOverLord]

Yes he has dark skin, not a factor in a Canadian city choosing a Canadian to be mayor. I honestly wonder if religion would have been, it never came up until the day after he was elected.

I would also say that the fact it didn't come up until after he was elected says something pretty positive about his opponent.

I know nothing of the race, but if he was sympathetic towards persons or organizations implicated in terrorism then I think it would be his opponent's responsibility to address such an issue. If he did not do that then there is no reason for his religion to be an issue.

[2dimes]

I could assure you he wasn't but what proof would that be.

I forgot the link to that Sam Katz thing.
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/ ... _all_time/

[ViperOverLord]

I could assure you he wasn't but what proof would that be.

I forgot the link to that Sam Katz thing.
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/ ... _all_time/

Funny ad. I don't have a problem with the ad though, assuming its all factual. I think voters assume the kick was an accident and if voters can't make that determination then God help us. But, I wouldn't have advised his opponent to make that ad because it makes him look petty despite the fact that its humorous.

[2dimes]

I think the quote from "Men in black" fits. I can't remember it exactly but something like, "A person can be rational but people are paranoid stupid and panicky."

Never underestimate how sensless we can get once we start following the heard.

[saxitoxin]

I just googled it, Teaneck New Jersey has a Muslim mayor and an Orthodox Jew as deputy mayor. According to wikipedia, Teaneck has 40,000 residents. That's about the size of Calgary, right?

[keiths31]

I just googled it, Teaneck New Jersey has a Muslim mayor and an Orthodox Jew as deputy mayor. According to wikipedia, Teaneck has 40,000 residents. That's about the size of Calgary, right?

Well you almost got it...just 940,000 residents off or so.

You have the wherewithal to find the correct information about Teaneck, New Jersey, but not find the population of Calgary? Lame...

[2dimes]

Something came to mind last night. I was kind of feeling bad for starting the thread because of Johnny Rockets asking "what's the big deal?". I was thinking maybe I shouldn't have brought it up because in some ways it shouldn't be a deal at all. I am happy it was never brought up during the campaigning.

I realised it was the local media making it a big deal though. It was on the front page of every rag here and some even claimed it was world wide news. Now I'm glad I made the thread instead of just PMing one person to dispell that rumour if nothing else.

[Johnny Rockets]

I voted for Sammy in the past....
That attack ad was a bit of a spoof, but the man has done a decent job.
However a few iffy backroom deals and a couple of forced through policy's have undermined some trust. The election is on the 27th, and I'll vote against him only because Judy Wasylycia-Leis , who is running against him will do an even better job of it.

JRockets.

[Nobunaga]

... If he's the first, then it is a big deal, imo. Much like Obama being the first (half) Black US President. Kenedy being the first Catholic, etc.. Granted, the scale is smaller, but the point is the same.

... I wonder what he thinks of gay marriage, being Muslim and all. Or is that already an accepted legal norm in Canada?

...

[2dimes]

That's basically a provincial issue so he doesn't have a say. It's for the most part an accepted norm, there's still people that oppose it they're pretty quiet now days.

[Baron Von PWN]

... If he's the first, then it is a big deal, imo. Much like Obama being the first (half) Black US President. Kenedy being the first Catholic, etc.. Granted, the scale is smaller, but the point is the same.

... I wonder what he thinks of gay marriage, being Muslim and all. Or is that already an accepted legal norm in Canada?

...

Yeah federal law which isn't seriously challenged by anyone. The reason being anyone making too powerful a religious message will get hammered in the polls, at least nationally. Even the conservatives have been very careful not contest the issue. Besides it is far too late now, we've had gay marriage nationally for 5 years now, its been debated several times each time coming out strongly in favor. There is a page on Wikipedia about it if you are interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... _in_Canada.

[Phatscotty]

Something came to mind last night. I was kind of feeling bad for starting the thread because of Johnny Rockets asking "what's the big deal?". I was thinking maybe I shouldn't have brought it up because in some ways it shouldn't be a deal at all. I am happy it was never brought up during the campaigning.

I realised it was the local media making it a big deal though. It was on the front page of every rag here and some even claimed it was world wide news. Now I'm glad I made the thread instead of just PMing one person to dispell that rumour if nothing else.

perhaps you are closer to peering through filters than you once thought you were

[2dimes]

I'm not following Scotty.

Are you trying to tell me I'm influenced by media? I am aware and have known for years. I pretty much dodge most television. I like to be entertained but see little value in the high volume of negative messages portrayed as news, that is never balanced by positive. Also I feel all media is opinion biased by those writing it.

People joke about this forum being a place to get news from and how you'd be dumber for it because of all the goofy things people like (I'm probably one) to post as news. At least when something is presented here there is discussion where it can be challenged instead of just having stories fed to us as "The plain truth." That may lead to "pancake theory" and "ghost" stories but I'll take them, for the most part they are only helpfull to challenge you to think things out. If you fall for them I don't know if that's any worse than just watching CNN or Fox exclusively and taking their word for everything.

An example of media distortion I know of was something where people I knew found out what was really going on well before the true story was fully reported. We were on a large construction project expanding a poly ethalyne (sp) plant. This was a job Union electricians had waited on for over a decade because it was very large and just under 2 hours away from our city that is very anti union.

There was a high voltage cable being installed. During the quality control phase they discovered someone had driven a large spike through the cables to sabotage it with a short circut. The federal police were called in as the plant was in their juristiction. The media covered this as the dangers created and costs of repairing the cable were both quite high. There was an estimate that to replace the cable would be between 7 and 10 thousand dollars.

The media made a fairly big deal of it and reported that a Union construction worker was suspected of the crime, full charges would be laid. Front pages on all papers with pictures of the cable etc.

Later when they found out it was actually an anti union employee of the plant there was nothing reported for a while. Finally on page 28 or so there was a report telling the truth "An employee of Nova Chemicals was charged and may face a term in jail." Text only and shorter than this post. I only found out about the follow up because we were having a conversation about them never mentioning the truth and someone showed me the second story in one of the papers.

[denominator]

Well, this has been an interesting thread to follow post-election, at least as interesting as the election has been here.

Naheed Nenshi being Muslim had very little to do with him getting elected. At least, no more than the other two front runners had their own sexist/racist voting sects (Ric McIver is an old white conservative and Barb Higgins is an ex-news anchor here - I had talked to many people who said they were going to vote for her just because she was a woman). I can honestly say that I didn't vote for any of the 3 front-runners because I thought their platforms all sucked.

Nenshi won for a couple of reasons. The biggest one being that he was an amazing public speaker - prior to being elected (and I assume for the remainder of the term), he was a business professor at Mount Royal University. So he's had years of public speaking, something Barb Higgins had some experience with (although not in front of large crowds), and Ric McIver lacked (his involuntary eye twitch threw some voters off too). The second reason Nenshi won was that he was able to motivate the younger demographic into voting, using Twitter, Facebook, and texting to get his platform out there (I understand Obama did this as well, but I generally only half-follow US politics so don't know for sure). The third reason Nenshi won was because people didn't want to vote Higgins or McIver in, he was simply the lesser of 3 evils. McIver would have been more of the same here, and people wanted change. Higgins had no idea how to be a mayor. So Nenshi was the logical choice for most people.

Myself, I am not a fan of Nenshi because a large part of his platform was simply a negative charge against the old administration and the other candidates. But he may make a good mayor - I can honestly say that I hope I am wrong about him and that he does good things here, but he didn't get my vote.

His race, skin colour, or ethnic background had little to no effect on the voters. His sexuality (there are now rumours going around that he's gay - I can't say for sure yet but I can say that I'd believe it) also had little to do with it. He won based on his platform, and I can say that for once I'm proud to have been a voter in an election that people actually cared about.

[jay_a2j]

Yes, I would have to see his politics to know if I really think it was good or not. However, that they would look beyond his religion to elect him seems positive.

See this is the thinking that will surely destroy civilization. You should have just stopped with the underlined part because when you added the red part you illustrated the demented thinking of liberals. How is electing a faith, regardless of what faith it is, "a positive thing"? IT MEANS NOTHING! It's the underlined part that means something. It's no more a positive thing to elect someone based on religion as it is race, class or how many cars they own! The fact that you ADDED the part about his religion and equated that to being "positive" speaks volumes.

[Woodruff]

Yes, I would have to see his politics to know if I really think it was good or not. However, that they would look beyond his religion to elect him seems positive.

See this is the thinking that will surely destroy civilization. You should have just stopped with the underlined part because when you added the red part you illustrated the demented thinking of liberals. How is electing a faith, regardless of what faith it is, "a positive thing"? IT MEANS NOTHING! It's the underlined part that means something. It's no more a positive thing to elect someone based on religion as it is race, class or how many cars they own! The fact that you ADDED the part about his religion and equated that to being "positive" speaks volumes.

Learn to read.

[john9blue]

To elaborate on Woody-bot's much repeated criticism, you missed the point of her post. She's not saying they elected him because he was Muslim, she's saying they didn't care that he was Muslim and elected him for the reasons they should.

[jay_a2j]

To elaborate on Woody-bot's much repeated criticism, you missed the point of her post. She's not saying they elected him because he was Muslim, she's saying they didn't care that he was Muslim and elected him for the reasons they should.

No, I don't think I did. "that they looked beyond his religion to elect him seems positive." What does a man's religion have to do with how they govern? She is in the same group as Michelle Obama who was "finally proud" of her country BECAUSE a black man was elected President! Apparently Mrs. Obama didn't think much of the voting public BEFORE her husband won. This smacks of arrogance and condescension.

As if, voters are ignorant because they had never voted a black man into the office of President until now!

As if, BECAUSE they elected a Muslim Major, the people FINALLY looked BEYOND religion when voting! (positive)

A man/woman should be judged on the content of their RECORD not whether he/she was black/white, Muslim/Christian.

[Baron Von PWN]

To elaborate on Woody-bot's much repeated criticism, you missed the point of her post. She's not saying they elected him because he was Muslim, she's saying they didn't care that he was Muslim and elected him for the reasons they should.

No, I don't think I did. "that they looked beyond his religion to elect him seems positive." What does a man's religion have to do with how they govern? She is in the same group as Michelle Obama who was "finally proud" of her country BECAUSE a black man was elected President! Apparently Mrs. Obama didn't think much of the voting public BEFORE her husband won. This smacks of arrogance and condescension.

As if, voters are ignorant because they had never voted a black man into the office of President until now!

As if, BECAUSE they elected a Muslim Major, the people FINALLY looked BEYOND religion when voting! (positive)

A man/woman should be judged on the content of their RECORD not whether he/she was black/white, Muslim/Christian.

It was positive because it was never an issue. Many people were ignorant of his religion until the day after the election when the papers reported on it.

[Woodruff]

To elaborate on Woody-bot's much repeated criticism, you missed the point of her post. She's not saying they elected him because he was Muslim, she's saying they didn't care that he was Muslim and elected him for the reasons they should.

No, I don't think I did. "that they looked beyond his religion to elect him seems positive." What does a man's religion have to do with how they govern? She is in the same group as Michelle Obama who was "finally proud" of her country BECAUSE a black man was elected President! Apparently Mrs. Obama didn't think much of the voting public BEFORE her husband won. This smacks of arrogance and condescension.

As if, voters are ignorant because they had never voted a black man into the office of President until now!

As if, BECAUSE they elected a Muslim Major, the people FINALLY looked BEYOND religion when voting! (positive)

A man/woman should be judged on the content of their RECORD not whether he/she was black/white, Muslim/Christian.

Learn to read. Or, alternatively, learn to reason.

[jay_a2j]

It was positive because it was never an issue. Many people were ignorant of his religion until the day after the election when the papers reported on it.

Oh crap! After? Well then I guess it wasn't so positive after all if they didn't know until after!

[Woodruff]

It was positive because it was never an issue. Many people were ignorant of his religion until the day after the election when the papers reported on it.

Oh crap! After? Well then I guess it wasn't so positive after all if they didn't know until after!

Or don't.

[Baron Von PWN]

It was positive because it was never an issue. Many people were ignorant of his religion until the day after the election when the papers reported on it.

Oh crap! After? Well then I guess it wasn't so positive after all if they didn't know until after!

It is positive because nobody in the know saw a reason to bring it up, for good reason, the religious affiliation of a candidate is largely irrelevant. The papers only reported on his religious beliefs after it became evident he was Canada's first Muslim mayor.

[notyou2]

It was positive because it was never an issue. Many people were ignorant of his religion until the day after the election when the papers reported on it.

Oh crap! After? Well then I guess it wasn't so positive after all if they didn't know until after!

It is positive because nobody in the know saw a reason to bring it up, for good reason, the religious affiliation of a candidate is largely irrelevant. The papers only reported on his religious beliefs after it became evident he was Canada's first Muslim mayor.

Irrelevant in Canada anyways.

[denominator]

It was positive because it was never an issue. Many people were ignorant of his religion until the day after the election when the papers reported on it.

Oh crap! After? Well then I guess it wasn't so positive after all if they didn't know until after!

It is positive because nobody in the know saw a reason to bring it up, for good reason, the religious affiliation of a candidate is largely irrelevant. The papers only reported on his religious beliefs after it became evident he was Canada's first Muslim mayor.

And false. We all knew he was Muslim before he was elected, the papers simply didn't report on it. It's not like it was a big secret that he's Muslim.