Quebec to go for racist legislation?

[Carjosse]

As I said, I don't agree with this kind of law either. However, I'd see it as laicism, not necessarily with bigoted motives. If it were some kind of populist conservative anti-immigrant group proposing this, it would be a bit dodgy though.

So the legislators are still allowed to wear religious symbols? That's weird.

Yes they exempted themselves, if it isn't bigoted this is the most stupid law I have ever seen (it is anyways but). Do you know know what we need to know when we need immigrants to be doctors, daycare workers, teachers, etc. we must drive them out with unconstitutional laws. One of the largest hospitals in Montreal and Quebec is The Jewish General Hospital, your basically trying to drive out an entire hospital. Doctors hate it, teachers hate it, daycare workers hate it, cities hate it.

 

[Sanddune]

The reason this is bigoted is that for the most part it seems to aimed at minorities like Sikhs, Muslims, and Jews. What is the issue with having a teacher or daycare worker wearing a hijab or a kippa? I can forgive some older Quebeckers for supporting this because they would still remember when Quebec was practically a theocracy. Actually there would still be a large portion of the Quebec that still remembers when religion ruled Quebec.

I didn't know Quebec ever was so religiously dominated - what sort of influence did the church have?

 

[Carjosse]

I didn't know Quebec ever was so religiously dominated - what sort of influence did the church have?

They operated all the schools and Qubec had very strict religious laws it also had a way of beating opposition and fraudulently won every election. The Catholic Church basically ran the show. They are part of the reason you see crosses everywhere in Qubec. Quebec is still the most religious province but is very secular now.

 

[[]D e e v e s]

One might well deem the crucifix that hangs prominently in Quebec's provincial legislature is a Roman Catholic symbol.
I suggest the legislation is indeed bigoted. One definition seems to support my opinion and that of others.

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

If the Quebec legislation is indeed laicism the crucifix would be banned in government, not simply judged for prominence or size.

Perhaps a ruse to avoid being judged as racist, but certainly say I, bigoted and selectively discriminating.

 

[Middleground]

Far be it from me to be an apologist for Premier Marois, but the legislation isn't "racist" - religion isn't racial per se - and the legislation seems to be sweeping with a broad brush, not just attacking any one religion, so not "bigoted", in my view. It may be a sign of intolerance, but then Quebec Separatists have been intolerant since the moment they left the birth canal.

While I somewhat agree with your reasoning, I just cannot figure out her motive. Why do you think the PQ and Marois are pushing for this???

 

[CanadaJohn]

While I somewhat agree with your reasoning, I just cannot figure out her motive. Why do you think the PQ and Marois are pushing for this???

I believe it has to do with immigration. Quebec wants only French speaking immigrants to come to their "fair" province but what they're getting is a lot of former French colonists in northern Africa who happen also to be devout and strict Muslims leading to a large fundementalist Muslim population in the province. To try to move these fundementalists outside Quebec into other parts of the country, she's attacking all overt religious symbolism.

Personally, if I have to access government services, services that are supposed to be secular in access and provision, I'd just as soon prefer not to be confronted by someone blatantly parading their religious beliefs in their dress and appearance.

 

[Carjosse]

While I somewhat agree with your reasoning, I just cannot figure out her motive. Why do you think the PQ and Marois are pushing for this???

Well they were failing miserably in the polls so they wanted to improve them.

 

[Middleground]

Well they were failing miserably in the polls so they wanted to improve them.

I dunno. I think there's more to it. They are acting like a bunch of dictators.

 

[Middleground]

I believe it has to do with immigration. Quebec wants only French speaking immigrants to come to their "fair" province but what they're getting is a lot of former French colonists in northern Africa who happen also to be devout and strict Muslims leading to a large fundementalist Muslim population in the province. To try to move these fundementalists outside Quebec into other parts of the country, she's attacking all overt religious symbolism.

I think you may be on to something.

Personally, if I have to access government services, services that are supposed to be secular in access and provision, I'd just as soon prefer not to be confronted by someone blatantly parading their religious beliefs in their dress and appearance.

I work with a woman who wears a hijab. Not for one nanosecond do I think she's pushing some sort of plot to get me to convert to her religion, nor do I think it impacts on how she does her job. In fact, I don't even think about it at all, nor does she. So what is the freakin' problem? Maybe it's you?

 

[Jetboogieman]

I just read that institutions can opt out of it and they will not strictly enforce it, so what is it the bloody point of the law?

To appease the hard line rural frog eating racists.

 

[Carjosse]

I dunno. I think there's more to it. They are acting like a bunch of dictators.

No they needed better poll numbers and that's what they got and also distract from the fact they haven't done **** with the economy.

 

[Carjosse]

To appease the hard line rural frog eating racists.

No it's to appease the old people who lived a theocratic semi-dictatorship and are afraid of religion in government. They also like to imitate France and laicité.

 

[donsutherland1]

Prohibiting any regalia or attire that can be deemed as religious in public sector.

If this passes, Quebec is denying Canada's customs and religious freedom.

Quebec bill CHARTER OF QUEBEC VALUES to be voted on.

rather bigoted view don't you think?

The Varsity » The Charter of Quebec Values is not the new Bill 101

IMO, the Quebec government appears poised to overreact. For historical context, there was a period under Quebec Premier (equivalent of a governor in the U.S.) Duplessis during the 1940s and 1950s when the Catholic Church was given substantial control over health, welfare, and educational functions in the Province. The government and Church closely regulated many aspects of life. This period has been called the "Great Darkness." Following the Duplessis' defeat in 1960, the "Quiet Revolution" separated Church and State. At the same time, attendance at the Province's churches fell sharply. Many remain shuttered to this day.

Even when I visited Quebec City this summer, some of the residents who lived during that time or who talked about their parents mentioned how much control the Church had exerted. There is almost a reflexive impulse to limit the influence or potential influence of religion. My guess is that political movement has roots in the aftermath of the "Great Darkness" more than it has in fear over diverse religions.

In any case, I don't support such legislation. While I appreciate how some might find it difficult to reconcile what happened in the past with the religious identity of individuals, effective leadership requires just such a balancing. Going to extremes is essentially an abdication of leadership.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think you may be on to something.



I work with a woman who wears a hijab. Not for one nanosecond do I think she's pushing some sort of plot to get me to convert to her religion, nor do I think it impacts on how she does her job. In fact, I don't even think about it at all, nor does she. So what is the freakin' problem? Maybe it's you?

I'm not religious at all, at this stage in my life, so people being of any particular religious denomination isn't important or relevant to me, but for a devout religious person, it just might be a problem, if the person they have to seek government assistance from happens to be someone who's religion has vowed to wipe the face of the earth of everyone of their religion. As an example, it seems to be the goal of many fundamentalist Muslims to rid the world of non-believers, particularly those of the Jewish faith. I can imagine that a Jewish person might be very uncomfortable having to deal with someone openly Muslim - I don't judge, I'm just observing here.

And to be clear, I'm no longer a religious person because I saw within my own faith people in leadership positions who were anything but people of faith - it is easy for me to understand people not trusting outwardly religious people. So yes, you could be right, it could be me, but not just me, and not something I should feel uncomfortable about when dealing with my government, my secular government.

 

[Middleground]

I'm not religious at all, at this stage in my life, so people being of any particular religious denomination isn't important or relevant to me, but for a devout religious person, it just might be a problem, if the person they have to seek government assistance from happens to be someone who's religion has vowed to wipe the face of the earth of everyone of their religion. As an example, it seems to be the goal of many fundamentalist Muslims to rid the world of non-believers, particularly those of the Jewish faith. I can imagine that a Jewish person might be very uncomfortable having to deal with someone openly Muslim - I don't judge, I'm just observing here.

And to be clear, I'm no longer a religious person because I saw within my own faith people in leadership positions who were anything but people of faith - it is easy for me to understand people not trusting outwardly religious people. So yes, you could be right, it could be me, but not just me, and not something I should feel uncomfortable about when dealing with my government, my secular government.

We're mostly not in disagreement, and I must say I do appreciate your candour. I just want to add that fundamentalist Muslims are quite rare. The Muslims I work with keep their religion to themselves with exception to the once a year lunch time Ramadan ending celebration in which everyone is invited to feast on wonderful homemade pastries. Almost makes me want to convert, LOL. In Quebec, I would unfortunately lose that. In any event, I, like you, do not follow a particular religion anymore. But I can appreciate and understand why others do. And one can easily do that quietly while working in the public sector... in fact, even after 15 years of public service, I cannot recall a time when someone pushed their views on me or the public they served.

 

[Carjosse]

I'm not religious at all, at this stage in my life, so people being of any particular religious denomination isn't important or relevant to me, but for a devout religious person, it just might be a problem, if the person they have to seek government assistance from happens to be someone who's religion has vowed to wipe the face of the earth of everyone of their religion. As an example, it seems to be the goal of many fundamentalist Muslims to rid the world of non-believers, particularly those of the Jewish faith. I can imagine that a Jewish person might be very uncomfortable having to deal with someone openly Muslim - I don't judge, I'm just observing here.

And to be clear, I'm no longer a religious person because I saw within my own faith people in leadership positions who were anything but people of faith - it is easy for me to understand people not trusting outwardly religious people. So yes, you could be right, it could be me, but not just me, and not something I should feel uncomfortable about when dealing with my government, my secular government.

Well they freely protested the charter together.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well they freely protested the charter together.

Indeed, some or perhaps most do. But then, when did people decide that majority rule would abrogate the rights of the minority? If government is supposed to be free of religion and provide services in a secular manner, why should I or any other person feel uncomfortable by displays of religious symbols when I try to access those secular government services?

There are many things in life that individuals are free to do, that are legal as individual activities, but that are not allowed in the workplace. Women in Canada can freely go topless - should they be allowed to do so at any worksite? The majority, particularly most if not all men, would say yes, but should those who are uncomfortable around free-flopping boobs have to put up with it when accessing government services?

Point being, why should I have to tolerate religious symbolism when I have to access government services but others not have to tolerate wearing secular dress in order to work for that same government?

 

[Carjosse]

Indeed, some or perhaps most do. But then, when did people decide that majority rule would abrogate the rights of the minority? If government is supposed to be free of religion and provide services in a secular manner, why should I or any other person feel uncomfortable by displays of religious symbols when I try to access those secular government services?

There are many things in life that individuals are free to do, that are legal as individual activities, but that are not allowed in the workplace. Women in Canada can freely go topless - should they be allowed to do so at any worksite? The majority, particularly most if not all men, would say yes, but should those who are uncomfortable around free-flopping boobs have to put up with it when accessing government services?

Point being, why should I have to tolerate religious symbolism when I have to access government services but others not have to tolerate wearing secular dress in order to work for that same government?

Freedom of religion being the main one and secondly we want religious people to be in the government service that would leave otherwise. If a doctor is wearing a kippa or hijab it has absolutely nothing to do with the service they give, they are not going to treat you differently, they are just doing their job.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Freedom of religion being the main one and secondly we want religious people to be in the government service that would leave otherwise. If a doctor is wearing a kippa or hijab it has absolutely nothing to do with the service they give, they are not going to treat you differently, they are just doing their job.

Why would we want religious people in government service? If their wearing of religious symbolism and their religion has absolutely nothing to do with the service they give, what possible reason could you present that shows some benefit to their being religious and/or displaying it? Just the very suggestion that we want religious people to be in government service leads me to believe that you don't even believe your own dismissal of the impact.

 

[Carjosse]

Why would we want religious people in government service? If their wearing of religious symbolism and their religion has absolutely nothing to do with the service they give, what possible reason could you present that shows some benefit to their being religious and/or displaying it? Just the very suggestion that we want religious people to be in government service leads me to believe that you don't even believe your own dismissal of the impact.

Well those religious people have skills that we need like doctors and daycare workers, one of the biggest hospitals in Montreal is the Jewish General Hospital, should it's doctors be forced not to wear kippas? We will lose those doctors because they will go somewhere that allows them practice while keeping their religious identity. A person's region is their own business as it doesn't matter as long as the service they provide is secular. The Jewish General Hospital treats all patients equally thus delivering a secular service. Government is already secular what this ban does is take away people's religious identity not secularize government.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well those religious people have skills that we need like doctors and daycare workers, one of the biggest hospitals in Montreal is the Jewish General Hospital, should it's doctors be forced not to wear kippas? We will lose those doctors because they will go somewhere that allows them practice while keeping their religious identity. A person's region is their own business as it doesn't matter as long as the service they provide is secular. The Jewish General Hospital treats all patients equally thus delivering a secular service. Government is already secular what this ban does is take away people's religious identity not secularize government.

In general, you may be correct - I don't suggest otherwise - but you'd have to admit that not every person who wears their religion on their sleeves is devoid of any religious "impact" on the services they provide.

But again, to be clear, this is not about the rights of religious people to display their faith - they have that right - we're just arguing whether or not that right extends to the workplace, when that workplace is not religious in nature.

 

[Middleground]

In general, you may be correct - I don't suggest otherwise - but you'd have to admit that not every person who wears their religion on their sleeves is devoid of any religious "impact" on the services they provide.

But again, to be clear, this is not about the rights of religious people to display their faith - they have that right - we're just arguing whether or not that right extends to the workplace, when that workplace is not religious in nature.

I think we all can agree that it is okay for someone to wear something that is a part of their personal religion but should--in no way shape of form--push their views onto their co-workers or to the public that they serve.

 

[Quag]

I seriously doubt this legislation is going to go anywhere. It serves 2 purposes
1 It is just another pathetic attempt by Marois to try and create a division between Quebec and the rest of Canada and get her "winning conditions".
2 She is too incompetent to do anything constructive about the actual problems of the province so she drums up a furor over something that was a non issue.

 

[[]D e e v e s]

Maybe better to have anyone practicing a religion display their affiliation?


Good to know if they're a Wiccan, or maybe leaning to practices such as FGM, circumcision or Witch Doctor healing with chicken parts...or weed.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think we all can agree that it is okay for someone to wear something that is a part of their personal religion but should--in no way shape of form--push their views onto their co-workers or to the public that they serve.

I certainly agree with this. Hell, I haven't a clue what most religious symbolism refers to or what is "required" and what is simply fundementalist suppression of members of a particular faith - I really could care less, since I'm not at all religious. But I respect that others may feel differently and be affected differently, for their own personal religious reasons/beliefs. And I believe a secular government should respect those feelings when providing services. While not completely analogous, I'd say it's similar to my approach to abortion - I don't like it, but I respect people's right to chose their own path as long as it doesn't adversely impact someone else. Respecting someone's personal choices doesn't mean accepting those choices.