CAQ's Bill 21 ban on wearing religious symbols

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I'll be honest with you. Meaningful opposition to Bill 21 can only come from the people of Québec. Anything else is just noise which will, at best, have a negative effect here. Once the notwithstanding clause is invoked, this becomes a matter of purely provincial jurisdiction. Wish us well!

I agree with this completely.

I agree. If the three of us agree that is saying something. 

Outside pressure will only lead CAQ and Quebec to dig in its heels. The grandfather clause is because years ago a poll was taken that showed people in favor of the law but against people losing their jobs. There is a lack of understanding rather than militancy. School boards have already stated they will not be respecting the law. Support for the law where it matters is very soft. How are they going to enforce it when a hijab wearing woman gets a promotion or is hired? Or one is hired who doesn't wear it and begins to. It would be a real indignity to force a woman to remove her hijab for the day. It isn't like wearing a cross which can be concealed. How is hijab defined? Will cancer patients be unable to wear head scarves or turbans? 

lagatta4

Technically, it doesn't affect "religious minorities" but those among the minorities who wear conspicuous signs or garments. Which doesn't make it better, but it is important to be precise here. Most Muslim women in Québec don't wear the hijab.

By the way, for decades, women in Tunisia were forbidden to wear the hijab if they were students (university as well as lower levels where students are usually minors) or civil servants. So there it was the majority faith that was affected. Many Sephardic women wear a kind of snood; I don't know whether Jewish Tunisians were affected but the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. I don't think the kinds of skullcaps some Muslim and some Jewish men wear (not exactly the same style) were ever banned; the ban was based on the headscarf being a sign of the oppression of women.

Now in theory there is utter freedom, however conservative religious figures pressure women to cover, and of course they could also be pressured by family members (usually men, but sometimes women).

Getting back to Québec, QS get smeared as covert Liberals (rather absurd considering all our protests not only about the tuition fee hikes but also government collusion and corruption) so we get a lot of pressure in all directions.

Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:

Pariah was a bit strong, but becoming an international embarrassment is the only thing that will stop this bill. I will continue attending the protests but no amount of protest from minorities and anglo/allophones will do anything. The CAQ doesn't care what we think, but at least the Liberal and PQ governments seemed to be really sensitive to being made fun of in the international press.

A stream of articles comparing Legault to Donald Trump, saying that Legault is banning certain religious minorities from certain jobs, something even Trump has never done, could shame enough people. Unlikely but you gotta have hope.

In Quebec it is more likely to cause a flare up of garrison mentality and even more resentment against visible minorities. 

We need to protest and to support workers being discriminated against, support legal challenges. Protest Valerie Plante announcing Montreal will respect the law. If the city refuses to bow down Legault cannot enforce the law. Internal resistence and humanization of the issue is the wisest path forward. If shaming worked this wouldn't be happening after Herouxville. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

Technically, it doesn't affect "religious minorities" but those among the minorities who wear conspicuous signs or garments. Which doesn't make it better, but it is important to be precise here. Most Muslim women in Québec don't wear the hijab.

By the way, for decades, women in Tunisia were forbidden to wear the hijab if they were students (university as well as lower levels where students are usually minors) or civil servants. So there it was the majority faith that was affected. Many Sephardic women wear a kind of snood; I don't know whether Jewish Tunisians were affected but the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. I don't think the kinds of skullcaps some Muslim and some Jewish men wear (not exactly the same style) were ever banned; the ban was based on the headscarf being a sign of the oppression of women.

Growing up in the '50's all the Italian and Ukrainian immigrant women in our city always wore a headscarf when they went out in public. I am sure it all stems from some quote about covering ones hair for modesty reasons from that evil book shared by the big three Western religions .

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I agree. If the three of us agree that is saying something. 

Indeed.

But if this ever passes (science forbid), I don't see "enforcement" as being a huge problem - unless the CAQ lets that idiot say "we'll call the police" again:

Pondering wrote:

How are they going to enforce it when a hijab wearing woman gets a promotion or is hired?

They tell her to not wear the hijab at work. If she insists, they send her home / discipline her. Exactly as they would do today if someone wore a "Support the Liberal Party!" t-shirt, or came to work naked. This is not a problem.

Pondering wrote:

Or one is hired who doesn't wear it and begins to.

Same answer as above.

Pondering wrote:

It would be a real indignity to force a woman to remove her hijab for the day. It isn't like wearing a cross which can be concealed.

I wouldn't know how women feel about wearing a hijab, or people who wear crosses. I think the indignity factor would be a rather individual and personal matter. But that certainly wouldn't affect enforceability.

Quote:

How is hijab defined? Will cancer patients be unable to wear head scarves or turbans? 

Why should "hijab" be defined? It's not mentioned in the bill. Nor are head scarves nor turbans nor kippahs nor crosses... Whether or not something is a "religious symbol" will depend on the circumstances. If a person says, "This may look like a religious symbol to you, but it isn't for me - I'm wearing it for medical reasons", they could be expected to provide a credible medical note to that effect - the same way sick leave or disability accommodation is "enforced" at present.

Where I foresee problems in enforcement is if a person comes to work in a fedora hat (to concoct an example), which doesn't appear to have any religious significance - but it could satisfy the requirements of some religions to keep one's head covered. The institution would need to have some rule saying "don't cover your head while at work", and that rule would need to pass muster as a bona fide occupation requirement. There will be grey areas. Especially if it's my hat, and my hair.

Unionist

'It is our duty to speak up': Montreal city council passes unanimous declaration against Bill 21

It's extremely rare to see such a unanimous declaration. Bravo to Projet Montréal and the opposition councillors.

Unionist

"The government is going to remove people's rights without any proof there is any problem," says QS secularism critic Sol Zanetti.

Quote:

The Legault government should do its homework and demonstrate how public employees wearing religious symbols compromise the neutrality of the state, Québec solidaire said on Monday.

The opposition party criticized the absence of statistics to buttress the government’s rationale for Bill 21, even as its proposed ban of religious symbols has become a flash point for debate in Quebec.

QS also contends that Premier François Legault falsely claimed last week that Quebec drew inspiration from Morocco for its ban on religious symbols worn by civil servants in positions of authority — a definition the government has decided includes teachers. There is no ban on religious symbols in Morocco.

“We’re really seeing an approach that is very ideological, very dogmatic, in which there’s very little place for science, and that’s been a trademark of this government from the very beginning,” Sol Zanetti told the Presse Canadienne.

“We’re coming up with solutions to problems that have not been demonstrated,” he said. The Coalition Avenir Québec government “is playing sorcerer’s apprentice with people’s rights, and that isn’t right.”

Sean in Ottawa

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

Trudeau isn't going to condemn this because this is the new political climate around the Western world. He could condemn it and make  some people happy or he can keep his mouth shut and not get the stink of these White Nationalistic crowds. Either way he's fucked. This is the new wedge issue. Scheer's Cons are going to ride that into the election, count on it.

Bacchus

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

 

Were he going to do it on principle, he would already have done so

Pondering

https://globalnews.ca/news/5106035/quebec-religious-symbols-bill-charter-rights/

(last update March 28th)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about the bill just before it was tabled on Thursday, saying he plans to carefully study its contents before commenting further.

“Canada, and indeed Quebec, are places where we are a secular society, we respect deeply people’s rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. It is unthinkable to me that in a free society, we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,”

It seems to me Trudeau did condemn the bill quite some time ago. 

That is not a defence of Trudeau it is just a fact. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-mayor-who-compared-quebec-bill-to-ethnic-cleansing-should-apologize-1.4373824

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Trudeau repeated his opposition to Bill 21 but said Hampstead Mayor William Steinberg's comments were unacceptable and that the mayor needs to apologize.

"We don't need to go to extremes," Trudeau said. "We can debate the bill without going too far. There are people who are extremely worried by this bill, and I understand them. But we shouldn't use words like that."

 

Unionist

Quote:

The proposed law sets the province’s right-leaning Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government on a collision course with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who promotes religious freedom, in a federal election year with a Quebec a vital battleground.

“It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,” Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

That was March 28 - just before the bill was tabled, though everyone knew the basic outlines. I don't know what, if anything, he has said since - perhaps others can fill in the gap?

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

Now you have me completely confused.

You say you know me and that I am not a Liberal and yet you want me to call on Trudeau to operate out of principle instead of discuss what his political calculations would be.

If you knew me then you would know that I have zero faith in anyone trying to get Trudeau or the Liberals to do anything on principle or becuase it was the right thing. I was discussing the issues that are relevant to a LIBERAL decision. That is politics -- not people -- not human rights -- not what someone who dislikes the Liberal party thinks.

I think it is you typing too fast here. On the one hand you accept that it is a given that I do not support the policy or the Liberals and on the other you chastise me for not giving Liberals advice -- or worse -- for assuming that the Liberals would do anything for a vote as their prime consideration.

I am sorry, we may have a different perspective but my post accurately and consistently reflects my presumption that votes are all that the Liberals will consider in this. I do not support the Liberals precisely becuase I think they are immune from doing things for the right reasons. I know you may not share that opinion -- that is okay. However, this presumption is consistent with my post, with my posting record, and is not even that controversial here.

Were we talking about the CPC I would have used similar considerations. I do not think these two parties opperate in the moral sphere except where it can give them votes. Otherwise, we would not be talking about Indigenous people without clean drinking water, now would we?

I really cannot see where you are coming from here at all except that you might hold the hope of a Liberal moral action where I do not. This is not a difference that is really that critical but it is this that leads you to object to my post, I think.

Unionist

I'll say it again.

Trudeau is Canada's Prime Minister. He should condemn Bill 21.

That doesn't mean I think he'll do it. That doesn't mean I believe he is motivated by human rights concerns. That doesn't mean he cares about anything except electoral concerns.

It means he should condemn Bill 21.

And it also means we should demand that he condemn Bill 21. It also means we should not give up on that demand even if we believe the chances of success are minuscule.

Let me give some other examples:

Netanyahu must not annex the Golan Heights.

Trump should stop stoking the fires of Islamophobia.

Trudeau should abandon his support for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

I get the feeling I'm wasting my time.

PS: All right, here's my final volley. If enough of us demand loudly enough and for a long enough time that Trudeau condemn Bill 21 - maybe it'll get to the point where some of his robots tell him: "Hmmmmmm, there could be some votes hinging on this....". Ok?

Pondering

I know he hasn't repeated this but isn't it a condemnation?

“It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,” Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

I agree he didn't say it for moral reasons. Has Singh spoken out more strongly or is it that you believe Trudeau should be more forceful because he is Prime Minister?

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

I know he hasn't repeated this but isn't it a condemnation?

“It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,” Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

I agree he didn't say it for moral reasons. Has Singh spoken out more strongly or is it that you believe Trudeau should be more forceful because he is Prime Minister?

By itself, though, the quote is almost a truism, ie. discrimination based on religion is wrong. The people who support Bill 21 probably don't consciously consider it to be discrimination, so the comments could be construed as not applying to them.

voice of the damned

IOW: The line sounds like something you might say so that you appear to condemn something, but no one can actually quote you as doing so.

EDIT: Of course, I haven't seen the whole quote, so I don't know if he said anything more explicit than a general condemnation of discrimination.

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I know he hasn't repeated this but isn't it a condemnation?

“It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,” Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

I agree he didn't say it for moral reasons. Has Singh spoken out more strongly or is it that you believe Trudeau should be more forceful because he is Prime Minister?

I'm sure you noticed that I provided that quote in #66 above, and asked whether had seen anything further. I take it that you haven't - neither have I.

The quote is fine. But it was made on March 28 just before Bill 21 was tabled. And Trudeau never mentioned Bill 21.

So please bear with me as I repeat: The Prime Minister must condemn Bill 21.

Pondering

Okay, I see. Don't hold your breath. The other day I was thinking of Trudeau more as spokesperson for the government. Much like QS the planning is done by others but that isn't really accurate either because he actually says very little beyond his talking points and that is deliberate. He refuses to respond to shut down the news cycle. Eventually there is nothing left for pundits to say and the public gets bored with it. 

It is very difficult to keep the heat on with this topic because he said enough to be seen as opposed to it but as you noted worded in such a way to cause a minimum of offence to Legault and supporting Quebecers. 

Unionist

Here's the schedule of so-called "Special consultations and public hearings on Bill 21, An Act respecting the laicity of the State". Looks like "no time to lose!". 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

I'll say it again.

Trudeau is Canada's Prime Minister. He should condemn Bill 21.

That doesn't mean I think he'll do it. That doesn't mean I believe he is motivated by human rights concerns. That doesn't mean he cares about anything except electoral concerns.

It means he should condemn Bill 21.

And it also means we should demand that he condemn Bill 21. It also means we should not give up on that demand even if we believe the chances of success are minuscule.

Let me give some other examples:

Netanyahu must not annex the Golan Heights.

Trump should stop stoking the fires of Islamophobia.

Trudeau should abandon his support for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

I get the feeling I'm wasting my time.

PS: All right, here's my final volley. If enough of us demand loudly enough and for a long enough time that Trudeau condemn Bill 21 - maybe it'll get to the point where some of his robots tell him: "Hmmmmmm, there could be some votes hinging on this....". Ok?

Maybe it is just me, but I have no history here of asking Trudeau or the Liberals to say ANYTHING.

Since I think what they say is bullshit and insincere, and I know that most people, even Liberals, know it is bullshit and insincere (and they are proud of that), I really do not spend my time thinking of all the many things Trudeau should say. He says a good many things he should say and carries on as if he never said them.

Sure, I get your point. Mine is that I just can't bring myself to think about what I want Trudeau to say when I am already angry at the things he says and does nothing about. So maybe I could have said it this time -- I just don't imagine putting any advocacy into words from JT. Also, I think we can always find some fluff from Trudeau on anything, anyway.

Unionist

Hi Sean, I'm back. I never really meant we should debate "what Trudeau should say". My awkward construction. All I meant is that we should demand that our country, our state, our federal government, take a stand against stoking division among the people. Trudeau as PM is generally viewed as representing that government and our state - not Trudeau as an individual, nor as a Liberal. I'm pretty sure you'll agree with that. Sorry for creating a distraction.

Here's another possible legal challenge in the works, though I'm not a lawyer and can't assess whether it has any substantial chance of success:

Bill 21 won't apply to us, Quebec's English school boards say

Quote:

An organization representing all nine of Quebec's English school boards says the province's proposed ban on religious symbols can't be imposed on them, potentially opening a new front in the legal resistance to the legislation.

Like some of their French counterparts, English schools boards have already made clear their opposition to a provision in Bill 21 that would bar public teachers and principals from wearing headgear such as the hijab, turban or kippa. 

The English Montreal School Board has even stated it has no intention of enforcing the eventual law.

At a news conference Tuesday in Quebec City, the Quebec English School Boards Association (QESBA) added another dimension to their opposition.

Invoking minority-language rights upheld by various Supreme Court decisions, QESBA claimed to have exclusive authority over a wide range of educational decisions. 

pietro_bcc

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/abnormal-spike-in-muslim-women-r...

Bill 21 is causing Muslim women to be harassed in situations that wouldn't even be covered by the law once it passes? Who could've possibly seen such a surprising turn of events coming? Its not like the same thing happened during the Charter of Values debate.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trudeau should speak out . He doesn't want to  lose points in Québec but someone should point out that the vast majority who love this Bill are all CAQuistes. These people would not vote for him anyway so what does he have to lose? I wonder if a PM Scheer or Singh would be any different. I doubt it. They don't want to lose any of the support they have in Québec either.

Ball is in your court now Mr. Prime Minister.

pietro_bcc

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-21-united-nations-human-rig...

The UN sent a letter criticizing bill 21 for human rights concerns.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

Agreed that Trudeau, out of simple decency, needs to condemn this.  You can't assume from Sean's response that he disagrees with about the need for Trudeau to do so, and he's not responsible for the fact that Trudeau hasn't done it.   All he was doing there was laying out how Trudeau and his advisors would be looking at the thing.  

I think we can assume that anybody on this board would agree that Trudeau needs to condemn Bill 21.

 

lagatta4

It could backfire, though. We (QS) get constant shit for speaking out about the dress-code aspects of it. I'm very much for secularism, but don't think it is any of my business how people dress, unless there is a security concern. The only possible one of those would concern burkas - a handful of women wear them here. Montréal is already removing the Council cross (L'Hôtel de ville is undergoing a major renovation, required by safety concerns) and it seems that the crucifix will also be removed from L'Assemblée nationale chamber and placed in its museum.

Secularism does not necessarily mean renaming streets and certainly not destroying historic places of worship. The weird thing is that we are not only accused of pandering to Muslims but also of being Stalinist. There is a toponomy commission, but one of its main aims is to have more names for women, and more names for Indigenous people, peoples or events.  At one point most of the feminine street and place names were either for saints or for Queen Victoria or other royals. With the annexation of several former suburbs, there are several Vikkie streets, bridges etc.

robbie_dee

So the bill passed. At the last minute, the CAQ even added an enforcement provision that could effectively create "secularism police". This is simply the Islamic Guidance Patrol in reverse.

What a shame that the PQ has sunk to such a depth not only to vote for this racist garbage, but to call for it to go even further. Sad day for Quebec, for Canada, and indeed for western liberalism.

Paladin1

robbie_dee wrote:

What a shame that the PQ has sunk to such a depth not only to vote for this racist garbage, but to call for it to go even further. Sad day for Quebec, for Canada, and indeed for western liberalism.

Just being the devils advocate here.

People complain about military airshows (and events) because, among other reasons, it triggers new Canadians who may have escaped war torn places and seeing and hearing these jets and helicopters upsets them and scares them.

Whether it's PC or not to say some people likewise feel triggered by Burkas (because lets be honest, this isn't about religious symboles it's about islamic symbols).

But for sake of fairness lets include all religious items. Can an arugment not be made that people in positions of authority wearing items and articles of clothing that can be triggering to people (burka for someone fleeing a strict islamic country, cross for someone who was abused at a catholic church) who have to deal with them?

Is a cross really "that bad"?

Well Psalm 137:9 tells us Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!.  That's fucked. I don't want someone in a position of authority openly supporting that belief or mindset in the form of a cross dealing with me. Is the cop going to treat me poorly because he thinks I'm a sinner or something?

As I said I don't think this is really about religious icons as much as it's against the muslim cultural practice of wearing burkas, but at a basic level doesn't this law have some form of merit?
 

pietro_bcc

There's a distinct difference between airshows, which to paraphrase Justin Trudeau "are just us whipping out our CF-18s to show the world how big they are." And citizens trying to make a living by doing the job they are trained for, free from discrimination by the government. This is the very definition of systemic racism and by the CAQ's own admission it is unconstitutional, they just don't care about minority rights.

I don't care if some racists are triggered by the sight of a Muslim woman, that's their problem. It shouldn't be the job of the government to coddle racists and give them a safe space from Muslims.

Sadly this law, by the CAQ's own arguments during the parliamentary debate is legitimized by Quebec's experience with Bill 101 in '76, namely that it is fine to violate the constitutional rights of individuals for the "collective good" of society. Hell the parallels can be drawn right down to the language and religion police that will soon both exist. For all that I disagree with the CAQ on, I finally found a point of agreement on this comparison they made.

Paladin1

Quote:
I don't care if some racists are triggered by the sight of a Muslim woman, that's their problem. It shouldn't be the job of the government to coddle racists and give them a safe space from Muslims.

This is a strawman argument. Not everyone who supports this law is a racist.

There ARE women in Islamic countries who are harassed, persecuted and assaulted for not wearing religious attire.
There are also women in Canada who have spoken out (for lack of a better term) against burkas and niqabs citing the harassment and intimidation women abroad (and even at home I recall) recieve for not wearing it. It seems the media doesn't really want to give them airtime. They also report they're harassed for their views and opinions here in Canada. Median doesn't cover it, or, makes them the villain.

Im sure there are racists, anti-immigrant and xenophobic people supporting this ban for those intolerant reasons but I think it issue is more complex that just Racisim.

lagatta4

That is true. I know several women from Muslim backgrounds who are against the veil, not to mention the niqab (which they'd never seen).

There are no language police. That is something made up by the Gazoo.

No, I don't support the CAQ's law.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

They rammed this legislation through without consulting the Opposition and come up with an alternative or scrapping Law 21 straight up.

I said more than a handful of times before the election. CAQ is the party of La Meute.

I also warned that Legault is a weak little man. Hand over a weak little man power  and you got a self proclaimed King.This is a problem. Especially if he gets cozy with Ford,Kenney and Scheer. Kenney is running around the country like he's the fucking Prime Minister of Canada.

Trumpism is coming and no one wants to stop it.

This rime  we're really fucked.

 

 

pietro_bcc

I'm talking about the OQLF, which definitely exist. They go to businesses to make sure they're following Bill 101 and if they aren't they can impose a fine. I mean you can call them language (and these new ones religion) "inspectors" if you want, but its all really semantics.

josh

Is the crucifix still hanging in the National Assembly.

lagatta4

I believe so. It is supposed to be removed and a new location found for it after the end of session.

There are inspectors for many things with the power to levy fines, but who are not "police". Gazoo and Suburban also called them "Tongue Troopers", in their efforts to force a return of the old order. 

Legault also strikes me as a man of very little culture. What disturbs me more there is people of the quality of, say, Véronique Hivon who must have approved the law.  Also important to remember the "immigration" (or anti-immigration) bill that was rammed through in the midst of a severe labour shortage.

Pages