PQ's charter of values

Now I'm leaning against the 'Values Charter' based on the information revealed about it so far.

However, I have another question here:

Supposing that a non-Muslim woman wears a hijab for fashion or esthetic reasons (after all, Muslims have never copyrighted it as such). Or supposing that a non-Christian wears a cross on a necklace again for esthetic or fashion reasons. I'm sure we can think up other such examples like a non-Sikh and non-Muslim man wearing the turban just because he likes it. In such cased, would the government then argue that it's not a religious garment so it's ok to wear it, in which case it would be deciding based on intent? Or would the government itself legally define what is a religious garment, which seems to contradict the notion of secularity. After all, why would a secular government want to impose a religious value on a piece of clothng that may have no religious significance to the wearer. These are questions that would need to be addressed before such a law could even be contemplated.

I thought progressives and the labour movement were supposed to support workers. What do workers want? AUTONOMY. Name one worker who gives a shit what his co-workers are wearing and I'll show you an asshole!

Granted, I'm an iconoclast who thinks people shouldn't surrender any rights to autonomy when on the job - they ought to be able to dress how they like, speak how they like, and tell their bosses to go fuck themselves if they want to - but when I hear politicians speak of "values," "I reach for my revolver."

Québec solidaire and la Fédération des femmes du Québec are both opposed to the "dress code".

I'm very much in favour of secularism - starting with an end to funding to private religious schools, and in general, to private schools (perhaps some exceptions for "alternative" schools or those targeting children who don't do well in the mainstream, until the public educational system can accomodate them). But how people dress, within reason, is none of my business.

I know a couple of ladies undergoing chemo who often wear scarves - they don't always want to wear a hot, heavy wig.

One of the really weird things is that Québec is benefiting - unfairly - from job discrimination against women wearing hijab, in terms of daycare - early childhood education staff. Those I know who wear hijab are university-educated and speak extremely good French with a rich vocabulary, and seem extremely devoted to the kids.

Another weird thing is the idea of extending this to bus drivers. I confess I'd have a positive discrimination towards practising Muslims and Sikhs driving buses, especially on a Sunday morning, as they are far less likely to be hung over...

Par contre, the vile anti-Québécois comments on English-Canadian websites (I don't mean "RoC", I'm certainly including the Montreal Gazette) are no sterling example of "tolerance" either. We have good reason to be against religious domination. And Ontario still has confessional school boards.

I suspect that as Mulcair stated it was just a balloon that was floated with the knowledge that it would fail.  So perhaps it was more an odd PR exercise than an actual attempt at legislating change.

Essentially PQ is trying to add the right wing and anti-immigrant votes to its base.

Which never really works, as the ADQ owns that brand. Not all the right wing, the Liberal Party is rightwing as well, but of a different kind, involved in ethnic-elite power-broking (which isolates immigrant communities and is no more inclusive, really).

lagatta wrote:

Which never really works, as the ADQ owns that brand.

You mean CAQ, no doubt.

But I see it differently. In Québec, no one owns anything. Non-partisan fluidity is the order of the day.

So - I think the PQ's master plan is to steal back CAQ's temporary voting base (mostly right-wing soft sovereignist rural etc.), render CAQ irrelevant by showing that the PQ can champion whatever CAQ is putting forward, and return to the two-party system which gave the PQ all its majority governments. No one can really wipe out the Liberal party, so this is the PQ's best approach.

So, if they come to a compromise with CAQ that allows this disgusting piece of legislation to pass, CAQ is left with... what? And if they don't, their secondary position will be that they need a majority government - or sovereignty - to allow the will of the people to triumph.

In their selfish quest, they don't mind feeding xenophobia and chauvinism. Goes well with economic neoliberalism.

May their hopes be dashed. Québec Solidaire has condemned their effort, and I think I heard Richard Bergeron do likewise on the radio today - good for him and Projet Montréal! It's long past time for the PQ to go the way of the BQ.

ETA: Crossposted with DaveW. He may be right as well.

Unionist wrote:

In their selfish quest, they don't mind feeding xenophobia and chauvinism. Goes well with economic neoliberalism.

Not to mention that I don't think Jason Kenney could have made a statement that better served their purposes if Marois had written it herself.

And it is astonishing the number of people ostensibly on the left who don't see that they are just doing an errand for the right wing christians (who after all aren't obliged to wear any symbols at all, but are surely pretty happy to see those of other faiths out of work).

Yup. So long people respond in a reactive way to this it is hard not to see it as a win-win for the PQ. It is good that some are seeing past it.

"so long as people respond to this in a reactive way...."

It is hard not to see it as a win-win.

And that cuts across parties and demographics, in Quebec and in Canada.

If the actions of our federal government is any indication, there are more than enough people willing to fall for it. And as we have seen already, once it becaomes an issue of sovereignty, it is a whole other ballgame.

Of course, maybe they aren't so stupid after all, and Harper ultimately has the same goal as Marois. I certainly wouldn't put it past him to burn down the house in order to keep power.

A bunch of guys want to jump the queue when it comes to seniority? Why is that not surprising? And when were the actions of most trade unions not like that of political parties (I'd complain more if they didn't take political stands)?

Yeah, we had a similar vote here not too long ago in favour of bringing nuclear power plants into this province. I don't see this as having any more of a moral foundation simply because it came though a union. THis is what the members want; that doesn't make it just.

I know... I used the term deliberately as a slam against those most likely to fall for this kind of selfishness.

(edit)

Go ahead... accuse me of being anti-guy if you want

*grin*

Charte des valeurs: l'île de Montréal se rebiffe

Les municipalités de l'île de Montréal, où vivent 1,8 million de personnes, demanderont à l'unanimité au ministre Bernard Drainville d'être soustraites à la Charte des valeurs rendue publique hier.

À l'issue d'une réunion, les maires des 15 villes défusionnées de l'île de Montréal ont adopté une résolution qui rejette fermement la Charte des valeurs présentée par le gouvernement péquiste.

Si cette charte prenait force de loi, les 15 maires se prévaudraient, à l'unanimité, du droit de retrait prévu dans le projet de loi. Déjà, les trois principaux candidats à la mairie de Montréal avaient indiqué hier qu'ils demanderaient une telle exemption s'ils étaient élus.

 

Wow - Radio-Canada reports that Ahuntsic MP Maria Mourani has been expelled from the Bloc caucus for publicly opposing the PQ's draft charter of "values".

Hopefully, another nail in the coffin for the Bloc - supporting aggression abroad (Afghanistan) and at home.

[url=http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2013/09/12/002-maria-mour... (in French)[/url]

And thanks, Stockholm, for this English-language report:

[url=http://o.canada.com/2013/09/12/maria-mourani-expelled-from-bloc-caucus-o... English[/url]

The NDP doesn't accept floor-crossers. She would have to resign and run in a byelection under the NDP banner. She would also have to renounce er part support of Quebec independence.

I predict she will stew in her own juices as an Independent and collect her salary as an MP until 2015 - and then she will either retire or decide at that point to run again as a NDPer

Stockholm wrote:

The NDP doesn't accept floor-crossers.

They've never had any offers.

Quote:

She would also have to renounce er part support of Quebec independence.

Seriously? Like, would it have to be done under oath - or accompanied by a surety in the event of slippage?

I don't recall all the newly-elected NDP MPs making such a renunciation, but I'll research that. If I find any missing, I'll refer them to the Council for Doctrinal Purity for appropriate action.

After the events of the past few days - Mourani may have already decided that the whole sovereigntist movement has taken a turn into something ugly and unpalatable for her...If she wanted to join the NDP she would have to declare herself to have converted to federalism - no ifs, ands or buts.

Heard another argument on Q this morning that I should have seen coming - "Canada's head of state is also head of a church".

(never mind the circumstances under which the English crown was forced to wrest that religious power away )

Woo hoo. Looks like we're going to party like it's 1549.

She's not a potential floor crosser; she was expelled from caucus.  Since when did NDP MP's have to swear allegiance to any creed let alone federalism?

Caissa wrote:

She's not a potential floor crosser; she was expelled from caucus.  Since when did NDP MP's have to swear allegiance to any creed let alone federalism?

Since always. Anyone running for the NDP has to accept the NDP core principles - for example you cannot run for the NDP and want to scrap Medicare, you cannot run for the NDP and want to make abortion illegal, you cannot run for the NDP and be against equal rights for LGBT people...the NDP is also a federalist party and if you join you have to accept that. Period.

This is all very hypothetical of course - but Mourani may be casting about for a new home since her chances of being re-elected as an independent are NIL.

The NDP of course may not even want her - since she may or may not be viewed as a "high value" MP...

Anyway, this xenophobic onslaught by the PQ - and the resistance to it, including from prominent sovereignists - is far more important than the obsession of some individuals as to whether Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulcair can add another voting robot to their respective caucuses. Maria Mourani is far more courageous than the petty beancounters of the Liberal Party, the NDP, or certainly the Bloc.

Brava Maria!

Caissa wrote:

You ignored my "swear allegiance to" I doubt every NDP MP has had to do that. Given its place in the polls the NDP would be crazy not to add another member to thir caucus if they have the chance. They could instead lose the opportunity to Trudeau fils.

I never said she had to publicly swear an oath - but if she was to go from being an MP in a party whose seule raison d'etre is Quebec independence to being an MP in a party that 100% unswervingly federalist - she would be asked questions at the news conference and the only acceptable answer would be - "recent events have led me to reevaluate my views on the place of Quebec in Canada. I now accept the NDP position that Quebec should remain part of Canada".

I'm begging everyone to end this thread drift, in which I myself briefly participated. All we need is to react to Québec-bashing at a time when a hugely important discussion is taking place in our nation.

Pauline Marois and Bernard Drainville had asked for "respectful discussion" of their broad-brush Charter proposals - and Daniel Paillé dumped Mourani for expressing her view. I sincerely, severely doubt that the idiot Paillé ran this by Marois first. If he did, then they're both stupider than I already thought they were.

Philippe Couillard (head of the Liberal party) said the other day that they were betraying the legacy of René Lévesque. It was the Quiet Revolution that moved the frame from ethno-religious nationalism to inclusive civic nationalism. But of course that shift was never uniform and universal. Now, the petty little electoralists of the PQ are desperately fishing around for a wedge to regain majority government at all costs. Like their colleagues in the other parties, they don't give a damn how much damage they do to Québec in the process.

lagatta wrote:

However, I don't think the Bloc was a single-issue party. It had done a lot to support unemployed workers, and other progressive policies. Many of its original MPs had a background in the labour movement, including Gilles Duceppe and Osvaldo Nuñez.

That was then and this is now. The BQ is now led by Daniel Paille who is a rightwing business tycoon - and they seem to have renounced their past. I wonder what Gilles Duceppe thinks of all this. I predict the BQ will lose all its remaining seats in 2015 and go the way of Social Credit.

I thought the Bloc had already come out against the charter.  Or that they had concerns or something. 

Did I get that wrong?