Where does the NDP stand on religious symbols worn by judges and police?

I'm not personally against religious symbols of most kinds. I'd be sympathetic to Quebecois efforts to preserve their culture, but I think they can leave religion out of it, since it's going to come down to how they preserve the French language (itself a complicated policy issue).

I also think that the "appearance of impartiality" is a stupid reason to ban religious symbols, as if the color of their skin or their gender might also make me wonder if they can be trusted to be impartial. (Answer: they can be trusted. Quit assuming that only white males are objective enough to not favor people who look like them.)

(Edit: I added some stuff that doesn't make sense, now that I've been able to refer to the actual report.)

I think the main thing is that the NDP isn't proposing anything. They're vowing to "stand up against any proposal contrary to it." So it's really up to the provinces to make proposals, and the feds (under the NDP) would judge whether it's in compliance, and only make waves if it did anything contrary.

Just your standard federal-provincial cop-out.

i don't get it??? this happened almost 7 years ago???? and it's Quebec's business not the rest of us.

i read the article and agree with the NDP position on it. only a little bit is off kilter to me and would like more of a firm line if i'm being asked for an opinion.

my view on this is informed by my FN heritage and the realization everyone across canada is ignoring the real elephant in the room immigration and accomodation granting wise.

quizzical wrote:

my view on this is informed by my FN heritage and the realization everyone across canada is ignoring the real elephant in the room immigration and accomodation granting wise.

 I don't understand are you opposed to immigration? Or do you mean something else.

The NDP's position on this issue is consistant with its commitment to intercultural integration.  As I said last spring when that comncept was introduced from the floor as a defining belief of NDP members that it would be in conflict with the majority of BC voters views on multiculturalism.

I still think that the Liberals may very well go after the NDP on this issue as they try to win suburban ridings in all of Canada's major cities.  Many progressive people in my part of the world, myself included, are proud that we accomodate Sikh's religious beliefs including those in the RCMP.

Will the NDP be calling for the RCMP to change its position on turbans being worn by its officers?

http://rabble.ca/babble/alberta-and-british-columbia/bc-okays-kirpan-cou...

Unionist wrote:

I take it that you don't agree with the above-cited recommendation. I don't either. I have conveyed my views to Québec solidaire, because they're the party I support provincially.

Should the NDP be asked to re-think its support for Bouchard-Taylor?

Yeah, we are both against that part of the recommendation. We are in agreement there.

Where we disagree, I think, is whether the word "support" sufficiently describes the NDP's position.

There's often these huge flame wars about what Mulcair is doing. But if you want to understand Mulcair, most of his time his position is something like this:

"My position is the party's position. Check the website from 2011 for the NDP's platform. If another MP said something that isn't on the platform, ignore it, because that's not what the party agreed upon. If the issue you're asking me about is too narrow to appear in that platform, then my position is that we should start from the constitution / the UN / the government report from a few years ago. If that report was from too long ago, then I need to wait and see until there's a new report."

That's pretty much how he handles everything, from marijuana, to Syria, to trade deals, to the Quebec Charter.

And that changed the minute the PQ put out an actual proposal, legislating a broad attack on religious minorities. Then Mulcair called it a "confirmation of our worst fears", and came out ferociously against it.

Again, we should note that the NDP has NOT been spending the past 6 years pushing to implement the 2007 Bouchard-Taylor report. The most telling part is that the NDP said that they would stand against any proposal that goes against the report. (An important difference.) So they waited for the PQ to make a proposal, and came out against it.

At which point, I'm no longer asking if the NDP has the right policy. I'm asking, does the NDP have the right procedure?

Mulcair keeps trying to score points for prudence and caution. And the media occasionally awards him a point. Mulcair takes a wait-and-see approach, and then points out some kind of inconsistency when he finally sees it, and a few journalists acknowledge that he was very "deliberative".

But just as much, people are able to score points on Mulcair during the "wait-and-see" phase. He refused to stand up for religious minorities! No, he refused to stand up for the Quebeckers he represents! WAIT, he refused to take a stand at all, because he's A CONNIVING POLITICIAN!

(Which isn't fair to Mulcair. He doubted the PQ would do what they did because of the constitution, and when they finally did, he came out against it, because of the constitution. Proceduralists LOVE the constitution.)

I've begrudgingly come to accept (or even respect) some level of proceduralism and legalism. Procedural rules are an annoying speed bump when I'm fighting for progress. But thank God we have procedural rules and guidelines when the right wing is in power, and they're trying to do things like trample on minority rights. If you don't believe that procedure is important, then you might not care that the Conservatives haven't tabled any major legislation, instead cramming most of their work into 400 page documents called a "budget". Note how the NDP keeps fighting to split up the budget for better debates, more than they criticize the bullshit that Conservatives cram into their "budgets".

The problem with proceduralism is it might actually be terrible politics. There's no clarity to your supporters, let alone swing voters. You might get a point or two for caution. But your opponents get to say they got to the "right answer" before you did. And your opponents get to paint you as timid, calculating, even pandering while all you're trying to do is be thoughtful and diligent. And in the absence of a clear proposal, your opponents get to put words in your mouth. "When people asked Mulcair to stand up for (something that everyone here agrees with), he refused. That's because he agrees with (something stupid that nobody here agrees with)."

The Quebec Charter issue is dead, and the NDP's position was fine. But the broader procedural issue is more vexing.

So no Sikh cops or judges then?

You know, that's a good question. Do the stand on top of them, at the bottom of them, at the front of them, at the back of them, or off to the side with one foot on them?