Trudeau denounces Quebec's proposed religious symbols ban

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
sanizadeh

DaveW wrote:

that is a silly comment:

those huge churches in Montreal are not "public sector workers"; that is the entire extent of the proposed restriction

anybody can belong to any private organization/religion/association they want -- just not make it public when they are supposedly in a neutral government role, as in wearing  a T-shirt saying, Jouin me with Jesus at your driver's licence renewal

I gave a very clear example that I am waiting to hear a response to. Those special clothing or turbans etc are obligatory for those Jews, Muslims and Sikhs who believe in them. Jesus T-shirts and crosses are not obligatory. The only equivalent scenario that applies to Christianity is to ban anyone who attends church or goes to confession from public employment. 

That's why this ban has little to do with secularism, because it does not have any impact on te largest religious group in the province. It only targets minority religions, the same as the French law did. And like there, the main proponent of the ban on turbans and hijabs are not progressive secularists or atheists, but right wing nationalists. Check to see how much applaud Quebec is getting from Toronto Sun readers these days!

DaveW

that is a silly comment:

those huge churches in Montreal are not "public sector workers"; that is the entire extent of the proposed restriction

they are Church-built; anybody can belong to any private organization/religion/association they want -- just don't make it obviously public when they are supposedly in a neutral government role,

as in someone wearing  a T-shirt saying, Join me with Jesus, at the counter for your driver's licence renewal or passport application...  or arrest warrant

 

 

DaveW

wage zombie wrote:

DaveW wrote:

as in someone wearing  a T-shirt saying, Join me with Jesus, at the counter for your driver's licence renewal

You don't get it.

actually, I do

ping-pong

lagatta

A fair number of those huge churches are being transformed into condo projects, including the one closest to me, Saint-Jean-de-la-Croix. However the former manse has become La Maisonnée des parents, a centre that helps poor and otherwise in difficulty families, and also provides low-cost classes (such as language classes) and fitness and recreational activities. Sadly, some are even being pulled down.

There is certainly no law (except zoning bylaws, applicable to all places of worship) that prevents anyone from building a mosque, synagogue or temple, nor about how people dress. Please, if people are discussing this thing that isn't even a "Projet de loi" (bill), do address and criticize what is actually being proposed.

Actually, there are many Indigenous aspects to Québécois culture - the French settlers here wouldn't have survived a single harsh winter without First Peoples' help and appropriate technology. And of course "Les Filles du Roi" were brought over to keep not only the gene pool but also language and culture somewhat French - newcomers with France were very happily setting up households with the Indigenous ladies, and "Indianizing" as it was put. Latin Catholic settlers massacred Indigenous Americans as much as English and Dutch ones did, if it was less the case here it was a matter of space and demographics. However the Latin Catholics were much more likely to "métisser" - to mix not only genes but cultural elements. 

Unionist

Interesting arguments in this thread opposing the PQ's (unpublished) Charter. If I took them seriously, I might change my mind and start supporting the PQ on this. I think maybe that's the PQ's master plan - not the Charter, just proving that Canadians (and federalists) don't really have a clue.

Deckard Deckard's picture

The repeated insults and racist name calling have lead me to conclude that this site is not worth the time. 

The attitudes and negativity, that would have been less surprizing on a right wing site maybe, but disapointing here, reinforce my view that its better for Canada and Quebec to part and go each on their own. Insulting people from Quebec is quite ok it appears, not that i am surprised.

 

kropotkin1951

So Deckard is your answer to freeze in time a current perception of Quebec culture by enacting a Charter of values?  I suspect that no matter what the government rules the culture of any society evolves in an organic way. The only thing draconian laws do is too increase the coercive power of the state over matters of personal belief.  From the perspective of for instance a young Sikh lawyer these kind of laws are harsh and severe. Go ahead aspire to be a professional but do not aspire to become a Judge because your religious beliefs and your expression of them make you UNFIT to wear the robe of office. 

What the British merchants and bankers and their collaborators in the Catholic clergy did to the Quebec people in the 19th century and early twentieth century is a historic wrong however it is no reason to fear that appearing before a Sikh or Moslem or Jewish Judge is anything for a society to fear.  Fortunately most Xian's who still wear modest head dressings and similar attire do not aspire to being Judges and even so I wouldn't fear a Mennonite judge.

Bärlüer

alan smithee wrote:

I'm curious to see what this Charter of 'values' means,apart from secularism.

Will it touch on issues such as poverty and other social issues or will it be an exclusively nationalistic rag.

Just stumbled on this thread and saw that this comment remained unanswered. I won't get into the general discussion, um, just because (...), but I thought some info on the question raised by alan smithee might be of interest.

Some people might not know that the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, adopted in 1975, unlike the human rights legislation of other provinces, which is essentially antidiscrimination legislation, encompasses a whole array of rights (i.e., the same rights as in s. 2 of the Canadian Charter [religion, expression, peaceful assembly, association], privacy, etc.) AND, unlike the Canadian Charter, contains a variety of social and economic rights (rights to free education, financial assistance, healthful environment, fair and reasonable conditions of employment, etc.)

Unfortunately, these rights have very limited (but not completely nil) impact because: 1) their wording is such that these rights have been interpreted as being protected only to the extent provided for by law; 2) they are unenforceable in courts in that: a) you can't invalidate legislation on the basis of a violation of those rights; b) you can't obtain compensation for the prejudice resulting from their violation (here, a short note to mention that the Quebec charter, unlike the Canadian Charter, also applies to private actors). You COULD, however, possibly obtain a declaration that such a right has been violated [with the caveat that the right's scope — and thus, the possibility of there being a violation — is limited due to the issue I've identified in 1)]

</Quebec Human Rights Law 101 lesson>

pookie

Deckard wrote:

The repeated insults and racist name calling have lead me to conclude that this site is not worth the time

The attitudes and negativity, that would have been less surprizing on a right wing site maybe, but disapointing here, reinforce my view that its better for Canada and Quebec to part and go each on their own. Insulting people from Quebec is quite ok it appears, not that i am surprised.

 

Really.

kropotkin1951

Bärlüer wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm curious to see what this Charter of 'values' means,apart from secularism.

Will it touch on issues such as poverty and other social issues or will it be an exclusively nationalistic rag.

Just stumbled on this thread and saw that this comment remained unanswered. I won't get into the general discussion, um, just because (...), but I thought some info on the question raised by alan smithee might be of interest.

Some people might not know that the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms, adopted in 1975, unlike the human rights legislation of other provinces, which is essentially antidiscrimination legislation, encompasses a whole array of rights (i.e., the same rights as in s. 2 of the Canadian Charter [religion, expression, peaceful assembly, association], privacy, etc.) AND, unlike the Canadian Charter, contains a variety of social and economic rights (rights to free education, financial assistance, healthful environment, fair and reasonable conditions of employment, etc.)

Unfortunately, these rights have very limited (but not completely nil) impact because: 1) their wording is such that these rights have been interpreted as being protected only to the extent provided for by law; 2) they are unenforceable in courts in that: a) you can't invalidate legislation on the basis of a violation of those rights; b) you can't obtain compensation for the prejudice resulting from their violation (here, a short note to mention that the Quebec charter, unlike the Canadian Charter, also applies to private actors). You COULD, however, possibly obtain a declaration that such a right has been violated [with the caveat that the right's scope — and thus, the possibility of there being a violation — is limited due to the issue I've identified in 1)]

</Quebec Human Rights Law 101 lesson>

Thx

So legally is it of the same effect as Dief's Bill of Rights was prior to the Charter being put in the Constitution?

Bärlüer

Sort of I guess, but only with respect to the social and economic rights. The other rights are fully enforceable.

(BTW, I believe even the South Africa constitution, which also contains social and economic rights, has very limited judicial enforceability. This topic has also been the object of much scholarly discussion...)

Krago

PQ popularity surges after values charter buzz: poll

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=8857502

janfromthebruce

Creating a wedge issue that will squeeze the Quebec Liberals and forge these two groups together.

The Hérouxville code was a backlash against the “reasonable accommodation” of religious minorities in Montreal and a manifestation of rural Quebec’s conservatism, which, although secular in appearance, remains deeply rooted in Catholic tradition. The then-fledgling Action Démocratique du Québec rode this backlash to Official Opposition status in the 2007 election.

Now, with its proposed Charter of Quebec Values, the minority PQ government of Premier Pauline Marois is seeking to unite these two currents in Quebec politics – the progressive secularists of Montreal and the conservative traditionalists of the hinterland – in a single cause.

As to rural Que conservatism and rooted in a Christian faith - conserv traditionalists, this is not only a "Quebec" thing but often apparent in rural areas across Canada. In ON, for example, it's not Catholic but Christian based.

Judging by the way her political opponents have been squirming, Ms. Marois seems to be succeeding. A debate focused on identity politics, and one nourished by ample Quebec-bashing in the rest of Canada, could be Ms. Marois’s last best hope for winning the next election.

snip

As invective and outrage spews from the sidelines, Ms. Marois and her ministers have gone calmly about the task of explaining the rationale behind their charter. They have sought to look like the reasonable ones, letting the over-the-top language of their critics speak for itself.

Philosopher Charles Taylor’s description of the charter as a document worthy of Vladimir Putin’s Russia and Justin Trudeau’s segue from celebrating Martin Luther King into denouncing the PQ charter might play well in English Quebec or a handful of immigrant ridings in Montreal. But nothing bothers most Québécois more than being called extremists or xenophobes.

snip

Identity politics is always bad news for the provincial Liberals, and so the party’s new leader Philippe Couillard has the most to lose as the charter dominates political debate. The party depends on unwavering support among anglophones and immigrant communities to secure a base of seats in the National Assembly. Mr. Couillard has strongly opposed the charter’s outright ban on religious symbols, but must walk a fine line on the issue in francophone Quebec.

So it appears the Charter is about bringing together of two groups: 

the progressive secularists of Montreal and the conservative traditionalists of the hinterland – in a single cause.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Gerry Caplan remembers the 1975 Charter too:

A just society would condemn Marois's divisive Charter

It was not the PQ but a Liberal, Robert Bourassa, who introduced in 1975 the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a splendid statement of the new Quebec's values: openness, inclusiveness, equality, justice for all. It was the voice of the newly liberated, pluralistic, social democratic Quebec.

Even better, that Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms was unanimously approved by the National Assembly.

How remote that sweet incarnation of the Parti Quebecois now seems. We may well be witnessing the final victory of the small-minded, perennially insecure PQ, as reflected in Premier Jacques Parizeau's blaming ethnic votes and money for separatism's hair-breadth loss in the 1995 sovereignty referendum. Suddenly, it was them outsiders versus us of pure laine stock.

It is heartbreaking to find Premier Pauline Marois channeling Parizeau. Only two months ago, the Premier, to her shame, supported the Quebec Soccer Federation's ban on kids in turbans playing soccer. Now that warped position is to be widened. A so-called Charter of Quebec Values is to be introduced. Although we don't yet know its precise contents, there is good evidence to fear that the values it enshrines will be the precise opposite of the 1975 Charter's: exclusive, mean-spirited, deliberately divisive -- the very characteristics of a closed society.

CanadaOrangeCat

I just can't fathom how someone would feel 'oppressed' if a responsible person in authority was wearing a turban or other religious symbol. Has there ever been an example of a person in a turban or otherwise decorated talking down to a 'normal', 'secular' (read Catholic) Quebecer because said Quebecer did not wear a turban? I think that attitude is thinly disguised racism. Are you 'oppressed' by feminism, being gay positive? It is the same thing, as others have posted here.

DaveW
kropotkin1951

Interesting piece and I think the author may be right that the focus of this initiative was primarily an attack on one religion. Sikhs and Jews are just collateral damage in the fight to suppress the Islamic faith.  Its great that the majority of people in Quebec don't seem to support this kind of government initiated discrimination.

richardp

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Interesting piece and I think the author may be right that the focus of this initiative was primarily an attack on one religion. Sikhs and Jews are just collateral damage in the fight to suppress the Islamic faith.  Its great that the majority of people in Quebec don't seem to support this kind of government initiated discrimination.

Meh.  Religion is a choice (and a non-rational one at that): if the law forbade broadcasting one's sexual orientation (not a choice) or forbade certain races (not a choice ... see that pattern, folks?) then yeah, there's an issue.  But if people can't go to work without broadcasting their support of child rapists (catholicism), xenophobic, bigoted, misogynistic and homophobic murderers (christianity ... oh, and judaism ... and islam ... yeah, that pretty much covers it) then F 'em.  There's no room for idiotic fairy tales in government.

6079_Smith_W

Thank you richardp. I know I for one have never considered that side of the argument before, so thanks for setting us straight. I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

It's quite a relief too, that I can still be trusted to get a government job and continue to wear my arrogant dummfuk hat.

wage zombie

richardp wrote:

Meh.  Religion is a choice (and a non-rational one at that): if the law forbade broadcasting one's sexual orientation (not a choice) or forbade certain races (not a choice ... see that pattern, folks?) then yeah, there's an issue.

It sounds like you have no problem with laws forbidding choice.

richardp

wage zombie wrote:

It sounds like you have no problem with laws forbidding choice.

 

Ha!  We already live in Canada, where comics & comedy clubs are penalized for hate speech.  I think restricting represenations of misogynistic organizations isn't necessarily a bad one, at least in provincial buildings.  I suppose if you must extol what many victims would consider hate organizations you can do it in your private residence -- or even a private business.  It's really not much of a restriction at all.

blairz blairz's picture

Don't worry, it's not racism it's xenophobia! I think the Eastern/Anglo Steamroller meme is beside the point, this trial balloon has escaped Canadian airspace and is doing Quebec's internatioal reputation real harm.

WyldRage

blairz wrote:

Don't worry, it's not racism it's xenophobia! I think the Eastern/Anglo Steamroller meme is beside the point, this trial balloon has escaped Canadian airspace and is doing Quebec's internatioal reputation real harm.

The discussion is happening in the Québec section, if you wish to go there.

And I am interested to know where in the world is it hurting Québec's reputation. Turkey, where the ban has been in place for sixty years? France, where you can't wear a full face veil in public, or where the Hijab is banned for teachers and students? Germany, where half the states have enacted the ban? In the UK, where politicians are debating if they should ban the Niqab in the public space? Or do you mean the Islamic Theocracies?

kropotkin1951

Thank you for once again confirming that this PQ suggestion is not about secularism but is in fact merely Islamophobia.  Since those good Xian nations in Europe are fighting the Crusades on our behalf so we should emulate them.  No foot in the door for Islam in Canada and no exceptions no matter how many generations your ancestors have been in Canada.

Unionist

Can't we stick to [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/qu%C3%A9bec/death-bill-14-and-future-quebec-char... thread please[/url]?

Just a suggestion, to help avoid headaches and finger-aches...

 

WyldRage

Since when is Turkey a Christian nation? And there is a difference between a Muslim country and an Islamist one. Sorry Unionist, couldn't let that one unanswered.

kropotkin1951

I was referring to France, Germany and Britain. The same Xian nations that were the driving force behind the last Crusades. As for Turkey most of it, including its capital, is not in Europe.

cco

bagkitty wrote:

Shame on you K, you just confusing the CCOs with a poor choice of picture.

I hadn't even been in this thread (or on this board for a few weeks). But while we're at it...

Unionist wrote:
It is lawful to cover one's face while walking down the street

Unless one happens to be at an unapproved demonstration within the city limits of Montréal (or at a demonstration that becomes a "riot" anywhere in Canada). Then one only gets to cover one's face if one belongs to a religion that requires it.

ETA: Just in case anyone gets me wrong:

P-6 is a disgrace. C-309 is ridiculous. The proposed Charter is idiotic (if you want to promote state secularism, take down the crucifix, tax the churches, and eliminate private schooling). And granting religiously-based exceptions to the law is wrong.

Unionist

cco wrote:

P-6 is a disgrace. C-309 is ridiculous. The proposed Charter is idiotic (if you want to promote state secularism, take down the crucifix, tax the churches, and eliminate private schooling). And granting religiously-based exceptions to the law is wrong.

Like!

Pogo Pogo's picture

But you only like it once?

kropotkin1951

cco wrote:
bagkitty wrote:

Shame on you K, you just confusing the CCOs with a poor choice of picture.

I hadn't even been in this thread (or on this board for a few weeks). But while we're at it...

Are you admitting to being a Central Canadian Overlord?  I believe that they are the CCO's bagkitty meant.

cco

Oh. Whoops. My username comes from a decidedly non-nefarious origin: it's my initials. I had no idea it meant anything else.

kropotkin1951

only on babble to a few people

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

But you only like it once?

I'm never going to live this down, am I?

I took a finger sedative, and it seems to be working.

 

Pages