Trudeau denounces Quebec's proposed religious symbols ban

The cynical opportunism of Tom Mulcair makes him a delightful choice for NDP leader.

The whole idea that this is "secular" is a whopping pile of stinky dog poo.  Asking Christians to tuck their crosses and crucifixes into their shirts and blouses is not even close to the same thing as the impact of this law on others.

And, speaking of public places, there's no place more public than a street.  What about all those streets named after Saints?

Secular my ass.  This is an attempt by the P.Q. government to establish Christianity as the state religion.

The PQ is hardly a haunt of communion-wafer suckers. Yes, there are some traditionalist, "identitaire" Québécois in its ranks, but it comes out of the more progressive elements of the Quiet Revolution, and there is a good reason abortion and lgbt rights got a good start here. Québec has the lowest rate of church attendance in North America, the lowest rate of marriage, and (hard to quantify) the highest rate of children born to unmarried but stable couples.

This has nothing to do with wanting to promote Catholicism ("Christianity" is not a factor, the bad old Church is). It has to do with wanting to get elected by hook or by crook, or rather by adopting the discourse of the left (the student and labour movements, Québec solidaire) or the right (the CAQ). In the last election they tailed the student movement, were the sworn enemies of Harper's war on the environment, stole many planks from Québec solidaire's program.

The failure and cynicism of the PQ aligns more closely with that of New Labour and other outgrowths of social democracy.

No, "secularism" does not mean re-naming every street or pulling down statues with a religious connotation if they are not in schools or public buildings. There are certainly streets to be renamed here, but I'd start with Amherst (genocidaire of Native people) or Lionel-Groulx (anti-semitic tendencies and we can rename that métro station for Léa Roback!). Nobody even thinks of saints' names of streets, and I doubt secular Tunisia or Turkey (which had other democratic deficits, but...) renamed every name with a Muslim connotation.

The end result is that the government has chosen to attack all religions except Christianity.  It's a backhanded way to establish Christianity as a state religion.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 It's a backhanded way to establish Christianity as a state religion.

I don't get that. I mean I'm not there, and I imagine it plays well to some religious people, but really I assume it is a big cultural blind spot. Same as their flag.

Thing is (as we have argued here before) I think the trappings they are trying to ban are in many ways just as much cultural as they are religious. The notion that it is going to stop any kind of zealotry is absurd.

What do you mean by "their flag"?

Personally, I suport adoption of the secular tricolore of the Patriotes, but at the same time, the average person doesn't think of the original meaning of the Québec flag.

So, further to my comment #6 above, the (Québec) Liberals are positioning themselves to try to avoid the wedge:

[url=http://journalmetro.com/actualites/national/362554/charte-des-valeurs-co... of Values: Couillard will be "constructive"[/url]

He says that some months ago, the party set up a committee of MNAs, experts, and members to fine-tune their position on secularism - report coming soon.

Of course, he adds that the economy and jobs remain the chief preoccupation of Quebecers. I believe he's referring to his own.

My take on this issue is that it will become increasinly significant that  Justin Trudeau, not Thomas Mulcair, became the first national leader to denounce the PQ "secularism" idea. The non-francophones know that the P.Q idea is an appeal to the old style intolerant pure-laine concepts. They are painfully aware that they are outside that tight circle.

The non-francophones just got a big reassurance that the Liberals still  "get it" on some of their deepest concerns, while the NDP/NPD appears to hold back while debating how a stand might play in francophone Quebec.

The comments on this page and others about the reasons why Mulclair is holding back will appear to many to be hairsplitting and semantics. On core values issues such as this one, the views are black and white and not shades of grey.

As a tangential aside, I was very pleased to see that Julius Grey "gets it" and has the courage to speak out about it.

If a francophone party appears less threatening on this basic issue, it is the Quebec Solidaire not NPD, BQ, P.Q etc.

Interesting that QS is the socially conscious party in Quebec that "gets it".

Also, I find it really incredible that Harper is remaining silent on this, but maybe the gamble/guess is that the so-called secularism initiative plays reasonably well in the Quebec City area where the CPC still has some levels of support.  

P.S. I find Marois coments today about the secularism proposals being a means to "unite' Quebecers, not to divide them,  to be cynical polticial B.S. and another indication of how narrowly she actually defines the term "Quebeckers".

.

Mulcair commented after Louise Harel (long a PQ MNA and cabinet minister, of the PQ's erstwhile "left wing"). Harel is against the clothing nonsense as well. She commented that her husband, who had had a minor stroke, was attended to by a doctor who was wearing a hijab. It should also be added that while her spouse is not Muslim, he is a Palestinian, and had worked long with other Palestinians, Muslim, Christian or secular (as well as non-Palestinians of whatever confession or none) at Medical Aid for Palestine.

Louise Harel and Edmond Omran on a cooking show: http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/des_kiwis_et_des_hommes/2012/docume...

This is significant as some view Harel as a "hard-liner".

She actually arrived at pretty much the same viewpoint as Québec solidaire.

Mulcair stumbled on this issue and is now trying to catch up.

Principles are principles.

The trial balloon comment was just a convenient excuse to try and delay taking a stand.

Mulclair looks more like a partisan game player than a man of principle on this one.

I for one don't care for this.

I thought the NDP was about standing firm for principles, not looking for short term political dodges on matters of civil rights and human dignity.  

Lagatta, many people also have hard feelings about having another  steamroller shoved down their throats, in the name of righting past sins which they had nothing to do with.

There is a very dark side to the way the pure laine concepts are often expressed.

Also, you cannot claim sovereignty rights for a geographical entity if you only define "real citizens" as only a portion of the population, even if that portion is a majority or plurality.

True secularism does not involve more exclusions and creating new divisions.

It is broadening the concepts of inclusivness and tolerance.

My challenge is to the concept of mixing geography and ethnicity.

They are two very different concepts.

i also think it is counter to the trends, at least in most of the Western world, towards greater diversity and tolerance.

Look at the wonderful and rapid shift in attitudes to gay, lesbian and transgender rights.

We discovered the world did not fall apart because gay marriage got recognized.

Remember, I come from Darkest Alberta, where we have a deep rooted tradtiion of feeling dscriminated against and being angry at and resentful of everybody. :)

Alberta Observer wrote:

My challenge is to the concept of mixing geography and ethnicity.

Well deepest, darkest Alberta (okay... Redmonton) was where Canada's first mosque was built, but do you think we don't do that here? I know many people on the west side of Saskatoon would probably have something to say about that.

Quebec runs its own house, just as you do, and just as we do, only they are much more distinct - a nation. The difference is they are very much under the microscope for every thing they do when it comes to the rest of Canada. Kind of like some of the treatment we get for cultural and political differences out here, but way more longstanding. And if you want to talk about mixing geography and ethnicity, well, you don't have to look any further than the way they get it from the rest of the country.

And yes, I think this is not just a terrible proposal, I think it is utterly useless, will do nothing to build the separation of religion and state, and is bound to fuck up in a major way.

Never mind that big European blind spot. Are they going to tell someone to cut his braids off if he wants to work in public? I don't think so.

In an earlier thread people from Quebec were asked where to go in Montreal and then we had a long thread discussing the merits of various bagel shops and Jewish deli's.  So for people of the Jewish faith the message sure seems to be lox and bagels are part of Quebec's cultural heritage but keep your nasty religion and its symbols out of Quebec.

Lagatta you are talking aout religion and language as if they are the same thing. What you fail to see is that outside of Quebec the language issue is not something that drives political discourse.  The Sikh turban debate in BC was divisive and nasty for a while until we reached a consensus and moved on.  No one thought it had anything to do with language.

And ... OMG!!! ... What about the PASTAFARIANS!?! [url=http://news.yahoo.com/pastafarian-student-allowed-wear-pasta-strainer-he... Pastafarian student allowed to wear pasta strainer on head for driver’s license photo [/url]

:lol:

Lox and bagels are secular symbols (of Ashkenazi Jews, of course, and more particularly in North-Eastern North America, I believe?) I'm sure we can come up with others.

You have pinpointed one of the annoying things about Trudeau's and some of the other multi-culti types about this issue. They are stereotyping and pigeonholing people based on their religious background. I'd just as soon be flogged as wear a frigging crucifix, and most of my Jewish and Muslim friends feel the same about "conspicuous symbols". I confess I don't happen to have any Sikh friends.

I don't think there is any skirting around this conflict. Pointing out those for whom this is not important only further isolates those for whom it is part of their identity, and comparing covering one's head with breaches of dress codes like slovenliness or immodest attire - well, that is the height of irony.

And again, I recognise that we agree on much of this.

I also know people have left colonies, but still wear the clothes, or a facsimile thereof.

I guess my question is what the motive is here. Giving the benefit of the doubt that it is not just out and out discrimination and wanting to erase others' culture, what is it? Is it nanny state interference, in the hopes that people will abandon their so-called superstitions?

Or is it the fear that people wearing their beliefs in government positions is going to influence how they do their jobs. Frankly, I am more concerned about the religious and other dogmatic attitudes that some people carry around inside their heads, than the things they wear on them.

And when you get right down to it, the the most threatening and oppressive of those attitudes are those coming from the dominant culture.

look, I am not in favour; but the measures affect the PUBLIC SECTOR, not society generally

as a strong feature in La Presse said today [to be posted], this is creating  a crisis out of very little, and very self-interested by the slumping PQ, as many in Quebec felt the Bouchard-Taylor commission had remained dead letter

... a Journal de Montréal poll yesterday showed stupendous apporval for measures such as: no male/female separation at public swimming pools (91 per cent approval), and for no religious denotation of State authority figures, esp. police;

this all resonates with a certain voting public

La Presse, Yves Boisvert:

http://www.lapresse.ca/debats/chroniques/yves-boisvert/201308/27/01-4683490-dieu-fais-moi-une-crise.php

pookie wrote:

I find the attempt to distinguish public from private unpersuasive in this context.  It is also a wee bit ironic, since usually the public/private divide is used to limit rights guarantees TO the public sphere.  

Not entirely. It is lawful to cover one's face while walking down the street or in the privacy of one's home. But in those spaces which are normally protected by the constitution (the voting booth; courtrooms), that right may be curtailed, as we have seen.

Though I reject the proposed bans entirely, it is important to see the logic behind them for what it is. It's not "public" vs. "private". It's an attempt (poor one) to dissociate the state and its agents entirely from any conspicuous display of religion.

The reason I don't like any of these kinds of restrictions is that they discriminate on the basis of religion. It is even worse if you say it is only the state that will discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. The state should be the last body to discriminate on any basis.  It is nanny state legislation. Telling a Jewish person or a Sikh or any other minority religion adherent that they may not work for the government unless they leave behind their religious symbols is telling them they are not full citizens but rather the "other."

pookie wrote:

I find the attempt to distinguish public from private unpersuasive in this context.  It is also a wee bit ironic, since usually the public/private divide is used to limit rights guarantees TO the public sphere.  

that is very Anglo; in the French tradition, the public sector /State is a neutral agent before which all citizens  must be strictly equal

hence, for example, the French ban on collecting any  ethnic information in the national census: that would divide citizens according to background when they are strictly equal citizens in the Republic ... neutral, secular equality the watchwords