Trudeau denounces Quebec's proposed religious symbols ban

Well France's legislation is also based on secularism. And among European countries, only it, Germany and Albania have federal and provincial laws against hijabs.

Why shouldn't people compare and contrast the situations? Personally I wouldn't go as far as to muse about 'French tradition", and I don't think making the comparison is in any way an implication that Quebec is slavishly following France. But it and Germany are the closest examples I can see to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_re...

Also of note, that several of the German state bans include exceptions for Christian symbols.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/02/26/germany-headscarf-bans-violate-rights

a thoughtful piece in Le Devoir today; for those who don't parlez-vous, I Google  a few passages below:

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/386119/oui-a-une-charte-de-la-laicite-avec-correctifs

Quand Charles Taylor affirme que c’est l’État qui doit être neutre et que l’individu doit être libre, il avance un argument démagogique et fallacieux. Aucun employeur ne laisse ses employés totalement libres de leurs actions, de leurs paroles et de leur tenue vestimentaire dans le cadre de leurs fonctions. La loi interdit déjà aux employés de l’État d’exposer leur conviction politique et tout le monde trouve que cette limite à la liberté d’expression est légitime dans une société libre et démocratique. Comme le fait valoir le ministre Bernard Drainville, il convient maintenant d’étendre cette restriction aux convictions religieuses. Pourquoi Taylor place-t-il la liberté d’expression religieuse au-dessus de tout ?

[...]

Le vêtement religieux est un discours très chargé. Il nous dit que la personne est croyante, qu’elle appartient à telle religion, qu’elle en pratique les rituels, qu’elle place les valeurs de cette religion au-dessus des valeurs prônées par le service pour lequel elle travaille. Et nous savons tous qu’aucune religion ne met en pratique les valeurs humanistes d’égalité des sexes et de liberté de conscience défendues par l’État québécois. Sur ce seul point, l’État est en droit d’exiger un minimum de cohérence de la part de ceux qui choisissent d’y faire carrière.

Personne n’accepterait que le préposé d’un service public porte un t-shirt avec l’inscription « Dieu n’existe pas, donc soyez athées ». C’est pourtant un discours du même ordre que nous tiennent ceux et celles qui affichent ostensiblement leurs croyances religieuses. Proscrire les signes religieux, c’est défendre des valeurs humanistes et démocratiques contre les idéologies qui prônent des valeurs contraires.

[English trans below]

When Charles Taylor argues that it is the State which must be neutral and that the individual must be free, he advances a demagogic and misleading argument. No employer leaves her employees totally free in their actions, their words or  their attire in the course of their duties. The law already prohibits state employees from expressing their political beliefs and everyone finds that limit on freedom of expression is legitimate in a free and democratic society. As pointed out by the Minister Bernard Drainville, it is now the time to extend this restriction to religious beliefs. Why does Taylor place freedom of religious expression above all?
 
[...]
 
Religious clothing is loaded speech. It tells us that the person is a believer, and  belongs to a particular religion, ... and puts the values ​​of this religion over the values ​​promoted by the service for which she works. And we all know that no religion puts into practice the humanistic values ​​of equality and freedom of conscience upheld by the Quebec government. On this point alone, the State is entitled to require a minimum of consistency on the part of those who choose to make it a career.
 
No one would accept that the agent of a public service would wear a shirt with the inscription "God does not exist, so be atheists." Yet it is  speech of the same order by those who conspicuously display their religious beliefs. Prohibiting religious symbols is to defend humanistic and democratic values ​​against ideologies that promote contrary values ​. 

And suddenly, the provincial liberals do a 180 and decide that it could be a good decision to ban religious symbols for public workers:

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-quebecoise/201308/...

I am utterly disgusted by the ingnorance, hatemongering, fearmongering and pregudice against Quebec that is again and always oozing from the ROC including on this site. Canada is no longer what it was, it may very well loose its former international reputation, that reputation is indeed no longer warrented or deserved, it should be viewed as the virual same as the Republican US (even if so-called progresive Canadians dont perceive themselves as such), the hatemongering that is comming from Canada is not the country that represents my values.

This highlights the need for Quebec to be an independent country that can make its own laws, according to itw own values, that can establish for example that men and women are to be treated equal even if is displeases people from other countries such as Canada, or can vote, if they choose, that a police officer may not wear an armban with a political party Symbol, even if the ROC says he should have the 'freedom' to and that as a representative of the state in a position of power that he should have the "freedom" to wear an actual Nazi armaban or a Satanic smbol armban because he should be free to wear any symbology he wants? Because the ROC says so? No. You decide wwhat laws, YOU want, allow Quebec to make its own.  Independence. If thats how ROC wants its society to be (not saying it is) thats for the ROC to do as they want, you should be free to build your society the way you want, if you want masive war expenditures, death penalty, a prison industrial complex, sharia law, do what you want, but Quebec should be allowed to 'ban the freedom Nazi Armbans' if it they decide too. 

(Reading someone from Alberta, talk about Quebec being intolent while citing gay rights, takes the Cake, you couldnt make it up. Beyond the pale.)

The chasm is so garantuan its no use, theres no point, Its like trying to talk to someone from Saudi Arabia that thinks women and men should not ride on the same elevator, if Canada wants to adopt such a policy, thats your business, but dont object if we do not want to implent these or any other policies that go against our values. ROC and Quebec are Different. If you want to kill people in other countries based on lies about weapons of mass destruction, dont ask us to do so. International voluntary collaboration and coordination of common projects is better, we work on commong goals, and mind our on business about how the other society's lifestyle/values/preferences.

thank you

(now let the *** storm of negative bile rain on)

Fed Liberals on the other hand wont be hurt outside Quebec of course, since theres nothing more politically profitable in the ROC as good old Quebec-bashing and misrepresentation of anything comming out of Quebec and twisting it in a negative way. 

I guess I should have waited till the steam boiled down, to provide patient explanations about points of views that may be misunderstood. Im of to Tibet to practice mediation and will be back when Im able to read the foxnews worthy Quebec bashing negative comments while remaining serin and harmoneous. cheers. 

instead of qouting from "that secular muslim or sikh friend", hear me as a real secular muslim who, btw, lived in Quebec long enough to personally feel and understand the extent of this xenophobia in Quebec:  

Deckard wrote:

1-  "such a racist trial balloon"

Establishing and clarifying that a society is secular, and providing guidelines is NOT racist, and not even Xenophobic. Each society as codes of conduct based on values, some of these are so common that they do not require laws, others do. Using Racist is an insult, and incorrect, and add to the disinformation. There are Quebecers from Muslim countries that want to live in a secular society, they are comming here precisely to have religion as a private domain, I know jewish people and muslim people and many people from many regions of the earth that dont wear any overt symbols, it has nothing to do with XENO or phobia, its a societal choice, that should be respected even if not liked.

First of all, perhaps you should ask those secular jewish and muslim friend of yours who don't wear any symbol, how many of them support such ban. Amir is actually a good example. I don't think you find anyone more progressive or secular than him, and like most secular people of muslim origin, he opposes the ban. The only muslim I have found in support of this ban is Tarik Fatah, congratulations for your good company!

This dress code has nothing to do with secularism whatsoever, and has everything to do with eliminating the minority religions in Quebec.  Religious christians are not obliged to wear any symbols; throwing crucifox into the mix is just a red herring. This ban specifically targets Muslims, jews and sikhs whose clothings is an obligatory part of maintaining their faith. They do not do it  for expressing or promoting their faith. If you want to equally treat everyone under this law, ban religous sumbols AND close down churches across the province, or more precisely, state that whoever goes to church is not allowed to walk into a public institution or hold public office. That is what this ban amount to. Banning the belief itself, not expression of belief.

The argument about Quebec versus ROC is silly. This is not about ROC. What you do not realise is that Quebec no longer belongs to the Francophones of Quebec, but also to all immigrants who moved in there. I do not think that the majority has the right to dictate anything it want on the minority, do you? 

Quote:

Btw, in Turkey, there are no scarfs in public schools and no one says its racist or xenophobe, they are just  secular with a 90%+ muslim, its their right to decide if they want, or dont want this, not for me, nor for you, please extend the same curtesy to people in Quebec. Thank you.

You apparently forget that those laws were established by a fascistic militaristic dictatorship in Turkey, and the only reason they are still on the books is because of the military that still supports them, not the will of people. Again, you are putting yourself in terrible company. As for respecting majorities, Germans had also decided to make Jews wear special signs, and a strong majority in Pakistan supports stoning gays to death. Sorry that I cannot always respect majority decisions

Quote:

2-"It's a backhanded way to establish Christianity as a state religion."I dont know if this is for real or just pulling my chain, it is so out-of-touch false I wont even comment. If anyone actually thinks this let me know Ill explain why it could not be further from the truth.

As a matter of fact, this is partially true, not to establish christianity as state religion, but the reason the majority of Quebecers are behind it is to diminish and eliminate non-Christian religions. As I said, this ban is equivalent to banning people who regularly go to church from working in public institutions. Let's see how much THIS proposal gains support in Quebec, if they are really after promoting secularism and not protecting catholicism.

Now please allow me to comment on integration too, as an immigrant. Like France, Quebec is going the wrong way about this. Is Quebec so much lacks confidence in her culture that thinks minorities walking in public institutions with a turban or hijab would diminish its harmony? It is in fact the opposite: the best way to integration is to allow minorities to fully participate in all aspects of the society. Has France succeeded in integrating their muslim minorities by enacting similar laws? no, quite the contrary, it has seen a rise in ghettos where those who want to maintain their beliefs flee to and separate themselves from the rest of the society. This is the future for Quebec once this ban becomes law.

It was interesting the other day to see Bernard Landry making a fool of himself by claiming " you will never see a police officer with turban in the United States", and within minutes pictures of US sikh police officers in turban were going around on twitter. The fact is that the US even with its horrifying history of racism, has been much more successful than Europe in integrating its minorities, because at least a majority down there do not feel their culture is threathened when they see people in different clothings or with different beliefs. A bit of self-confidence is not a bad thing.

"whose clothings is an obligatory part of maintaining their faith. "You just stated this is false. If it were, no one that is not wearing a symbol, would say he is of the relisgion, which is obviouly not the case.
Any religion can claim anything is obligatory, it is not a valid argument, second most what what is claimed to be obligatory is an interpretation.

"AND close down churches across the province,"Illogical and non sequetur, there is no ban on any religious building, you can go to mosque/temple/altar, you can also wear  a symbol in virtually all contexts, except a few, limited, situations. 

"state that whoever goes to church is not allowed to walk into a public institution or hold public office. That is what this ban amount to. "

This is false, I dont understand why you say this.

"I do not think that the majority has the right to dictate anything it want on the minority, do you?"

You need common guidelines within a geographic zone, its the basic principle of interaction, red traffic light is a limit we agree on, if someone doesnt want to stop at a red light in a zone where people do, the person should go to a place where people run right through red lights. IF all of North America, would ban religious symbols, it would be a limitation, but for there to be a single state/province where people can live without religious symbols only in certain occupations and only while on offical public/state duty, is not too much to ask for, If you want to wear a religious/political/dogmatic symbol while  on duty there are many places in north america where you can go, however, if I do not want this, there are not many places I can go. Is is so bad that there is one place, is it so horrible, that you comapre this with outraegous nazi comparison below? To me its reasonable. I hope it helps you understand.

" Germans had also decided to make Jews wear special signs" this is virtually the exact opposite to what is/might be proposed. Do you realize its the opposite you are using as example? " "strong majority in Pakistan supports stoning gays to death"Again, your example is almost the opposite of reality, because Quebec is anti-death penalty, and is certainly not discriminating based on sexual orientation. 

"but the reason the majority of Quebecers are behind it is to diminish and eliminate non-Christian religions."

Again I dont understand why you make such false and fabricated statements, you appear to actualy think this, but it is false. You can beleive in any religion, worship THor or Zeus, be a JEdi, worship leprechauns. You can be a Druid, no problem, but you cant say, druids should be allowed to make human sacrifices to appease the crop gods, any limitaiton have nothing what so ever to do with the religious aspect, its not because we are targetting the Druids, its because if that specific interpretation of the Druidic religion, happens to not coincide with our values, that aspect of the religion is not welcomed, all other aspects are, and to me and many, it is not too much to ask for.

 
"that thinks minorities walking in public institutions with a turban or hijab would diminish its harmony?"Evidently, people are coming to Quebec with alternate values, and get it all wrong, basing their analysis on a different life experience, using their perception and projecting them into the motivations of other people that are quite different.
"A bit of self-confidence is not a bad thing."Since our perception and interpretation are light years appart, Im just asking to know, would it be a good idea for a very conservative muslim country like for example Saudi Arabia, to integrate people into its coulture, by allowing foreigners to wear monokinis (bare breats) in public? In your mind, would this help foreigners adopt the local customs and integrate? (I have no clue if you think it would or not, nor if you see this as integration or not)

"You apparently forget that"

I was under the apparent mislead impression that Turkey was more progressive / enlightened then more, lets just say other countries. Apparently Women were allowed to go to the university in Afghanistan, before radical islam/Taliban/mudjadeen were there, some appear to "interpret" religion as allowing women to go toschool, while others interpret it to stigmatize and segregate while claiming its religious, if Turkey is allowing women to go to school because they are forced to by the military, for example,  it is sad, and I did not realize that there was so little progressive advances and that any were attributed by being forced to by the military, sad.

THanks for your comments, I realize the chasm of misunderstanding is even more  gigantic then I had thought
  

YOur view is false, and saying mine is, does not make your case either by the way. 

There is one thing that is extremely easy to understand is false, when other people make false attributions about your intentions,  its easy to see its utter bullshit, which is the situation here. I dont agree with you, yes, and I do say I dont understand you, theres nothing wrong with that, its not an argument to try to prove anything its just aknowledging a situation, but I certainly dont claim to know your "intentions" or motivations, as you are apparently attibuting not only to a person, which is crap, but to an entire group of people, which is even larger pile of crap, because it is a GENERALIZATION  there might be a number of motivations with variations and the people in that group are more apt to know what the common/most prevalent motivations or shared values are.

Such a generaliztion, is the equivalent of an actual xenophobic person, saying ~oh the  "muslims" want to create a grand kalifate, and "they" think this and "they" are motivated by that, I know what they all think, which is all  the same and happens to be what Im reading in their minds with my mass telepathic power of projecting into thousands of other people my imagined motivations projected from my own misconceptions~

I will re read you post, and try to figure out how to explain better or in other ways that might have a frame of reference you can identify.

cheers

"whatever on the head for those believers is not equivalent to wearing a cross."

yes I know that, its not the same, but the problem is that is not the point at all. We might be making progress, ill read on..,.

"If it is about secularism, then ban those who go to confession or church from working in public institutions too."

Great I think we are making progress, because that is exaclty what secularism, or at least what most people I know that use this word do NOT mean  by it.

The Secular VALUE, lets call it, ALPHA (random label to avoid projecting false meanings into it) 

Alpha is not about banning a religion, nor banning a religious aspect on "religious" grounds, which is what you are decribing by saying that religous aspect X,Y and Z should be banned because they are religious too, it is banning aspects that dont fit in a context, REGARDLESS of how why what its religious or leprechaun/imaginary/personal preferewnce/ancient rite/ might be. Ill have to explain that concept at a later time...

" If the majority are not favouring this," I agree, yeeeeah, indeed if the MAjority in Quebec, does not favor this, then it should be thrown in the garbage, only the values guidelines that the majortiy whish to live by should be stated as a guideline obviously

Hello sanizadeh

You can well imagine to what extent Dr Amir Khadir, if that is the Amir you are referring to, must have winced while defending the right to wear hijab. His family and family in-law are longstanding secular leftist Iranians, and people of great culture. Another equally progressive secular former "élue" from another predominantly Muslim culture, Morocco, Afifa Maaninou, also defended it, little as she likes hijab or Muslims who do try to impose their social norms on non-practising or less-stringent members of their communities of origin. As a civil right (that one might not necessarily like).

In France, there were very serious issues with the latter part of the equation. Teenage girls and young women were being harassed or much worse if they did not abide by social norms that were never enforced in such a way before, in France. And of course teenage boys and young men could do whatever the hell they wanted (nothing specifically Muslim about that double standard; it exists in all patriarchal societies). That is why there is much more support for the law there among lefty people of Muslim origin (or "de culture musulmane" as is said in France) who would be the equivalent of Khadir or Maaninou.

I also disagree that the phenomenon of ghettoisation became worse after the law. Ghettos have economic, social and racial exclusion origins; they are not easy to overcome in any society. Québec has few ghettos in the US or French sense. Or British, despite a far different legislative framework. We do have inadequate housing for many, and there are elements of ghettoisation in some poor, multiethnic neighbourhoods such as areas of Montréal-Nord.

However, this is fucking contemptuous:

And by Canadian culture I mean this whole land that I have immigrated to. I do not give a damn what kind of childish quarrels the French and the English had with each other in the past. Now it is our land and we intend to maintain freedom and liberty in all of it, whether some like it or not.

You are welcome here in Québec, if you recognize that we have fought against national oppression for centuries, and those are not "childish quarrels". And the fight for secularism (which Dr Khadir and I both wholeheartedly support; we want an approach that centres on institutions, not what people wear and their private lives) is part and parcel of that struggle.

As Gilles Vigneault wrote:

De mon grand pays solitaire
Je crie avant que de me taire
A tous les hommes de la terre
Ma maison c´est votre maison
Entre mes quatre murs de glace
Je mets mon temps et mon espace
A préparer le feu, la place
Pour les humains de l´horizon
Et les humains sont de ma race

Yes, I'm among those who have fought for equal rights for newcomers, more specifically involvement in union organisation in "job ghettos" and also making both trade unions and community associations more welcoming to and representative of the people in their communities. But I doubt you would welcome people who settle in your country of origin (or that of your family; I don't know whether you immigrated here or your family had before) if they dismissed the struggles and aspirations of people there as "childish quarrels".

Lagatta,

If I understand correctly that you also oppose the dress code in this charter, I don't think we have any differences over this issue.  Though I disagree with you on the impact of this similar law in Ghettoization in France; I think it has not solved any of the problems you mentioned.

Deckard,

I give up trying to make you understand what the issue is from a Sikh or Muslim perspectives and this is my last response to you. It is bewildering how little you know about the people you are supposedly trying to integrate into Quebec society with this law, when you compare wearing a turban with wearing KKK or swastika armbands. What you are trying to ban is not an "overt religious symbol" but the religion itself for those people; equivalent to destroying churches in your society. You keep repeating that this analogy is false, without even understanding it or bringing a solid argument against it. if the supporters of this ban are this much ignorant about other cultures in the province, a rude awakening will be inevitable.

samizdeh, I don't think the law has reduced ghettoization, but I don't think it has worsened it either (I've spent a lot of time in France, including stays doing academic research). What has worked is better public transport. Among other problems such as racist or insensitive policing (which we are no strangers too on this side of the pond, and the most recent egregious incident was in Toronto, not in Québec), the suburban town of Clichy-sous-bois (which is not the much better known Clichy right next to Paris, also very cosmopolitain but a much more pleasant place) was also enclaved and beset with terrible public transport - it could take an hour to get to Paris or other suburbs where local residents worked and studied, and I don't have to explain to anyone that people in immigrant and/or racialized communities often work jobs with "atypical" schedules. Now there is a tramline and much improved bus connections. There have been other urbanistic initiatives to improve conditions in the town, but I don't know to what extent local citizens are involved, which is essential for the success of such projects, and often a shortcoming in France; even the left tends towards top-down planning. (This is a cultural problem, and in that respect there is no difference when the planners are of immigrant origins).

The good side is the excellent quality of public transport and many installations and amenities, even in underprivileged neighbourhoods and towns.

I oppose a "dress code" here, except for a certain small number of authority figures (I'm undecided about that; those I fear the most are integrist Catholics with respect to women's reproductive rights). I explained why I think it might be necessary in France, because I think the physical safety of girls and young women in vulnerable communities trumps any other consideration.

Our main disagreement was that I think you should pay more attention to the history of struggles and movements in Québec. (And obviously, among Indigenous peoples, though that was not mentioned here by anyone).

I know very little about Sihkism. Probably a bit more than most non-South-Asians, but that's not saying much. Much more about Islam because I've done a lot of studies on history, languages and cultures in the Mediterranean basin, including some readings of theologists and philosophers, mostly from the Arab world (including Muslim Spain and Sicily), a bit from Turkey. I'm no expert on Islam or the Muslim world, but certainly not ignorant about it. There is a range of opinions about the necessity of the veil.

Veiling, of course, predates Islam by a very long time, and was certainly not restricted to Muslim lands.

"Sorry, Deckard, you don't get to use "exaggerations" like the KKK and f-ing MURDER in a discussion of religious freedom, and then object when some people react negatvely to that.

Unfrigging believable."

evedently no one is analyzing what Im actually saying or commenting on, the core, but focusing on the form.

Can someone invoke religious freedoms to run a red light? Is that easier to get without tripping on the form?

Is a red light traffic law an affront to religious freedoms? 

If a religion comes around, and says its against our religion to stop on a red light. 

In some cultures, religious freedoms might trump/be more important than safety, its a value call, in others safety might be more important, there is not a right or wrong answer, just one that is a better match or not, for the culture. (This is an example, forget the form, focus on the idea, the concept, concentrate, you can do it.)

lagatta wrote:

Our main disagreement was that I think you should pay more attention to the history of struggles and movements in Québec. (And obviously, among Indigenous peoples, though that was not mentioned here by anyone).

I mentioned it.

Again, I don't think anyone is going to try to tell someone s/he can't be a judge or elected official wearing these symbols of faith (though you can't see his braids):

I don't mean to use Harper  to take a poke with the well-known backstory, but it is the starkest example I can think of.

So as I said in a previous conversation about this, I don't think those who propose this have thought about all the brick walls. And really, when you start making exceptions for some but not others, that is the biggest brick wall of them all.

"judge or elected official" 

There is a difference between a judge/police and an elected official. An elected official can wear a pin representing his political party, if a policeman walsed around with a Conservative Party pin or armban people would not like it, he has a UNIFORM, no elected official as a UNIFORM. Well, maybe where you are from, Policemen wear a politcal party symbol, if you want that, thats your choice not mine, but where I live people do not want a police man to wear a symbol of political affiliation in order to preserve neutrality, that may be a foreign concept in other parts, but here it is a concept that exists, so there is a difference, here.

We have been through the overt religious thing in the past along with sexism, we have had enough, we dont want any of that anymore, is so hard to understand? Well apparently people dont know, are ignorant about that, so thats why it needs to be spelled out. WE'll grow out of it, eventually, but now its a sensitive topic.

(im not in favor of potential aspects of a charter[depending on the details of it], but not for your reasons, for opposite reasons, but I am in favor however of a charter of values to set guidelines and allow people to get a clue about the culture, Im just explaining it to people that are feeding the bashing frenzy)

"pacifist religions seeking exemption from military service"

I am against that, pacifict religions should not get a special treatment based on magical/ethereal/spiritual/astral considerations, anyone and everyone should be able to be exempt because they dont want to, pure and simple, religion should not be a criteria in a rational decision, (it should not allow someone to get a favor or be exempt from things other people are not).

lagatta wrote:

Sorry, Smith, I didn't remember that.

No problem, and fact is, it wasn't exactly in the context of self-determination. So your comment was actually correct.

I brought it up more because it speaks to people using those symbols in government (including and especially the judiciary), and because it gets to the core of the issue, even better that Europeans passing off crosses as historical artifacts.

For most people where I live the sight of a Sikh with a turban is not a frightening thing. For those of us who have tried to understand other religions and cultures it is obvious that a truly devout Sikh as a Judge would be a good thing.  I would rather a religious Sikh instead of a former corporate lawyer with a Chamber of Commerce pin in his lapel.

Deckard the problem I have with your viewpoint is that you insist on defining my culture. You lump us all in with Ontario and call it the ROC. To ignore the differences between Nunavut and Newfoundland and BC, just for a few examples, is to tell me you know nothing about the subtleties of our nation. We are not all the same and you can't even see that.

Thanks for your patience sanizadeh

"In a progressive society, can someone try to enact a law specifically designed to restrict religious freedom?"

No if there is no other reasons and Yes, if the "specific" religious freedom or aspect/manifestation is contrary to another value that is held more important than religious freedom itself.
Religious freedom is one value/aspect among many, the culture determines the hierarchy of values/freedoms. Religious Freedom, is not inherently less important, and it is not inherently more important either. The culture determines its relative importance in relation to other values/rights/conventions. In the culture you are familiar with, it is probably set high on the list, in the culture I am familiar with it is low and many aspects/values/imperatives are set higher on that list. The reason for this is mostly related to differences is the social environment/historical, because various cultures have been in diverse environments with different cultural events, pressures, aspirations, clashes, etc and have changed in different ways accordingly. The Netherlands have experienced very different events/context/influences, than Saudi Arabia, so the culture is different. What is normal in the Netherlands is not in Saudi Arabia, and the opposite is true. Denmark has also had a different environment than the Netherlands, albeit much more similar to the Netherlands than Turkey for example. A value/social aspect in a given culture, might not exist and perhaps hard to even conceive in another because of a lack of frame of reference.

" for greater public good." a bit generic but yes, and/or other values.

"Show me the justification. All I hear is that "people may feel uncomfortable if someone in a turban marries them""

I havent heard that. The justification is people want religion to be a private matter, they do not want a person in a position of authority to overtly broadcast his religious affiliation. It is a value, you appear to not be familiar with, and dont perceive this as a value. The reason is people have felt oppressed, felt uncomfortable influence, have had a general dislike for the overt nature of the previous dominant religion that was overbaring, they never want such a situation to reoccur, like a cat that is boiled by water may avoid just hot water, the effect is that people dont want religion to be used for policy nor do they want overt religious broadcasting specially in officials or people in position of authority. THis is not a value that exists in other cultures or that is low, but here it is high. As for other values, it is not inherently important and not inherently unimportant, it is a factor of cultural context, in some non-existent, in others low, in others(here) high.

"they should try to address their own bigotry rather forcing their value on others." You are projecting your values, and labelling ours as "bigotry". But I could call anything another culture disapproves "bigotry", it doesnt halp much.The problem is we have to live somewhere. Everyone in Quebec cant pack up and leave because someone moves in from Saudi Arabia, its not practical for use to all change our values and start segregating men and women because the person from Saudi Arabia doesnt want our decadent/unholy values of a man and a women riding in the same elevator being "forced" upon them. By the exact same token, It would be very inconsiderate, and extremely impractical, for me to move to Saudi Arabia, and then say "THey" should "address their own bigotry rather than forcing their values on" me. Maybe you may want to go there and tell them to change their values because you moved in and you dont these values, give it a shot, but most people would not find that remotely practical or reasonable. It is both inconsiderate and unreasonable for someone from a very different culture to say the people in Quebec should change their values and not force them onto people coming here.     

"And then you argue that this is your province and the people in the province should have the right to set the values and culture there, and immigrants should assimilate into it."Yes, this is exactly the case, as I have illustrated above, the contrary is quite unreasonable.

" I don't think your ancestors tried to assimilate into the native culture when they moved here from Europe, did they? "We all have an exponential number of ancestors, most people born in Quebec have in fact Native ancestors, so some ancestors were adopting aspects and values others not as much, the French 'courreurs des bois' mingled/learned/adopted a lot, others less so, when I get a time machine, I will say hello to my native ancestors, will congratulate those that have adapted more, and will tisk those that havent as much but will still be thankful they have worked very hard in harsh conditions of hunger/frost/strife/oppression to build the society I now take for granted in comfort. I even believe that you and I share ancestors if we go back far enough, but I wont go into that.

"We are settlers, as much as your ancestors were." I dont know about "as much", I hope you will see nuances, some of may ancestors were settlers that built from scratch, unless you want to be an Imperialist/Colonist you cant pretend no one is there already, it may have been lost on some ancient settlers that were in the middle of a forest knee deep in snow in hash conditions with no one around, but for someone coming in a passenger plane or boat, landing in an airport with electricity, restaurants, air conditioning, heating, chocolates, roads, infastructure and thousands of poeple in all directions, therre should be a HINT, that theres already people there! Unless you are typing this from the arctic circle, you cant ignore all that as if you landed on Mars, those will be 'real' settlers. 

The fact that you appear to see invasions, with the murders/horrors/misery/oppression that usually goes along with it, as a good thing in hindsight, is quite telling. I dont think people that are Genocided are happy about the future advantages their extermination/oppression entails. Theres a reoccurring imperialist/colonialist undertone, it makes many things easier to understand now. Imperialism is not traits we are very fond of.

" with disdain."

You may be projecting your own tendency for disdain of other cultures, onto other people in the future, that might not share this trait. I have no contempt for any of my ancestors, even if I am quite in disagrement with some of their values, they were all in a different envoironment, if we were to be substituted at birth with a time machine, I would be behaving in ways similar to them back then, and they would be the ones trying to explain things to you now, there is no disdain, belittlement, patronizing,  or condescension necessary, I assure you.

cheers

People are asking why Mulcair isn't saying anything, but that just proves that memories are (very) short:

According to this CBC story, Mulcair spoke to the issue on Aug. 26: "NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says he doubts Quebec Premier Pauline Marois will move ahead with a planned ban on religious headwear in public-sector workplaces because it would be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/26/pol-mulcair-baird-quebe...

Deckard wrote:

"In a progressive society, can someone try to enact a law specifically designed to restrict religious freedom?"

No if there is no other reasons and Yes, if the "specific" religious freedom or aspect/manifestation is contrary to another value that is held more important than religious freedom itself.

The only value that could restrict basic rights such as religious freedom (according to the UN declaration of human rights), is another basic human right  such as equality, the right to justice, life or freedom of speech and association or such. In a progressive society, no other value can be held more important than basic human rights, period.

Quote:

"Show me the justification. All I hear is that "people may feel uncomfortable if someone in a turban marries them""

I havent heard that. The justification is people want religion to be a private matter, they do not want a person in a position of authority to overtly broadcast his religious affiliation. It is a value, you appear to not be familiar with, and dont perceive this as a value.

Not only me, but the UN declaration of human rights don't recognizes that as a value either. It is as valid as someone says they don't want to be in presence of black people. As I said, this perceived "value" is just an excuse; otherwise the overt display of Christianity in Quebec's public life would have raised some concern for your people. This is just a smokescreen to say "we don't want those foreign religions here".

Your comparison of Quebec and Saudi Arabia is really revealing. If you are using Saudi Arabia as an example for Quebec's cultural policies, I think there is so much that needs to be changed in that province.

Quote:

"And then you argue that this is your province and the people in the province should have the right to set the values and culture there, and immigrants should assimilate into it."Yes, this is exactly the case, as I have illustrated above, the contrary is quite unreasonable.

"We are settlers, as much as your ancestors were." I dont know about "as much", I hope you will see nuances, some of may ancestors were settlers that built from scratch, unless you want to be an Imperialist/Colonist you cant pretend no one is there already, it may have been lost on some ancient settlers that were in the middle of a forest knee deep in snow in hash conditions with no one around

Huh! Your ancestors came here with no one around and built this place up from scratch? I let the native Canadians respond to this explicit racist comment. You not only do not know the cultures of the world, you are unaware of the culture and history you seem to want to protect.

Deckard wrote:

"And then you argue that this is your province and the people in the province should have the right to set the values and culture there, and immigrants should assimilate into it."Yes, this is exactly the case, as I have illustrated above, the contrary is quite unreasonable.

"We are settlers, as much as your ancestors were." I dont know about "as much", I hope you will see nuances, some of may ancestors were settlers that built from scratch, unless you want to be an Imperialist/Colonist you cant pretend no one is there already, it may have been lost on some ancient settlers that were in the middle of a forest knee deep in snow in hash conditions with no one around

sanizadeh wrote:

Huh! Your ancestors came here with no one around and built this place up from scratch? I let the native Canadians respond to this explicit racist comment. You not only do not know the cultures of the world, you are unaware of the culture and history you seem to want to protect.

Seems like it.

wage zombie wrote:

 

What if we were to replace "religious affiliation" with "sexual orientation"?  So,

Quote:

The justification is people want sexual orientation to be a private matter, they do not want a person in a position of authority to overtly broadcast his sexual orientation.

Does this still sound like an acceptable justification for a progressive society?

And keep in mind, this restriction has been cleverly designed to applies only to minority religions, because the majority religion conveniently uses no "overt religious expression". Obviously those huge churches in Montreal and Quebec city do not count.