Trudeau denounces Quebec's proposed religious symbols ban

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

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. 

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.

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>

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?

PQ popularity surges after values charter buzz: poll

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

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.

thank you, Sheema:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/reconciling-muslim-practices-with-western-principles/article14157485/#dashboard/follows/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But you only like it once?

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

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.