CAQ's Bill 21 ban on wearing religious symbols

Technically, it doesn't affect "religious minorities" but those among the minorities who wear conspicuous signs or garments. Which doesn't make it better, but it is important to be precise here. Most Muslim women in Québec don't wear the hijab.

By the way, for decades, women in Tunisia were forbidden to wear the hijab if they were students (university as well as lower levels where students are usually minors) or civil servants. So there it was the majority faith that was affected. Many Sephardic women wear a kind of snood; I don't know whether Jewish Tunisians were affected but the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. I don't think the kinds of skullcaps some Muslim and some Jewish men wear (not exactly the same style) were ever banned; the ban was based on the headscarf being a sign of the oppression of women.

Now in theory there is utter freedom, however conservative religious figures pressure women to cover, and of course they could also be pressured by family members (usually men, but sometimes women).

Getting back to Québec, QS get smeared as covert Liberals (rather absurd considering all our protests not only about the tuition fee hikes but also government collusion and corruption) so we get a lot of pressure in all directions.

lagatta4 wrote:

Technically, it doesn't affect "religious minorities" but those among the minorities who wear conspicuous signs or garments. Which doesn't make it better, but it is important to be precise here. Most Muslim women in Québec don't wear the hijab.

By the way, for decades, women in Tunisia were forbidden to wear the hijab if they were students (university as well as lower levels where students are usually minors) or civil servants. So there it was the majority faith that was affected. Many Sephardic women wear a kind of snood; I don't know whether Jewish Tunisians were affected but the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. I don't think the kinds of skullcaps some Muslim and some Jewish men wear (not exactly the same style) were ever banned; the ban was based on the headscarf being a sign of the oppression of women.

Growing up in the '50's all the Italian and Ukrainian immigrant women in our city always wore a headscarf when they went out in public. I am sure it all stems from some quote about covering ones hair for modesty reasons from that evil book shared by the big three Western religions .

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

Unionist]</p> <p>[quote=Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about [size=30]Trudeau[/size] condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

Trudeau isn't going to condemn this because this is the new political climate around the Western world. He could condemn it and make  some people happy or he can keep his mouth shut and not get the stink of these White Nationalistic crowds. Either way he's fucked. This is the new wedge issue. Scheer's Cons are going to ride that into the election, count on it.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5106035/quebec-religious-symbols-bill-charter-rights/

(last update March 28th)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about the bill just before it was tabled on Thursday, saying he plans to carefully study its contents before commenting further.

“Canada, and indeed Quebec, are places where we are a secular society, we respect deeply people’s rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. It is unthinkable to me that in a free society, we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,”

It seems to me Trudeau did condemn the bill quite some time ago. 

That is not a defence of Trudeau it is just a fact. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-mayor-who-compared-quebec-bill-to-ethnic-cleansing-should-apologize-1.4373824

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Trudeau repeated his opposition to Bill 21 but said Hampstead Mayor William Steinberg's comments were unacceptable and that the mayor needs to apologize.

"We don't need to go to extremes," Trudeau said. "We can debate the bill without going too far. There are people who are extremely worried by this bill, and I understand them. But we shouldn't use words like that."

Unionist]</p> <p>[quote=Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about [size=30]Trudeau[/size] condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

Now you have me completely confused.

You say you know me and that I am not a Liberal and yet you want me to call on Trudeau to operate out of principle instead of discuss what his political calculations would be.

If you knew me then you would know that I have zero faith in anyone trying to get Trudeau or the Liberals to do anything on principle or becuase it was the right thing. I was discussing the issues that are relevant to a LIBERAL decision. That is politics -- not people -- not human rights -- not what someone who dislikes the Liberal party thinks.

I think it is you typing too fast here. On the one hand you accept that it is a given that I do not support the policy or the Liberals and on the other you chastise me for not giving Liberals advice -- or worse -- for assuming that the Liberals would do anything for a vote as their prime consideration.

I am sorry, we may have a different perspective but my post accurately and consistently reflects my presumption that votes are all that the Liberals will consider in this. I do not support the Liberals precisely becuase I think they are immune from doing things for the right reasons. I know you may not share that opinion -- that is okay. However, this presumption is consistent with my post, with my posting record, and is not even that controversial here.

Were we talking about the CPC I would have used similar considerations. I do not think these two parties opperate in the moral sphere except where it can give them votes. Otherwise, we would not be talking about Indigenous people without clean drinking water, now would we?

I really cannot see where you are coming from here at all except that you might hold the hope of a Liberal moral action where I do not. This is not a difference that is really that critical but it is this that leads you to object to my post, I think.

I know he hasn't repeated this but isn't it a condemnation?

“It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,” Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

I agree he didn't say it for moral reasons. Has Singh spoken out more strongly or is it that you believe Trudeau should be more forceful because he is Prime Minister?

IOW: The line sounds like something you might say so that you appear to condemn something, but no one can actually quote you as doing so.

EDIT: Of course, I haven't seen the whole quote, so I don't know if he said anything more explicit than a general condemnation of discrimination.

Okay, I see. Don't hold your breath. The other day I was thinking of Trudeau more as spokesperson for the government. Much like QS the planning is done by others but that isn't really accurate either because he actually says very little beyond his talking points and that is deliberate. He refuses to respond to shut down the news cycle. Eventually there is nothing left for pundits to say and the public gets bored with it. 

It is very difficult to keep the heat on with this topic because he said enough to be seen as opposed to it but as you noted worded in such a way to cause a minimum of offence to Legault and supporting Quebecers. 

Unionist wrote:

I'll say it again.

Trudeau is Canada's Prime Minister. He should condemn Bill 21.

That doesn't mean I think he'll do it. That doesn't mean I believe he is motivated by human rights concerns. That doesn't mean he cares about anything except electoral concerns.

It means he should condemn Bill 21.

And it also means we should demand that he condemn Bill 21. It also means we should not give up on that demand even if we believe the chances of success are minuscule.

Let me give some other examples:

Netanyahu must not annex the Golan Heights.

Trump should stop stoking the fires of Islamophobia.

Trudeau should abandon his support for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

I get the feeling I'm wasting my time.

PS: All right, here's my final volley. If enough of us demand loudly enough and for a long enough time that Trudeau condemn Bill 21 - maybe it'll get to the point where some of his robots tell him: "Hmmmmmm, there could be some votes hinging on this....". Ok?

Maybe it is just me, but I have no history here of asking Trudeau or the Liberals to say ANYTHING.

Since I think what they say is bullshit and insincere, and I know that most people, even Liberals, know it is bullshit and insincere (and they are proud of that), I really do not spend my time thinking of all the many things Trudeau should say. He says a good many things he should say and carries on as if he never said them.

Sure, I get your point. Mine is that I just can't bring myself to think about what I want Trudeau to say when I am already angry at the things he says and does nothing about. So maybe I could have said it this time -- I just don't imagine putting any advocacy into words from JT. Also, I think we can always find some fluff from Trudeau on anything, anyway.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/abnormal-spike-in-muslim-women-r...

Bill 21 is causing Muslim women to be harassed in situations that wouldn't even be covered by the law once it passes? Who could've possibly seen such a surprising turn of events coming? Its not like the same thing happened during the Charter of Values debate.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-21-united-nations-human-rig...

The UN sent a letter criticizing bill 21 for human rights concerns.

It could backfire, though. We (QS) get constant shit for speaking out about the dress-code aspects of it. I'm very much for secularism, but don't think it is any of my business how people dress, unless there is a security concern. The only possible one of those would concern burkas - a handful of women wear them here. Montréal is already removing the Council cross (L'Hôtel de ville is undergoing a major renovation, required by safety concerns) and it seems that the crucifix will also be removed from L'Assemblée nationale chamber and placed in its museum.

Secularism does not necessarily mean renaming streets and certainly not destroying historic places of worship. The weird thing is that we are not only accused of pandering to Muslims but also of being Stalinist. There is a toponomy commission, but one of its main aims is to have more names for women, and more names for Indigenous people, peoples or events.  At one point most of the feminine street and place names were either for saints or for Queen Victoria or other royals. With the annexation of several former suburbs, there are several Vikkie streets, bridges etc.

robbie_dee wrote:

What a shame that the PQ has sunk to such a depth not only to vote for this racist garbage, but to call for it to go even further. Sad day for Quebec, for Canada, and indeed for western liberalism.

Just being the devils advocate here.

People complain about military airshows (and events) because, among other reasons, it triggers new Canadians who may have escaped war torn places and seeing and hearing these jets and helicopters upsets them and scares them.

Whether it's PC or not to say some people likewise feel triggered by Burkas (because lets be honest, this isn't about religious symboles it's about islamic symbols).

But for sake of fairness lets include all religious items. Can an arugment not be made that people in positions of authority wearing items and articles of clothing that can be triggering to people (burka for someone fleeing a strict islamic country, cross for someone who was abused at a catholic church) who have to deal with them?

Is a cross really "that bad"?

Well Psalm 137:9 tells us Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!.  That's fucked. I don't want someone in a position of authority openly supporting that belief or mindset in the form of a cross dealing with me. Is the cop going to treat me poorly because he thinks I'm a sinner or something?

As I said I don't think this is really about religious icons as much as it's against the muslim cultural practice of wearing burkas, but at a basic level doesn't this law have some form of merit?
 

Quote:

I don't care if some racists are triggered by the sight of a Muslim woman, that's their problem. It shouldn't be the job of the government to coddle racists and give them a safe space from Muslims.

This is a strawman argument. Not everyone who supports this law is a racist.

There ARE women in Islamic countries who are harassed, persecuted and assaulted for not wearing religious attire.
There are also women in Canada who have spoken out (for lack of a better term) against burkas and niqabs citing the harassment and intimidation women abroad (and even at home I recall) recieve for not wearing it. It seems the media doesn't really want to give them airtime. They also report they're harassed for their views and opinions here in Canada. Median doesn't cover it, or, makes them the villain.

Im sure there are racists, anti-immigrant and xenophobic people supporting this ban for those intolerant reasons but I think it issue is more complex that just Racisim.

They rammed this legislation through without consulting the Opposition and come up with an alternative or scrapping Law 21 straight up.

I said more than a handful of times before the election. CAQ is the party of La Meute.

I also warned that Legault is a weak little man. Hand over a weak little man power  and you got a self proclaimed King.This is a problem. Especially if he gets cozy with Ford,Kenney and Scheer. Kenney is running around the country like he's the fucking Prime Minister of Canada.

Trumpism is coming and no one wants to stop it.

This rime  we're really fucked.

Is the crucifix still hanging in the National Assembly.