Jagmeet Singh says Quebec Secular Law
"Bill 21 is clearly discriminatory. It is discriminatory based on religion, based on expression of belief, and it is going to disapportionately impact women. So I'm just defining it the way it is."
"This is systemically discriminating people against their religion. It's not necessarily based on race"
Go to 6:20 into video
He's right. It's closer to provincialism.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/sean-speer-what-francois-legaults-popul...
Legault’s popularity is part of a broader realignment in Quebec politics from the old separatism versus federalism paradigm to a new, more complicated yet richer political environment that reflects broader cultural, economic and social trends....
English Canadian conservatism is basically dedicated to conserving the country’s small “l” liberal inheritance including individual rights, the rule of law and economic freedom. Quebec conservatism, by contrast, is more concerned with conserving the province’s cultural and linguistic distinctiveness. As Vallée writes, modern Quebec conservatism is “undoubtedly expressed through nationalism” which is itself a reflection of the province’s status as “a small minority population in a North American context.”
Canadian political theorist Ben Woodfinden has made a similar point. He’s argued that the province’s distinctive conservatism is uninterested in the “kind of watered down anglo-liberal conservatism” that prevails in the rest of the country. Instead, its hyper-focus on culture and nationalism has manifested under the Legault government in reduced immigration levels, restrictions on religious expression for government employees and forthcoming legislation to further tighten language requirements.
These policies wouldn’t find much of a political constituency in English Canada but are massively popular in Quebec across the political spectrum. Quebecers may not even recognize them as fundamentally conservative but Vallée argues that they’re indeed a reflection of the province’s inherently conservative mission to defend and protect its unique culture and language.
He’d also add Quebec society’s impatience with “Wokeism”, which he describes as an ideology characterized by extreme political correctness, to the list. His essay points out various ways (including Premier Legault’s recent foray into the debate about free speech on campuses) in which Quebecers seem more prepared to challenge these nascent ideas than those of us in the rest of the country....
But there are other areas, including the province’s resistance to the excesses of cultural progressivism, that may actually resonate in English Canada.
The phrase "excesses of cultural progressivism"indicates a conservative lens. Much of the article is on point but misses the parochialism that insulates Quebec society from English political influences in favor of those from France. For example, Legault doesn't understand the concept of systemic racism. He thinks it means that the system is officially on purpose racist along with everyone in it. Blackface is also misunderstood in part because minstrel shows were not a French cultural tradition.
There are many groups who seek to isolate themselves to maintain their culture often centred around religion. Should the Amish be allowed to cut themselves off? Disallow people from other cultures from moving in? The world accepts Israel being an officially Jewish nation that actively favors those of the Jewish faith.
Quebec has never embraced the notion of multi-culturalism. Assimilation is the official goal of Quebec. Nationalists want everyone speaking French and absorbing French cultural content at home as well as in the work place.
Nationalists are using this as a new point of contention to trip up federal politicians. Singh is condemning the legislation. There is no need to define it as racist when it is rooted in a desire to preserve and promote offical public secularism coupled with a traditional Quebecois cultural environment which includes symbols of Catholicism that are valued for traditional and architectual elements rather than religious reasons.
If this law is not systemic racism then WTF would be. Its like saying that voter suppression laws in the states aren't racist because they can affect poor white people as well.
It appears that he still has very poor advisors from Quebec. The people that would want that kind of massaged message are not likely to vote NDP because he wears a turban. Playing to the wrong crowd, much like jumping on the bash China bandwagon because of the latest US propaganda smear about Xingjiang.
Seems like Quebec is back to being a wasteland for the NDP as the Liberals and BQ are fighting it out there.
If this law is not systemic racism then WTF would be. Its like saying that voter suppression laws in the states aren't racist because they can affect poor white people as well.
It appears that he still has very poor advisors from Quebec. The people that would want that kind of massaged message are not likely to vote NDP because he wears a turban. Playing to the wrong crowd, much like jumping on the bash China bandwagon because of the latest US propaganda smear about Xingjiang.
I'm an atheist. I am actively against religion. I think it increases gullability and shouldn't confer special rights. Government employees are barred from wearing political messaging. Why should we accept religious messaging from government officials? Religious symbols exist to promote religion.
Muslim women are not required by their religion to wear a hijab. It is a choice. There are Muslim countries where it is illegal to wear.
In its traditional form, it is worn by women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty in the Quran concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia".[10] The Qur'an instructs Muslim women to dress modestly.[11] Some Islamic legal systems define this type of modest clothing as covering everything except the face and hands up to the wrists.[5][12] These guidelines are found in texts of hadith and fiqh developed after the revelation of the Qur'an but, according to some, are derived from the verses (ayahs) referencing hijab in the Qur'an.[10] Some believe that the Qur'an itself does not mandate that women wear hijab.[13][14]
In the Qur'an, the term hijab refers to a partition or curtain in the literal or metaphorical sense. The verse where it is used literally is commonly understood to refer to the curtain separating visitors to Muhammad's house from his wives' lodgings. This had led some to argue that the mandate of the Qur'an to wear hijab applied to the wives of Muhammad, and not women generally.[15][16]
Wearing hijab in public is not required by law in Saudi Arabia.[17][18][19][20][21] However, in Iran, and the Indonesian province of Aceh hijab is required by law. Other countries, both in Europe and in the Muslim world, have passed laws banning some or all types of hijab in public or in certain types of locales. Women in different parts of the world have also experienced unofficial pressure to wear or not wear hijab.
Whether or not the individual is wearing religious items to promote that religion the intent of religious garb is promotion of the religion.
I don't approve of the law because in practice it disempowers women but I don't have a problem with the concept of barring religious garb at work for civil servants.
Special rules for people who believe in sky gods lends them ligitimacy at a time when we really need people to believe in science.
We should start a new religion of believers in science.
In the context of Quebec it is systemic racism!! I live in a place that has had citizens wearing religious head coverings for more than a hundred years. In the '70's and '80's we fought racists that used the turban as a focus of their hate.
I would think it was systemic racism even if your Catholic biased legislature had not exempted its own religion's symbols because they are the true essence of your white supremacist nation.
In the context of Quebec it is systemic racism!! I live in a place that has had citizens wearing religious head coverings for more than a hundred years. In the '70's and '80's we fought racists that used the turban as a focus of their hate.
I would think it was systemic racism even if your Catholic biased legislature had not exempted its own religion's symbols because they are the true essence of your white supremacist nation.
It doesn't belong to me. I have always seen the irony of the French playing victim and the entire separatist movement being outraged at the thought that Quebec's borders would change if they were successful. Most indigenous people in Quebec speak English as either their first or second language.
French people didn't want indigenous people or immigrants in their schools or communities regardless of their color or race. That is, blond Scandinavians or Americans were no more welcome than anyone else.
Until 1977 all immigrants to Quebec were funnelled into the English education system by the French. English speaking people in Quebec were made scapegoats for what French governments and French Quebecois people had chosen for themselves.
Nor are indigenous peoples any more noble than the rest of us. Kent Monkman revealed the false romanticized narrative imposed on indigenous peoples by western artists. Photographers traveled with gear to dress up indigenous people to make them look more authentically indian.
Now they are being romantized as guardians of the Earth when there are plenty of powerful indigenous sell-outs. We claim the mantle of righteousness in supporting indigenous self-determination in the protection of the environment but we are not so quick to defend indigenous self-determination if it is in favor of environmental exploitation in exchange for economical development.
Discrimination and bigotry are not the same thing as racism.
If the National Assembly doesn't belong to you then who does it belong to? We were talking about your provinces racist based "secularism". I would be fascinated to hear your view of the subtle difference between what a person will experience if they are merely subjected to discrimination instead of racism.
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
Preamble - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canada_Charter_of_Rights_a...
I'm an atheist but just saying...
People twist themselves into a pretzel to pretend that a law that says certain religious minorities can't have certain jobs isn't racist. Its really something.
Look at what the CAQ, Bloc and PQ are most concerned with:
- Systemic racism isn't real and if you believe in it you're calling all Quebeckers racist.
- The big city is too tolerant and ruining the rest of the province.
- There should only be 1 culture in Quebec, Quebecois.
- Our society is too woke and we should look into laws that protect "academic freedom" (or as they define it, the right for professors to say the n word.)
- I hate linguistic minorities and hearing other languages when I'm walking down the street.
These parties and their supporters are culturally (though not economically) Republicans.
Sad thing is there are 10 or more ridings that the NDP can pick up easily, they choose not to because they want to convince racists that Jagmeet Singh is a good guy.
If the National Assembly doesn't belong to you then who does it belong to? We were talking about your provinces racist based "secularism". I would be fascinated to hear your view of the subtle difference between what a person will experience if they are merely subjected to discrimination instead of racism.
English speaking people in Quebec have been discriminated against for decades in Quebec. As a woman I have been discriminated against my entire life. I was raised believing my goal in life was to get married.
People can remove their voluntarily worn religious gear if they want to work in government positions of authority. They don't have to swear against their sky gods who do not require them to wear said headgear. Sihk turbans aren't even compulsory religious wear. There is nothing in the Koran that requires women to be veiled.
Bill 21 is not a sneaky attack intended to keep PoCs out of certain jobs. If there was or is any ulterior motive to the bill it is to get the rest of Canada to accuse Quebec of racism to increase resentment against English Canada.
The NDP obviously think they still have a hope in salvaging things in Quebec or the leader wouldn't make a statement like that; certainly if such a law were ever proposed in any other province every single federal leader would denounce it instantly (think of Sault Ste. Marie thirty years ago).
If the National Assembly doesn't belong to you then who does it belong to? We were talking about your provinces racist based "secularism". I would be fascinated to hear your view of the subtle difference between what a person will experience if they are merely subjected to discrimination instead of racism.
English speaking people in Quebec have been discriminated against for decades in Quebec. As a woman I have been discriminated against my entire life. I was raised believing my goal in life was to get married.
People can remove their voluntarily worn religious gear if they want to work in government positions of authority. They don't have to swear against their sky gods who do not require them to wear said headgear. Sihk turbans aren't even compulsory religious wear. There is nothing in the Koran that requires women to be veiled.
Bill 21 is not a sneaky attack intended to keep PoCs out of certain jobs. If there was or is any ulterior motive to the bill it is to get the rest of Canada to accuse Quebec of racism to increase resentment against English Canada.
Why do your province's citizens who have religious believes that are not "traditional" have to conform. It is extremely white privileged of you to tell other citizens of your province what they can and cannot wear and what symbols should have enough meaning to them to display proudly. People with religious symbols as dress wear have lived in Canada for multiple generations, in BC for over a hundred years, but you think you can impose your world view on them? Obviously you see them as the inferior other not as equal citizens.
Why do your province's citizens who have religious believes that are not "traditional" have to conform. It is extremely white privileged of you to tell other citizens of your province what they can and cannot wear and what symbols should have enough meaning to them to display proudly. People with religious symbols as dress wear have lived in Canada for multiple generations, in BC for over a hundred years, but you think you can impose your world view on them? Obviously you see them as the inferior other not as equal citizens.
Again I am not imposing anything. I do not approve of Bill 21 on the basis of government not telling women what they can and can't wear.
I did not elect Legault. I voted QS and they oppose Bill 21.
As to why they have to conform, why should they be an exception? Bill 101 is all about forcing a minority to conform, to assimilate. Multiculturalism has never been a thing in Quebec.
The NDP obviously think they still have a hope in salvaging things in Quebec or the leader wouldn't make a statement like that; certainly if such a law were ever proposed in any other province every single federal leader would denounce it instantly (think of Sault Ste. Marie thirty years ago).
What happened in Sault Ste. Marie thirty years ago?
As to why they have to conform, why should they be an exception? Bill 101 is all about forcing a minority to conform, to assimilate. Multiculturalism has never been a thing in Quebec.
I think that meets the definition of cultural genocide but instead our elected MP's want to point the finger at other countries for similar behaviour. That is before sanctioning and bombing them for their inhuman treatment of minorities. Gotta love the logic of Canada's systemic racism.
As to why they have to conform, why should they be an exception? Bill 101 is all about forcing a minority to conform, to assimilate. Multiculturalism has never been a thing in Quebec.
I think that meets the definition of cultural genocide but instead our elected MP's want to point the finger at other countries for similar behaviour. That is before sanctioning and bombing them for their inhuman treatment of minorities. Gotta love the logic of Canada's systemic racism.
Yup.
What happened in Sault Ste. Marie thirty years ago?The NDP obviously think they still have a hope in salvaging things in Quebec or the leader wouldn't make a statement like that; certainly if such a law were ever proposed in any other province every single federal leader would denounce it instantly (think of Sault Ste. Marie thirty years ago).
The council passed a resolution declaring English the sole official language of city government, in retaliation for Robert Bourassa's invocation of the constitutional override; while federal & provincial leaders trod carefully when discussing Quebec's recent behavior, the condemnations were very quick to come on Sault, even to the extent of Premiers refusing to meet with the Mayor.
DF:
Thanks.
