Benz

They did not ask. They took. They give a little bit of money to YMCA to block their own windows. They forbid people to bring non kocher food into the jewish hospital (although it is a public hospital also funded by public money). They did not pay their municipal taxes in few cities. Like in Boisbriand if my memory does not fail me. And so on...

hehe! It must have been a real pain for you to admit the french in Quebec are doing better.

Oh, this one passed under my radar. I knew that some Sikh are asking for that priviledge but, I did not know it was granted. What province and when?

No, not every religious person uses its position to prioritize their religion. But the all of those that cannot give up their symbols, they do. It is a weak fallacy to say that bill 21 is futile just because one religious person can still prioritize its beleif without wearing symbols. It is like saying it is pointless to request a criminal investigation on a candidat that wants to be a teacher, because some pedophiles have not criminal cases yet. Nope, we filter those we are pretty sure that can't distance themselve from religious rules and that is a good start. Regarding the woman's turban, I was pointing out the irony to shake Argus' opinion that the first "victims/targets" were muslim women.

You definitely do not know Québec at all if you think we are ok with a weapon at school or a Turban instead of a helmet (whether it is construction or motorcycle). The religous weapon at school was THE biggest scandal regarding religious symbols. Bill 21 is as much for that than face covering. I challenge you to prove what you are saying.

The biggest scandal in Québec was that Sikh kid that could, with the help of the Supreme Court against Québec, wear his Kirpan inside a public school. That bothers us way more than a bed sheet on one's head. Same for those who would like the right to replace a helmet with a Turban. Bill 21 is not perfect. It is still possible that a person without symbol could use its position to prior its religious rule at the expense of the ones of our society. But at least, we get rid of those who are obviously doing it. It's not true that someone who is ready to sacrifice its job for a religious symbol, will withdraw its beleif when in opposition with our laws.

Based on what delirium do you come to that assumption? The law applies to all religions. So a sikh cannot wear his turban during its functions. Ironically, it is a sikh woman that wanted to wear a man's Turban, who is the first one to refuse the rule and move to BC. Not a muslim. That victimization b***s**t over muslim women is an islamic game that even muslims do not swallow. Get over it.

Look, you are losing the focus on the reality. People are not forbidden to wear symbols in public spaces. They are forbidden to were them while they are operating a function of authority. If you think your religion prevails on the conditions of such position, I totally respect that decision. Just do another kind of job. You can continue to keep your lifestyle according to what your religion orders you do it. You just can't do it in such position. Whether you like it or not, the people in Quebec do seperate the dressing code order by the religion from their faith in that religion. I am ready to fight until death to defend that principle. Do not melt culture and religion into the same jar. 2 persons of the same culture can have 2 different religions. 2 people of the same religion can have different cultures. Although it often happens that the religion has a major impact on one's culture, it is still 2 different things. And if you think keeping a position of authority free from religion is a stomp to the religion, then you have a very weak opinion of the people's faith. If your faith is jeopardised by that, then the problem is your faith. You better start asking yourself if you realy beleive in this. You need a psychologist that will help you to sort out your thoughts and values. You are still totally free to practice the religion of your choice. We do not and will never place the spirituality of an individual on the same level of the political religious rules. The right to beleiver in whatever you want does not grant the religious organizations to make people do whatever they want them to do. Practicing a religion is a right but, it is not absolute. The rules of the society prevail. In your english canadian society, you think it's ok to let religions rule their people without limits (or very few like the criminal code). I have no problem that you manage your society like that. I do not agree but, I respect your decision that affect your society. In return, I expect that you respect our decision for our society.

It's not a big drift and it is still in the topic. It regards the bill 21 and how May wants to attack it. When someone mentions the words communism, socialism or something like that, then it becomes off topic.

That is because in your conect of religion, there are no difference between the 2 facets of it, spirituality and political rules. See my previous post for more explanation. Your concept is totally rejected here in Quebec. When a religious rule comes into conflict with a rule in our society, the last one prevails. Still, the beleiver can ask an accommodation and there will be a debate on whether or not the request is reasonnable. Unlike in your society where the religion's rule prevails. Québec vs China... in China, the religion is banned. In Québec, no religion are banned. Only the symbols in position of authority. Although the crucifix has been removed from the Salon Bleu of the assemblée Nationale, it is not banned and is still exposed somewhere else. Your giant exageration rediculizes your position. Christmas tress are not banned anywhere, although we observed few places where it was requested by some religious people other than christians that it should be removed. So much for the respect of traditions by religious people. No religious locations are experiencing any kind of oppression. Chruches, Mosques, Synagogs and such are all free to practice. People are still totally free to practice their religion. But not in the scope of position of authority. This what the principle of secularism is all about.

Argus made it too wide. The rules apply only on people in a position of authority. It does affect the confidence you can have in such services. If one is ready to sacrifice a job opportunity because of its religious symbol, it is highly possible that this person would rather choose its religious values against the rules of the society, when they are in contradiction. When you are not capable to take your distance from your religion rules, you can be in conflict of interests. In justice, appearance of conflict of interests are as much damageable as real conflict of interests. Whether the person would do it or not is irrelevent. That is why you cannot be a judge of a case where one member of your family is in. even if you are capable to be impartial. The appearance of conflict of interests is enough to justify that you are not selected to be judge of such case. Usually, a judge pull itself out because they are perfectly aware of this principle. The same principle applies on any position of authority. I'll give you an example of a fictive religion. The religion ABC has these 2 rules: 1) You must wear a hat having the shape of a S on your head. 2) If a boy and a girl are arguing against one another, the girl has the right to give her opinion but, the boy has the last say. Now how this is going on in our society? Men and women are equal, so the rule number 2 is not acceptable. The follower of such religion cannot make a point with that. But if the person of such religion is in a position of authority. How can you be sure that this person is capable to take a decision that respect our value of equality of men and women, instead of respecting the rule of its religion? There are no way to be 100% sure, but there is a way to reject a big bunch of indoctrinated people. You forbid the religious symbols for a position of authority, how can we make sure it won't abuse of its power? Does that person is capable to take its distance from a religion, can it accept to remove the symbol to proove it? If not, it means the same person will most likely override our society's choices with its religious rules. Even if a specific individual wouldn't, the risk is too high and we are in a situation of conflict of interests that I explain. That is why this bill 21 exists. To make sure it is understood that secularism prevails. As I explained in another post, in english canada, you guys mix up two facets of the religion into one cloud that you call religion. For us, the spirituality and the political rules of a religion are 2 different facets and they are considered differently. That is why here in Québec, although we allow every one to beleive in anything, we do not allow anyone to do whatever in any circumstances. Unlike you guys do with few exceptions. Well, I beleive Argus is right and alot of people in english Canada are totally fine with bill 21 and might want the same. How many, that is another story and I do not know the answer. You might decide to call us stupid as much as you want. But your opinion rather demonstrate the other way around.

Although I strongly desagree, I respect the opinion of people that think the religious symbols should be allowed to people in a position of authority. I can fight for them to have the right to express that opinion, even if I desagree. What I do not respect, is the people who has a fallacy reasonning that without justifications, convert the secularism rule into any sort of phobia (such as "ethnonatiinalist"), even if nothing in the bill itself or in the historic behavior of those who passes it can demonstrate that assertion. One should at least have the decency to at least explain itself instead of just a lazy intellectual free accusation. In another thread, I have exposed the different opinions, visions and understanding of the religion between Quebec and Canada. I beleive I did it in all respect of the people who think different than me without sinking into foolish denigration of the counterpart and I expect no less in return. Tweaking the federation to bulldoze your narrowed mind is not what I call "well educated electorate".

He is more wise than I expected. I think he is trying to make a point that he is not forced to wear the Turban and has no problem t remove it if required. It will probably influence few people here.

or exiled to his islamic friends at North Captiva island.

The need to save SNC, the entity, is obvious. But the leaders of SNC must be accountable for what they did. We do not need to save leaders of SNC, just the entity. But what Trudeau did is just plain stupid. He wanted to travesty the justice in order to save not only save SNC, but its leaders as well. He did not have the intelligence to make and assume a political choice that would do the right thing. He rather attacked the justice. It is more than wrong. IMO this is criminal.

The percentage of the people in Québec that will votes for Trudeau, will determine the percentage of shame I feel on my nation-state. Well, except for the Anglos' votes. Anglos in Québec always vote at 95% for the Liberals no matter what. Andrew Scheer has different values and interests than me. On many subjects, he is the opposite of what I cheer for. But he is not doing it against me. He is rather server the interests of other people thinking like him. I see him as a respectful opponent on which I just desagree. Trudeau is rather a real ennemi. A vicious traitor compulsory liar without moral and scruples. He is bad for all canadians and is capable of the worst to serve its own personal interests. He disgusts me more that I thought it would be possible even if my imagination is quiet fertile. Lucky for me, I can vote for the Bloc. But Trudeau is so bad for Canada, that I would be ok for a conservative majority government for the next 4 years. Just to make it clear for the liberals that Trudeau is not acceptable under any circumstances. Yesterday Jagmeet surpised me. He said he is ready to open the constitution to allow québec to get back in. Just like Layton few years ago. I wonder if this promise will work out as well this time. Jagmeet Sign has positionned himself against Québec on the bill 21. For sure he will be questionned about that. What kind of credibility his assertion on the constitution can be if on such subjects, he wants to fight against Québec. I am heating the pop corn.

I think in the future, the english canada will realize that something is wrong by giving such power to religions. Quebec is just few steps in advance but, eventually you guys will catch up. You are starting to debate about it and this debate has been done before I was in age of voting here. But maybe I am wrong and it will always stay like this on your side. It is not a matter of taking the religion seriously or not. It's a matter of understand what is the role of the religion and where are the limits. You keep bringing the point that your side is giving full rights to religion to force people to wear this or that, ban this or that. I repeat, Quebec gives the people full rights to choose their religions, practice them in their privacy and cult locations, as long as it covers spirituality. But when it becomes politic, like "do this, do that", it's not forbbidden but, it's not out of immunity. Their rules must NOT get into contradiction to our rules. Thise is where Quebec and the ROC are very different. I do not think your totally understand the concept. I think it is the first time you read someone exposing those facets of the religion like that. I agree with you regarding the non existing place this goes into the political agenda. Even fanatics like Trudeau understand they have too much to lose to oppose to Quebec on this matter right now. I am sure his internal surveys are blinking red right now. I have no problem to recognize that our basic values and morale roots are coming from the religion but, to me it is just a history. Religions do not set the rules anymore, we do with the Justice institution and political institutions. Now regarding the constititon and its conflict with our position, we are back to square one on why Quebec consideres leaving Canada. Those rules are set without us and therefore, are not legitimzed to us. There is the non withstanding clause that I think can make the exception possible but, I am not an expert on the matter either. I have a feeling that after the election it will become a new battleground. Unless maybe the conservatives win. But I think you know better than me what they would do on that matter if they win.

1) I don't think I understand your message. What is bigotery and why? Remember that we are only talking about position of authority. Sikh are not banned to wear their symbolsm unless they fill such position or where security prevails. Also, there is a grand-father clause to respect their original conditions of employement. Yes it is a point if everyone must comply but, it's a small one. The main one is that a religion's policy DOES NOT get any consideration when facing our laws. Religion's spirituality should be totally free, not the religion's rules. Well, at least, this is how we see it in Québec. Up to you to give the religions such power that they can override your rules with theirs. 2) To me, it is totally irrelevant. They do not need to do such sacrifice to gain the right to wear it. However, despite all the respect they deserve to fight alongside with us, it does not grant them the right to put down our secularism laws. We did not make a pact with the devil by accepting their help to fight the ennemy. Wearing crosses... first, it must be reminded that were are only talking about ostentatious symbols. So if you wear a big cross while you are a judge at the court for a case between a christian and a muslim. How much partial the judge will look like in its eyes? Howe can I trust someone in a position of authority to take de right decision, if the person would rather not do that job if can't wear its symbol? We are talking about someone that would sacrifice a career for a symbole. No way this person will choose our rules if they are in contradiction to their religious ones. That, I cannot accept. Even if your grandpa's blood lies on the battleground. I listened to a sikh woman last week-end explaining that she wears a turban because not only man can do it and she beleives in equality. ok for me, I do not mind. But she still has to comply to bill 21. Yet, she says the rule is unfair because, it means she cannot work on a position of authority. That is absolutetly NOT TRUE. She can work, but without the symbol. Just that is enough to justify the existence of the rule. But then she adds, we (the sikh) feel very shy about our hair and it is the same as if you (non sikh) were naked. Oh really? If what you sy is true, ti means you should be shy to see my hair, right? Otherwise, it's a problem you personnaly have and it could be solved with a psy. But it is far worst than that. Not only we did nothing to make you shy, but the blame goes 100% on your religion. They are the one banning you from doing a job without a symbol, they are the one making you feel ashame of your hair psychologically uncapable to go bare head. We are not the problem, your religion is. Then you want us to comply to your religion and override our rules? It's a big NO right there. Solve the issue with your religion. I need to insist on the facets of the religion. In Québec, both facets are different and do not have the same considerations. But on your side of the country, I think that vision of the facets of a religion is something you might never heard or read before this week. You guys always considered a religion as a whole where the priviledges are absolutes.

What about Switzerland? Multi-national states can sustain if and only if a mutual agreement can be reach with one another. A balance can be reach. But I think it's a little bit off topic. Argus rather talk about diversity and massive immigration. While you are rather talking about countries having within its border, nations that have been conquered and where their original national identity still prevail.

Il est parfois difficile de savoir ce que les gens pensent uniquement en les voyant agir. J'appuie mon opinion davantage sur la façon que le système fédéral est conçu plutôt que ce que les gens en pensent. Le sujet ne préoccupe pas les canadiens anglais, alors j'ai plutôt assumé qu'ils en pensent tel qu'il est conçu. La dernière fois que j'ai entendu un canadien anglais contester la monarchie, c'était John Manley lorsqu'il convoitait le direction du PLC (LPC). Ça fait très longtemps!

At some point of my life, I hated the anglos. I did not understand why they do what they do and I concluded that only a bad person can think like that. But I knew it was too simplist and I really wanted to understand. It turns out that sometimes 2 persons can take the same decision based on total different reasons depending on their experiences or where they stand. Understanding does not mean agreeing, but it opens the door to constructive discussions that can't occur if you limit your vision on hatred. Now I know that despite all the french bashing the medias generously spread over their consumers, the anglos do not hate the french and the french do not hate the anglos. Despite they are different, they have more in common than they like to admit. The french do not have disdain of anglos. The french consumes so many anglos cultural products, it would just be masoshism. The french are rather frustrated and offended that the anglos have absolutly no consideration of the french opinion and position. If an anglo takes a decision that regards the french, it will be based on his own opinion of what is good for the french, not in agreement with the french. Then the anglos will think the french is just whining because he/she beleives the decision was right and fair. This is the dynamic of the 2 solitudes. The reasons that push the people here to stay in Canada is diverse. For some of them, it's economical ss you said. But for many others, it's a loyalty to an idealism of what Canada should be. Quebec people have their pride and they do not swallow the equalization b.s. Although it is now a reality that Quebec gets more than it contributes, it is not as much as the anglos loved to think and it is not a reason to stay in. We aspire to more than that we would prefer to be a lucrative state than a poor one. That said, it is true that once in a while, I hear someone using that reason to stay in Canada. But it is not the majority of people. Even the Quebec federalists that would like to stay in Canada know that we would do good if indepedant and the equalization is not a stopper.

You did not address the explanation I am exploring regarding the different point of view between Quebec and the ROC regardling religion. Regarding the place of spirituality, we all the same page. The difference lies in the politics of the religions. You guys extend the power of the religions way beyond the spirituality. When a religion tells the people what to were and what to do, they are litterally establishing policies on your conduct and behavior. This is where we do not draw the line at the same place. Such thing in Quebec is considered personal and cannot be applied in a public role context. The religions are doing that to enforce the indoctrination and the feeling to belong to their religious communaity. So in the mind of the Quebec society, those rules are not absolute and should not overpass our laws and rules. It is irrelevent to say smoking is not a right. Because wearing a symbol is not a righ either, something not forbidden does not translate into a right. Not wearing a symbol meanwhile you work, does not alter your faith. You cannot compare our rule with the banning of french language. It's not comparable. Bill 21 does not forbid people to practive their religion, or even the right to beleive in their religion. That example rather shows your misunderstanding of the law and its spirit. By the way, bill 21 does not force someone to lose its job. There is a grand father clause that allows people hired before the day of the bill adoption to keep their symbol. No one will lose its job. In justice, the appearance of a conflict of interest is as much damageable as a real conflict of interest. If someone is ready to refuse a job because it cannot wear a religious symbol, it means that person passes its religious beleif before the our law. It means in a position of authority, most likely, if that person faces a conflict between what its religion says and what the law says, there are greater chances the person will choose what its religion says. But if the person accepts to respect the rule of bill 21, it then prooves it is capable to draw the line at the right place when it comes to decide what must be applied. That is why this bill exists and why it is applied only on authority position. The immunity and power you give to the religions place their political agenda on a high stand that we (in Quebec) think can be dangerous for the society. I do not agree with you but, I respect that decision of your's as long as it applies only on you. I expect the very same for us as well. You may not agree but, you should let it go and observe. Just as well as we do observe from distance your multiculturalism and its impact. What do you think of my explanation of the place of religion and its role. Still think you should force your rules upon us regarding the religion? @WestCanMan although I answered to him, I think it also answers your message.

Oui, à une époque où les anglais n'étaient pas des canadiens.

I am rather progressive and I see nothing in common with them, nothing I can agree. Idiocy is not an exagerated term to weigh her statement. If the progressives of western canada are all like that, no wonder why you develop such an allergy to them. It is difficult to evaluate from here, but the media tend to picture english canada like a whole monolitic block that thinks like her. I kind have a serious doubt about it. A certain majority at best.

2 points here... 1) I respect her opinion about the religious symbols that should be allowed even in a position of authority. I totally desagree but, I am ready to fight for her right to express that opinion. If the other provinces prefer to allow it, I do not mind as well, it is their own business. I mind my own. However, she goes far beyond that. She litterally wants to fight Québec on bill 21. That is unacceptable. It would become a fight federal vs provincial reveals propensity to disctatorship. 2) Her opinion also reveals her very high level of stupidity. Saying that bill 21 bans religious people to work and force them to choose between their faith and their work. This as imbecile as saying that the laws ban smokers to work. The laws ban the cigarette at work. Not the workers. Workers can still smoke outside of the perimeter. It's the very same thing with bill 21. It only bans the symbols. Not the faith. People can still work without any problems. They are just not allowed to wear religious symbols. If your faith is so fragile that you cannot keep it without your symbol, then question yourself about that faith. If your religion forbids you to remove your symbol at all cost, then the problem is your religion, not bill 21. Opinions like that disgust me and only reenforce the legitimity of bill 21. That being said, I understand the english canadians and the Québécois have a very different perception of the place of religion in our society. Religions have several facets. Regarding the spirituality, Québécois and Canadians are on the same page on this. The place of the religion and its role on the spirituality has the same place for both groups. Where both groups are different, is on the facet of politic and the intervention of the religion outside of the scope of spirituality. Like when religions tell you to wear this, do that, forbid this and that, eat this, not that... When a religion is attemptinng to rule your life, it goes far outside of the scope of spirituality and the mind of the Québécois, the religion loses its immunity on those topics. When the religion respects the bondary of private personal life or places of worship, it's ok. But when the religion tells you what to wear or do at work work, it is sometimes tolerated but, definitely not well seen in Québec. In english Canada, it seems to be totally accepted. I am not sure about why and there might be more than one explanation for this. I understand that the english canadians beleive that the Queen is chosen by God and the whole monarchy structure relies on the faith the people have in the religion. If one can question the place of religion, then the monarchy can be questionned as well. Even if it is a symbolic one. Like the symbolic role of sovereign of the Queen for the country. A role transmitted by bloodline, of course because the religion says that it is god's will. That scenario is accepted as fact in Canada and rejected as pure bullshit by Québec. Québec has alos alot of people that rejected religions, without necessarly reject their spirituality. People that still believe in their god, but do not follow any religion or barely the one of origin. People in Québec do not hesitate to question or challenge their religion, unlike in Canada where they rather tend to swallow anything that is being said. Of course not all the people but, definitely more than in Québec. The relation of the english canadians with their religion is the last of my concerns. I really do not care despite my opinion on religion and I expect them to respect my opinion as well about what is good for Québec. What I do not respect, is the assholes who considere the bondaries we put on religions as xenophobia, islamophobia, racism or b.s. like that. Thinking like that is an intellectual mediocrity that deserves no respect at all.