Quebec's Bill 62

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

I went to Catholic school in the sixties and seventies. I've never seen a veiled nun in my life. Most nuns today only wear their habits in church, then wear street clothes when they go out into the community to help people.

Yeah, the nuns that used to beat me up teach me right from wrong in the sixties and seventies never wore a veil. 

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

It does not equate to that. I'm not sure Islam can reform at all, even with outside pressure. I'm just sure it can't and won't without.

"Islam has proven that it is unable to reform itself without outside pressure of some kind. " 

" I'm not sure Islam can reform at all, even with outside pressure."

"Outside pressure" isn't a factor, apparently.

 

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

How is this system going to change?

I suggested something... and...

18 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

The only real hope is Western Muslims, because in the West, Muslims have not only a ready comparison but the freedom - or at least, more freedom - to oppose the harsh interpretations of the Koran.

Apparently now you agree with me... Ok.

 

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

They need to be pushed. Not clubbed, but pushed. And I don't see the likes of Trudeau making the slightest attempt at that - ever.

 Not to worry.   They will learn fast if they want to be taken seriously.  

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Islam has proven that it is unable to reform itself without outside pressure of some kind. " 

" I'm not sure Islam can reform at all, even with outside pressure."

"Outside pressure" isn't a factor, apparently.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"The car will not move without gas" does not prove the car will move WITH gas. There are other factors.

Quote

I suggested something... and...

Apparently now you agree with me... Ok.

 Not to worry.   They will learn fast if they want to be taken seriously.  

The only people pushing them are conservatives. Trudeau, Obama and their ilk  would never offer up a single word of doubt about the beauty and loveliness and peacefulness and equality of Islam. How does that inspire change? If everything is wonderful, why change?

Edited October 29, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

"The car will not move without gas" does not prove the car will move WITH gas. There are other factors.

Everybody knows a car won't move without gas.  Your analogy is that it won't move if you haven't eaten oatmeal.  But you don't have an example of anybody trying that.  ie. You have submitted, simultaneously, that 'outside pressure' is necessary and that 'outside pressure' may not work.  Your tautology, not mine.

 

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

The only people pushing them are conservatives.

I don't know that the people who rightfully attacked the Montreal imam were conservatives or just human beings.  I'm sure the Jews that were impacted may have, at least some of them, voted for Trudeau.  But other than that we agree.

[Argus]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Everybody knows a car won't move without gas.  Your analogy is that it won't move if you haven't eaten oatmeal.  But you don't have an example of anybody trying that.  ie. You have submitted, simultaneously, that 'outside pressure' is necessary and that 'outside pressure' may not work.  Your tautology, not mine.

I said that they won't change without outside pressure. That does not logically offer up any assurance they can change even with pressure.

If you cannot understand basic logic I give up.

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know that the people who rightfully attacked the Montreal imam were conservatives or just human beings.  I'm sure the Jews that were impacted may have, at least some of them, voted for Trudeau.  But other than that we agree.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. I doubt its related to anything I've said, though.

[blackbird]

Here an  interesting perspective on Bill 62 in the Toronto Sun which makes sense.  It says the progressives that are opposing bill 62 in Quebec and the rest of country and defending the wearing of a face covering are inadvertently supporting the oppression of Muslim women and girls.  They say nothing about the danger these women face if they try to stop wearing a Niqab or Hijab and want to dress like a westerner.  Apparently they're more concerned with a Muslim's so-called right to wear this symbol of fundamentalist ideology than Muslim women or girl's bondage and safety.  A Muslim teenage girl finally, after being beaten and abused by her father for not wearing a Niqab or Hijab, filed a report to the police.  This happened in Gatineau just across the river from the Ottawa mayor who condemned bill 62.   Sad.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-progressive-reaction-to-bill-62-lets-down-vulnerable-muslim-womenA

Edited October 29, 2017 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

I said that they won't change without outside pressure. That does not logically offer up any assurance they can change even with pressure.

If you cannot understand basic logic I give up.

What is the logic ?  Why try pressure at all ?  Do you not see the nonsense ?

"My dog will probably never go for a walk unless I give him a chocolate milkshake.  I don't even know if THAT will work."  Why bring the milkshake up at all?

15 minutes ago, Argus said:

I have no idea what you're even talking about. I doubt its related to anything I've said, though.

I disagree that only conservatives will be a force to homogenize Muslims.  They will be homogenized in many ways.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

I can't say that I really blame them, especially in light of the context you use to describe our benefit.

Yes I know you don't blame them, you've been clear on that point many times. You've said we deserve it, we have it coming, etc. But I have yet to hear any other useful ideas coming from you, just a seemingly gleeful waiting for the sky to fall on us. Self loathing is a hallmark of leftism.

Edited October 30, 2017 by OftenWrong
glitch in the matrix

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Hint: I always make sure to swallow before 'unhiding' posts.  It's safer that way.

2. I'm thinking there's truth in this.  The nightmares we all had during the cold war were manifestations of our insecurity, even though we were actually at peace.

1. Yet you still need to sneak a peek. So what is it, ignore list or not?

2. Classic revisionism. We have never been at peace.

[Goddess]

On 10/28/2017 at 10:30 AM, Argus said:

Drivel. The nun's habit is simply a female version of the priest's robe. And for the most part, nuns don't even wear habits any more. 

The niqab is born of that desperate male determination to protect his honor which still finds such strength of power in the middle east and western Asia. Women 'belong' to the male. Whether they are his daughters, sisters or wives. Whatever beauty they own must be jealously guarded from the lustful eyes of other men, just as the women must be controlled and guarded lest they let their natural lusts be influenced by those other men, be seduced, and harm his honor. The niqab/burka is a curtain which shuts them away from that world to protect his honor.

There's also the political aspect of burkas/niqabs.  They are the physical representation of political, fundamentalist, extreme Islam.

[eyeball]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I have yet to hear any other useful ideas coming from you,

That's because you only pay attention to the voice in your head. Aside from advising moderates in the west to tell our extremists to stand down and stfu I've also advised that we negotiate a peace and reparation treaty.  Probably not with ISIS though - someone more moderate like Al qaeda.  Like negotiating with Sinn Fein instead of the IRA.

[Benz]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎28 at 3:29 PM, eyeball said:

 

Uncovering everyone's face, is what's at issue now. Because Quebec is a dog fucker that is trying to mask its racism behind a facade of insecurity, exactly the same way you are.

 

The whole Québec nation is a dog fucker masking its racism because we want uncovered faces in some conditions...  hmm wow!

Look, you are totally welcome to explain why you think we are better off to let people having their faces covered at any circumstances. You are legitimated to think your points outweight our points and debate about it. But this is not what you do. You are expressing your xenophobia toward the Québec people with your own made-up false accusations. It's plain and simple Québec bashing.

Uncovering faces is not about security, it's about identification. The principle does not have anything todo with the beleifs of the religion in question. That shy bill does not even consider the bad side of that religious rule made by the obscurantists. It's a generic rule that apply to anyone having a face covered in specific contexts.

Besides that, the burqa/niqab has been created to destroy the women's confidence. The indoctrination purpose is to force the women to feel bad about themselve and totally insecure. Those who created that rule, also say that if a woman not wearing such clothes is raped, it's because she deserves it. Men have no responsabilities and are legitimated to abuse women not wearing those restrective clothes. That's the mentality along the burqa/niqab. It has been created for that purpose and it is claimed as is. There are absolutely nothing cultural or legitimated in that symbol. Few muslim countries like Morroco are banning them for a reason.

So, pay attention on how much I do not give a **** about how mister Eyeball thinks my whole nation is a dog fucker by forcing those poor indoctrinated women by a shitty version of that religion, to reveal their faces in a bus. Mixing such bill with racism, is a clear demonstration on how narrowed is your mind about that topic.

Do not attempt to justify yourself. You do not stand a chance. Do your mea culpa and change your attitude regarding your silly accusations.

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Aside from advising moderates in the west to tell our extremists to stand down and stfu I've also advised that we negotiate a peace and reparation treaty.  Probably not with ISIS though - someone more moderate like Al qaeda.  Like negotiating with Sinn Fein instead of the IRA.

Well I suppose we have to start somewhere. Doubtful though that such overtures would accomplish anything, because of greed. Anyway this is way off topic, perhaps we'll take it up elsewhere.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Well I suppose we have to start somewhere. Doubtful though that such overtures would accomplish anything, because of greed. Anyway this is way off topic, perhaps we'll take it up elsewhere.

It's already been taken up around here, long before you ever showed up.

Never mind that someone should have thought about an exit strategy before we started bombing the ME region with dictators and whatnot.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Benz said:

The whole Québec nation is a dog fucker masking its racism because we want uncovered faces in some conditions...  hmm wow!

Look, you are totally welcome to explain why you think we are better off to let people having their faces covered at any circumstances. You are legitimated to think your points outweight our points and debate about it. But this is not what you do. You are expressing your xenophobia toward the Québec people with your own made-up false accusations. It's plain and simple Québec bashing.

Uncovering faces is not about security, it's about identification. The principle does not have anything todo with the beleifs of the religion in question. That shy bill does not even consider the bad side of that religious rule made by the obscurantists. It's a generic rule that apply to anyone having a face covered in specific contexts.

Besides that, the burqa/niqab has been created to destroy the women's confidence. The indoctrination purpose is to force the women to feel bad about themselve and totally insecure. Those who created that rule, also say that if a woman not wearing such clothes is raped, it's because she deserves it. Men have no responsabilities and are legitimated to abuse women not wearing those restrective clothes. That's the mentality along the burqa/niqab. It has been created for that purpose and it is claimed as is. There are absolutely nothing cultural or legitimated in that symbol. Few muslim countries like Morroco are banning them for a reason.

So, pay attention on how much I do not give a **** about how mister Eyeball thinks my whole nation is a dog fucker by forcing those poor indoctrinated women by a shitty version of that religion, to reveal their faces in a bus. Mixing such bill with racism, is a clear demonstration on how narrowed is your mind about that topic.

Do not attempt to justify yourself. You do not stand a chance. Do your mea culpa and change your attitude regarding your silly accusations.

Its obvious why Quebec is back-peddling from this being a law about burqa/niqab to being a law against face-coverings in general - nobody likes being called a racist.

Despite your own indignation however you've said in the very next breath that this is still very specifically about Muslim women.  Why shouldn't I use your words to draw my conclusions about where Quebec is really coming from too?  

[Benz]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Its obvious why Quebec is back-peddling from this being a law about burqa/niqab to being a law against face-coverings in general - nobody likes being called a racist.

Despite your own indignation however you've said in the very next breath that this is still very specifically about Muslim women.  Why shouldn't I use your words to draw my conclusions about where Quebec is really coming from too?  

1. Even if the law targeted only the burqa/niqab, it would not be racism. But since it would be unfair to have such law only for them, then while at it, we made it for everyone. That's fair game.

2. I did not say it is specifically, I said the obscurantism of their burqa/niqab helps to add more legitimity.

You draw your own conclusions by twisting the meaning of my words. What is obsvious, is how you stand on the side of the obscurantists to defend their rights to apply their indoctrination of anti-women symbols. You are defending the symbols, you are defending those bastards and their messages. Yet you call us racists. So graceful!

[PIK]

The left or progressives are scared shit less of muslims and will appease them to no ends. And giving men the right to force thier wives to wear these things is not progressive. It is time we canadians stand up and take this country back. I just can't believe that people and people on this board are so upset over this bill.  Our ancestors came here to build a new life will all the freedoms and now we have the so called progressives wanting us to go back in time and be more like the Islamics. This country is sick and the disease needs to be destroyed.

[Benz]

26 minutes ago, PIK said:

The left or progressives are scared shit less of muslims and will appease them to no ends. And giving men the right to force thier wives to wear these things is not progressive. It is time we canadians stand up and take this country back. I just can't believe that people and people on this board are so upset over this bill.  Our ancestors came here to build a new life will all the freedoms and now we have the so called progressives wanting us to go back in time and be more like the Islamics. This country is sick and the disease needs to be destroyed.

Well, I do not understand the leftists in English Canada. The left here in Québec is divided. The real progressive left is with the PQ, the other extreme left is with QS. QS called themselve progressives but, I agree with you, there are not progressive a single bit. The majority of leftist people in Québec are with the PQ and taking a position comparable to mine. The minority, around 20%, is supporting that pro religion at all cost approach. Outside Québec, it looks like the opposite. A clear majority of leftists support the pro religion approach and ready to defend the rights of the religion to indoctrinate so much their people that we must allow them to force their subjects to wear whatever religius garmants at any circumstances. Is this right? Am I exagerating or wrongly influenced by the medias?

I think that if we want to fight that obscurantism, we need to avoid references to left or right. It's a problem that is far beyond that. It plays to much in the favor of the obscuranists.

[Rue]

I probably don't agree with Benz on the current Quebec government Premier who I support, but I totally agree with his comments on this thread. This is an issue of identification at times  and I might add  I would at in certain situations occupational health and safety in the work place or safety issues concerning citizens operating machinery privately.

Security as an issue is a sub-topic under identity. Not all identity issues are about security. Not all concerns about a full face covering are about questioning Islam. For example in Brampton, Ontario a Siekh asked for an exemption on wearing a helmet due to his turban while riding a motorcycle, and was told no you must wear the helmet.

To me if a full face covering males someone more likely to get injured or cause an injury off it goes. That has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with common sense which is I believe the point Benz has been making all along. We don't care for the symbolism the full covering means but that is an individual decision. It crosses over into a state concern if there is a concern as to safety, identity, security, and where a decision maker or public servant's appearance might trigger a real or perceived apprehension of bias.

I treat a full face covering with a Muslim woman no different then I would a non Muslim  man stepping into a bank or driving a bus or running a day care centre fully masked. I don't think playing the religion card to justify special treatment in specific situations is called for. That's my opinion and I apply that belief to all people equally.

This discussion is absurd. If the person was wearing a KKK hood or a Satanic hood  or some a baclava what would such tolerant people like Eye say. They'd be the first peeing themselves with indignation and fear if it was not to their liking.

I think in the case of countries like France and Denmark although I do not presume to speak for them, they got fed up with semantic debates as to what is and is not an individual freedom in a democracy and have drawn the line passing a limit to apply to all equally not just Muslims.

My only bone to pick in Quebec with the National Assembly is it left a cross on the wall in the Assembly. In so doing it contradicts itself everytime it talks about this issue. Its a bad contradictory message. Either religous symbols are allowed or not allowed but leaving one in the assembly sends mixed signals.

I personally have no problem with that cross but because I do I can't be contradictory and hold one standard for Christians and one for Muslims. I don't feel that is right.

That said I support Christian displays at Christmas so telling a Muslim not to wear whatever they want in public would be contradictory and unfair which is why I argue for specific safety, identity issues fine for just general use, its not for me to go around telling people how to dress. 

Where it gets tricking is with the legal issue of a person in a position of public trust who might trigger an apprehension of bias, or where the attire triggers immediate negative emotional reaction. Its a difficult concept to enforce.

Some women find full face coverings very insulting to their identity. Maybe its as strong as I would feel or someone else about KKK hoods or Nazi uniforms. How do we have a consistent legal standard for such things? How do we define what goes over the line to incite hate as opposed to being just an individual expression of belief.

Many argue the full face covering is an individual belief that entails no concepts of hatred. Others argue it symbolizes violent repression of the woman's identity.

These are issues in a healthy democracy we are going to need to debate.There is no black and white to these issues.

I also think the only difference between Quebec and other provinces on this issue is that traditionally because of Quebec's legal system, it has been always about 5 years ahead in social concepts in law such as family law or freedom of speech because of the differences in Loi Civile in Quebec or its constant experience of testing its identity's limits within a greater Anglo context which causes it to be activist in approach as opposed to reconciliatory-reactive as is the case in the rest of Canada. The pre-existing minority status of Quebec triggers it to question minority issues all the time.

I also find Ontario a very strange province since I moved here in 1978 or so. Ontarians always have maintained this polite veneer while underneath where the true sentiment is, its not smiley faced tolerant.

The politics of Liberals in Ontario is very elitist, selective, bigoted, and appeals to tribalism and playing to people's perceived common interests based on ethnic stereotypes.

Kathleen Wynne is the protype of a bigot posing as a Liberal. She ha s open contempt and disdain for the very people she claims she supports. The ads of her embracing Muslim voters is a joke. When the cameras are off she curses them all out as homophobic sob's.

Some of us aren't buying her crap or Trudeau's. I will say it again, the Premier in Quebec right now and Stephen Harper are genuinely far more moderate towards ethnics and seeking compromise then I believe the PQ's current leader would be or Trudeau is.

Maybe Quebecers don't like Couillard, I do not know I just think in an impossible job he has genuinely tried to be moderate centre for Quebec. We have few centrist leaders these days. I would like to think the current PC candidate in Ontario is one. The one I liked in the Liberal party for being centralist is Grant Garneau who was my choice not Trudeau.

I would also like to think the fed Tories picked their leader based on his ability to balance the right and left of his parties and for that reason I hope it works.

I think on most of these issues centralist moderation is the way to go avoiding left and right artificial stereotypes of positions.

 

 

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, Rue said:

To me if a full face covering makes someone more likely to get injured or cause an injury off it goes.

They're hard to find because countries that enforce the burkas dont' keep stats on it, but there is information out there about the number of women who are hit by cars because they can't see in the burkas, women who injure themselves by tripping up in it and home accidents with fires, etc.

I imagine how awful I would feel if I hit a woman in a burka who couldn't  look for traffic.....some people would be traumatized by such a thing.

Also, I dont' think they should be allowed to drive in a burka or niqab.  I was nearly sideswiped recently by a woman driving in a hijab (just the headscarf, for MH ).  She turned her head to look, but her scarf turned with her and blocked her view of me in the next lane.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080365/Burka-ban-Muslim-woman-fined-driving-veil-told-bad-eating-sandwich-wheel.html

Edited October 31, 2017 by Goddess

[OftenWrong]

On 30/10/2017 at 6:21 PM, eyeball said:

It's already been taken up around here, long before you ever showed up.

Never mind that someone should have thought about an exit strategy before we started bombing the ME region with dictators and whatnot.

- And what did all that talk accomplish? Nothin. So, given that it is useless why do you still get worked up about a bunch of nonsense talk, by anonymous people on a little Canadian forum? I mean anyone who has put emotional investment into a debate forum needs help.

- Warmongers don't need to worry about an exit strategy. That is secondary. The West convinced themselves that war in the ME would be a cakewalk. Blitzkrieg. Sweep into Iraq and Afghanistan, execute a couple of quick sorties and be home in time for corn flakes. What matters in war these days is starting it, not finishing. Leave that to the next administration.

Edited November 1, 2017 by OftenWrong

[Benz]

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎31 at 1:37 PM, Rue said:

...

My only bone to pick in Quebec with the National Assembly is it left a cross on the wall in the Assembly. In so doing it contradicts itself everytime it talks about this issue. Its a bad contradictory message. Either religous symbols are allowed or not allowed but leaving one in the assembly sends mixed signals.

...

Many argue the full face covering is an individual belief that entails no concepts of hatred. Others argue it symbolizes violent repression of the woman's identity.

...

Maybe Quebecers don't like Couillard, I do not know I just think in an impossible job he has genuinely tried to be moderate centre for Quebec.

I totally agree with your post. I will just reply to few points.

1) Regarding the cross, it's a gray area. You cannot compare that crucifix with the religious garmants. No one is wearing that crucifix. The people that are in favor of keeping it there have good points. The people in favor of keeping it are saying that it is a trace of our past and then because of patrimonial reason, it should not be removed. I still think that in the balance, we should remove it. Since it has been placed there by Duplessis few decades ago at a time the Church was having too much power, I do not feel too sensible by their so called patrimony thing.

2) That niqab/burqa has nothing to do with the identity of a woman. On the contrary, it is to destroy a woman's identity. Replace her identity with the indoctrination of a anti woman rule. To format her mindset to a religious and macho constraint. If it was not the case, they would see no issue at all to remove it when required. That one is not a grey area.

3) Québécois do not like Couillard because of financial decisions. Complete austerity toward the people that need help the most, while at the very same time, he gives enormous amount of money to his friends of the party and wealthy people. Even Charest did not go as far in the imbalence between the poor and the rich people. I think Couillard is the most unpopular liberal among the french people in the Québec history. I could not imagine it was possible to do worst than Charest. But he did. You are not affected by his decisions, that's why it looks difficult to explain for you. Ask to the nurses, the teachers, the social workers, ... ask anyone. When you apply such austerity on the people, at least do not give that much money to the wealthy ones at the very same time. His image is toasted. He also took very bad decisions regarding the religious symbols. I doubt the bill 62 will be enough to revitalize his reputation. I think the back stage liberals are already planning the replacement. Their only hope is the division of the other parties

Edited November 1, 2017 by Benz

[taxme]

On 10/31/2017 at 10:37 AM, Rue said:

I probably don't agree with Benz on the current Quebec government Premier who I support, but I totally agree with his comments on this thread. This is an issue of identification at times  and I might add  I would at in certain situations occupational health and safety in the work place or safety issues concerning citizens operating machinery privately.

Security as an issue is a sub-topic under identity. Not all identity issues are about security. Not all concerns about a full face covering are about questioning Islam. For example in Brampton, Ontario a Siekh asked for an exemption on wearing a helmet due to his turban while riding a motorcycle, and was told no you must wear the helmet.

To me if a full face covering males someone more likely to get injured or cause an injury off it goes. That has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with common sense which is I believe the point Benz has been making all along. We don't care for the symbolism the full covering means but that is an individual decision. It crosses over into a state concern if there is a concern as to safety, identity, security, and where a decision maker or public servant's appearance might trigger a real or perceived apprehension of bias.

I treat a full face covering with a Muslim woman no different then I would a non Muslim  man stepping into a bank or driving a bus or running a day care centre fully masked. I don't think playing the religion card to justify special treatment in specific situations is called for. That's my opinion and I apply that belief to all people equally.

This discussion is absurd. If the person was wearing a KKK hood or a Satanic hood  or some a baclava what would such tolerant people like Eye say. They'd be the first peeing themselves with indignation and fear if it was not to their liking.

I think in the case of countries like France and Denmark although I do not presume to speak for them, they got fed up with semantic debates as to what is and is not an individual freedom in a democracy and have drawn the line passing a limit to apply to all equally not just Muslims.

My only bone to pick in Quebec with the National Assembly is it left a cross on the wall in the Assembly. In so doing it contradicts itself everytime it talks about this issue. Its a bad contradictory message. Either religous symbols are allowed or not allowed but leaving one in the assembly sends mixed signals.

I personally have no problem with that cross but because I do I can't be contradictory and hold one standard for Christians and one for Muslims. I don't feel that is right.

That said I support Christian displays at Christmas so telling a Muslim not to wear whatever they want in public would be contradictory and unfair which is why I argue for specific safety, identity issues fine for just general use, its not for me to go around telling people how to dress. 

Where it gets tricking is with the legal issue of a person in a position of public trust who might trigger an apprehension of bias, or where the attire triggers immediate negative emotional reaction. Its a difficult concept to enforce.

Some women find full face coverings very insulting to their identity. Maybe its as strong as I would feel or someone else about KKK hoods or Nazi uniforms. How do we have a consistent legal standard for such things? How do we define what goes over the line to incite hate as opposed to being just an individual expression of belief.

Many argue the full face covering is an individual belief that entails no concepts of hatred. Others argue it symbolizes violent repression of the woman's identity.

These are issues in a healthy democracy we are going to need to debate.There is no black and white to these issues.

I also think the only difference between Quebec and other provinces on this issue is that traditionally because of Quebec's legal system, it has been always about 5 years ahead in social concepts in law such as family law or freedom of speech because of the differences in Loi Civile in Quebec or its constant experience of testing its identity's limits within a greater Anglo context which causes it to be activist in approach as opposed to reconciliatory-reactive as is the case in the rest of Canada. The pre-existing minority status of Quebec triggers it to question minority issues all the time.

I also find Ontario a very strange province since I moved here in 1978 or so. Ontarians always have maintained this polite veneer while underneath where the true sentiment is, its not smiley faced tolerant.

The politics of Liberals in Ontario is very elitist, selective, bigoted, and appeals to tribalism and playing to people's perceived common interests based on ethnic stereotypes.

Kathleen Wynne is the protype of a bigot posing as a Liberal. She ha s open contempt and disdain for the very people she claims she supports. The ads of her embracing Muslim voters is a joke. When the cameras are off she curses them all out as homophobic sob's.

Some of us aren't buying her crap or Trudeau's. I will say it again, the Premier in Quebec right now and Stephen Harper are genuinely far more moderate towards ethnics and seeking compromise then I believe the PQ's current leader would be or Trudeau is.

Maybe Quebecers don't like Couillard, I do not know I just think in an impossible job he has genuinely tried to be moderate centre for Quebec. We have few centrist leaders these days. I would like to think the current PC candidate in Ontario is one. The one I liked in the Liberal party for being centralist is Grant Garneau who was my choice not Trudeau.

I would also like to think the fed Tories picked their leader based on his ability to balance the right and left of his parties and for that reason I hope it works.

I think on most of these issues centralist moderation is the way to go avoiding left and right artificial stereotypes of positions.

 

 

Are you for real? Of course there are crosses on the walls in the national assembly, and why not? Is Canada not a Christian country anymore that we must now take down our Christian crosses to please some foreigners who may be offended by it? Did someone in the whacked out immigration department not tell these offended people that this is Canada and the cross is a part of our Canadian heritage? Apparently, these foreigners need to get it straight that they are now living in Canada, not the land that they left, and if they don't like what they see that may offend them, well then you are free to leave this country. This bloody diversity and multiculturalism and political correctness program and agenda is killing Canada.

With another million more new legal and illegal immigrants coming to Canada in the next three years, no doubt the majority of them will be coming from the third world, the country we once knew and grew up in will be gone and replaced by foreigners. Screw that. 

[Rue]

21 hours ago, Benz said:

I totally agree with your post. I will just reply to few points.

1) Regarding the cross, it's a gray area. You cannot compare that crucifix with the religious garmants. No one is wearing that crucifix. The people that are in favor of keeping it there have good points. The people in favor of keeping it are saying that it is a trace of our past and then because of patrimonial reason, it should not be removed. I still think that in the balance, we should remove it. Since it has been placed there by Duplessis few decades ago at a time the Church was having too much power, I do not feel too sensible by their so called patrimony thing.

2) That niqab/burqa has nothing to do with the identity of a woman. On the contrary, it is to destroy a woman's identity. Replace her identity with the indoctrination of a anti woman rule. To format her mindset to a religious and macho constraint. If it was not the case, they would see no issue at all to remove it when required. That one is not a grey area.

3) Québécois do not like Couillard because of financial decisions. Complete austerity toward the people that need help the most, while at the very same time, he gives enormous amount of money to his friends of the party and wealthy people. Even Charest did not go as far in the imbalence between the poor and the rich people. I think Couillard is the most unpopular liberal among the french people in the Québec history. I could not imagine it was possible to do worst than Charest. But he did. You are not affected by his decisions, that's why it looks difficult to explain for you. Ask to the nurses, the teachers, the social workers, ... ask anyone. When you apply such austerity on the people, at least do not give that much money to the wealthy ones at the very same time. His image is toasted. He also took very bad decisions regarding the religious symbols. I doubt the bill 62 will be enough to revitalize his reputation. I think the back stage liberals are already planning the replacement. Their only hope is the division of the other parties

I agree with you that for ME the niqab/burqa should NOT define a Muslim woman. I also agree with Muslim women who feel the same way and argue the Koran never discussed it so its something that was created by male Muslims. That said, I believe the decision to wear or not wear any religious garment should remain an individual freedom of choice matter that is not society's concern UNTIL such time as it presents as an identity, security or safety issue. Until a specific example of one of those three things, I believe its not up to me to tell a Muslim woman what to wear. I do believe a face should be shown for any swearing in ceremony, testimony under oath, identification while driving or entering a bus with a bus pass or secure areas of risk requiring identity checks including airports. I also believe any garment if it causes a safety hazard at work or in public must be removed.

I do not want the state policing what we wear or how we think. Its a slippery slope and I am not a Liberal, I do not trust governments to police standards as well as we can as individuals. 

Just my opinions like yours.

Aas for Couillard's handling of the economy of course I can't disagree with you. What you said is pretty much the case. You know I know how unpopular the guy is but hey its Quebec. Every leader is accused of being corrupt and the worst leader ever. Replace his name with Charest, Bourassa, Lesage and for that matter old Union Nationalistes like Duplessis, Johnson, or hey even PQ former Premiers, and the comments you make are VERY familiar. This is la belle Province. Can you think of a clean Premier who never pissed people off and was NOT corrupt? I think its impossible to run the province or for that matter la Villes de Montreal without being or getting dirty. Its the nature of the beast. Quebec is an elaborate matrix of kick backs, bribes, powerful unions, interest groups, organized crime and completely dirty police. It just is what it is. I say all I said realizing there are of course good people too...its just they have a hell of a battle.

 

[OftenWrong]

Will Quebecers also ban the new 'Hijab Barbie'?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/13/news/barbie-hijab-ibtihaj-muhammad/index.html