Elizabeth May wants to fight against Québec

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

If you think wearing a hijab or turban to work is bad for society, you're a nut.  Much nuttier than wearing a turban or yarmulke to work.  Some nativism is fine, but you're an extreme nativist.

First of all, the question wasn't wearing it in public. It was wearing it to work as a government representative. If I'm a nut then most of Canadians are nuts, too, given the polls. You need to get it into your head that it's not some 'alt-right' or 'extremists' who feel this way. YOU are the one who is out of step with most Canadians on this issue, not me.

Second, I admit to not caring much about turbans or yarmulkes. Jews and Sikhs have shown that they are for more interested in embracing Canadian values and beliefs than Muslims, nor do their religions contain the plethora of extremely hostile messages and dictates against almost everything I believe in. Nor do their histories show a relentless and violent determination to force everyone else to accept their version of religion and their values as the only acceptable ones.

[Dougie93]

You see Moonlight, Canadians do not embrace an American style constitutional republic.

Under the first amendment, the individual is protected from the mob.

With Section 33, there can be mob rule in Canada, overriding the individual.

Because that's what most Canadians want.

Because most of them are prohibitionist nanny staters.

[Moonlight Graham]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

First of all, the question wasn't wearing it in public. It was wearing it to work as a government representative. If I'm a nut then most of Canadians are nuts, too, given the polls. You need to get it into your head that it's not some 'alt-right' or 'extremists' who feel this way. YOU are the one who is out of step with most Canadians on this issue, not me.

Then these people are stupid.  Because only a moron would care if they went up to a gov rep for services and they had a turban or a hijab or a cross on.  It doesn't affect services, it's stupid.  A niqab or burka is a bit different, it affects social relationships and communication between people.  Quebec pretends to make it about secularism, but then they want the crucifix in their gov chamber to hang.  It's just dumb intolerance.  If you're going to be intolerant, at least make it stand for something that matters.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Dougie93]

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

 Quebec pretends to make it about secularism, but then they want the crucifix in their gov chamber to hang.

The Quiet Revolution was a secular revolution, but Quebec Nationalism still acknowledges the Papist heritage of Quebec as part and parcel of Je me souviens.

The Crucifix is simply an historical relic, the Papists are not actually running the place anymore, and Quebec is one of the most anti Papist places on earth.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The Quiet Revolution was a secular revolution, but Quebec Nationalism still acknowledges the Papist heritage of Quebec as part and parcel of Je me souviens.

The Crucifix is simply an historical relic, the Papists are not actually running the place anymore, and Quebec is one of the most anti Papist places on earth.

Yes.  Quebec fiercely cares about its culture and heritage.  Even many Quebec atheists would argue Quebec is secular and yet at its core a Christian/Catholic province, based on history and core values.

[Dougie93]

So when the Mooslambs come in with their version of Popery, in that they don't say that their relics are historical, these are religious relics in real time;

That incites the Quiet Revolution.

Papist relics are honored in real time as part of Quebec history, but it's not the real time doctrine, it's just historical reference.

It's like Dixie with a statue of Marse Robert, Robert E. Lee was overthrown, but is still honored as part of Southron history,

The Pope was overthrown in Quebec, but the Papists are the bulk of Quebec history, to erase them is to be a people without a history.

Which is of course what the Federalists want, since that would make Quebec docile and easy to control like the rest of Canada is.

The Liberals have successfully erased English Canadian history and replaced that with the Post National State and associated Elite Consensus.

Quebec remains defiant in the face of the Post National State trying to annex them.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

So when the Mooslambs come in with their version of Popery, in that they don't say that their relics are historical, these are religious relics in real time;

That incites the Quiet Revolution.

Papist relics are honored in real time as part of Quebec history, but it's not the real time doctrine, it's just historical reference.

It's like Dixie with a statue of Marse Robert, Robert E. Lee was overthrown, but is still honored as part of Southron history,

The Pope was overthrown in Quebec, but the Papists are the bulk of Quebec history, to erase them is to be a people without a history.

Which is of course what the Federalists want, since that would make Quebec docile and easy to control like the rest of Canada is.

You’re wrong on that, Dougie.  Religious freedom means that you can wear whatever religious garb you want, as long as you can be identified in certain specific situations by government, for example, in court.  If Quebec wants to hang a crucifix in their legislature, fine. It’s part of that province’s culture.  They took it out of their legislature actually, as part of this move to secularism in Bill 21.  It feels like suppression.  Canada isn’t a Communist country.  If I wanted that I’d move to China.  Christmas trees are not holiday trees and menorahs are not table centrepieces.  I would rather live in a society that recognizes and respects traditions than one that suppresses all of them because they really want to leave out one of them.  

In terms of ideology and religions that are inherently oppressive, call these practices out as you see them.  Canada has Judeo-Christian traditions that are foundational to our institutions and government.  If any ideology or religious practice threatens those institutions, it is fair to call them out, but let’s not get wrapped up in superficial and dangerous policies that have hidden agendas, like the ban on religious garb.  Do I need to go to underground catacombs to practice my faith now?

Edited September 18, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re wrong on that, Dougie.  Religious freedom means that you can wear whatever religious garb you want, as long as you can be identified in certain specific situations by government, for example, in court. 

In America that is the case.  First Amendment ueber alles.

In Canada with Section 33, not the case.    Sections 1 and 7 to 15 can be suspended indefinitely by the Notwithstanding Clause.

Which is a clause in the Charter, as much as any other clause is, Section 33 is the Charter.

That is at the core of the Canada Act.

There is Disallowance, which is literally Britain overruling Canada with an archaic law not used since 1943.  

Realistically, no government is going to do that, but especially not in Quebec where that would backfire massively.

Hence, Bill 21 is perfectly legal, constitutional and legitimate under Canadian Law, that being in this case the Canada Act 1982

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In America that is the case.  First Amendment ueber alles.

In Canada with Section 33, not the case.    Sections 1 and 7 to 15 can be suspended indefinitely by the Notwithstanding Clause.

Which is a clause in the Charter, as much as any other clause is, Section 33 is the Charter.

That is at the core of the Canada Act.

There is Disallowance, which is literally Britain overruling Canada with an archaic law not used since 1943.  

Realistically, no government is going to do that, but especially not in Quebec where that would backfire massively.

Hence, Bill 21 is perfectly legal, constitutional and legitimate under Canadian Law, that being in this case the Canada Act 1982

Well let’s see what can be done after the election.  I think without federal pushback on Bill 21, Quebec would be more oppressive to minorities.  Parizeau said it all when he explained why the separatists lost the referendum: “the ethnic vote”.   One thing multiculturalism does is prevent excesses.  I will agree with Argus on the importance of considering the nature and impacts of immigration, however.  We do need to consider both the economic impacts (including environmental) and social cohesion.  Otherwise people will buck multiculturalism and turn on groups that seem to be overturning the predominant values and cultures of Canada.  It’s s fine balance.  

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well let’s see what can be done after the election.  I think without federal pushback on Bill 21, Quebec would be more oppressive to minorities. 

The Feds will run against it to the rest of Canada, but no party, especially the Liberals, is going to legislate against it, since that would blow them up in Quebec,

I mean, duh.

[Argus]

41 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Then these people are stupid.  Because only a moron would care if they went up to a gov rep for services and they had a turban or a hijab or a cross on.  It doesn't affect services, it's stupid.  A niqab or burka is a bit different, it affects social relationships and communication between people.  Quebec pretends to make it about secularism, but then they want the crucifix in their gov chamber to hang.  It's just dumb intolerance.  If you're going to be intolerant, at least make it stand for something that matters.

I think we both know this bill is primarily aimed at the Muslims. And it's because a lot of people feel as I do; that their religious values are often violent and hostile to us, and that clinging to the worst aspects of them is preventing them from integrating. The percentage of Muslim women wearing religious outfits has been rising, not falling, which is a sort of defiant indication they have little interest in integration, and want to perpetuate a sense of 'other' among themselves. I realize the hijab isn't as intrusively offensive as niqabs and burkhas, but it's message is basically the same. It's a continual reminder to the woman that she is different, part of an Islamic culture and society, not a Canadian one. And that her values spring from there, not from Canada. Therefore, I'm all in favour of discouraging the wearing of these outfits.

Let's not forget that when Turkey was trying to be secular it banned the wearing of hijabs, as well as burqas and niqabs. It wasn't 'Islamophobic' or 'xenophobic'. It was trying to make a point of being a secular country.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

The Feds will run against it to the rest of Canada, but no party, especially the Liberals, is going to legislate against it, since that would blow them up in Quebec,

I mean, duh.

The feds can do a court challenge and/or enact legislation that overrides provincial legislation, so that the Supreme Court could override an attempt to fire someone for wearing a headscarf or turban.  Basically the province would be forced into compliance.  

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The feds can do a court challenge and/or enact legislation that overrides provincial legislation, so that the Supreme Court could override an attempt to fire someone for wearing a headscarf or turban.  Basically the province would be forced into compliance.  

The Supreme Court cannot overrule the Notwithstanding Clause, you would still be fired in Quebec,

You could cry about it to the Feds, but there's nothing the Feds can do about it.

The Feds didn't fire you, Quebec fired you, the Feds cannot re-hire you on behalf of Quebec.

Section 33 protects Quebec from any legal consequences from the bench.

Thus how the provinces can just ignore Ottawa if they choose to.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

The feds can do a court challenge and/or enact legislation that overrides provincial legislation, so that the Supreme Court could override an attempt to fire someone for wearing a headscarf or turban.  Basically the province would be forced into compliance.  

And the backlash against that would be enormous. In order to save a handful of people who want to work for the Quebec government from having to look for work elsewhere or take off their goofy hats you want the government to incite a full born constitutional crisis and re-ignite separatism in Quebec? Seriously?

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The Supreme Court cannot overrule the Notwithstanding Clause, you would still be fired in Quebec, you could cry about it to the Feds, but there's nothing the Feds can do about it.

The Supreme Court could override such a decision.  With that or failing that the feds could withdraw funding to Quebec without compliance.  The easiest course is to enact new legislation.  

Edited September 18, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

And the backlash against that would be enormous. In order to save a handful of people who want to work for the Quebec government from having to look for work elsewhere or take off their goofy hats you want the government to incite a full born constitutional crisis and re-ignite separatism in Quebec? Seriously?

Do you really think it’s fair to demand a Sikh teacher to not wear a turban he has worn since childhood?  You can’t wear a crucifix around your neck as a police officer?  See the absurdity.  

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Do you really think it’s fair to demand a Sikh teacher to not wear a turban he has worn since childhood?  You can’t wear a crucifix around your neck as a police officer?  See the absurdity.  

It's grandfathered.   Anybody who is already wearing a turban is not being fired.  

They are just not hiring anybody new without those people consenting to the contract which imposes Bill 21

Like all government jobs, there are barriers to entry.   The police have lots of barriers to entry, this is just one more of those.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

It's grandfathered.   Anybody who is already wearing a turban is not being fired.  

They are just not hiring anybody new without those people consenting to the contract which imposes Bill 21

Like all government jobs, there are barriers to entry.   The police have lots of barriers to entry, this is just one more of those.

It’s wrong and the feds should go to the wall on this.  

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

You see Moonlight, Canadians do not embrace an American style constitutional republic.

Under the first amendment, the individual is protected from the mob.

With Section 33, there can be mob rule in Canada, overriding the individual.

Because that's what most Canadians want.

Because most of them are prohibitionist nanny staters.

True enough.  But then you have people dying en masse via gun violence in the US and problems in health care, so at the end of the day i'd rather live here, even though in theory the US sounds better.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

It’s wrong and the feds should go to the wall on this.  

Canada is a failed state, so they won't, because they can't cause the breach which will bring the house of cards down.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is a failed state, so they won't, because they can't cause the breach which will bring the house of cards down.

Well Trump won’t go to the wall for such religious freedom, that’s for sure.  If the Canadian feds don’t stand up for these rights, who will?

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stay on topic and avoid thread drift. 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Do you really think it’s fair to demand a Sikh teacher to not wear a turban he has worn since childhood?  You can’t wear a crucifix around your neck as a police officer?  See the absurdity.  

I think it's of very little importance. The first Sikh I ever met was clean shaven and had short hair and no turban. Come into the twenty-first century, boys.
In any case, existing teachers have been grandfathered. This bill only affects those who want to become teachers in future.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s wrong and the feds should go to the wall on this.  

The Canadian people disagree.

[Zeitgeist]

Wearing a turban is part of the Sikh religion, one of the 5 K’s and is worn because the hair is long and uncut.  So these males have to give up that religious freedom to teach?  Fuck that.  Stalin blew up churches.  Are we all to bow to Chairman Trudeau now and relegate people’s faiths to the garbage heap?  He’s so respectful of people’s cultures after all that he dresses up in blackface.  

There’s an argument to be made that certain dress, like the head to toe burqa, is oppressive to women and should be discouraged.  Telling public servants they’ll be fired if they wear headscarves is oppressive and counter to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.