Elizabeth May wants to fight against Québec

[Army Guy]

The majority of Canadians have been moving away from religion , and at a fairly quick pace...we are free to practice our religion on our own time, or at home...but at work is a different story.. here it is a neutral setting, and they often have many rules and regulations already in place, such as a dress code, stating what we can and can not wear, rules for office furniture, such as personal pictures, again what can be there and what can not be there, rules on how we communicate with customers, .... they have mandated this, don't like it go some place else...Some federal depts , have already have restrictions on religious items, for instance DND you can wear a cross, but it must be covered, or hidden by clothing, the only exception to this was the wearing of turbans , even for safety reasons....such as grenade range, live fire ranges, but they are not covered by any insurance payout if something happens , likew the rest of the military...So the laws are not so cut and dry...there are exceptions....

So what your saying is you fell comfortable to ban say the burka worn by devote Muslims , but draw the line at head scarf because it is oppressive....it's not one or the other it's both are protected by the charter...

[Benz]

21 hours 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.

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.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Benz

[Benz]

21 hours 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.  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?

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.

 

[Benz]

16 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

Folks, 

Stay on topic and avoid thread drift. 

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.

[Charles Anthony]

24 minutes ago, Benz said:

It's not a big drift and it is still in the topic.

That is because I took down all of the off-topic nonsense from public view.  

 

Carry on.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

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.

 

You can’t separate lifestyle, including dress, completely from faith.  It’s easier for Christians to do this, harder for members of other religions.  We’ve been down this road before.  When you stomp out religious expression, you’re only left with state religion and your value as an economic unit.  Culture is what separates us from animals and computers.  

[Benz]

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You can’t separate lifestyle, including dress, completely from faith.  It’s easier for Christians to do this, harder for members of other religions.  We’ve been down this road before.  When you stomp out religious expression, you’re only left with state religion and your value as an economic unit.  Culture is what separates us from animals and computers.  

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.

 

[Goddess]

23 hours ago, Benz said:

The rules apply only on people in a position of authority. It does affect the confidence you can have in such services.

 

23 hours ago, Benz said:

The appearance of conflict of interests is enough to justify that you are not selected to be judge of such case.

I agree with this part.  Imagine being Jewish and getting pulled over by a cop in a hijab.  Or facing a judge in a hijab.  Imagine being a Muslim man getting pulled over by a female in a hijab - the religion says she has no authority over him.  That could put her life in danger.

The appearance of fairness and equality in certain positions of authority is imperative.

This however, only affects Muslim women in authority.  A Muslim cop or judge who is male - you have no way of knowing just how seriously he takes his religious beliefs.

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

I agree with this part.  Imagine being Jewish and getting pulled over by a cop in a hijab.  Or facing a judge in a hijab.  Imagine being a Muslim man getting pulled over by a female in a hijab - the religion says she has no authority over him.  That could put her life in danger.

The appearance of fairness and equality in certain positions of authority is imperative.

This however, only affects Muslim women in authority.  A Muslim cop or judge who is male - you have no way of knowing just how seriously he takes his religious beliefs.

Imagine being Muslim/Jewish/black and being pulled over by a white cop with no identifying information about his ideology.  Or facing a white judge, not knowing their ideology.  Are they closet white nationalist?  Are they anti-Semitic or Islamophobic?  Imagine being a black man pulled over by a white cop -  Western society says black people are more dangerous, and white cops can kill without consequence.  That could put his life in danger.

The appearance of fairness and equality in certain positions of authority is imperative.  

Any white cop or judge who doesn't wear his ideology stamped on his forehead - you have no way of knowing just how seriously he takes his beliefs and if you are brown/black, how those beliefs will affect your freedom and life.

 

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Imagine being Muslim/Jewish/black and being pulled over by a white cop with no identifying information about his ideology.  Or facing a white judge, not knowing their ideology.  Are they closet white nationalist?  Are they anti-Semitic or Islamophobic?  Imagine being a black man pulled over by a white cop -  Western society says black people are more dangerous, and white cops can kill without consequence.  That could put his life in danger.

The appearance of fairness and equality in certain positions of authority is imperative.  

Any white cop or judge who doesn't wear his ideology stamped on his forehead - you have no way of knowing just how seriously he takes his beliefs and if you are brown/black, how those beliefs will affect your freedom and life.

 

Quebec has to ban all religious symbols - the Sikh turban, the Christian cross, the Jewish yarmulke.  But these are all just religious symbols.

The hijab and burka are not an Islamic requirement.  They are more than a religious symbol. They are also a political symbol. A nod to religious fundamentalism and a view of women that is incompatible with Western values.  Islam is both a religion and a political system.

Yes, we don't know what any particular person believes deep down. 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Quebec has to ban all religious symbols - the Sikh turban, the Christian cross, the Jewish yarmulke.  But these are all just religious symbols.

Yup, but everyone knows it was actually to target Muslims; prior to controversies over burkas & hijabs, there was no issue.

Anyway, and interestingly, France's Muslims are likely to identify as French first, and Muslim second; I do wonder if the imposition of secularism by French government is causative or correlative.   "Moreover, when asked whether they consider themselves as a national citizen first or as a Muslim first, French Muslims split relatively evenly (42% vs. 46%) on the issue. Not only is this remarkably different from Muslims elsewhere in Europe (fully 81% of British Muslims self-identify with their religion rather than their nationality, for example) but it is remarkably close to the responses given by Americans when asked whether they identify first as national citizens or as Christians (48% vs. 42%). Perhaps in this, as in other things, Muslims living in France are indeed absorbing the secular ways of their countrymen, among whom fully 83% self-identify with their nationality, rather than their religion."

Edited September 20, 2019 by dialamah

[Goddess]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yup, but everyone knows it was actually to target Muslims; prior to controversies over burkas & hijabs, there was no issue.

Anyway, and interestingly, France's Muslims are likely to identify as French first, and Muslim second; I do wonder if the imposition of secularism by French government is causative or correlative.   "Moreover, when asked whether they consider themselves as a national citizen first or as a Muslim first, French Muslims split relatively evenly (42% vs. 46%) on the issue. Not only is this remarkably different from Muslims elsewhere in Europe (fully 81% of British Muslims self-identify with their religion rather than their nationality, for example) but it is remarkably close to the responses given by Americans when asked whether they identify first as national citizens or as Christians (48% vs. 42%). Perhaps in this, as in other things, Muslims living in France are indeed absorbing the secular ways of their countrymen, among whom fully 83% self-identify with their nationality, rather than their religion."

Could be.

Many Muslim leaders and activists in Quebec support the ban.  

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yup, but everyone knows it was actually to target Muslims; prior to controversies over burkas & hijabs, there was no issue.

Anyway, and interestingly, France's Muslims are likely to identify as French first, and Muslim second; I do wonder if the imposition of secularism by French government is causative or correlative.   "Moreover, when asked whether they consider themselves as a national citizen first or as a Muslim first, French Muslims split relatively evenly (42% vs. 46%) on the issue. Not only is this remarkably different from Muslims elsewhere in Europe (fully 81% of British Muslims self-identify with their religion rather than their nationality, for example) but it is remarkably close to the responses given by Americans when asked whether they identify first as national citizens or as Christians (48% vs. 42%). Perhaps in this, as in other things, Muslims living in France are indeed absorbing the secular ways of their countrymen, among whom fully 83% self-identify with their nationality, rather than their religion."

I notice your article is from 2006.  A lot has happened in France in the last 13 years.

Seems like they anticipated some problems:

Quote

On this one question, however, some evidence of a growing Islamic identity among younger French Muslims appears. Among those under age 35, many of them French by birth, only 40% self-identify primarily as French while 51% self-identify first as Muslim, while 7% say both equally. Among those 35 and older, 45% self-identify with their nationality, 36% as Muslims and 16% as both equally.

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I notice your article is from 2006.  A lot has happened in France in the last 13 years.

Yes.  Here's a more recent article from 2017, which references research, found here, confirming that the majority of Muslims in France place higher value on their French nationality than their religious belief or practice - 72% vs. 28%.  I've only quoted a small portion, but there's a lot of interesting stuff in it - don't be scared by it's title "A French Islam is Possible"; the idea is to create a form of Islam which is compatible with French secularism and which would help reduce or eliminate those drawn to an extremist version of Islam.  

Quote

 

Group 1 (categories 1 and 2 - representing 46 % of Muslims in France): individuals who are either completely secularised or approaching full integration into a system of values of contemporary France, which in turn evolves thanks to specific aspects of their religious practice. They do not however renounce their religion, which is often represented through halal food, and they practice their religion far more often than the national average;

Group 2 (categories 3 and 4): representing more mixed positions and individuals that occupy a middle-ground. Proud to be Muslim, the individuals making up this group seek a way to express their religious identity within the public sphere. Very pious (Sharia law is very important to them, but less so than that of the French State), they are often in favour of religious expression in the workplace, and have for the most part accepted halal food as a defining factor of "being Muslim". They clearly condemn the niqab and polygamy, and accept secularism; 

Group 3 (categories 5 and 6): the most problematic. It is made up of Muslims who have adopted a system of values clearly opposed to those of the French State. They are mostly young, low-skilled and facing high unemployment; they live in the working-class suburbs of large cities. Rather than being defined by conservatism, this group identifies with Islam as a mode of rebellion. While some consider that a secular State offers them freedom of religion or that faith is a private matter , their views suggest a tendency for withdrawal and separation from the rest of society, rather than a real understanding of the meaning of secularism. 28 % of Muslims in France can be placed within this group, which includes both authoritarian attitudes and others which are perhaps best described as "secessionist". For them, Islam is a means of self-assertion at the margins of French society.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by dialamah

[Zeitgeist]

I’m not sure it’s healthy to to value nationality over other traits.  Feels very “Deutschland uber alles.”

I’m liking the post-national state that balances personal freedom with personal safety over ethnonationalism.

It’s fine for certain cultures that are traditional to the society to be protected, for example languages and rights, but keep it simple.  Don’t tread on people’s religious freedom.  

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

You are free to avoid thread drift. 

[Argus]

18 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yup, but everyone knows it was actually to target Muslims; prior to controversies over burkas & hijabs, there was no issue.

And why do you suppose that is? I mean, the narrative is it's "RACIST!" but it seems to be more aimed at generally lighter skinned Muslims than generally darker skinned Sikhs.

[Zeitgeist]

You probably are onto something, Argus.  I just watched my son’s Muslim soccer coach hold back a preferred jersey size for a Muslim child on the team when distributing jerseys to the new players.  I couldn’t believe how blatant the favouritism was.  I wonder if we know what we’re doing with immigration, and I enjoy having different races and cultures in Canada. It was a feeling of being a second class citizen in the country where I was born.  

[Benz]

On ‎9‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 9:23 AM, Argus said:

And why do you suppose that is? I mean, the narrative is it's "RACIST!" but it seems to be more aimed at generally lighter skinned Muslims than generally darker skinned Sikhs.

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.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Benz said:

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.

The origin of the bill was to fight face covering, ie, burkas and niquabs. That was so clearly targeted at Muslims they expanded it to all religions in order to make it seem like they weren't aiming at Muslims. But we all know that if there were no Muslims in Quebec there would be no bill 21.

[Benz]

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:37 PM, dialamah said:

Yup, but everyone knows it was actually to target Muslims; prior to controversies over burkas & hijabs, there was no issue.

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.

[Benz]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

The origin of the bill was to fight face covering, ie, burkas and niquabs. That was so clearly targeted at Muslims they expanded it to all religions in order to make it seem like they weren't aiming at Muslims. But we all know that if there were no Muslims in Quebec there would be no bill 21.

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.

[dialamah]

36 minutes ago, Benz said:

Ironically, it is a sikh woman that wanted to wear a man's Turban

Sikh women have always been free to wear a turban, I see more of them all the time.  They are quite different than a man's turban. 

31 minutes ago, Benz said:

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.

So, every religious person uses his/her position to prioritize their religion at the expense of our society?  

Even if that were true,  getting rid of the symbols doesn't eliminate the problem at all, so it seems like a pointless exercise to me. 

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

So, every religious person uses his/her position to prioritize their religion at the expense of our society?  

so it seems like a pointless exercise to me. 

I don't know.....It sends exactly that powerful message - religion will not be prioritized at the expense of society.  Or prioritized above the rights of women.

[Benz]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Sikh women have always been free to wear a turban, I see more of them all the time.  They are quite different than a man's turban. 

So, every religious person uses his/her position to prioritize their religion at the expense of our society?  

Even if that were true,  getting rid of the symbols doesn't eliminate the problem at all, so it seems like a pointless exercise to me. 

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.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Benz