BILL 21 - QUEBEC

[Cannucklehead]

I'd be happy to.  Just clear up these matters and I'll get right on it.

 

https://m.ranker.com/list/most-unforgivable-things-the-catholic-church-has-done/lea-rose-emery

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum

 

All things associated with the fleur de lis.  

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Abies said:

Abuse can come in many forms.

 

OK.

Quote

Singling out religion is ignoring other abuses such as Quebec’s abuse of it’s own citizens.

Quebec is abusing it's own citizens?  Link please.  

Quote

Hijabs and burqas are harmful when forced onto women

Hijabs and burkas are always harmful to women, men, children and society.  You will not convince me that hijabs and burkas are empowering or harmless.  Too many women are being beaten, killed, imprisoned - even in Western countries - over this garment.  There is nothing good about it.

Quote

but that doesn’t mean every woman you meet wearing one is being forced to do so. 

The fact that some women choose to participate in their own oppression, is not a selling feature for me.  Sorrynotsorry.

[Abies]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

OK.

Quebec is abusing it's own citizens?  Link please.  

Hijabs and burkas are always harmful to women, men, children and society.  You will not convince me that hijabs and burkas are empowering or harmless.  Too many women are being beaten, killed, imprisoned - even in Western countries - over this garment.  There is nothing good about it.

The fact that some women choose to participate in their own oppression, is not a selling feature for me.  Sorrynotsorry.

Quebec is abusing their own citizens by using the notwithstanding clause to prevent those following their faith from holding government and public positions. 
 

Women choosing to follow their faith as they please are not participating in their own oppression.
 

And women are beaten and killed for many reasons it isn’t specific to one faith or culture. 

I do not have to convince you but I will point out the flaws in your argument. 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, Abies said:

Quebec is abusing their own citizens by using the notwithstanding clause to prevent those following their faith from holding government and public positions. 

They are not being prevented from working in government or public positions.

 

Quote

Women choosing to follow their faith as they please are not participating in their own oppression.

Women who choose to follow a religious ritual that denigrates themselves and signifies them as being inferior to men are participating in their own oppression.  There is no flaw in that argument.

Quote

 

And women are beaten and killed for many reasons it isn’t specific to one faith or culture. 

 

Yes, we all know that.  Thank you for pointing out something obvious.  Here, we are talking about women being beaten and killed over religious attire that is exclusive to women.  Changing the subject to some other type of killing does not indicate a flaw in my argument.

[Rue]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 6:59 PM, Abies said:

Quebec is abusing their own citizens by using the notwithstanding clause to prevent those following their faith from holding government and public positions. 
 

Women choosing to follow their faith as they please are not participating in their own oppression.
 

And women are beaten and killed for many reasons it isn’t specific to one faith or culture. 

I do not have to convince you but I will point out the flaws in your argument. 

 

I respect your comment but I debate it. To start with I personally do not agree with Bill 21 in the sense I think it went too far but I do  defend the Quebec government's right to pass it on the grounds they are trying to define a common culture all must be willing to conform to in  Quebec  IF they want to work in QUEBEC's  public service.  I give Quebecois the benefit of the doubt the intent of Bill 21 was not to discriminate but to prevent the appearance of a public servant  that could be construed as a bias when he or she serving the public.

If someone is of such a rigid and fundamental belief system that they can't compromise their appearance to look neutral for  the public when serving the public yes it can give me as a person appearing before them a degree of anxiety in that how do I know for example if the public employee is being rude because he's having a bad day or because I am not of his religious group? The law is trying to neutralize the appearance of government so that people outside the visible religious group will not feel there is an appearance of bias or conflict and remember in law  the test for either conflict or bias is not an actual one, but the appearance of one.

I also think it is naïve to think  we can be all things to all people at the same time while being a public servant..Something has to give.

I myself not always but in certain situations did feel uncomfortable when I  encountered  dressed in orthodox attire serving the public  and myself because yes I do think they might have further biases that are attached to the ones they have that require they dress as they do and I am not able to distinguish that possible bias. No  I do not want to be served by someone who covers their face in its entirety or is nude because their religion says clothes are an evil construct. There are limits.

That's why I say, I have no problem when serving the public to wear a public uniform to assure consistency, neutrality and confidence in that  role. I have in the court wearing a black robe.  That said, where I disagree with Bill 21, is how far it goes. For me a police officer wearing a turban incorporated in the police hat is a good compromise I think. So is a covering that does NOT cover the face. That's only my opinion.

That said, I also believe if Mr. Singh can expect people to respect his visible minority rights in Quebec,  he must also respect the minority rights of Quebecers which he does not. His idea of showing tolerance was suggesting taking poutines and turning it into an Indian recipe which he had no idea showed his bigotry. He could not just accept a simple Quebec recipe, he had to change it to his liking. That showed intolerance not tolerance and its a small thing but it told Quebecers a lot at how two faced he was and how he expects everyone to respect his identity but he had no respect for the Quebcois identity. 

It's why I have no problem with the Quebec government requiring people speak French to be part of their society, Just as Quebecers want the right to speak French in the rest of Canada and in Quebec, English Quebecers should expect that right in Quebec which is what I was. I grew up bilingual and spoke French because the majority were French and no one had to tell me to do that. No French person ever told me to speak French or not speak English. It was a matter of basic courtesy and politeness.  When it became political it was attached to other political issues that had nothing to do with common courtesy, respect, politeness and was caught up in a fear of French Quebecois cultural being swept up by a greater Anglo world and most of my French friends spoke English and transcended languages ad cultures and chose to rise above their one identity and find co-exist with many others. I mean its the very lesson of the Montreal Canadiens which is in essence the visible representation of French Quebec excellence in the entire North American context but more than working alone with non Franco-Quebecers who put that uniform on. Its both. No one felt a Montreal Canadiens was less Canadiens because they were not a Franco Quebecer. The uniform had an added weight if you were a Franco Quebecer but it was a weight non Franco Quebecers and other Canadians embraced as best they could in their own way to make it more bearable for the French players. A true Quebecer is a Canadiens fan which means it will always and has to always be a FRENCH symbol of excellence but it warmly embraces the help achieving its excellence from Anglo players. Rocket Richard was to the Canadiens as Moses was to we Jews.  Morenz,  Dryden, Bowman, Blake, Big M, plenty of Anglos bled and would bleed for the Rocket's vision. The Rocket represented and still does any minority told they were not good enough.

So with that context in mind some Quebecers use their nationality as couched bigotry but others do not. Its complex.

 

[Marocc]

On 10/25/2019 at 5:29 PM, Goddess said:

If misogyny is part of your religion, practice it at home if you wish.  The rest of society doesn't need to see your women being denigrated.

If you're so 'supportive' of women why don't you think of their interests sometime? It's about men with you.

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, Marocc said:

If you're so 'supportive' of women why don't you think of their interests sometime? It's about men with you.

I don't believe it's in women's best interests that they are required to be covered in public.  

[Marocc]

33 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I don't believe it's in women's best interests that they are required to be covered in public.  

How about to be able to cover in public?

[Marocc]

On 10/26/2019 at 12:35 AM, Goddess said:

That may be your perception. Canada is a secular country, you are free to follow any faith.  Lots of jobs require a uniform or have a dress code, there's nothing sinister about it.

That isn't secular, it's anti-religion. There's a difference.

[Teena]

14 hours ago, Marocc said:

How about to be able to cover in public?

Why cover? It's just damn hair and skin! Ooohhh such a sin that other men other then your husband you can tempt! Like it's my problem men can't control their lust!!! It's BS that the women need to cover up, sit at the back of the Mosque, etc. Go ahead and defend this stupid practice all you want. It will never get my support. We are all equal. So I thought. Bill 21 ! Wish it was passed for all of Canada. 

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, Marocc said:

How about to be able to cover in public?

Women would never "choose" this for themselves.  They are coerced, either domestic abuse or religious abuse.  Women do not "naturally" want to never be outside in the sunshine, feel the breeze on their hair and faces.  Women do not "naturally" want to deprive their bodies of the healthy effects of being outside.  They are always required to do it - either by their family or by their religion.

The fact that most cannot "choose" to take it off, tells me it is not a choice at all.

[Teena]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Women would never "choose" this for themselves.  They are coerced, either domestic abuse or religious abuse.  Women do not "naturally" want to never be outside in the sunshine, feel the breeze on their hair and faces.  Women do not "naturally" want to deprive their bodies of the healthy effects of being outside.  They are always required to do it - either by their family or by their religion.

The fact that most cannot "choose" to take it off, tells me it is not a choice at all.

Its brain washing. This does not belong in Canada. How is covering up every day freedom? Yet your brother, father, son does not.  It's like the Muslim call to prayer, they are doing this in the UK. Everything about this religion is against freedom. I see Bill 21 as help from the government. Anyone here really want to start hearing this in Canada? Watch the video.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/725909/Petition-UK-mosques-loud-call-prayer-THREE-TIMES-day

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Teena said:

Its brain washing. This does not belong in Canada. How is covering up every day freedom? Yet your brother, father, son does not.  It's like the Muslim call to prayer, they are doing this in the UK. Everything about this religion is against freedom. I see Bill 21 as help from the government. Anyone here really want to start hearing this in Canada? Watch the video.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/725909/Petition-UK-mosques-loud-call-prayer-THREE-TIMES-day

Right, Teena.  Let's cram in every possible anti Muslim angle from the tabloids and drift the topic.

We're not all Soviets here trying to ban religion.  We enjoy freedom.

[Rue]

This is not an issue about religion and never was. It is an issue of expressing religious values when in a public position.

Its interesting Michael you and others who defend the right to express religion for people in public positions are quick

to support it but would you care to discuss when it goes too far and lends to the appearance of a conflict of interest

or bias? Of course not. You guys avoid the issue and yes in any freedom or right there are limits.  Why is it those limits

are only discussed by you when its a belief you don't like, not one you like? 

 

Using your logic anyone should dress anyway they want in public service. No limits. I call that out as bullshit because you would

be the first to complain about someone wearing offensive clothing in a public service job based on their religious beliefs if

you did not agree with them.

 

Go on tell me you support public servants wearing KKK hoods. Yah its a religion in case you didn't notice.

 

How and what we wear is going to be and has always been an issue when its in public or expressed by someone in

public office.

 

I argue public office and religion should remain distinct and if people want to blur them then they have to understand

that public servants must maintain an appearance of neutrality.

 

Maroc and Altai support Sharia Law Muslim states which openly define non Muslims as dhimmi inferior. They have zero

credibility in regards to any discussion on this matter. Their beliefs are exactly the kind of extremism the Quebec government

does not want representing it.

 

Quebecois can be bigoted against non Quebecois yes but they also have a right to demand neutrality in public service appearance.

 

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

This is not an issue about religion and never was. It is an issue of expressing religious values when in a public position.Its interesting Michael you and others who defend the right to express religion for people in public positions are quick to support it but would you care to discuss when it goes too far and lends to the appearance of a conflict of interest or bias? Of course not. You guys avoid the issue and yes in any freedom or right there are limits.  Why is it those limits are only discussed by you when its a belief you don't like, not one you like? 

Of course there are limits.  I would say, for example, that a particular religion can't impose their requirements on the whole school, for example, if they were against music being played.  

"Belief you don't like" - what you mean by this is beyond me.  I would say that I have the same general beliefs about all religions, in their general benefits and limitations, and what rights they should be afforded.  Of course, no two religions are symmetric, so you can't always express a principle that impacts all of them equally.  For example, my expression on the rights of free music in public schools wouldn't impact Catholicism but only certain Muslim or Protestant sects I suppose.

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

Using your logic anyone should dress anyway they want in public service. No limits. I call that out as bullshit because you would be the first to complain about someone wearing offensive clothing in a public service job based on their religious beliefs if you did not agree with them.

Again this idea that I don't believe in religious beliefs.  Don't know where you got that.  Since it has come up again you should just explain which religions you think I am biased against.

And your 'religious symbols are ok therefore all dress is ok' logic is the slippery slope fallacy.  I know you are smart enough to know what that is.  

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

Go on tell me you support public servants wearing KKK hoods. Yah its a religion in case you didn't notice. How and what we wear is going to be and has always been an issue when its in public or expressed by someone in public office.

No it is not a religion.

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

I argue public office and religion should remain distinct and if people want to blur them then they have to understand that public servants must maintain an appearance of neutrality.

Liberalism in the west means religion IS neutral.  The idea that expressing ones religion means something in public life is an assault on liberalism.

5 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

Maroc and Altai support Sharia Law Muslim states which openly define non Muslims as dhimmi inferior. They have zero credibility in regards to any discussion on this matter. Their beliefs are exactly the kind of extremism the Quebec government does not want representing it. Quebecois can be bigoted against non Quebecois yes but they also have a right to demand neutrality in public service appearance.

Ok, so you don't like them.  It has no impact on the discussion at large.

https://www.cjnews.com/perspectives/opinions/from-yoni-desk-speaking-up-against-quebecs-ban-on-religious-symbols

I stand with Yoni: "Above all else, we must remember that this is Canada, and that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect us. Let’s meet this action with the collected intelligence and knowledge of our community."

 

[Goddess]

On 12/8/2019 at 7:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:

The idea that expressing ones religion means something in public life is an assault on liberalism.

For some things.

Marina Lazreg ("author of Questioning the Veil") says this about the deicison to cover: (And I agree with her)

Quote

Faith is a personal matter even if religious practices involve the community of believers.  Nevertheless, considering that the woman question in the Middle Eastern culture has traditionally been a thorny one, it is crucial that any woman who decides to wear any type of veil examine her conscience and determine whether the veil is the ONLY manner for her to fulfill her spiritual needs.  Because of both its role in the history of women’s exclusion from social life and its resilience, the veil is overlaid with meanings that cannot be simply brushed away because a woman says so.  Whenever a woman wears a veil, her act involves other women, including girls.

 

 

Quote

A woman is a human being first, before being a Muslim or having a religion.  The foundation of organic life of a woman, her physical body, is denied.  Denial of a woman’s physical body helps sustain the fiction that veiling it, covering it up, causes no harm to the woman who inhabits the body.  Paradoxically, denial feeds into the notion that a woman is afflicted with a condition, her body, which makes her a fundamentally flawed being.  Her flaw must be concealed, and the veil is the best concealment.  It conceals even from the woman herself, the fact that she is endowed with a body in the same right as a man, and that what God or nature created cannot be defined as flawed by humans.  Veiling has the effect of making a woman feel that her body is something to be ashamed of.  It is easy to take the step from thinking that a body is in need of concealment to denying that it has needs, such as feeling the soft breeze on its limbs or having the freedom to breathe under the sun without a special cloth restraining its natural functions.

 I am at a loss to understand what new meaning could be imparted to a symbol of gender inequality.  Unlike other customs, the veil cannot be infused with meanings other than those that have historically been invested in it by its advocates, and without which it wouldn’t exist.
 

Quote

 

 What is it that a woman is convinced of?  Is it that the hijab is a pillar of Islam?  It is not.  Is it that the hijab signifies commitment to Muslim ethics?  It does not.  Nowhere in the Quran is there an indication that the veil is a condition of a woman’s acceptance of faith. It is emerging as a tool for engaging women in a concept of religiosity that serves the political aims of various groups scattered throughout the Muslim world, who are eager to demonstrate the success and reach of their views.  

The organized character of the revival of the hijab needs to be emphasized as it raises doubts about a number of justifications offered by women for veiling.

 

I also agree with her legal view of veiling:

Quote

 

Saida, very active in the movement to bring an end to other forms of discrimination against French Muslims, sees her turn too the veil as a way of “reminding men that women are human beings, she is your equal and thus deserves your respect”.  Conviction in her case is tangled up with 2 very mundane pursuits: gaining respect from Muslim men and opposing (illegal) discrimination against women who wear the hijab at work.  This use of the veil is problematic for 2 reasons:  First, it legitimizes the veil by using it as a cultural weapon for the expansion of civil rights.  Second, it presents the use of the veil as a RIGHT conflated with freedom of religion.  The right to wear the veil is used as the right to live by one’s religious principles.  Female advocates of the veil wish to make the veil stand for religion.  They thus lend support to the state policies that mandate veiling in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.  The veil is singled out as the most significant sign of the newly reclaimed religion.

I must confess my skepticism of this justification.  The lives of older women who were forced to veil and mistreated for it, are dismissed in the same manner as the Turkish or French states have dismissed veiled women.

In addition, it is difficult to see how the veil can be a constitutive part of citizenship, as has been claimed.  It is as frivolous as arguing for the constitutional right to not eat pork or drink alcohol.  Protection of the right to practice one’s religion does not mean the right to legitimize the veil as STANDING FOR religion.  Since the religious status of the veil is still undetermined, law cannot legitimize it in one way or another.  The veil is not a substantive right, just as its prohibition by law lacks compelling substantiation.

There is little that is substantively new about reveiling.  And the young women who take up the hijab are no pioneers.  They are my grandmother’s virtual contemporaries.  Had they become the architects of a new conception of social change centered on women, or found a way of making problematic texts related to veiling redundant, they would have indeed earned their claim as innovators.  But they have not.  The veil remains an issue.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Goddess

[Marocc]

On 12/6/2019 at 5:41 PM, Goddess said:

Women would never "choose" this for themselves.  They are coerced, either domestic abuse or religious abuse.  Women do not "naturally" want to never be outside in the sunshine, feel the breeze on their hair and faces.  Women do not "naturally" want to deprive their bodies of the healthy effects of being outside.  They are always required to do it - either by their family or by their religion.

The fact that most cannot "choose" to take it off, tells me it is not a choice at all.

I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore —

I choose it for myself. And so do.... A lot of other women. What does being outside have to do with this? Always required to do it? Who are you talking about?

 

[Marocc]

59 minutes ago, Goddess said:

For some things.

Marina Lazreg ("author of Questioning the Veil") says this about the deicison to cover: (And I agree with her)

 

 

I also agree with her legal view of veiling:

 

She appears to be mainly speaking about the niqab. You cannot talk about covering, the headscarf, hijab and niqab all interchangeably.

[Marocc]

On 12/8/2019 at 4:24 PM, Rue said:

Maroc and Altai support Sharia Law Muslim states which openly define non Muslims as dhimmi inferior.

Altai appears to be a Quran alone Muslim, therefore I doubt we have much of anything in common.

What are Sharia law Muslim states to you, and how do you think I support them? And who defines non-Muslims as inferior and to whom?

Edited December 9, 2019 by Marocc

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Marocc said:

She appears to be mainly speaking about the niqab. You cannot talk about covering, the headscarf, hijab and niqab all interchangeably.

She's not.  Her book talks about all of it.  It's all coverings exclusively for women.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Goddess

[Marocc]

On 12/6/2019 at 8:35 PM, Teena said:

How is covering up every day freedom?

Propose a law all women in public office are only allowed to wear a skirt that is above knee length or shorter.

[Marocc]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

She's not.  Her book talks about all of it.  It's all coverings exclusively for women.

The part you quote mainly speaks about the veil which usually means the niqab.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

The part you quote mainly speaks about the veil which usually means the niqab.

It's an excerpt from a book.  She explains how she uses the words at the start of the book. 

Maybe read the book before you start nitpicking a word the author uses.  No matter what you want to call the coverings, they are all for the same purpose.  To keep women in their (supposedly inferior) place.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Marocc said:

The part you quote mainly speaks about the veil which usually means the niqab.

The author is a well-traveled Muslim woman.  She knows the differences between the coverings.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Goddess

[Marocc]

34 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's an excerpt from a book.  She explains how she uses the words at the start of the book. 

Maybe read the book before you start nitpicking a word the author uses.  No matter what you want to call the coverings, they are all for the same purpose.  To keep women in their (supposedly inferior) place.

Before you quote her you say she says *this* about the decision to cover. The question is not what she knows, but do you know the difference and do you make a distinction between them when you talk about them.