|
THC posted:The religious are a minority now? When you're banning a woman wearing a hijab from working in the public service because "that would be the state endorsing a religion" but explicitly exempt the crucifix in the National Assembly (and the giant crucifix on Mount Royal) from your secularism rules? That's going after minorities.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Yes I'm sure the attempt to domesticate French laïcité legislation is a good faith effort to secularise government by removing religious symbolism across the boar- e: beaten like a beur in the banlieus Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
I thought they were going to ban crosses too, oh well
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
THC posted:[...] And when did the PQ try to stop kids from playing soccer? [...]
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
THC posted:But this doesn't raise any eyebrows I guess since Christianity is the Default Religion that all white people are assumed to follow? Or maybe it's because nobody actually unironically believes most of the poo poo their holy book says, they just attend weekly family social club and observe silly customs so they can be part of a community. This is true of Western religions, because consumerism/capitalism has replaced religion as the dominant mode of social organization, but in the rest of the world- particularly the Islamic world- religion plays a much more important role than it does here. Which compounds the idiocy of Trudeau's act, because it'll piss off the very people he's trying to appeal to and go mostly uncomprehended to the rest of the voters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Italy did a similar thing a while ago, went on a big "secularism!!" bent banning all sorts of non-christian religious symbols or displays or dress from government buildings and schools and such. The cross still up in every classroom and government building? Oh, that's not a religious symbol, it's a symbol of the historic lineage of western culture so doesn't count. Only an uneducated baffoon with no understanding of history would label the cross as a religious symbol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:When the PQ government and Marois herself fully supported the Québec Soccer Federation's attempt to ban turbans on the playing field.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:When you're banning a woman wearing a hijab from working in the public service because "that would be the state endorsing a religion" but explicitly exempt the crucifix in the National Assembly (and the giant crucifix on Mount Royal) from your secularism rules? Ok, they're not going to take down the mount royal cross. That's a local landmark. But if they promised to take down all the religious symbols off government buildings/offices would you get behind this? Quebecois are pretty serious about secularism and protecting their distinct culture within North America, and this is going to play big with half the population. I don't have any problem with banning religious symbols from public life. I think in 50 years this stronger separation of church and state will be much more common around the world. It's a natural progression for a liberal democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:Which compounds the idiocy of Trudeau's act, because it'll piss off the very people he's trying to appeal to and go mostly uncomprehended to the rest of the voters. Maybe he's actually a Unitarian Universalist, and professing Muhammed as the one true prophet of Allah is technically correct and totally not contradictory because Allah is just one manifestation of God?  Not sure if that would be a net gain or loss from a PR standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah if you're going to remove religious imagery? Remove it all. The sooner we get to turning churches into pubs like in Europe the better. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Churches make excellent raves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
The PQ campaigned on this so the only surprise perhaps is that they're capable of deluding themselves into thinking that it's some equitable measure in the name of secularism, and not thinly veiled intolerance (ironic for the Quebecois, surely). Part of their plan also includes (or included) plans to remove many references to the monarchy around the National Assembly; which, while maybe more understandable, apparently isn't part of Quebec's heritage. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/14/quebec-election-2012-parti-quebecois-hijabs_n_1777361.html posted:The ban on religious symbols would not extend to employees who wear a crucifix necklace. Nor would it extend to the crucifix hanging in the legislature, which Marois says is part of Quebec's heritage. The cross first found its way onto the legislative chamber's wall in 1936 under the government of Maurice Duplessis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Churches make excellent raves. We moved out in 2011 and by then both of them had been converted to pretty nice private homes. I think the first one had an on-deck hot tub.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
I would be fine with them removing all religious imagery (including christian symbols) from buildings, since decorations on buildings indicate the stance/attitudes/whatever of the owner of the building. Religious symbols in or on government buildings indicate that the government holds to those religious beliefs. But banning public servants from wearing religious garb? gently caress that. Individuals should be allowed to express their religion all they want as long as it doesn't interfere with his or her duties, and having been served by people with and without turbans, I really doubt that there is anything to worry about. That they are trying to enact this legislation with specific exemptions for christian imagery tells me that it's just trying to shut up minority religions for whatever backwards reasons they have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:When you're banning a woman wearing a hijab from working in the public service because "that would be the state endorsing a religion" but explicitly exempt the crucifix in the National Assembly (and the giant crucifix on Mount Royal) from your secularism rules? Crosses on mountains, though, are landmarks and I see no reason why we should remove those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Wait, so they are saying crosses are okay but garb is not? Yeah that's plain silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Now I am entirely in favour of state secularism, or neutrality with respect to religion. It seems to be an important modern Quebec value and I agree with it. You may have heard that some cities in Quebec (Saguenay being the most well-known) still hold a Catholic prayer before meetings of the city council, and this was challenged before the courts. There was actually a ruling recently that, while lambasting Saguenay mayor Jean Tremblay for his behaviour in the whole issue, decided that holding a prayer before a meeting of the city council does not violate neutrality requirements as currently written. This was one of the reasons why the PQ was campaigning on a charter of secularism during the last election. Other reasons were reports that citizens refused to interact with agents of the state (police officers, public servants, etc.) of a certain gender, claiming it conflicted with their religious beliefs. It was considered that clarifying the state's duty of neutrality with respect to religion was necessary. I agree. Now, when it comes to forbidding agents of the state from privately showing religious symbols in the course of their duties, this is certain to cause controversy. I don't necessarily agree that we need it to ensure the neutrality or appearance of neutrality of the state. This is why this plan was leaked, remember that no bill will be tabled before fall. On the Club des ex they speculated that one member of the government, possibly the premier herself, was uncomfortable with some aspects of the proposed bill, and so leaked some of its provisions to gauge the public reaction. I have to say that it's probably more politically savvy than what this government has been doing until now, that is, tell the press about their projects and backtrack the next day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Wait, so they are saying crosses are okay but garb is not?  ). My understanding is that (unless it changes by then, which is likely to happen) public servants would be forbidden from wearing ostentatious religious symbols. There would be no exemption for symbols of any or other religion. But this hinges on what ostentatious means.Talk about crosses came from the fact that there is still a crucifix hanging atop the speaker's chair in the National Assembly. For this, refer to my other post. Hypnagogic Jerk fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:Counter-point: Moose are big and lumbering, largely non-violent solitary animals who are frequently killed and exploited for their meat by hunters from southern climes. Sounds like Canada to me. From a while ago, but have you ever encountered a moose in the wild? They're the stupidest, most stubborn and ill-tempered animal you can imagine. Moose, from what I understand, attack humans more than any other animal in North America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Those fuckers hurl themselves into traffic with the intention of killing everyone in your car. They'll survive, they don't give a poo poo about you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
MrChips posted:From a while ago, but have you ever encountered a moose in the wild? They're the stupidest, most stubborn and ill-tempered animal you can imagine. Moose, from what I understand, attack humans more than any other animal in North America. Sounds like our governing party 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
A Møøse once bit my sister.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Please come back, 41st parliament.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:I would be fine with them removing all religious imagery (including christian symbols) from buildings, since decorations on buildings indicate the stance/attitudes/whatever of the owner of the building. Religious symbols in or on government buildings indicate that the government holds to those religious beliefs. But yeah, getting rid of any religious symbols from buildings I have no problem with at all, I think that's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Please come back, 41st parliament. I was on Team No Big Deal about prorogation until I saw what it did to this loving thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
I would support secularism, but this is clearly a bullshit, weasely-worded ban on anything that isn't Christian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I would support secularism, but this is clearly a bullshit, weasely-worded ban on anything that isn't Christian. Leaked report. Lets all collectively save our hissy fits for when something actually becomes law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:Leaked report. Lets all collectively save our hissy fits for when something actually becomes law.  Ideas this stupid should be smothered in the crib like a Bob Rae government. We don't need to wait around for it to become law to start opposing draft policies that attack religious minorities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
Incidentally, it's weird because I'm not exactly seeing anyone come out to defend their right to publicly display that they're Christians. Except the aforementioned Saguenay mayor but he's just some kind of racist joke. The PQ even had a to-be Arab deputy (Hopefully I'm not wrong here, I just don't remember her name to google it.) who was going to take care of that issue and had previously mentioned that she'd like the crosses to be gone as well, but she didn't get elected. But as Hypnagogic Jerk said, there seems to be a very vocal minority making GBS threads up a storm whenever it gets mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Those fuckers hurl themselves into traffic with the intention of killing everyone in your car. They'll survive, they don't give a poo poo about you.  I'm just going to leave this here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Is there any way we can imply Justin Trudeau is also secretly African, in some way, and not Canadian? We've already got the secret muslim thing for the anti-religion angle, and we have the pretty-boy thing for the homophobic/sexist angle, so we just need to get some good old fashioned Canadian xenophobia in there. Complete the trifecta. Only then will Trudeau become an unstoppable force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Is there any way we can imply Justin Trudeau is also secretly African, in some way, and not Canadian? We've already got the secret muslim thing for the anti-religion angle, and we have the pretty-boy thing for the homophobic/sexist angle, so we just need to get some good old fashioned Canadian xenophobia in there. Complete the trifecta. Only then will Trudeau become an unstoppable force. This, but American. It worked well for Ignatieff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 10:23
|
|
|
Trudeau doesn't like hockey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 10:50
|
|
|
Rhobot Mk. II posted:
Why not, the bigotry towards linguistic ones seems to be thriving. e: by the government, I mean. The ordinary Quebeckers I've met certainly prefer to speak French themselves, but they give no fucks about what other people do. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Aug 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Daynab posted:But as Hypnagogic Jerk said, there seems to be a very vocal minority making GBS threads up a storm whenever it gets mentioned. I think a surprising number of people just sort of assume that Christian imagery and terminology will be present in secular institutions because that's not religious favouritism, it's just the way things have always been. The cross in <insert important public government institution> isn't religious, it's Christian! You get a small minority of people who are just open Christian exceptionalists and would like to see other religions taken down a peg, and then you get a bunch of people who are ambivalent about that and will tacitly or privately support it so they don't have to be involved in a screaming match with their vocally pious neighbours. There are people who believe crosses everywhere are fine because they're used to them and hardly notice them, but will readily agree that other religious imagery is unacceptable because they notice it immediately due to its comparative scarcity. It's not a conscious thing, it's just a complete failure to apply perspective or critical thinking to the issue. Although the same could probably be said of a great many of our culture's flaws. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Come on Quebec don't do like us, we're awful. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
So Trudeau has given a candid interview where he admitted to smoking pot several times over his life, including once in 2008 (i.e. after being elected). Honestly this kind of openness and risk taking from a candidate is pretty impressive, even if its on a 'safe' issue. On the other hand I have to say that this admission makes it really weird that around the exact same time he did this he also voted in favour of legislation that would have tightened Marijuana possession penalties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:But if they promised to take down all the religious symbols off government buildings/offices would you get behind this? Quebecois are pretty serious about secularism and protecting their distinct culture within North America, and this is going to play big with half the population. Well, you wouldn't just have to remove all religious symbols from buildings and offices, you'd also have to embark on a massive renaming campaign for half the province's streets and town names. Having major streets named Ste-Catherine and St-Laurent and having towns named St-Jérôme or Ste-Agathe does a lot more to give the impression that there's an official state religion in Québec than getting your driver's license handed to you by a woman wearing a hijab. I prefer state neutrality/laissez-faire (like in the ROC) to the French-model enforced laïcité, but the second one isn't on the table: we're actually talking about removing other religions from public life while leaving christian symbols untouched.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So Trudeau has given a candid interview where he admitted to smoking pot several times over his life, including once in 2008 (i.e. after being elected). Obama admits to having done cocaine in his past, Trudeau says he's smoked pot a few times. Wow. What a daring statesman. I'm waiting for the politician to come forward and say yes, I have done krokodil and am at this very moment hosed up on lovely crystal meth I cooked in the alley behind Jean-Couteau.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Obama admits to having done cocaine in his past, Trudeau says he's smoked pot a few times. Wow. What a daring statesman. If you checked the article he wasn't saying in the past like Obama but since becoming MP. Which would be recent past. The bigger deal is that Trudeau has been openly saying, "I've smoke weed and I want weed taxed and sold the same way we sell cigarettes and alcohol." He isn't treating it like some silly college mistake like Obama and Clinton. Or Muclair for that matter. Of course, personally I've only ever smoked one joint in my life and am in complete support for marijuana to be sold to adults and taxed to wonderful extents and if I was an MP and told people that they'd accuse me of lying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 15:06
|
|