|
I wanted to write this little thread as a blog before somebody else did it with a more negative and perhaps spiteful perspective.
Some of you may have heard but let me give you all some context. The provincial government of Quebec decided, in its infinite wisdom, to draft the "Quebec's values charter". Its declared goal is, among other things, to secularize the public sector of our province. Now, as many of you may be aware, Quebec's tendencies have always leaned to the left, which means that our public sector is rather large. Most doctors and teachers are government employees, for instance.
Now, I'm a French Canadian, I'm an atheist, and I'm all for a secular public sector wherein my representatives and people of authority don't openly display their religious or non-religious affiliations. After all, our representatives theoretically should represent all of us, not just the majority, and so they should try to appear neutral while they're on duty.
The problem is that behind this charter is hidden something truly disgusting. The first problem is that the charter wants to keep ALL employees of the public sector from displaying religious symbols [more on that shortly]. This includes obviously kippas, burkas, hijabs, kirpans, turbans, etc. So we've already got something pretty messed up... doctors, elementary and secondary school teachers, university school and other clerical staff who are paid by the government are not allowed to wear their religious attire. But none of these people really "represent" anybody, they're individuals who happen to have government jobs. The charter already fucks with people it shouldn't. In an effort to make the government more neutral, it actually discriminates against its own people.
But that's not all, there is something much worse and much more disgusting about this charter. It says that members of the public sector cannot wear OSTENTATIOUS religious symbols. Now here's the thing... The majority religion in Quebec is Catholics... Catholics wear small crosses around their necks. That's not ostentatious unless they're big turbo-swag zircon encrusted ghetto crosses. Bam, loophole - the majority religion conveniently just happens to be exempt from the charter.
Oh also, this is the "Assemblée nationale", parliament of Quebec.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Salle_Assemblee_nationale_Quebec.jpg)
Notice the cross behind the flag. That stays.
This is a prominent part of Montreal, on public property of course:
![[image loading]](http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/8061203111_2acbb2e34e_z.jpg)
That also stays.
I want to nuance this though because at first sight it looks like we're a bunch of dicks. This charter was drafted by a minority, separatist government. There is massive opposition to the bill from the opposition (which naturally makes up for a majority of parliament) AND from prominent separatist figures all over Quebec. As it is, there is no way this charter passes in the legislative chamber. It WILL get struck down unless there is a significant amount of changes to make it reasonable.
Also, universities and hospitals (and others) get to opt out of this. Primary and secondary school teachers don't because children are too easy to influence (so says the minister in charge of this charter). That's some bullshit.
So I want to apologize for the lot of us, and I know many people, separatists included, are disgusted by this charter. It is my understanding that people from all over the world have been mocking Quebec for this, and rightfully so. However, the vast majority of Montreal (perhaps all of it) has already said that they would opt out of this. The problem is that much of Quebec is rural and we have our fair share of rednecks... I may get some hate from my bros for saying this but I think that much of the problem comes from general ignorance. I won't get into this but yes, we have some racists, but we also have confused people who are afraid. There are many reasons for this. Our media outlets are less than stellar and many people are ill-informed about the Islamic religion and whatnot. For instance, we hear about how some sect of muslims wanted to have their own Sharia court in Quebec... Also, the history of Quebec does much to explain why the people are as they are.
Anywho, I haven't said everything that I wanted to say, but feel free to comment. Cheers.
  
|
This charter by design is to push the influence of other religions out of Quebec's legislature in order to maintain the dominance of Catholicism. They are trying to use the usual sneaky loophole crap to keep Catholicism visible within the government. Seems pretty obvious. This is pretty standard fare from small right wing religious government groups. I can't imagine this charter not getting struck down.
The only Quebecois to be mocked is the group that put the charter forward. I guess they thought they were being clever.
The thing about Sharia court in Quebec is interesting... that would never fly, or at least I hope it wouldn't.
Do you have any good links to info on the charter and the Sharia court stuff?
|
I honestly can't react to this without being snarky. Which is wrong, because I'm fully aware that a pretty good sized chunk of the population of Quebec are not massive douches. Truly, the majority.
But it seems like the douche factor concentrates towards the political leadership.
My very first, perhaps most neutral reaction to this? "How very French of them."
|
It doesn't help that polls show a majority of Quebecois are racist and that it's still socially acceptable within the province.
|
On September 14 2013 03:46 Toque wrote:
The thing about Sharia court in Quebec is interesting... that would never fly, or at least I hope it wouldn't.
Do you have any good links to info on the charter and the Sharia court stuff?
No it would never even come close, but it's just the kind of shit that we hear about. Very few people outside of the more urban areas seem to have any understanding of Islam, so they're limited to the bits and pieces of news that they hear on the radio.
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/70597/pressions-sur-quebec-en-faveur-d-une-cour-islamique
You can translate that with google if you want, but essentially a group of muslims wanted the Sharia to be institutionalized by the government of Quebec, and they even threatened that if Quebec refused, they would kind of do it themselves.
I'm honestly not hugely familiar with the story, but I know it's the kind of shit that our local news outlets like to talk about.
On September 14 2013 04:02 Toque wrote:
It doesn't help that polls show a majority of Quebecois are racist and that it's still socially acceptable within the province.
That has to be a really wild interpretation of a poll which I'm probably not aware of. It's hard for me not to get a bit annoyed when you say stuff like that. Come on.
Many Quebecers are racist yes, but by no means is the majority. I did my best to convey this in my OP: Much of the reluctance and the lack of openness to other cultures doesn't come from the hatred of others or anything like that, it comes from some misguided attempt to "protect" ourselves, or rather our culture. It doesn't stem from the hatred, or even fear - it mostly comes from a lack of understanding, and some feeling that we need to preserve something that'll otherwise fade away. I know very few people who are racist, personally.
Like felisconcolori said, the majority of Quebecers are fine people. When people like Toque say that the majority of us are racist, it's insulting but it's also really a fucking shitty thing to say. Literally "the majority"! :X It's my family and friends and my people you're speaking of here. Racism is not socially acceptable here. Maybe it is at the outskirts of Quebec, where the inbred assholes sometimes live, but for the most part, we're ok.
Ironically, it's socially acceptable in some parts of Canada to shit on Quebecers, as if we were a bunch of retards. Sigh...
|
Well I do my best not to generalize  . Was going to say it would be really depressing of Toque was right but its good to see that you don't recognize the poll he is referring to!
I'm just glad we have a charter to strike down stuff like this from happening.
|
I think everyone here would agree that the charter in question does not require much discussion. There are, however, deeper questions regarding tolerance and secularism.
The first question to be asked is on what grounds does the disagreement for the bill exist. There are two camps that whose arguments represent either expression or discrimination, but particular positions can start in one camp and spill over to another camp. The progression usually goes like 1. Believe in total freedom of expression 2. Believe in limited expression 3. Believe you can limit expression as long as it isn't discriminatory (i.e. picking on one group). OP seems to describe himself as belonging to group 2.
On September 14 2013 02:56 Djzapz wrote:
Now, I'm a French Canadian, I'm an atheist, and I'm all for a secular public sector wherein my representatives and people of authority don't openly display their religious or non-religious affiliations. After all, our representatives theoretically should represent all of us, not just the majority, and so they should try to appear neutral while they're on duty.
The problem with this is that a secular society is de facto restriction of religious expression. Saying you can believe whatever you want as long you don't bring it into the public sphere is the same as saying those ideas don't exist in society. How do you overcome this seeming deadlock? Well, there hasn't been a good institutional solution so far. SCotUS has famously danced around the issue, generally taking pretty liberal stances. France goes to great pains to express its contempt for anything but its own government, but that's nothing new.
If anyone finds this interesting, I'd actually like to explain how this relates to a false idea of sovereignty, but I'll stop for now.
|
On September 14 2013 04:33 Jerubaal wrote:
I think everyone here would agree that the charter in question does not require much discussion. There are, however, deeper questions regarding tolerance and secularism.
The first question to be asked is on what grounds does the disagreement for the bill exist. There are two camps that whose arguments represent either expression or discrimination, but particular positions can start in one camp and spill over to another camp. The progression usually goes like 1. Believe in total freedom of expression 2. Believe in limited expression 3. Believe you can limit expression as long as it isn't discriminatory (i.e. picking on one group). OP seems to describe himself as belonging to group 2.
I don't know why you see me in group 2. I believe in total freedom of expression for individuals, but limited freedom of expression for the figures of authority of a government, as well as the symbols of that government (buildings, logos, etc.). Those figures of authority, like the members of parliament should be neutral religiously when they're on duty. In their personal lives, they should be able to do anything they want.
So if anything, I'm part of group 3, although with very serious boundaries. You can limit the freedom of expression of certain people, namely elected officials, as they are our representatives. They're the representatives of muslims, catholics, protestants, Sikhs, atheists, etc. You don't fuck with the religious freedoms of teachers, public servants and doctors. It could also be a good idea to make judges religiously neutral when they're at work, and perhaps some administrative personnel with serious political influence (high admin only) - although maybe not.
The problem with this is that a secular society is de facto restriction of religious expression. Saying you can believe whatever you want as long you don't bring it into the public sphere is the same as saying those ideas don't exist in society. How do you overcome this seeming deadlock? Well, there hasn't been a good institutional solution so far. SCotUS has famously danced around the issue, generally taking pretty liberal stances. France goes to great pains to express its contempt for anything but its own government, but that's nothing new.
If anyone finds this interesting, I'd actually like to explain how this relates to a false idea of sovereignty, but I'll stop for now.
I'm not advocating for a secular society, the notion of a secular society disgusts me completely unless it becomes that way by itself. I'm saying that the public sector, specifically the figures of authority, should be neutral.
The actual population should be untouched.
I don't know if you read that I'm an atheist and decided that I was a dick or something, but you haven't read my OP very carefully. Like I explained, I see two problem with the charter: It's both too large (affects too many people) and it also discriminates against certain religions while it conveniently protects Catholics (by design).
|
To Djzapz,
Here's the article about the polls done on racism in Quebec, this particular poll is a bit old but shouldn't be completely off the mark today. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/01/15/mtl-racism.html
A quick google search on racism in Quebec provides a lot of articles about the particular problem. So me saying that is backed up but actual polls which show the majority are.
In my opinion, racism is inflated in Quebec because of a need to protect their French culture. Quebecois have always been very vocal about that. This results in the rejection of not only English Canadian culture but immigrant cultures as well. Of all my trips to Quebec I feel like Montreal can barely be considered a racist community. It's the cultural hub of Quebec. The issue is rural areas who have very little exposure to other cultures and therefore don't understand them. They have a very narrow minded approach of "reject all other cultures in order to preserve ours".
Fortunately, racism is on the decline due to simply being exposed to cultures that have immigrated to Canada. Obviously some of the older generations are just going to be racist because that's what they were taught as kids but younger people are more exposed to other cultures. Kids grow up now in classrooms full of different races/cultures and become friends, learn about their culture, etc.
|
That is not unreasonable, then.
But let's not forget that 59% of people admitting that they're racist to some extent does not mean that more people are racist. I wouldn't know how exactly to respond to that question myself. I'm not racist, I think - but just like everybody I'm imperfect and I have certain prejudice against certain groups of people (ethnic, social, political groups, etc). We're all guilty of that to an extent. Besides, there's no way 47% of Canadians are racist. Most of us are a bit prejudiced but we're not complete assholes.
It's likely that many of the people who say they're racist do it out of modesty. They know they're flawed.
Others are just racist.
|
wow I thought Canada was doing good 
no matter how much i feel that religion contributes negatively to society i could never imagine trying to tell people that they could or could not wear their scarves or crosses or other attire.
and of course they look out for their own religion while they are doing it. how transparently religiously political.
its good to know that it is getting shot down. its sad that it got that far.
|
I think you would be surprised. The majority of Canadians are older baby boomers who still have bad habits passed down to them by their parents. Using my family as an example, my grandfather has been racist against blacks as long as I've known him, he's definitely racist. My parents showed racist tendencies for a long time which were passed down by their parents. Then there's me, who completely rejects racist thoughts/ideas and am vocal enough about it that it's completely socially unacceptable within our family if I'm in the room.
Racism is primarily a generational issue. If you make it socially unacceptable, as the older generations pass on it will become less and less prevalent. Unfortunately, it's the older generation that is in charge.
Anyways, the issue with the charter isn't really about racism. It's about the Bloc Quebecois trying to preserve and solidify Catholicism as the dominant religion present in their government in a subtle way. Most likely based on the idea of trying to preserve aspects of French Canadian culture.
|
It's not a problem that we'll get rid of easily.
I'll say, however, that in Quebec, most of the animosity is particularly targeted toward other cultures rather than ethnic groups themselves. Part of the issue is internal, but you also can't deny that sometimes it's frustrating to deal with people who would like to institute stuff like the Sharia in your country or province. There was also this story where Hasidic Jews lived in front of a gym where women worked out (in workout clothing) in front of the windows. They disliked that, and so the gym had to replace the window with one of those "white" (?) windows that light mostly passes through but you can't see through it very well. This is kind of frustrating.
On the other hand have really been receptive to African Americans and Haitians (we have a lot of Haitian immigrants here). This has nothing to do with race, but Quebec has also been before its time in terms of gay rights and whatnot, so we're not complete dicks.
Either way, Quebec has its own particularities that makes it more closed off than it should be, that's for sure. However, I like to think that most of us are not racist. At least, not the disgusting kind of racists  .
|
How do they allow for the exceptions of those example crosses that you pictured? Is it some sort of grandfather clause? "Items of significant historical treasure"? It seems odd that they'd be able to just wave their hand and say "no no, we mean other religious expressions are banned".
|
On September 14 2013 07:24 Pontius Pirate wrote:
How do they allow for the exceptions of those example crosses that you pictured? Is it some sort of grandfather clause? "Items of significant historical treasure"? It seems odd that they'd be able to just wave their hand and say "no no, we mean other religious expressions are banned".
Yes actually that's pretty much it. They say it's our history, our cultural baggage, and so we should maintain it. The word they use is "patrimoine" (patrimony) although I'm not sure the English word has exactly the same meaning. I think this argument is bullshit... I don't really know what to say about it. I don't understand why our history should be displayed on current public property. That's not to say we should forget about the origins of Quebec - it's true that Catholicism influenced us and history is important. That said, at this point in time, when the government displays crosses like this, it kind of sends the message that it's a christian nation, and it really isn't. The diversity of cultures and religion should be respected and embraced.
On the other hand, they're arguing that we just can't remove all religious symbols from government-owned buildings and land. For instance, we have a lot of towns and streets with religious names (Saint-[something])... This is a fair argument. Personally though, I wouldn't argue for changing the name of towns and streets. Yes, I'm an atheist, but I recognize that changing street names is a colossal administrative mess, and so fuck it. We can let that be history. But removing the cross in parliament and the cross on Mount Royal would be a good start. Quebec does not belong to one specific subset of people, it belongs to all of us.
Our history can go in history books and museums. And also it's what makes us what we are today. That's all we should want! That's my personal opinion
Thank you for your interest!
|
I am really confused by these kinds of regulations.
How come it is legal to publicly display your affection for say... coca cola, your favourite music band, beer, whiskey, hot chicks, political affiliations and sympathies, sport clubs, etc. etc. and religion magically gets banned? I do not mean "a religion" I mean any religion, including the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster.
I've always thought that a person living in a modern, western country should be aware that in public space he is likely to meet other people that do not necessarily share your believes and would somehow try to influence you:
- Try out this diet!
- Buy this TV!
- Help animals in the shelter!
- Visit our church!
- Check out our gym!
- Feed the hungry children in some less fortunate part of the world!
- See our art fare!
- Come to this concert!
... in every case one should have the right to say "No, thank you" or "No, go away" and the other party should be obliged to walk away. Somehow the religion stands out and became an unbearable offense for a bunch of influential people who have the power to take away more of our freedom.
Because yes, this is freedom to walk down the streets with a t-shirt having things like "I like orange juice", "I like church XXX", "I like Flying Spaghetti Monster", "I am an atheist" written all over it. Why would it be a great idea to take this freedom away from us?
This is a major disappointment for me - instead of teaching ourselves how to approach and tolerate the differences in the values we cherish we are forced to hide them, sweep them under the rug, pretend they are not important for us. This is the very opposite of what we should be doing.
|
Well let's not forget here that only the employees of the government of Quebec would see their "freedom of religion" impaired while they're at work. Other people certainly get to express their religious affiliations however they like at any time.
But otherwise I pretty much agree.
|
On September 15 2013 06:55 Djzapz wrote:
Well let's not forget here that only the employees of the government of Quebec would see their "freedom of religion" impaired while they're at work. Other people certainly get to express their religious affiliations however they like at any time.
But otherwise I pretty much agree.
No, it does not stop there. In fact, I read about this case in largest Polish portal/newspaper
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114881,14606394,W_Quebecu_chca_laickosci_w_instytucjach_publicznych_.html
Here is an interesting paragraph:
"As the journal "The Globe and Mail" pointed out, the goverment of Quebec also suggest the private sector to introduce similar regulations".
Also, if you read this thread you will find similar ideas (like "remove the cross from mountain X" and so on...).
This is not the end, this is just a beginning.
And this is the kind of tolerance towards religion that we witness more and more nowadays - "you can have your religion somewhere, as long as I never see it".
Now here is a interesting transatlantic linguistic observation: the Polish word for the word "hate" is "nienawidze", which can be split into three parts "nie-na-widzę" that translates to "no-on-sight".
The kind of tolerance that lets something exists as long as it remains unseen is so close to hate that it may become indistinguishable.
|
The private sector couldn't even dream of introducing similar regulations, it would be so unconstitutional it's not even funny. As for removing a cross from a mountain, it's in no way similar. The specific thing you're referring to is about removing a cross from government property. It's NOTHING like preventing the population from wearing crosses or having crosses on their property.
On September 15 2013 07:33 scypio wrote:
The kind of tolerance that lets something exists as long as it remains unseen is so close to hate that it may become indistinguishable.
I agree. I would never be in favor of anything which suggested that privately owned businesses and organization screw with the freedom of expression of people.
The Globe and Mail said: "The Parti Québécois is pushing the private sector to adopt its proposed charter of values as a model to create a more secular workplace."
Now, I don't know whether that's true, false or perhaps somewhat misleading, somehow I hadn't heard it and it's perhaps even more ridiculous than anything else that happened before... but if it's true, then our government is suggesting that we commit hate crimes according to Canadian standards.
Again, I'm in favor of making sure the government remains neutral religiously, but telling private enterprises to discriminate is fucking insanity and luckily, it would get murdered in court (not that it'll ever get through the parliament of Quebec anyway).
But if the thing that is being reported by GnM is true, it's more disgusting than what I said in OP. I want to stress, once again, that this charter is not going to make it through parliament.
|
Why wouldn't this work within private sector? You write down something like :
"The secular workspace bill" that says
1. Employee must not wear anything that expresses his/her religion (details follow).
2. The bill applies to all public sector institutions by the
3. An institution may opt out as long as it is not a school, hospital... (and so on).
4. Any other employer may decide to opt in.
And then in the private sector when you sign your contract for a job you read something like "based on secular workspace bill paragraph 4 the secular workspace bill paragraph 1 applies to this company". Take it or leave it.
|
There are many reasons why this wouldn't work. First, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other Canadian human rights laws would invalidate any provincial law legalizing the discrimination against people's religion in any significant way, especially formally.
On day ONE of that law theoretically being instated, plenty of people would sue their employer on the grounds that they are being discriminated against. The law would be found to be unconstitutional and would get struck down, and the same judgment would be made in appeal and in the Supreme court.
The ruling would insist that provincial laws may not favor discriminatory behavior and that Canadian laws value religious freedom as well as freedom of expression in general.
This shit would not fly in the private sector. The only reason why it has a chance in the public sector is that there are grounds to argue that the government should be secular, and it's not discriminatory to say that government should be secular. However like I said, the propose charter affects many people who have very little to do with government.
|
Making law is all about determining which of the constitutional rights and freedoms we have are more important.
We have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, still you can't really announce "I don't like Mr X. Y. somebody go kill him". Most people would argue that Mr X.Y's rights are more important and that such behavior should be a criminal offense.
A couple of steps away from that there is a band who wrote a song "Loot Burn Rape Kill Repeat". Is it alright to write such a song? What if there is a psycho that takes the title seriously? Well... it is legal today but the tides may turn at some point.
The same applies to any secularization law. A question needs to be answered: which is more important? Mr A's right to express himself and his religious affiliations or Mr B's right to feel comfortable (and somehow he feels uncomfortable/offended upon seeing religious people) ?
I feel that the west is drifting towards a civilization of the offended and Mr B's stakes are skyrocketing. See, this is how I understand tolerance: I enjoy the variety, I'd like to hear hear a "Merry Christmas" from a Christian, "Happy Hanuka" from a Jew, "Have a nice Ramadan" from a Muslim, "Happy Reason Rules the World" from an atheist and even "Happy I don't give a F* Day" from someone who just chills.
I like this way more than turning all these hypothetical people into indistinguishable blobs that need to hide their identity because the offended and insecure can't stand their sight.
|
Well maybe you're right in that the society is moving toward that trend, although I wouldn't be worried, but anyway, the constitution is preventing the common law from being excessively discriminatory, so those laws would be invalidated like I said.
The constitution would need to be changed, and that requires such an overwhelming amount of political support that it's just not happening. Not anytime soon, at least not in Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
