"Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
The culture of Quebec is changing, but so is the rest of the western world. It's not from people losing their culture, it's from the evolution of culture. Culture is fluid and ill-defined, as it is made of the common aspects of the collective, which changes over time. People in Quebec are not the same as fifty years ago, and the people fifty years ago were not the same as the people fifty years before them. And in each of those times, culture was not a clearly distinct thing, it was a spectrum with people speaking different dialects, following different faiths, eating different foods, dressing differently, following different traditions, and holding different opinions and social attitudes.

Belief in the rule of law can be part of a culture. So can the belief that homosexuals should be reviled and imprisoned. Both of those things used to common beliefs in Quebec, but only one still is. One of those ideas is good, but the other shouldn't be missed.

You must define the things which you believe should not change. Just saying "culture" is meaningless. What aspects of the culture, and from when?

With the Bavaria example, beer halls and Bavarian restaurants are worth promoting. The dialect too, for practicality and heritage, at least. Some of the historically common social attitudes, not so much. Tongue

Cultural evolution is bad or good, depending on what changes and how you feel about that. Losing the French language would be sad. It's a specific aspect of Quebec culture that is useful and important, and promoting it through positive means is a good thing. But restricting minority rights in order to protect an undefined concept of 'Quebec culture' is not. Therein lies my problem with the PQ.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
22-11-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
I don't know why this thead went from secularism to culture and language laws, but German in Germany is in a much better situation than French in Canada you can be sure of that.
Maybe this thread will go back on track soon.

(22-11-2013 11:51 AM)Dom Wrote:  I actually understand where Bete is coming from.

Last time I was in Munich, I had not been there in a very long time.

The streets used to be full of people speaking Bavarian, the restaurants served Bavarian food and beer (yum) , there were all kinds of little cultural oddities like women with huge baskets full of fresh picked herbs and herb candy, chestnuts being roasted on the sidewalk, sugar coated almonds being roasted, and all kinds of things like that, culturally unique stuff.

The air smelled heavenly from all of that.

Fast forward to the last time I was there - there was hardly any German spoken in the streets, never mind Bavarian. No scents, just a city smell. No spice ladies or chestnut men. Pizza places and a new type of café instead of the beer halls and Bavarian food places. It was sad. Just a memory now, the reality is forever lost. I will never smell that scent again.

So yes, I do understand how it can be important to preserve culture. I am at a total loss though how it can be done anymore. I think culture is doomed on the planet. We'll recreate the foods and have ethnic restaurants, maybe create a Disney world type thingie where you have areas resembling cultures, but the real thing will be forever gone.

I am not saying that I agree with the law in the OP at all.

I am however saying that the loss of cultures is a sad thing.

@betepolitique on Twitter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
WTF is that about homosexuals being reviled and imprisoned?

(22-11-2013 01:35 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  The culture of Quebec is changing, but so is the rest of the western world. It's not from people losing their culture, it's from the evolution of culture. Culture is fluid and ill-defined, as it is made of the common aspects of the collective, which changes over time. People in Quebec are not the same as fifty years ago, and the people fifty years ago were not the same as the people fifty years before them. And in each of those times, culture was not a clearly distinct thing, it was a spectrum with people speaking different dialects, following different faiths, eating different foods, dressing differently, following different traditions, and holding different opinions and social attitudes.

Belief in the rule of law can be part of a culture. So can the belief that homosexuals should be reviled and imprisoned. Both of those things used to common beliefs in Quebec, but only one still is. One of those ideas is good, but the other shouldn't be missed.

You must define the things which you believe should not change. Just saying "culture" is meaningless. What aspects of the culture, and from when?

With the Bavaria example, beer halls and Bavarian restaurants are worth promoting. The dialect too, for practicality and heritage, at least. Some of the historically common social attitudes, not so much. Tongue

Cultural evolution is bad or good, depending on what changes and how you feel about that. Losing the French language would be sad. It's a specific aspect of Quebec culture that is useful and important, and promoting it through positive means is a good thing. But restricting minority rights in order to protect an undefined concept of 'Quebec culture' is not. Therein lies my problem with the PQ.

@betepolitique on Twitter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
What would you say if the Italian government asked immigrants to learn Italian? Would you say they are taking away rights from people?
The problem with Quebec is that it's not an independant country, if it were, you would not find anything wrong with forcing immigrants to learn and use the country's language.

(22-11-2013 01:35 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  The culture of Quebec is changing, but so is the rest of the western world. It's not from people losing their culture, it's from the evolution of culture. Culture is fluid and ill-defined, as it is made of the common aspects of the collective, which changes over time. People in Quebec are not the same as fifty years ago, and the people fifty years ago were not the same as the people fifty years before them. And in each of those times, culture was not a clearly distinct thing, it was a spectrum with people speaking different dialects, following different faiths, eating different foods, dressing differently, following different traditions, and holding different opinions and social attitudes.

Belief in the rule of law can be part of a culture. So can the belief that homosexuals should be reviled and imprisoned. Both of those things used to common beliefs in Quebec, but only one still is. One of those ideas is good, but the other shouldn't be missed.

You must define the things which you believe should not change. Just saying "culture" is meaningless. What aspects of the culture, and from when?

With the Bavaria example, beer halls and Bavarian restaurants are worth promoting. The dialect too, for practicality and heritage, at least. Some of the historically common social attitudes, not so much. Tongue

Cultural evolution is bad or good, depending on what changes and how you feel about that. Losing the French language would be sad. It's a specific aspect of Quebec culture that is useful and important, and promoting it through positive means is a good thing. But restricting minority rights in order to protect an undefined concept of 'Quebec culture' is not. Therein lies my problem with the PQ.

@betepolitique on Twitter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2013, 03:03 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
(22-11-2013 01:28 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(22-11-2013 12:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Is cultural diversity self-evidently good?

I think not. It is not without its negative aspects - 'us' vs. 'them' divisiveness.

Beer halls are good, believe me. Tongue

OK, that's self-evident. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 10:49 AM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
Boy did you get this wrong!
In the 60's, Quebec kicked out the Catholic Church out of the state and it was everywhere from schools to hospitals and everything in between. Teachers and nurses were actual priests or nuns or monks and they were dressing as such at work. The Church did not fight this very hard because they knew they didn't stand a chance. If they had fought this, Quebec would have had to make a law forbidding priests, nuns and monks from wearing their religious clothes while working. Those religious stayed, but took off their religious clothes without a law.
Now, religious are reappearing everywhere and they are showing their religious beliefs just like the Catholics were. This secular law is the one we thought we didn't need because of the collaboration of the Catholic Church in the 60's. Since Quebec prefers immigrants who speak French, a lot of them came from Muslim countries and Islam is more present here than anywhere else in North America. Islam is one of the religions that are sometimes ostentatious.
If you allow anyone to display their religious symbols at work, what's to keep priests from coming back? Should we discriminate based on religious beliefs and forbid only the religions that annoy people or forbid all religious symbols from the workplace? This law just says that anyone who works for the state should not openly display their beliefs while at work.
Quebecers may fill the catholic box when the answer the question "what is your religion?" in a census, but that's because atheism is not a religion and most have been baptized. In reality, atheists are probably the majority.

Saying that this is discrimination against all religions but the catholic one is showing a profound misunderstanding of Quebec and its people.

The cross that is displayed in the National Assembly may be taken off. There will be a vote and I hope they take it off.
There was a debate about what Thomas Jefferson would have thought of this law. Some say he would have been against because he didn't want the state to interfere in the practice of religions. I think it's wrong because if there had been catholic priests working for the state, Jefferson would certainly have told them to take off their cassocks while at work. Also there were no Muslims in his time and any interpretations of Jefferson’s will are hypothetical.
Finally, it’s not the separatist party that stated this whole thing, it’s the federalists. The Liberal party created a commission to investigate what the province should do about the religious symbols people wear at work in the public sector and other questions related to that, but when the recommendations came out, that party did nothing and when the separatist party took power, since they had said they would do something, they did.

(10-09-2013 02:51 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  Recently, the Parti Quebecois, a Quebec separatist party, has created a "secular" charter they want to implement for Quebec. Part of the charter is to "limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols" (CBC).

In theory it sounds like a decent law - no "pray to Jesus" t-shirts and stuff. Except this is what it really is:

Not allowed:
[Image: sm-not-allowed_zps6f7c2f80.jpg]

Allowed:
[Image: sm-allowed_zps69cb844c.jpg]

Notice anything?

It forbids religious headwear, like that worn by Sikh men, Muslim women, and Jewish men. Stuff that people of those faiths actually wear. For Christians? It forbids gaudy Christian crosses, as worn by NOBODY. Maybe a Roman cardinal?

What it allows is exactly what Christians already wear - small cross necklaces, rings, earrings... and tries to make it look fair by showing an example of what looks like a crescent earring for Muslims. Except, that's nothing like the religious headwear or the cross. The crescent is associated with Islam, but it isn't a religious symbol in the same way. It's like forbidding the wearing of crosses and allowing people to wear fish necklaces. Hardly equivalent symbols.

The law applies to "judges, police, prosecutors, public daycare workers, teachers, school employees, hospital workers and municipal personnel" (CBC). If you are a practicing Muslim woman and you feel compelled to wear the hijab, or a Sikh man who wears a turban, or a Jewish man who wears a kippa, you are prevented from working in the previously mentioned jobs.

To genuinely religious people, their headwear is not something taken lightly. In practice what the law does is force people to make a decision between their faith or their career.

From Marois' previous statements (Marois is the head of the PQ), it can be seen what her real motivations are. She blamed violence in England on multiculturalism (ie. Muslims), said "women who wore hijabs and who worked in daycares could be in a position to incite children to practise religion" (CBC). From that and a million other gems, it seems to me her actions are directed at Muslims. The conservative Jews and Sikhs are just sacrificed for appearances because they don't count for much, vote-wise.

I've known about Marois and her pro-Catholic, anti-minority, anti-non-white-immigrant attitude for some time, but it seems to be getting worse. It seems like she's using "secularism" as a means to promote what would be considered a far right agenda (socially), if put in other terms.

The PQ and BQ (Bloc Quebecois, federal counterpart to PQ) have been promoting an exclusive, nationalist agenda that I think is dangerous. Partly because of a misguided sense of being threatened by the English-speaking and immigrant minorities, much in the way of Fox News, partly, I think, to distract Quebec from important economic issues, but mostly to drive a wedge between Quebec and the federal government. Support for separation has been historically around 49 for - 51 against, or thereabouts. It has fallen in recent years and, because separatism is what the parties draw strength from, they are trying to garner support by promoting a strong sense of identity and independence among Quebecers. They do that partly by challenging the federal government.

Unfortunately for everyone who isn't a nationalist French-speaking Catholic, Quebec is at risk of becoming an unwelcoming place. I've been seeing a real push by separatist parties over the past few years to stay relevant and powerful. Partly spurred on by the overwhelming defeat of the BQ by the NDP in the last federal election, perhaps. Whatever the cause, the nationalist movement has been getting worse. They're distracting people by focusing on non-issues and scapegoating for political points.

@betepolitique on Twitter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  If they had fought this, Quebec would have had to make a law forbidding priests, nuns and monks from wearing their religious clothes while working. Those religious stayed, but took off their religious clothes without a law.

That makes it a choice.

Choice is fine. Sumptuary laws belong in the middle ages.

(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Now, religious are reappearing everywhere and they are showing their religious beliefs just like the Catholics were. This secular law is the one we thought we didn't need because of the collaboration of the Catholic Church in the 60's. Since Quebec prefers immigrants who speak French, a lot of them came from Muslim countries and Islam is more present here than anywhere else in North America. Islam is one of the religions that are sometimes ostentatious.

But that isn't even close to being true.

(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Should we discriminate based on religious beliefs and forbid only the religions that annoy people or forbid all religious symbols from the workplace? This law just says that anyone who works for the state should not openly display their beliefs while at work.

That's not what the law says. That may well be the theory. It is not the actual content.

Ordinary self-identified Catholics do not generally see themselves as having a religious mandate to wear certain types of clothes. You keep mentioning priests and nuns. Priests and nuns are not equivalent to lay members.

Many self-identified Muslims do see themselves as under such a mandate. That is not equivalent. You are making a disingenuous comparison.

"Don't do X", where X is a thing only one group of people want to do, is not a fair law.

(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Saying that this is discrimination against all religions but the catholic one is showing a profound misunderstanding of Quebec and its people.

Nobody said that.

(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Finally, it’s not the separatist party that stated this whole thing, it’s the federalists. The Liberal party created a commission to investigate what the province should do about the religious symbols people wear at work in the public sector and other questions related to that, but when the recommendations came out, that party did nothing and when the separatist party took power, since they had said they would do something, they did.

A public consultation is not binding.

The issue is self-evidently controversial. The PLQ thought it would divide their constituents. The PQ didn't. That's mere politics.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 09:51 AM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
Sorry for taking so long to answer, I think I lost interest and I was also busy.

(23-11-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  If they had fought this, Quebec would have had to make a law forbidding priests, nuns and monks from wearing their religious clothes while working. Those religious stayed, but took off their religious clothes without a law.

That makes it a choice.

Choice is fine. Sumptuary laws belong in the middle ages.

Yes it is a choice, that why it's ok to ask people to take off their religious signs. Thank you!

(23-11-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Now, religious are reappearing everywhere and they are showing their religious beliefs just like the Catholics were. This secular law is the one we thought we didn't need because of the collaboration of the Catholic Church in the 60's. Since Quebec prefers immigrants who speak French, a lot of them came from Muslim countries and Islam is more present here than anywhere else in North America. Islam is one of the religions that are sometimes ostentatious.

But that isn't even close to being true.

From the link you sent, Quebec had the third largest Muslim community in 2011 but its size more than doubled in 10 years. From that you can see that Quebec might have passed Alberta and if not it will soon. Illinois is the American state with the largest Muslim community and it's 2.8%. So I said Quebec was first amongst 60 jurisdictions and it's actually second or soon to be second and I'm not even close??? 2 is very close to 1 man.
My point was that there is a non-negligible Muslim community combine with a surprisingly strong anti-religious sentiment in Quebec, coming from anger towards the catholic church, and feminism making that law more popular here than anywhere else in North America.
In English Canada, it would be popular too but not as much since they are way more religious and not as passionate about feminism as Quebec.

(23-11-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Should we discriminate based on religious beliefs and forbid only the religions that annoy people or forbid all religious symbols from the workplace? This law just says that anyone who works for the state should not openly display their beliefs while at work.

That's not what the law says. That may well be the theory. It is not the actual content.

Ordinary self-identified Catholics do not generally see themselves as having a religious mandate to wear certain types of clothes. You keep mentioning priests and nuns. Priests and nuns are not equivalent to lay members.

Many self-identified Muslims do see themselves as under such a mandate. That is not equivalent. You are making a disingenuous comparison.

"Don't do X", where X is a thing only one group of people want to do, is not a fair law.

That's a fundamentally weak argument since it would make all laws discriminatory.
Some religions do not require religious symbols and others do and to ask everyone to remove religious signs at work is discrimination? Would asking only religions that can remove those sign to do so be ok? Sounds to me that it could be discriminatory too.
Saying that religions, or rather people practicing those religions, that find it vital to show off do not want to keep their religion to themselves. The only reason they would do that would be to intimidate or convert others.

Are there any religion that has mandatory signs? Muslim women, Sikhs, Jews? Some people certainly say their religion requires them to wear something but it's never unanimous among people claiming to be of that religion. Take Muslim women, most wear nothing and almost nobody wear something all the time. Same goes for other religions. In India, only a third of Sikhs cover their head and only a few do it all the time. Here in Canada, the numbers are much higher but that makes me wonder why. Are they feeling less oppressed here than in India even when they are the majority or are they the most extremists of the Sikhs? It's a mystery, but the reality remains that it's not mandatory for all and certainly not all the time. Christians could also claim that they have to wear a gigantic cross around their necks all the time and they would have as much credibility as other religions that say they have to show off their beliefs all the time.

The law does not limit religious practices if those practices are flexible and if they are not flexible I considered them to be fanatical and more alike to a cult.
There are other considerations like equality between sexes. Feminism is very strong in Quebec and it's not exactly religions' best friend.

(23-11-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Saying that this is discrimination against all religions but the catholic one is showing a profound misunderstanding of Quebec and its people.

Nobody said that.

See OP (the post to which I was responding): "I've known about Marois and her pro-Catholic, anti-minority, anti-non-white-immigrant attitude for some time, but it seems to be getting worse. It seems like she's using "secularism" as a means to promote what would be considered a far right agenda (socially), if put in other terms."

The whole statement is completely stupid actually. Marois has been in power 1 year and had no influence on immigration and this law, whatever it's influence would be, is not a law yet. I wonder how the poster could have known what never happened.

(23-11-2013 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-11-2013 10:49 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Finally, it’s not the separatist party that stated this whole thing, it’s the federalists. The Liberal party created a commission to investigate what the province should do about the religious symbols people wear at work in the public sector and other questions related to that, but when the recommendations came out, that party did nothing and when the separatist party took power, since they had said they would do something, they did.

A public consultation is not binding.

The issue is self-evidently controversial. The PLQ thought it would divide their constituents. The PQ didn't. That's mere politics.

Are you trying to be funny? You are saying the PQ is doing what the PLQ did and that's an argument for or against what exactly?

@betepolitique on Twitter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Yes it is a choice, that why it's ok to ask people to take off their religious signs. Thank you!

And... you don't see a difference between voluntary actions, and non-binding requests, when compared to a legal enforced statute?

Yes. It's okay to ask.

It is also okay for people to say 'no' when asked. If they live in a free country...

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  From the link you sent, Quebec had the third largest Muslim community in 2011

... and so, when you said "greatest Muslim presence", that was what one might call "untrue".

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  ... but its size more than doubled in 10 years. From that you can see that Quebec might have passed Alberta and if not it will soon.

And yet Alberta has not banned the "wrong sorts" of religious expression, and they seem to be surviving fine.
(to say nothing of Ontario)

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Illinois is the American state with the largest Muslim community and it's 2.8%. So I said Quebec was first amongst 60 jurisdictions and it's actually second or soon to be second and I'm not even close??? 2 is very close to 1 man.

And yet Illinois has not banned the "wrong sorts" of religious expression, and they seem to be surviving fine.

But, I know, right? Why do they even bother making gold and silver medals a different thing? Even if the guy in second is almost half as good as the guy in first!

You might be making some sort of point beyond "OMG teh Muzlims r comin and tey r DIFFRENT rabble rabble rabble!". I say "might" because I'm a charitable man; so far I'm not seeing it.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  My point was that there is a non-negligible Muslim community combine with a surprisingly strong anti-religious sentiment in Quebec, coming from anger towards the catholic church, and feminism making that law more popular here than anywhere else in North America.
In English Canada, it would be popular too but not as much since they are way more religious and not as passionate about feminism as Quebec.

Uh... huh.

Feminism is great and all, but it's also not even related to the topic at hand. So there's that.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  That's a fundamentally weak argument since it would make all laws discriminatory.

Dodgy

Laws telling people they can't wear and do what they want are discriminatory.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Some religions do not require religious symbols and others do and to ask everyone to remove religious signs at work is discrimination?

Yes.

There are already laws regarding attire and workplace safety. One must be properly dressed to perform one's job. I say again, this is already the law, companies (and indeed governments) already have such regulations in place.

The law here proposed, however, is by definition discriminatory. It is outlawing some types of clothing and expression based solely on motive.

Restricting people's actions based on religious belief is discrimination. Deal with it.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Would asking only religions that can remove those sign to do so be ok? Sounds to me that it could be discriminatory too.

Yes. It would be. I'm glad you're catching on!

A law targeting a practice which is only performed by some subset of people is necessarily targeting only those people.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Saying that religions, or rather people practicing those religions, that find it vital to show off do not want to keep their religion to themselves. The only reason they would do that would be to intimidate or convert others.

Oh, so I guess you understand people's beliefs and motivations better than they do.

You can dress up prejudice however you like; it's still prejudice. The rest of Quebec and the rest of Canada are free to call you on it.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Are there any religion that has mandatory signs? Muslim women, Sikhs, Jews? Some people certainly say their religion requires them to wear something but it's never unanimous among people claiming to be of that religion. Take Muslim women, most wear nothing and almost nobody wear something all the time. Same goes for other religions. In India, only a third of Sikhs cover their head and only a few do it all the time. Here in Canada, the numbers are much higher but that makes me wonder why. Are they feeling less oppressed here than in India even when they are the majority or are they the most extremists of the Sikhs? It's a mystery, but the reality remains that it's not mandatory for all and certainly not all the time.

That's not an argument.
Some people in group A don't feel required to do X.
THEREFORE, the people in group A who do feel required to do X... don't count. Becuase, uh, fuck 'em, I guess.

You can dress up prejudice however you like; it's still prejudice.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Christians could also claim that they have to wear a gigantic cross around their necks all the time and they would have as much credibility as other religions that say they have to show off their beliefs all the time.

Oh, so I guess you understand people's beliefs and motivations better than they do.

I think plenty of such practices are stupid, too. But I happen to think they should be legal. But that's just me and my odd notions of free expression and freedom of religion.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  The law does not limit religious practices if those practices are flexible and if they are not flexible I considered them to be fanatical and more alike to a cult.

Oh, so I guess you understand people's beliefs and motivations better than they do.

Well, can't really argue with that.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  There are other considerations like equality between sexes. Feminism is very strong in Quebec and it's not exactly religions' best friend.

Yes. That is also, conveniently enough, an entirely different matter. So there's that.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  See OP (the post to which I was responding): "I've known about Marois and her pro-Catholic, anti-minority, anti-non-white-immigrant attitude for some time, but it seems to be getting worse. It seems like she's using "secularism" as a means to promote what would be considered a far right agenda (socially), if put in other terms."

The whole statement is completely stupid actually. Marois has been in power 1 year and had no influence on immigration and this law, whatever it's influence would be, is not a law yet. I wonder how the poster could have known what never happened.

Restricting freedom of expression and freedom of religion is what I'd call a bad thing.

You can't even bring yourself to admit that that's what this law would do.

(27-11-2013 09:51 AM)BetePolitique Wrote:  Are you trying to be funny? You are saying the PQ is doing what the PLQ did and that's an argument for or against what exactly?

It's... pretty simple. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but...

This proposed law is controversial. Some people like it. Some people don't. Therefore some people will like the government which proposes it. And some people will not. This is elementary school level civics, so I'm assuming you know this.

The PLQ didn't move on it because they figured the negative reception from detractors would not be outweighed by the positive reception from supporters.

This is called politics. It is a thing political parties occasionally stoop to engaging in.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
30-11-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec
BetePolitique Wrote:The whole statement is completely stupid actually. Marois has been in power 1 year and had no influence on immigration and this law, whatever it's influence would be, is not a law yet. I wonder how the poster could have known what never happened.

Firstly, nowhere did I say that Marois put in place restrictive immigration policies, or that she would or could.

Secondly, what someone says in an interview and writes about in newspaper articles is relevant. It doesn't matter if something is beyond their control. It gives people an idea of who they are and what their motivations are.

Thirdly, the influence of the law is obvious. If you ban orange juice, stores will stop carrying orange juice. If you raise property taxes by 1%, people will pay 1% more property tax. We don't need to wait several years to see what it will do. It's right there in the law.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: