Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In France, however, a tradition that is still very much alive is being fêted (and receiving presents) on your saint's day. Many people still do it, and it's like a 2nd birthday. I, unfortunately, have the misfortune of having my saint's day on December 26, the day just after Christmas, so I've never received any present on my saint's day.

That's... today! Happy 2nd birthday, Étienne

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Ah, you still see that in France. Some people glue a medallion of St Christophe in their car just above the radio. My grandfather used to do that.

Spaniards are much more into this than the French though. In Spain you can still see people who cross themselves before driving. I was in Spain last month where we met a 75 y/o friend, and just before I started the engine of the car she crossed herself, that made me chuckle. So Spanish!

In France, however, a tradition that is still very much alive is being fêted (and receiving presents) on your saint's day. Many people still do it, and it's like a 2nd birthday. I, unfortunately, have the misfortune of having my saint's day on December 26, the day just after Christmas, so I've never received any present on my saint's day.

I have heard of that but we do not do it here. I have no idea what St Acajacques day is.

Little statues of St Christopher above the radio in the car are definitely familiar to me, though very old-fashioned.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's... today! Happy 2nd birthday, Étienne

^^On French TV, during the weather forecast after the evening news, they say "Demain c'est la Ste Catherine. Alors bonne fête à toutes les Catherine", or "Demain c'est la St Thierry, alors bonne fête à tous les Thierry." Do they do that in Québec too?

PS: December 26 is not just Etienne.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

^^On French TV, during the weather forecast after the evening news, they say "Demain c'est la Ste Catherine. Alors bonne fête à toutes les Catherine", or "Demain c'est la St Thierry, alors bonne fête à tous les Thierry." Do they do that in Québec too?

PS: December 26 is not just Etienne.

No, except for a few specific dates. Justement Sainte Catherine is one of them so I know it by heart: Nov. 25.

And of course St Jean Baptiste, June 24.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have heard of that but we do not do it here. I have no idea what St Acajacques day is.

Odd for such a formerly feverishly Catholic country as Québec.

Is Lundi de Pâques still a holiday? In secular France, it still is (even Lundi de Pentecôte, which the unions fought to preserve when Sarkozy wanted to remove it).

The one holiday that was unfortunately lost is the Trinité. La Fête de la Trinité was one of the most important in France in the days of the French monarchy, but I don't know why it's not celebrated anymore, whereas most other Catholic feasts are celebrated.

In the early 1990s there was a bit of a commotion when the very secular and left-wing minister of education Lionel Jospin renamed the "Vacances de Pâques" into the "Vacances de Printemps". That ruffled quite a few feathers (my parents were pretty incensed). "Vacances de la Toussaint" are still called "Vacances de la Toussaint" though, not even the hard-left is proposing to rename them "Vacances d'Automne". Go figure...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

If you don't get that "laïcité" was (recently) imported to Québec from France, then you get nothing about this situation. Alas Québec seems to have imported the worst of French secularism, without all the shades of gray that do exist in France (crosses allowed in courts in Alsace and Moselle, Catholic clerics still stipended by the French state in French Guiana, French Minister of the Interior also being Minister of the Cults, patron saints of various corporations still celebrated, Catholic saints still mentioned daily in the weather forecast on public French televisions, religious Islamic judges in Mayotte recognized by the French state, etc).

Being part of Canada with its legal, constitutional and multicultural frameworks, Québec is under extremely intense scrutiny and pressure (incl. legal and political) to not appear to be "catholaïc", and so often goes overboard with some erasure - more than what is probably rational sometimes.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Odd for such a formerly feverishly Catholic country as Québec.

Is Lundi de Pâques still a holiday? In secular France, it still is (even Lundi de Pentecôte, which the unions fought to preserve when Sarkozy wanted to remove it).

The one holiday that was unfortunately lost is the Trinité. La Fête de la Trinité was one of the most important in France in the days of the French monarchy, but I don't know why it's not celebrated anymore, whereas most other Catholic feasts are celebrated.

In the early 1990s there was a bit of a commotion when the very secular and left-wing minister of education Lionel Jospin renamed the "Vacances de Pâques" into the "Vacances de Printemps". That ruffled quite a few feathers (my parents were pretty incensed). "Vacances de la Toussaint" are still called "Vacances de la Toussaint" though, not even the hard-left is proposing to rename them "Vacances d'Automne". Go figure...

Officially employers are supposed to choose between the Friday or Monday at Easter.

That's what stores do for example - they open for one or the other.

A lot of better employers including white collar, government, etc. offer both days off to their staff.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

If you don't get that "laïcité" was (recently) imported to Québec from France, then you get nothing about this situation. Alas Québec seems to have imported the worst of French secularism, without all the shades of gray that do exist in France (crosses allowed in courts in Alsace and Moselle, Catholic clerics still stipended by the French state in French Guiana, French Minister of the Interior also being Minister of the Cults, patron saints of various corporations still celebrated, Catholic saints still mentioned daily in the weather forecast on public French televisions, religious Islamic judges in Mayotte recognized by the French state, etc).

Canada imported the worst of wokeism from the United States, I'll take secularism over wokeism anytime.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Canada imported the worst of wokeism from the United States, I'll take secularism over wokeism anytime.

In terms of the woke debate, Canada's predominantly progressive politics seem to be turning us into a test tube or proving ground for these types of theories, ideas and experiments that are generally born in the US. But in Canada contrary to even the more liberal parts of the US, counterbalancing voices have very little credibility, volume and agency here.

It sometimes almost feels like a US liberal arts college with privileged 20-something idealists and entitled old hippie profs masquerading as a huge country.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Canada imported the worst of wokeism from the United States, I'll take secularism over wokeism anytime.

Amen to that.

It's hilarious how some liberals talk about secularism yet attack Quebec for actually upholding secular values.

[Hybrid247]

Quebec gets attacked because it's recent secularism laws are anything but rational and impartial. Quite frankly, to anyone who is not from a Christian-centric cultural background, it's clear the laws are designed to target religious minorities. This was clear when the government fought tooth and nail for months to keep the cross in the national assembly after passing the secularism bill in that very building. It was quite revealing of the government's true intent.

Think about it for a moment; Bill 21 is meant to ensure that religious neutrality of the state is upheld, which it should be. However, the laws targeting religious garments suggests that allowing teachers and public servants to wear hijabs, kippahs, and turbans compromises that objective. Does it, though? Is there any evidence to suggest that religious neutrality of the state was in jeopardy prior to Bill 21? Well, if there is, it certainly hasn't been provided. And there's nothing to suggest it's an issue in any other province in Canada.

So what we have are laws that are based purely on optics and popular opinion of the Christian-centric/atheist majority, and not on empirical evidence that religious neutrality of the state was compromised under the status quo, or that Bill 21 would have any measurable impacts in upholding it. The detrimental impacts to religious minorities, on the other hand, are quite real, despite no evidence that those impacts are outweighed by any measurable benefits.

To be honest, I know countless French-speaking immigrants, many of which barely speak English, who've moved to Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada to escape the excessive racism and religious-based hate they've experienced while living in Quebec. This is not to say it's inexistent in the ROC, but it certainly appears to be more prevalent there, and Bill 21 has further entrenched that sentiment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Quebec gets attacked because it's recent secularism laws are anything but rational and impartial. Quite frankly, to anyone who is not from a Christian-centric cultural background, it's clear the laws are designed to target religious minorities. This was clear when the government fought tooth and nail for months to keep the cross in the national assembly after passing the secularism bill in that very building. It was quite revealing of the government's true intent.

Think about it for a moment; Bill 21 is meant to ensure that religious neutrality of the state is upheld, which it should be. However, the laws targeting religious garments suggests that allowing teachers and public servants to wear hijabs, kippahs, and turbans compromises that objective. Does it, though? Is there any evidence to suggest that religious neutrality of the state was in jeopardy prior to Bill 21? Well, if there is, it certainly hasn't been provided. And there's nothing to suggest it's an issue in any other province in Canada.

So what we have are laws that are based purely on optics and popular opinion of the Christian-centric/atheist majority, and not on empirical evidence that religious neutrality of the state was compromised under the status quo, or that Bill 21 would have any measurable impacts in upholding it. The detrimental impacts to religious minorities, on the other hand, are quite real, despite no evidence that those impacts are outweighed by any measurable benefits.

To be honest, I know countless French-speaking immigrants, many of which barely speak English, who've moved to Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada to escape the excessive racism and religious-based hate they've experienced while living in Quebec. This is not to say it's inexistent in the ROC, but it certainly appears to be more prevalent there, and Bill 21 has further entrenched that sentiment.

Matter of opinion.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Quebec gets attacked because it's recent secularism laws are anything but rational and impartial. Quite frankly, to anyone who is not from a Christian-centric cultural background, it's clear the laws are designed to target religious minorities. This was clear when the government fought tooth and nail for months to keep the cross in the national assembly after passing the secularism bill in that very building. It was quite revealing of the government's true intent.

Think about it for a moment; Bill 21 is meant to ensure that religious neutrality of the state is upheld, which it should be. However, the laws targeting religious garments suggests that allowing teachers and public servants to wear hijabs, kippahs, and turbans compromises that objective. Does it, though? Is there any evidence to suggest that religious neutrality of the state was in jeopardy prior to Bill 21? Well, if there is, it certainly hasn't been provided. And there's nothing to suggest it's an issue in any other province in Canada.

So what we have are laws that are based purely on optics and popular opinion of the Christian-centric/atheist majority, and not on empirical evidence that religious neutrality of the state was compromised under the status quo, or that Bill 21 would have any measurable impacts in upholding it. The detrimental impacts to religious minorities, on the other hand, are quite real, despite no evidence that those impacts are outweighed by any measurable benefits.

To be honest, I know countless French-speaking immigrants, many of which barely speak English, who've moved to Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada to escape the excessive racism and religious-based hate they've experienced while living in Quebec. This is not to say it's inexistent in the ROC, but it certainly appears to be more prevalent there, and Bill 21 has further entrenched that sentiment.

You want to attack both atheist and Christians at the same time and accuse Quebec society of being racist but fail to mention that many(probably most) ethnic minorites in Quebec are Christian. You realize the biggest minorities on the island of Montreal themselves are Christians. Haitians, Africans, Latin Americans, Filipinos etc, and even a good number of Arabs are Christians. Are these people also in on the evil plot to target other minorities? If Quebec is so racist why does it even open their door to these people? You also forgot to mention (not surprisingly) that Christians symbols are also not allowed to be worn.

You want to make it seem like Quebec is some how trying to uphold and protect christianity. I can't think of another place that has made so many profanities out of religious words related to Christianity. The church is not exactly loved in Quebec.

[Acajack]

It may not come across as nice or even acceptable to SSPers but my guess is that if newcomers who are ultra-religious opt to move out of Quebec or simply choose not to come here, many Quebecers would say "good riddance".

[kwoldtimer]

[QUOTE=Acajack;9825094]It may not come across as nice or even acceptable to SSPers but my guess is that if newcomers who are ultra-religious opt to move out of Quebec or simply choose not to come here, many Quebecers would say "good riddance".[/QUOTE

No doubt.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Quebec gets attacked because it's recent secularism laws are anything but rational and impartial. Quite frankly, to anyone who is not from a Christian-centric cultural background, it's clear the laws are designed to target religious minorities. This was clear when the government fought tooth and nail for months to keep the cross in the national assembly after passing the secularism bill in that very building. It was quite revealing of the government's true intent.

Think about it for a moment; Bill 21 is meant to ensure that religious neutrality of the state is upheld, which it should be. However, the laws targeting religious garments suggests that allowing teachers and public servants to wear hijabs, kippahs, and turbans compromises that objective. Does it, though? Is there any evidence to suggest that religious neutrality of the state was in jeopardy prior to Bill 21? Well, if there is, it certainly hasn't been provided. And there's nothing to suggest it's an issue in any other province in Canada.

So what we have are laws that are based purely on optics and popular opinion of the Christian-centric/atheist majority, and not on empirical evidence that religious neutrality of the state was compromised under the status quo, or that Bill 21 would have any measurable impacts in upholding it. The detrimental impacts to religious minorities, on the other hand, are quite real, despite no evidence that those impacts are outweighed by any measurable benefits.

To be honest, I know countless French-speaking immigrants, many of which barely speak English, who've moved to Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada to escape the excessive racism and religious-based hate they've experienced while living in Quebec. This is not to say it's inexistent in the ROC, but it certainly appears to be more prevalent there, and Bill 21 has further entrenched that sentiment.

If your job is to uphold the authority of the State with the power to use force or coercition, then you need to leave your religious symbols at home or in your locker while you are on the job. It is not that restrictive, if you represent the power of government, you are not representing your God. Most of these jobs have a uniform or a strict dress code anyway, religion should note create exceptions on that front.

The crucifix was removed by the CAQ pretty early in their first mandate. Some people were affraid there would be a backlash but it didn't happened.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It may not come across as nice or even acceptable to SSPers but my guess is that if newcomers who are ultra-religious opt to move out of Quebec or simply choose not to come here, many Quebecers would say "good riddance".

It's only acceptable to call out ultra religious Christians. Everyone else gets a slide.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

The crucifix was removed by the CAQ pretty early in their first mandate. Some people were affraid there would be a backlash but it didn't happened.

Only after the hypocrisy of keeping it within the legislature was pointed out, to which they relocated the crucifix elsewhere in the building as an act of goodwill towards those against Bill 21. Quebec can argue that crucifixes are 'heritage objects' as much as they like, but they are still hypocritical of the secularism bill they've brought forward, and shows the true intentions of the law which is to openly discriminate against religious minorities in the province, as below:

Perri Ravon, who represents the English Montreal School Board, said the law known as Bill 21 “disproportionately disadvantages Muslim women in the exercise of their religious liberty.”

She cited access to information requests sent to more than 300 public institutions in the province that showed the only people who have lost their jobs or not been hired as a result of the law are Muslim women who wear the hijab.

...

Ravon said that in theory the law applies to everyone equally, but in practice it only affects Muslim women.

“Who is losing their job as a result of Bill 21? Whose religious symbols are attracting negative attention? What symbol are people asking human resources directors about? The hijab every time,” she told the court.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9262163/quebec-bill-21-appeal-court-continues/

[Architype]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Only after the hypocrisy of keeping it within the legislature was pointed out, to which they relocated the crucifix elsewhere in the building as an act of goodwill towards those against Bill 21. Quebec can argue that crucifixes are 'heritage objects' as much as they like, but they are still hypocritical of the secularism bill they've brought forward, and shows the true intentions of the law which is to openly discriminate against religious minorities in the province, as below:

Here is something from that article you mentioned.

The crucifix hanging in Quebec's National Assembly is a historical symbol, not a religious one, even though it represents the Christian values of the province's two colonial ancestors, premier-designate François Legault said Thursday. . . .

The crucifix, he said, invokes the role of French Catholics and British Protestants in Quebec's history. He made no mention of Indigenous people.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...ult-crucifix-religious-symbols-1.4858757

What is this I am reading? Words which must never be spoken, the suggestion that the English belong anywhere in Quebec is sacrilegious. Les suzerains maléfiques doivent être exorcisés and banished from the landscape at all costs. Remember; speak no English, hear no English, see no English.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Luisito

You want to make it seem like Quebec is some how trying to uphold and protect christianity.

I have yet to come across a logical explanation of why the government pushed through a law banning religious symbolism in the public sector with the stated purpose being to uphold religious neutrality of the state while simultaneously fighting the removal of a cross in its legislature.

When you consider that the government passing the law went against its own rationale for imposing the religious symbol ban by resisting the removal of the cross, true motive naturally comes into question. All your whataboutism and deflections don't answer that vital question.