Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

And that’s exactly the “measurable benefits of Bill 21” that you’ve so resoundingly failed to notice: weed out the incompatible immigrants, for the greater good of everyone.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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.

The question should be: Does allowing public servants such as teachers to wear their religious garments interfere with their ability to exercise authority in a religiously neutral way? Regardless of religious garments, a religious person can let their beliefs interfere with their job, and so religious symbols are not necessarily a determinant of one's ability to exercise authority in a religiously neutral way. The law is based on pure optics, which is a dangerous precedent to set in lawmaking.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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 thing a lot of people get wrong with the religious symbols such as the hijab is that they are not necessarily intended to be symbols that 'represent their religion/god', like the cross. The hijab is primarily a tool to for women to coverup their hair in public. They cannot simply go out in public without their hair covered as it is a key part of their religion.

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.

It should have been the very first thing to come down under a religious symbol ban, and yet it only came down after months of resistance to massive backlash. That really speaks loudly to the priorities of the government.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by lio45

And that’s exactly the “measurable benefits of Bill 21” that you’ve so resoundingly failed to notice: weed out the incompatible immigrants, for the greater good of everyone.

Au contraire, I am acutely aware that that is the goal, except 'the greater good of everyone' in this sense really means 'the appeasement of the ignorant'.

[Hybrid247]

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".

Funny how someone who follows a religion other than Christianity is considered "ultra-religious" by Quebecers.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Funny how someone who follows a religion other than Christianity is considered "ultra-religious" by Quebecers.

Christianity is still seen, hypocritically, as the white supremicist religion; even if not overtly expressed, the sentiment is very well established and embedded in the culture. Also, the ultimate supremacy of Christianity as exclusive, and in negation of other religions is still a core concept.

[Luisito]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

Is it really that bad to recognize the role of Christianity in Quebec from a historical and cultural perspective? You don't actually have to be Christian to appreciate that. Quebec is one of the least religious provinces in Canada. To say otherwise is delusional.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Funny how someone who follows a religion other than Christianity is considered "ultra-religious" by Quebecers.

Funny and hypocritical how some Canadians accuse Quebec of being racist for standing up for secularism.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Architype

Christianity is still seen, hypocritically, as the white supremicist religion; even if not overtly expressed, the sentiment is very well established and embedded in the culture. Also, the ultimate supremacy of Christianity as exclusive, and in negation of other religions is still a core concept.

Yeah the ironic part about that is Christianity has it's roots in the middle east and spread very early on through out the middle east and Africa. Tell an Ethiopian , an Eritrian or a Coptic Egyptian that their religion is a white religion. Tell a Chaldean or Maronite that their religion is European. SMH Most of these regions were Christian before most of Europe was.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Is it really that bad to recognize the role of Christianity in Quebec from a historical and cultural perspective? You don't actually have to be Christian to appreciate that. Quebec is one of the least religious provinces in Canada. To say otherwise is delusional.

Getting hung up on symbology is a trivial matter to me. I don't personally care that the cross was there in the first place. I'm not the sensitive type that is easily offended or bothered by other religions, belief systems or lifestyles, so long as it doesn't impact me or others' way of life. It's the double standard and hypocrisy of it all, and more importantly, the true motive and intended outcome of Bill 21 which appears to be rooted in hate, intolerance and ignorance.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Getting hung up on symbology is a trivial matter to me. I don't personally care that the cross was there in the first place. I'm not the sensitive type that is easily offended or bothered by other religions, belief systems or lifestyles, so long as it doesn't impact me or others' way of life. It's the double standard and hypocrisy of it all, and more importantly, the true motive and intended outcome of Bill 21 which appears to be rooted in hate, intolerance and ignorance.

You clearly do have an issue with symbols making such out of place statements like that.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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

ROC imported wokeism, whereas Québec imported secularism. That's the issue. It's always a case of two solitudes, and will always be, whatever the subject, I'm afraid.

Well at least you both play hockey, so that's something in common I guess.

PS: Talking of which, is hockey more popular in Québec or in ROC? Or is it strictly the same?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

ROC imported wokeism, whereas Québec imported secularism. That's the issue. It's always a case of two solitudes, and will always be, whatever the subject, I'm afraid.

Well at least you both play hockey, so that's something in common I guess.

PS: Talking of which, is hockey more popular in Québec or in ROC? Or is it strictly the same?

Liberals used to espouse secularism. For some reason it no longer fits into the new wokeism cult and is now considered facist.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It should have been the very first thing to come down under a religious symbol ban, and yet it only came down after months of resistance to massive backlash. That really speaks loudly to the priorities of the government.

No one really wanted to keep the cross (no, not even the CAQ) but no one wanted to be the one to take is away for fear of a backlash. Same thing for the oath to the King. Finally, both the cross and the oath are out and the better we are for it. If the CAQ had removed the cross earlier, people would have complained that they put too much haste for a mere symbol. Hey, people said the same thing because when removed the oath ("why waste time with that when there is so much more to do..."). It is a catch 22; you do it quickly and you are accused of wasting time on details, you do it slowly and you are accused of not having it done earlier.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

There is no other province of Canada that has as many Muslim immigrants as Québec. When Ontario or Alberta have the majority of their immigrants coming from the most conservative parts of the Muslim world, we'll talk about it again.

When you have very large communities of immigrants from North Africa, if the state doesn't legislate quickly to ban the veil at least in neutral public space like schools, courts, etc, then you can be pretty sure that very quickly almost all women from North African background will be forced to wear it due to peer pressure. We see that in Europe (and North Africa saw it after the 1970s... in the 1960s and 1970s there were many non-veiled women over there, but starting in the 1980s with the rise of Muslim conservatism imported in a large measure from Saudi Arabia all the women in Algeria had to veil themselves).

That was Algiers in the 1970s:







And Algiers today:







The regression that has taken place in that part of the world, which is the source of most Muslim immigrants in Québec, is unbelievable.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The question should be: Does allowing public servants such as teachers to wear their religious garments interfere with their ability to exercise authority in a religiously neutral way? Regardless of religious garments, a religious person can let their beliefs interfere with their job, and so religious symbols are not necessarily a determinant of one's ability to exercise authority in a religiously neutral way. The law is based on pure optics, which is a dangerous precedent to set in lawmaking.

Does not wearing a religious garment prevent someone from exercising authority? Yes people can let their religious beliefs interfere with their job even without wearing symbols, but not wearing symbols is for the benefit of the people on the receving hand of said authority. If you are Jewish or Hindu would you feel ok being arrested or judged by a Muslim so into his religion that he has to wear visible symbols on the job while representing the power of the State? Would a liberal American be comfortable being judge by a judge so convinced of his political opinions that he needs to wear a MAGA hat on the bench? Religious neutrality of the State is also a matter of appereance.

I am still on the fence about teachers. They don't hold authority the same way as a cop, a prison guard or a judge. But on the other hand, they do have a lof of power of influence and they need to be teaching their classes not transmit their religious beliefs. Another but; you can discuss with a teacher the why of that or that religious symbol, it is not such a good idea to do the same with a police officer arresting you or with a judge...

[Luisito]

You are 100% correct New Brisavoine. Ofcourse your point will be ignored. It is sad how liberals can defend hijabs and burqas when women in the muslim world have been crying out (even getting killed) over this for decades. Look at what happened recently in Iran. Yet anybody that speaks out against this extreme form of religion will be called racist and hateful.

Good post New Brisavoine. I am intersted to see the excuses people will come up to defend this for of extreme Islam here.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

There is no other province of Canada that has as many Muslim immigrants as Québec. When Ontario or Alberta have the majority of their immigrants coming from the most conservative parts of the Muslim world, we'll talk about it again.

...

Doesn't Ontario receive more Muslim immigrants than Quebec? The Muslim population is certainly much larger.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

They cannot simply go out in public without their hair covered as it is a key part of their religion.

It isn't. That's a complete fallacy imported from Saudi Arabia thanks to their countless petrodollars.

To say the veil is a key part of Islam is like saying that the mantilla is a key part of Christianism.





That lady up there is the wife of Francisco Franco, the dictator of Spain. I suppose if Spain had been the center of the Christian world and gorged with hundreds of billions of petrodollars, they would have imposed the mantilla on all Christian women worldwide...

Now imagine the wokeists saying "hey, but the mantilla is a key element of their religion, we cannot ban the mantilla in schools, our Christian Filipino/Congolese/Mexican immigrants must be allowed to wear it"...

[JHikka]

Such a woeful misconstruing of history that it's not even worth the effort of addressing for the most part. Pining for the days of French colonial rule in Algeria and fearmongering with Islamphobia is just....awful? No other words.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Doesn't Ontario receive more Muslim immigrants than Quebec? The Muslim population is certainly much larger.

Relative numbers vs absolute numbers... Ontario is also more populated than Québec and receives more overall immigrants than Québec.