Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Source?

Also, your Muslim Gujarati merchant is not exactly the same thing as a Muslim North African in terms of conservatism and above all proselytism.

I think it's true that Muslims make up a larger share of the overall population in Ontario than in Quebec, though I'd also suspect that Muslims are a larger share of the immigrant-origin population in Quebec.

Immigration in Quebec is much more disproportionately North African and Middle Eastern than it is in Ontario, where people from South Asia and East Asia are the predominant immigrant groups.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

It’s the Anglosphere with its “When in Rome, demand that the Romans adapt to you” view

Which isn't even true. Try being served in French in Toronto... I once addressed a federal agent at the US-Canada border near Vancouver in French... what an angry reaction I got in return! That was pretty enlightening.

Apparently it's ok to wear a veil or a turban, but not ok to speak French. Go figure.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There is discrimination: minority religious rights are being violated.

Since the veil is not a part of the Muslim religion (nowhere in the Koran it says women must wear a veil), how can it be a violation of religious rights?

It is, on the other hand, certainly a violation of macho, patriarchal attitudes. I thought liberal Canada would be quite fine with that...

PS: A violation of religious rights would be: forcing Muslims to eat pork in school canteens, forbidding Muslims from attending the Friday prayer, banning the sale of lamb and mutton on the day of Eid, etc. I don't think any of this is taking place in Québec.

[Acajack]

Generally lost in the debate is that tons of Muslim women (who are still believers in the faith) don't wear a veil, which goes against the view that in order to be a good Muslim, a woman absolutely needs to cover up.

Plenty of Sikh men don't wear turbans, and many Jewish men don't even wear kippas.

[big T]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Ultimately, yes.

I think there's also a difference in what different people mean by secularism.

In both cases I think the end goal is to limit the influence of religion in decision-making and the public sphere. One approach tends to treat religion as a mostly-inherited, mostly-immutable cultural quality that a person simply is, and the process of secularization involves treating all religions as equally valid, with the aim that no one should be disadvantaged due to their religion not aligning with that of the majority/decision-makers. It's considered oppressive to prevent someone from adhering to their religion.

The other approach tends to treat religion mostly as a philosophy and/or set of rules that a person can choose to follow/adopt or discard/ignore, and the process of secularization involves treating all religions as equally invalid. Religion is largely viewed unfavourably as a tool of oppression.

I don't really think either approach is "wrong" necessarily, but they're at odds with each other. I would say that most of Anglo-Canada is "Type A", while Quebec (and much of Europe) is "Type B". The US mainstream is sort of "Type A" as well, but "not very secular" is probably a better description for most of the States.

Let’s not forget that Anglo-American civilisation (type A) has its own set of sacred principles, driven by its own aristocracy, which happen to be more focused on market capitalism than individual philosophy. This is how we get to celebrate turban wearing CEOs but still fundamentally distrust State-controlled anything (including important wealth catalysts like research or education). I think lumping all of “the West” together has done a disservice to the awareness of the important civilizational differences within the bloc.

What really happened is a formidable shift in marketing power from the Enlightenment to now, with the relative allure of Cartesian principles tied to the fortune of their homeland in continental Europe — by no means dead or irrelevant, but solidly second place.

Though I’ll say that the “type b” approach tends to miss the fact that religion is, like it or not, a fundamental part of human history everywhere. It’s quite natural that hyper rational continental European philosophy would go that route, but when the rubber hits the ground it’s hard to socially engineer populations at that speed. It took Europe itself over a century to meaningfully transform its relationship to Christianity. The world is accelerating, but it’s unrealistic to expect immigrants (and other civilizations) to do the same and at warp speed.

Quebec secularism from that angle is pure technocracy, especially when views from the ROC or US.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by big T

Let’s not forget that Anglo-American civilisation (type A) has its own set of sacred principles, driven by its own aristocracy, which happen to be more focused on market capitalism than individual philosophy. This is how we get to celebrate turban wearing CEOs but still fundamentally distrust State-controlled anything (including important wealth catalysts like research or education). I think lumping all of “the West” together has done a disservice to the awareness of the important civilizational differences within the bloc.

What really happened is a formidable shift in marketing power from the Enlightenment to now, with the relative allure of Cartesian principles tied to the fortune of their homeland in continental Europe — by no means dead or irrelevant, but solidly second place.

Though I’ll say that the “type b” approach tends to miss the fact that religion is, like it or not, a fundamental part of human history everywhere. It’s quite natural that hyper rational continental European philosophy would go that route, but when the rubber hits the ground it’s hard to socially engineer populations at that speed. It took Europe itself over a century to meaningfully transform its relationship to Christianity. The world is accelerating, but it’s unrealistic to expect immigrants (and other civilizations) to do the same and at warp speed.

Quebec secularism from that angle is pure technocracy, especially when views from the ROC or US.

I like to call it social engineering, something which Anglo-American culture generally abhors.

Though to pick up on your points, that's not because Anglo-Americans are especially open to anything and everything, but rather because they've historically stacked so many of the odds in their favour that letting things evolve naturally almost always leads them to going their way.

It's what I call the Jack Valenti view, for those who know who he was.

[kool maudit]

The ethos found within having high levels of immigration for growth, commerce and fertility is not the same as that within secularism. The latter is French and is arguably a social technology designed to handle sectarian fractures within Christendom; the former is Anglo and is the bazaar or pirate port where each comes in his costume.

(We are a Sea People, a Phoenicia!)

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by big T

Though I’ll say that the “type b” approach tends to miss the fact that religion is, like it or not, a fundamental part of human history everywhere.

European secularism is not type B anyway. That's a misunderstanding of what secularism is on his part (the forumer a few posts back who invented that typology). European secularism respects religion, many French presidents were devout Catholics, de Gaulle even attended a mass in the cathedral of Rheims with the German chancellor Adenauer to celebrate the reconciliation of France and Germany in 1962, the liberation of Paris in 1944 was celebrated by a famous Te Deum in Notre Dame Cathedral, etc., etc.

Europeans secularism is not anti-religious (at least for its moderate wing, which is the one that is majoritarian and the one that wrote the secular laws). European secularism just doesn't want religion to be imposed on people, and it doesn't want religion to force people to behave in certain ways. European secularism is a safeguard, a setting of red lines, but it is not anti-religious or trying to destroy religion.

That's de Gaulle and Adenauer at the Rheims cathedral (Adenauer was a German Catholic, being from the Rhineland):



As heir of the French kings, the president of the French Republic is also, by right, honorary canon of St. John Lateran in Rome. In the first decades after the secularism law of 1905, the French presidents did not claim the title, but since 1957 they've been much more relaxed about it and they travel to Rome after being elected president to be instituted as honorary canon.

That's Macron in 2018 being received as honorary canon of St. John Lateran:





• Video Link

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I like to call it social engineering, something which Anglo-American culture generally abhors. .

Except, of course, when they try to ban abortion or gay marriage. That's "social engineering" on a major scale...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

European secularism is not type B anyway. That's a misunderstanding of what secularism is on his part (the forumer a few posts back who invented that typology). European secularism respects religion, many French presidents were devout Catholics, de Gaulle even attended a mass in the cathedral of Rheims with the German chancellor Adenauer to celebrate the reconciliation of France and Germany in 1962, the liberation of Paris in 1944 was celebrated by a famous Te Deum in Notre Dame Cathedral, etc., etc.

Europeans secularism is not anti-religious (at least for its moderate wing, which is the one that is majoritarian and the one that wrote the secular laws). European secularism just doesn't want religion to be imposed on people, and it doesn't want religion to force people to behave in certain ways. European secularism is a safeguard, a setting of red lines, but it is not anti-religious or trying to destroy religion.

That's de Gaulle and Adenauer at the Rheims cathedral (Adenauer was a German Catholic, being from the Rhineland):



As heir of the French kings, the president of the French Republic is also, by right, honorary canon of St. John Lateran in Rome. In the first decades after the secularism law of 1905, the French presidents did not claim the title, but since 1957 they've been much more relaxed about it and they travel to Rome after being elected president to be instituted as honorary canon.

That's Macron in 2018 being received as honorary canon of St. John Lateran:





• Video Link

La France, la fille aînée de l'Église!

I do think that here in Quebec our particular brand of laïcité has played out with more anti-religious tendencies. There are obvious reasons for this. A huge one is that the dominance of the Catholic church was overall stronger here than in France and is also much more recent.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Except, of course, when they try to ban abortion or gay marriage. That's "social engineering" on a major scale...

Every society or civilization has its contradictions!

Though in fairness, a pretty strong majority of Anglo-Canadians aren't into banning abortion and gay rights.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Every society or civilization has its contradictions!

Though in fairness, a pretty strong majority of Anglo-Canadians aren't into banning abortion and gay rights.

Those prohibitions are on the endangered list with only a declining share of US protestants behind them.

Which is actually a consequence of the aversion to social engineering. Had Anglos, in the period of our Christian faith, been more inclined to social engineering, we likely wouldn't have left those things out on the legal branches we did.

"The Royal Commission For Fruitfulness & Abundance, Whitehall SW1"

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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.

I think most people including myself didn't have strong feelings about the cross either way - and I think this included the CAQ government.

But a perfectly logical argument could definitely have been made that it's a heritage symbol that's part of the historic décor of the assembly, the same way there are tons of crosses embedded in the walls and elsewhere in Parliament in Ottawa, or stuff like the cross on Mount Royal is.

The Quebec government was relentlessly harassed (by people who mostly aren't actually believers in laïcité, ironically) about the continued presence of the cross, which is why they eventually relented and removed it.

The same people (as I said - most of whom don't truly believe in laïcité) are continuing today their obsessive harassment about stuff like the cross on Mount Royal, the fact that Christmas is a stat holiday or that many streets and towns are named for saints.

I doubt they will back down (being true believers of course) but they appear more and more ridiculous, and actually prove with their behaviour that religious fervour can sometimes be a dangerous obsession.

[lio45]

I remember back when this exact same subject was brought up, I’m pretty sure I found British lions among the decor of the Blue Hall.

Keeping that cross and the lions (heritage/architecture), while removing official prayers and oath to the British monarch (“fresh” manifestations of those symbols), is perfectly reasonable.

Even in an independent Quebec ruled by the PQ, I’m sure the British Monarchy themed decor of the inside of our Parliament would have been left alone. And when that’s the obvious, organic view (that heritage is heritage, and it’s no big deal, it’s the past, what matters is the present) the similar view from secularists re: the crucifix is absolutely natural as well. It’s only the trolls who don’t get it

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by lio45

Even in an independent Quebec ruled by the PQ

An independent Québec probably wouldn't be ruled by the PQ. Like Moses, the PQ would have accomplished its historical mission, and its purpose would disappear.

Anyway, the secularism debate is another example why the independence of Québec would matter (and does matter). An independent Québec couldn't be bossed around as to how it views secularism or Islamic veils. It would make its own choices.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by big T

Though I’ll say that the “type b” approach tends to miss the fact that religion is, like it or not, a fundamental part of human history everywhere. It’s quite natural that hyper rational continental European philosophy would go that route, but when the rubber hits the ground it’s hard to socially engineer populations at that speed. It took Europe itself over a century to meaningfully transform its relationship to Christianity. The world is accelerating, but it’s unrealistic to expect immigrants (and other civilizations) to do the same and at warp speed.

Quebec secularism from that angle is pure technocracy, especially when views from the ROC or US.

Quebec is naive if it thinks it can administer government secularity - there will always be an inherent bias in any system and Bill 21 is full of both them and hypocrises. It may claim to be something de jure but de facto is entirely different. Secularity for you but not for me, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Quebec is naive if it thinks it can administer government secularity - there will always be an inherent bias in any system and Bill 21 is full of both them and hypocrises. It may claim to be something de jure but de facto is entirely different. Secularity for you but not for me, etc.

You may not like Bill 21 or even secularism (perhaps laïcité in particular) and they of course are open to criticism, but if you really think the above, there are about a gazillion points in this discussion that you have completely missed.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You may not like Bill 21 or even secularism (perhaps laïcité in particular) and they of course are open to criticism, but if you really think the above, there are about a gazillion points in this discussion that you have completely missed.

You know that condescending and dismissive reply you gave Hybrid earlier? I'll use that here:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Matter of opinion.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Keeping that cross and the lions (heritage/architecture), while removing official prayers and oath to the British monarch (“fresh” manifestations of those symbols), is perfectly reasonable.
)

Thinking of this duality, every member of the assembly swearing an oath to the British monarch in 2022 would be like opening a brand new public school in 2023 and having it named "École du Sacré-Coeur de Jésus".

Removing the cross from the chamber (as was done), on the other hand, is more akin to changing the name of "Rue Ste-Catherine" to "Rue Catherine" or forcing everyone named Lévesque or Saint-Pierre to change their surnames to something that does not evoke Christianity.

People who can't see the difference between the two are probably being deliberately obtuse.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

You know that condescending and dismissive reply you gave Hybrid earlier? I'll use that here:

There are no hypocritical double standards in Bill 21 and its application. Numerous examples that prove this have been provided on this thread. Including the example from the Montreal police that I gave, which is what re-energized this discussion.

You are free to give counter-examples if you wish, and then we can discuss them. I'd be happy to.

Until then, claims of hypocrisy and other moral failings are just that - claims.