Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So perhaps you need to find a new battle cry, like the cross on Mount Royal, or the hundreds of streets and towns named for saints?

Go for it!

(See my video above BTW.)

It's only a matter of time before people start complaining about that. It already started in California. I have seen videos of woke cultist complaining about all the places the begin with "San" or "Santa".

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Let us all remember, starting with you my friend, that when it comes to the cross you are beating a dead horse here. As it was removed several years ago.

Nobody is arguing that the cross wasn't removed (it was relocated to a different room in the same building lol), but that the government tried to pretend it was enacting secularism whilst trying to maintain a crucifix in its main room. It's hypocrisy. Trying to change the definition of a religious item to preserve it is just the cherry on top.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Given all of the observable trends, it's not hard to imagine more than a few schools in Montreal having a decent segment of teachers wearing religious garb (we know which one) in the not-too-distant future.

Like it or not, this has a normalizing and even coercive effect on kids.

On a societal level there are already parts of metro areas in Western Europe where an even broader normalization of this sort has taken place, and women "covering up" is now the community norm on the streets and in public places. Women who dress in a way that any western-raised person would consider simply normal and respectable now get harassed for allegedly looking like sluts.

If you don't have a source for any of this then it's conjecture. You have no way to prove it's coercive. People can think for themselves and don't need you to tell them how they feel or think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Luisito

It's only a matter of time before people start complaining about that. It already started in California. I have seen videos of woke cultist complaining about all the places the begin with "San" or "Santa".

I wonder if in certain circles there might not be a bit of subtle but convenient "hispanophobia" associated with that.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if in certain circles there might not be a bit of subtle but convenient "hispanophobia" associated with that.

Possibly but the videos I saw were from Hispanics themselves. 2nd or 3rd generation Hispanics liberal art college students with valley girl accents complaning about colonization.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Possibly but the videos I saw were from Hispanics themselves. 2nd or 3rd generation Hispanics liberal art college students had valley girl accents complaning about colonization.

Not sure if I should say "oh my" or "LOL"!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Nobody is arguing that the cross wasn't removed (it was relocated to a different room in the same building lol), but that the government tried to pretend it was enacting secularism whilst trying to maintain a crucifix in its main room. It's hypocrisy. Trying to change the definition of a religious item to preserve it is just the cherry on top.


If you don't have a source for any of this then it's conjecture. You have no way to prove it's coercive. People can think for themselves and don't need you to tell them how they feel or think.

As tiresome as this runaround wear-down can be...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW0rj7tIbaM

Secondary sources: Acajack kids and significant others (spending quite a bit of time in Europe fairly recently).

[JHikka]

A news report from France (from six years ago, i'm assuming France has marched on despite this report) and your friends and family are hardly compelling sources. Implying that schoolchildren might be coerced (into what?) by their teacher wearing a headscarf is offensive. I'm tempted to label it Islamophobia because i'm not sure what else to call it.

Sorry that you seem to be bothered by people calling out your questionable stance on this subject. Perhaps it's best you leave this nonsense to the Current Events board where more users may agree with you.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's not the rationale. The rationale is, the goal of Bill 21 is to make it clear that you can't play the religion card anymore to trump universal professionalism rules that apply to all.

I was clearly referring to Toxik's comment that I had quoted when I said that, not the official rationale for the Bill 21. As I said in my comment, I was addressing arguments being made by Bill 21 defenders, such as yourselves.

Since you brought it up, though, let's talk about the basis of Bill 21 in that case. The official rationale for the Bill is derived from the 2007 Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodation, which was established in response to "public discontent concerning reasonable accommodation" and had the following official mandate:

"a) take stock of accommodation practices in Québec; b) analyse the attendant issues bearing in mind the experience of other societies; c) conduct an extensive consultation on this topic; and d) formulate recommendations to the government to ensure that accommodation practices conform to Québec’s values as a pluralistic, democratic, egalitarian society."

You can read the report here. Altogether, the report provided some recommendations on the banning of certain religious symbols and for positions holding the most authority, such as judges, but the CAQ went even further by including school teachers and limited debate on the topic. Not very democratic.

The authors of the commission themselves opposed Bill 21 for being too radical, and Bouchard said the following: "History is filled with examples where a majority abused its powers at the expense of its minority." (Source)

This all brings into question the true motive of Bill 21, at least in part, which is magnified by the double standards that have been pointed out by its critics. That is why the whole ordeal surrounding the crucifix in the legislator is brought up. Even though it was eventually brought down months after the fact and only in response to massive public pressure, it's part of the overall pattern of inconsistency in the application of the religious symbol ban and the recommendations of the commission on which the Bill forms its basis.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by lio45

The flag of Quebec is "a religious symbol in every sense of the term"?!? That's pure bullshit.

"Passive decoration from an older era" is correct.

I was talking about the crucifix in the legislature.

Originally Posted by lio45

Can I be part of a "tiny proportion" of Canadian businessmen allowed to totally cheat on their taxes? Please pretty please. We'll only be a tiny proportion of the 40M residents of this country, so no problem making it officially tolerated!

In other words, this argument is also pure bullshit. Inacceptable stuff is inacceptable, regardless of proportion. Epitome of slippery slope ...

Lio, I'm not sure why you think bringing up false equivalencies is helping your position here. It seems to me that you are not debating in good faith and are only interested trying to poopoo every point that I've made by taking damn near everything out of context.

Not going to respond to you if that's how you want to go about discussing this.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if it gets repeated all the time here and elsewhere, this is false and a red herring.

The article I posted a few pages ago about Montreal cops being ordered to not display to cross of St Michel proves my point quite clearly.

It's also exactly the same thing as someone who wants to wear a hijab today in 2022 while working in a position designated by Bill 21.

I know you won't accept this as an argument, but a patch depicting a symbol which is intended to show affiliation to a religious sub-group is not the same as a woman covering up her hair in public settings to fulfill requirements of their faith. One is meant to be a symbol that isn't a religious requirement and the other is piece of clothing used only to fulfill a religious requirement.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Let us all remember, starting with you my friend, that when it comes to the cross you are beating a dead horse here. As it was removed several years ago.

So perhaps you need to find a new battle cry, like the cross on Mount Royal, or the hundreds of streets and towns named for saints?

Go for it!

With respect Acajack, I think you know that my point is not that Christian history should be wiped from every segment of the public realm in Quebec or even that the crucifix should have been removed from the legislature to begin with. You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally.

I'm repeating myself here, but the legislator's crucifix is brought up to point to the inconsistent application of the religious symbol ban and the apparent priority in implementing laws that affect religious minorities the most. Those actions by the government reveal intent, and we all know that actions speak louder than words.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I know you won't accept this as an argument, but a patch depicting a symbol which is intended to show affiliation to a religious sub-group is not the same as a woman covering up her hair in public settings to fulfill requirements of their faith. One is meant to be a symbol that isn't a religious requirement and the other is piece of clothing used only to fulfill a religious requirement.

The hijab or covering up of women in general isn't an absolute requirement of the Muslim faith. Lots of Muslim women don't cover up at all. Probably a majority in Canada do not, and many do not in Muslim countries that are not essentially theofascist like Iran and Afghanistan.

It's a choice, not a religious requirement. In fact, one of the unfortunate side effects of this debate is the impression it's created among non-Muslims and no doubt many Muslim girls and women themselves, is that in order to be a "good Muslim", a pubescent female - or even before in some cases - needs to cover up so as not to provoke men. That most definitely wasn't the case throughout the history of Islam and isn't even what the Coran says.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

The goal is not to remove every spec of religion in government, it is to remove every spec of religion on government agents with power of coercition.

Because doctors are not government agents with power of coercition.

I hope I cleared that for you.

From the Bouhard-Taylor commission report: "Another factor is a good argument for the duty of adjustment in the health sector. In the physician-patient relationship, the physician is in a position of authority and the patient in a position of dependence and often of vulnerability." (Source)

Originally Posted by ToxiK

The law is not aimed at minorities, it is a fake argument used by opponents to the law to make Québec look bad in hope to pressure it to give up. Using the racist card is typical in Canadian politics whenever Québec tries to do its own thing and Canada doesn't agree with what is being done.

So the authors of the Bouchard-Taylor commission report, which is the basis of Bill 21, are using the racist card and creating fake arguments to make Quebec look bad? I think you have merely convinced yourself of that because you are not open to valid criticism of the Bill to begin with.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Catholicism use to take way too much place in Québec not so along ago, and we don't want that to happen again. Not from catholicism and not from any other religion. If anything you could make a point that the law is aimed at Catholics because they are more numerous than other religion and they use to have more rights. But the law is fair, it applies to everyone. It doesn't prevent people from having a religion, it just prevent them to show it off on the job if they hold a position with coercitive power. Some religious symbols are more visible than others, but I would be equally uncomfortable with a police officer wearing a burqa than wearing a nun's habit.

The law does indeed apply to everyone but it does not impact everyone equally, not even close. That's the point. As previously stated, some religious garbs are not meant to "show off" the religion; they are meant to fulfill a religious requirement that is considered non-negotiable for many. As for the Burqa, there is legitimacy to banning it as face coverings carry much more significant and real implications.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

As for people wanting to wear religious symbols on the job just being a minority, it is just an excuse. If Québec acts early when there is not that many people currently affected by the law, then to argument is that it is useless or overkill because not that many people are involced. If Québec waits and the law ends up affecting more people, that the argument is the law should be stopped because it will affect too many people.

What is more relevant and important than that consideration is the balance between the harms and benefits that the law carries. Is the harm caused to the religious minorities outweighed by the benefit it brings? Your rationale prioritizes the implementation of an ideology, whereas such laws should be constructed to address a well-documented symptom that needs remediation.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The hijab or covering up of women in general isn't an absolute requirement of the Muslim faith. Lots of Muslim women don't cover up at all. Probably a majority in Canada do not, and many do not in Muslim countries that are not essentially theofascist like Iran and Afghanistan.

It's a choice, not a religious requirement. In fact, one of the unfortunate side effects of this debate is the impression it's created among non-Muslims and no doubt many Muslim girls and women themselves, is that in order to be a "good Muslim", a pubescent female - or even before in some cases - needs to cover up so as not to provoke men. That most definitely wasn't the case throughout the history of Islam and isn't even what the Coran says.

You make a fair point. But this comes down to different interpretations of religious text, meaning that it's a clear non-negotiable requirement for some and not for others. It's quite interesting, as I know twin sisters who have constantly switched between wearing the hijab and not wearing it, sometimes out of sync with one another. But that's the beauty of this country; they have the right to choose.

While this suggests it's not an absolute requirement, it's not really that simple. Views on this vary greatly based on different schools of thought across the Muslim world, which is much more diverse than I think most people realize. This is not so different from the different Christian sub-groups and churches throughout the Christian world.

At the end of the day, though, I don't think it can be said with absolute certainty that it's not a requirement for Muslims.

[Acajack]

I just got ragged on for showing a video of a news report from 2016 (I sincerely doubt things have gotten "better" since then BTW), so I don't see why the Bouchard-Taylor report from 15 years ago should be the definitive authority on these matters in any way, shape or form.

Sure, the report provides ideas, analysis and theories on the issues but the world has changed, and we've had three Premiers including 2 from different parties, since the report was presented.

The report's two authors have also flip-flopped on a number of these issues several times since they issued their report, in response to political, social and media pressures.

So I take all of that with a grain of salt.

Academics don't write our laws for us.

[Hybrid247]

I would argue that it's best to base laws, when possible, on scientific evidence, empirical data, and well-substantiated rationales rather than popular opinion, especially when those laws will have damaging effects on citizens, minorities or not. And despite the fact that popular opinion, in the absence of supporting evidence and analysis, can at times result in the creation of controversial laws, rarely do they directly violate protected rights like Bill 21 does. That's a potential slippery slope I don't see Bill 21 advocates acknowledging.

I would also argue that even though the report is 15 years old, as you say, a lot of the societal dynamics discussed therein are still very much, if not more, relevant now.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The report's two authors have also flip-flopped on a number of these issues several times since they issued their report, in response to political, social and media pressures.

Source?

The authors opposed the Bill in 2019 as it was going through the legislature, so are you saying they have since changed their minds on it?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I was talking about the crucifix in the legislature.

You seemed to be talking about crosses in general.

If you admit a cross isn't automatically an "active" Christian symbol, then we're on the same page (and the centenarian decoration on the wall, put there by one of our forebears and most prominent PMs, can continue to be passive heritage decoration).

The flag, the Mount Royal cross, the Duplessis crucifix, all the crosses that are part of the brickwork and granitework in our public schools and public hospitals, all of those crosses are passive heritage items nowadays. Which is why no one (except trolls) has a problem with them not going the way of the Bamiyan Buddhas, despite state secularism.

Lio, I'm not sure why you think bringing up false equivalencies is helping your position here. It seems to me that you are not debating in good faith and are only interested trying to poopoo every point that I've made by taking damn near everything out of context.

Not going to respond to you if that's how you want to go about discussing this.

?

It's not a false equivalency at all. Your argument was that it's supposedly not a problem because only a tiny minority do it. That argument obviously cannot work in society, it's a slippery slope.

At ToxiK pointed out, if we act early and nip it in the bud while only "a tiny minority" is affected, we're blamed because it's apparently not (yet) a problem so there's apparently no need to act yet, and if we wait until it's a bigger problem, then we're blamed because we're now affecting a much less tiny minority.

The former of the two makes more sense -- if we know it's a problem, which we do, then why wait idly until it's become a bigger one? Makes no sense at all. As soon as the problem is identified as such (by both 1) a resounding majority of the people and 2) by our democratically-elected, legitimate government) then it's ideal to just address it right away.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Even though it was eventually brought down months after the fact and only in response to massive public pressure, .

I wouldn't call it massive public pressure.

More like massive pressure from a small but extremely vocal minority.

It almost verged on emotional blackmail and harassment.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

With respect Acajack, I think you know that my point is not that Christian history should be wiped from every segment of the public realm in Quebec or even that the crucifix should have been removed from the legislature to begin with. You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally.

Yes, I know this. But I also don't agree and will not give in to the extreme emotional blackmail from some who insinuate that unless the cross on Mount Royal gets removed and all old saints' names are purged everywhere, we absolutely have to accept judges, cops and teachers who in theory would be allowed to wear full face coverings with mesh. or are dressed like Rabbi Jacob or the Flying Nun.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wouldn't call it massive public pressure.

More like massive pressure from a small but extremely vocal minority.

It almost verged on emotional blackmail and harassment.

Citizens holding their government accountable to legislation they've enacted isn't blackmail or harrassment. Good grief.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I would argue that it's best to base laws, when possible, on scientific evidence, empirical data, and well-substantiated rationales rather than popular opinion, especially when those laws will have damaging effects on citizens, minorities or not. And despite the fact that popular opinion, in the absence of supporting evidence and analysis, can at times result in the creation of controversial laws, rarely do they directly violate protected rights like Bill 21 does. That's a potential slippery slope I don't see Bill 21 advocates acknowledging.

I would also argue that even though the report is 15 years old, as you say, a lot of the societal dynamics discussed therein are still very much, if not more, relevant now.



Source?

The authors opposed the Bill in 2019 as it was going through the legislature, so are you saying they have since changed their minds on it?

Just one of a number of examples.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017...uebecs-religious-restrictions-hbert.html

With all due respect it's sometimes very frustrating to debate the issues and to be asked to "prove" basic stuff that should be known by people who have such strong views and want to debate them ad nauseam.

Like being in a basketball discussion about all-time greats and you bring up Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points in a game, and people argue with you that it's not true and harangue you for proof.

It's pretty basic knowledge to anyone who's followed Quebec politics on laïcité that both Bouchard and Taylor have become quite uncomfortable with a lot of stuff in their report, that successive governments have attempted to use to justify legislative measures. (In fact, three parties - Liberals, Parti Québécois and CAQ have attempted to resolve the matter based at least in part on interpretations of the Bouchard-Taylor report. Again, this shouldn't need to be explained, and even less "proven". Basic knowledge to anyone who has followed the issue. Even opponents of Bill 21.)