Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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

I know, I know. Shades of the weeks that followed the fire in the Reichstag.

We got the picture long ago.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

So even if 50% of Muslim women don't wear it (I'd say it's at least that many in Canada at least) it's still a "requirement" for Muslims?

Sérieux?

How does that make sense?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So even if 50% of Muslim women don't wear it (I'd say it's at least that many in Canada at least) it's still a "requirement" for Muslims?

Sérieux?

How does that make sense?

Does it make sense to view Islam (or Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, etc) as a one-size-fits-all religion? Or to think that people are dishonest about how they interpret and express the requirements of their faith?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Does it make sense to view Islam (or Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, etc) as a one-size-fits-all religion? Or to think that people are dishonest about how they interpret and express the requirements of their faith?

Oh, I fully understand this point.

But it actually underscores the entirely arbitrary and open-ended nature of religious exemptions that something like Bill 21 is meant to address.

If I may play Lio for a minute, if it's going to be a free-for-all, what's preventing someone from saying that their specific branch of Zoroastrianism believes it's a mortal sin to pay taxes?

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.)

I was well aware that the Bouchard and Taylor had regrets about their report, not so much about the report itself but more about the unintended consequences of it, particularly how it seems to have fueled xenophobic sentiment in the province. That's not flip-flopping, as you put it. They have maintained their position on Bill 21 since its inception.

The reason I asked for proof is because your comment seemed to imply that they had changed their position on Bill 21. They have not. No need for the condescending tone over something you never articulated clearly to begin with.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Oh, I fully understand this point.

But it actually underscores the entirely arbitrary and open-ended nature of religious exemptions that something like Bill 21 is meant to address.

If I may play Lio for a minute, if it's going to be a free-for-all, what's preventing someone from saying that their specific branch of Zoroastrianism believes it's a mortal sin to pay taxes?

Re “arbitrary”, l’d ask - relevance? Re “Open-ended”, I’d respond - reasonable accommodation.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Re “arbitrary”, l’d ask - relevance? Re “Open-ended”, I’d respond - reasonable accommodation.

Quebec has drawn the line at forcing people to know about your religion with a showy/obvious display of your religious belief while acting as a representative of the state. Seems entirely reasonable to me.

Why not take your hijab off to teach in school? We are not a Muslim country, we are secular, and Islam should not be afforded special rights. Such regressive practices are particularly galling not only in light of the great and hard-won strides women in the West have made, but even more so as women in Iran and Afghanistan courageously struggle to break free of the murderous edicts of their Islamic rulers.

Curiously enough, though, Muslims may now have allies with the woke authoritarians, in that they both put talismanic importance into clothing/costumes. To wit, "this head covering brings me closer to Allah, and it is important that everyone know I am a Muslim" alongside "this clothing/makeup/wig/prosthetic literally converts a man into a woman." I'd always assumed that transubstantiation was the last of the laughable wizardry that otherwise rational adults paid lip-service to, but now the societal whack-a-mole board has turned up all this other insanity, and the zealotry of the disciples makes it appear that they really believe it.

Enlightenment? What Enlightenment?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by rousseau

....

Enlightenment? What Enlightenment?

Now that, in the context of Quebec, would be quite a thread. I have theories, but I'll keep them to myself.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Re “arbitrary”, l’d ask - relevance? Re “Open-ended”, I’d respond - reasonable accommodation.

Its arbitrary nature is entirely relevant because top-level unassailable human rights are generally about things that are innate and unchangeable. Like having a disability. This is the kind of stuff for which you can demand exemptions and accommodation vis-à-vis the rules that normally govern the rest of us.

The ultra-religious crowd that many of you lefties are now caucusing with have been pushing somewhat successfully for religion to be considered an innate trait.

It's also why they are pushing for criticism of their religions (ie blasphemy) to be recognized as a hate crime.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The ultra-religious crowd that many of you lefties are now caucusing with have been pushing somewhat successfully for religion to be considered an innate trait.

It's also why they are pushing for criticism of their religions (ie blasphemy) to be recognized as a hate crime.

(Cue for rousseau to chime in with his hobbyhorse, that the woke left is now mostly indistinguishable from a religious cult.)

The woke left is now mostly indistinguishable from a religious cult.

[Luisito]

I wonder how those same ultra-religious groups lefties defend so fervently feel about things like gender pronouns and gender theory being taught in public schools? I would imagine these religious groups must be as equally supportive and accepting of the LGBTQ crowd.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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)

A physician-patient relationship is not the same type of authority as with a police officer, a prison guard or a judge. If you don't obey a police officer, he can use force against you, a doctor cannot (legally) do that (even though you might die if you don't listen to your doctor).

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

It wouldn't be the first time that people wanted to push their views accused a government of racism to put pressure on them. Doesn't make it true but it might direct public opinion to believe it.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

Almost by definition a law will impact some people more than others.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

Bill 21 sets limits on religious rights; basically it says your religion doesn't make you above others. It the end, that is a huge benefit.

Religion is a opinion, nothing more.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Luisito

I wonder how those same ultra-religious groups lefties defend so fervently feel about things like gender pronouns and gender theory being taught in public schools? I would imagine these religious groups must be as equally supportive and accepting of the LGBTQ crowd.

If ever we needed a more vivid example of "politics makes for strange bedfellows"...

But get ready to trot out the famous meme of the snake eating its own tail!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

(Cue for rousseau to chime in with his hobbyhorse, that the woke left is now mostly indistinguishable from a religious cult.)

The woke left is now mostly indistinguishable from a religious cult.

All the signs are there:

- a requirement to believe stuff that defies factual logic, similar to the parable of doubting Thomas: blessed are those who believe, and have not seen.

- scorn and banishment for those who don't believe or ask too many unwelcome questions

- contempt for what came before, dismissal of existing tenets, and a strong belief in the "new improved, innovative and more advanced" nature of their own views

- forgiveness of the shortcomings of members (and especially leaders) of the belief system, often serious, but which is not extended to those outside for identical transgressions

I could go on...

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If ever we needed a more vivid example of "politics makes for strange bedfellows"...

But get ready to trot out the famous meme of the snake eating its own tail!

Perhaps this is a little off topic. Isn't it true that the city of Montreal would be considered the most progressive entity of Quebec? It's the jewel in the crown. Didn't they vote mainly Liberal? How is it that the ruling CAQ seems to govern without the support of its most important city, gaining the most support from the most backward rural areas of the province? In any jurisdiction, it is the urban areas that should be the most progressive (meaning reflecting the modern trends of the time). This is similar to the non-progressive Southern US isn't it? If change isn't looking forward it must be looking backward. Perhaps it is the tail doing the eating. Just a thought.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

Perhaps this is a little off topic. Isn't it true that the city of Montreal would be considered the most progressive entity of Quebec? It's the jewel in the crown. Didn't they vote mainly Liberal? How is it that the ruling CAQ seems to govern without the support of its most important city, gaining the most support from the most backward rural areas of the province? In any jurisdiction, it is the urban areas that should be the most progressive (meaning reflecting the modern trends of the time). This is similar to the non-progressive Southern US isn't it? If change isn't looking forward it must be looking backward. Perhaps it is the tail doing the eating. Just a thought.

Québec City, Gatineau, Laval, the south shore of Montréal and even parts of Montréal itself are not backward rural areas.

It is true that Montréal is where CAQ support is lowest but to equate the CAQ or even rural Québec with the US South is utterly simplistic and even dumb. Considering that one of the CAQ's biggest sins is literally that it is anti-religion!

We are not the United States here.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Québec City, Gatineau, Laval, the south shore of Montréal and even parts of Montréal itself are not backward rural areas.

It is true that Montréal is where CAQ support is lowest but to equate the CAQ or even rural Québec with the US South is utterly simplistic and even dumb. Considering that one of the CAQ's biggest sins is literally that it is anti-religion!

We are not the United States here.

Well it's all relative. I don't normally call people backward, but I grew up in a small rural area, so I do get dibs on that. Most urban dwellers do have that view of the rural parts after all. How could it be otherwise? I really meant that these areas are controlled by the most regressive elements of society. So, you think it's Montreal that's the most backward part of the province? I should add, just to clarify, my small rural ancestral area is by most metrics, more progressive than Quebec.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

All the signs are there:

- a requirement to believe stuff that defies factual logic, similar to the parable of doubting Thomas: blessed are those who believe, and have not seen.

- scorn and banishment for those who don't believe or ask too many unwelcome questions

- contempt for what came before, dismissal of existing tenets, and a strong belief in the "new improved, innovative and more advanced" nature of their own views

- forgiveness of the shortcomings of members (and especially leaders) of the belief system, often serious, but which is not extended to those outside for identical transgressions

I could go on...

This does sound like Woketarianism, yes.

But it also sounds distinctly Trumpian as well..................

Our world is now controlled by opposing cults.

God help us all.

Whatever happened to pragmatism???

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Its arbitrary nature is entirely relevant because top-level unassailable human rights are generally about things that are innate and unchangeable. Like having a disability. This is the kind of stuff for which you can demand exemptions and accommodation vis-à-vis the rules that normally govern the rest of us.

The ultra-religious crowd that many of you lefties are now caucusing with have been pushing somewhat successfully for religion to be considered an innate trait.

It's also why they are pushing for criticism of their religions (ie blasphemy) to be recognized as a hate crime.

Pragmatic centrist, as I've mentioned before.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

This does sound like Woketarianism, yes.

But it also sounds distinctly Trumpian as well..................

Our world is now controlled by opposing cults.

God help us all.

Whatever happened to pragmatism???

You realize that these extreme factions are a mere minority of the population, they only have the illusion of control. Personally I don't support the extreme views on the left either, but I think ils combattent le feu par le feu.