Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That's why our society has typically allowed people to practice their own faiths within reasonable limits.

The entire discussion can be reduced to "not everyone on this planet agrees with the exact position the Québécois people have collectively (and overwhelmingly) decided to place the line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable'". We basically agree on absolutely everything else.

When you think of it that way, the one and only possible outcome of this discussion is "why on Earth would it be outsiders who should be the ones deciding what we do and what we don't find reasonable, rather than... ourselves?!?!?"

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's exactly what Quebec is doing: allowing reasonable accomodations, while disallowing unreasonable accomodations.

Reasonable being, of course, defined by what an overwhelming majority of the People finds reasonable. Who else is going to define for us what we consider "reasonable" and what we don't, if not ourselves? Some guy from Poland chosen at random? The Taliban? Joe Biden? King Charles III?

Germans find it "reasonable" to be allowed to drive 300 km/h on the autobahn. We don't. Whether YOU think we're right or wrong... we made the collective decision to have speed limits on our freeways. Deal with it. It's our decision, not yours. We don't care what you think.

I honestly find it "unreasonable" to allow driving at such insane speeds on public roads, but... and this might come as a surprise to you... I'm currently not spending my time harassing the government of Germany right now to try to get them to change how they do things over there

Except driving at 300 km/h isn't a protected human right in the charter, and we're talking about laws that affect over 20% of the population within our own country, so not sure how any of that is relevant.

And please spare me with the accusations of "harassment". Criticizing government over laws they enact is core aspect of democracy; it is not harassment. Are Iranians harassing their government over the right to not be subjected to religious requirements because the majority of the country supports it? Miss me with that BS.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

False. The core tenets underpinning what are considered universal human rights are inextricably linked to the philosophy of liberalism, which is intended to combat discrimination and strengthen the concept of tolerance. Tolerance and accommodation for people with disabilities is captured within that philosophy.
.

This is not really a response to what I said, though.

Unchangeable things like disabilities and race are generally seen as different from other stuff that is changeable or personal "choice".

This is precisely why the gay community fought so hard to get sexual orientation recognized as something biologically determined as opposed to just a "preference". This gives their rights a stronger foundation to defend against clawbacks.

The ultra-religious crowd (particularly more traditionalist Muslims but this is also present in all other religions, including Christianity) are also lobbying hard for religious beliefs to be considered innate and unchangeable, as opposed to something acquired or discarded at will.

One idea behind achieving the maximum recognition in the human rights framework is to obtain all sorts of exceptions, accommodations and impositions on stuff ranging from dress codes but also like sex education classes where their kids might learn that homosexuality is legitimate, mixing of males and females in spaces like swimming pools, sharia law used for couple and family matters, etc.

I covered all of this before, in addition to what is also going on with respect to blasphemy.

Quebec's Bill 21 is a line in the sand against religious exceptionalism, and places religion on the same level as stuff like political beliefs. Which yes are protected under our human rights framework, but not nearly to the same degree as the stuff that is considered innate.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Except driving at 300 km/h isn't a protected human right in the charter

Which places it in the same category as everything Bill 21 shuts the door on: it's all stuff that is not "protected" (non-NWCable) charter rights.

Which, incidentally, is exactly why it's legally possible for the government to take away those "rights": because they are actually not protected charter rights.

There are a bunch of charter rights that are actually protected, and those can't be taken away.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Criticizing government over laws they enact is core aspect of democracy; it is not harassment.

"Criticizing" and "harassing" are on the same continuum: it's a truism that there exists a point where one eventually becomes the other.

"I'm not harassing, I'm just criticizing... extremely rabidly, unpleasantly, and relentlessly"

BTW, I'm completely fine with reasonable criticism. I totally agree with you (who doesn't?) that it's a core aspect of democracy to be able to criticize the government's choices.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quebec's Bill 21 is a line in the sand against religious exceptionalism, and places religion on the same level as stuff like political beliefs. Which yes are protected under our human rights framework, but not nearly to the same degree as the stuff that is considered innate.

Not quite. From Policy Options:

One could be forgiven for thinking that the main purpose of Bill 21 is to promote the state’s duty of religious neutrality. These words appear no fewer than seven times throughout the legislation, and the Bill’s title references the French concept of laicity, or the ideal that the exercise of state power ought to be divorced from expressions of religious dogma. Yet, despite its professed support for religious neutrality, Bill 21’s ban on religious symbols is fundamentally inconsistent with how this constitutional principle is actually understood in Canadian law.

Since the advent of the Charter, the Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the Constitution as limiting the state’s jurisdiction in matters concerning religion. This does not, however, mean that the Charter banishes religion or religious expression from the public sphere. Far from it.

The Canadian principle of religious neutrality holds that governments must remain neutral on questions of religion or theology by neither favouring nor disfavouring any particular belief. In practice, this means that it’s unconstitutional for the state to instruct its citizens on what constitutes the right religion. While governments can’t be explicitly religious, they also can’t be explicitly irreligious: the state must treat religious groups equally.

In this way, religious neutrality reinforces the Charter’s guarantees of freedom of religion under section 2(a) and the right to equality under section 15. Indeed, without religious neutrality, there can be no meaningful guarantee for either of these constitutional protections. If the state can unconditionally pass laws forcing religious adherents to deny their core identity every time they step into the public square, then our society is not one in which religious minorities are respected as equal citizens.

...

Yet this is precisely why the Charter safeguards the right of religious minorities to participate fully in public life. Though religious neutrality limits the state’s theological jurisdiction, it doesn’t consign religion to private practice, nor does it justify legislation that discriminates against religious minorities. Civil servants enjoy the same Charter rights as everyone else; the suggestion that a crucifix- or hijab-wearing public employee undermines religious neutrality inherently misapplies this constitutional principle.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazi...sapplies-religious-neutrality-principle/

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quebec's Bill 21 is a line in the sand against religious exceptionalism, and places religion on the same level as stuff like political beliefs. Which yes are protected under our human rights framework, but not nearly to the same degree as the stuff that is considered innate.

Exactly.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I equally condemn anyone who tries to impose their ideals on others, whether it be from religious people or atheists. I'm personally atheist, but I don't have a problem with a teacher wearing a headscarf for their own beliefs, as it doesn't conflict with the rights of anyone else. There's no real benefit to imposing secularism on teachers, only coercion or exclusion based on ultra-secularist ideals.

Applying Bill 21 to teachers was one of the more hotly debated and controversial aspects of the law. (Though I believe applying it to daycare providers in the public facilities was also considered, but ruled out.)

In the end it was decided to apply to teachers because they are role models for young minds and the school system is where future citizens are created - and it should take place in a neutral environment.

I can name other factors like the idea that women having to hide something as banal as the hair on their head so as not to provoke men is not a great thing to normalize amongst young girls.

Or the fact that a young girl who has issues with abuse parents (ie who want to force her to adhere to rigorous religious tenets) might not feel comfortable confiding in a teacher that is wearing the garb associated with the same religion every single day.

I bring this up because it's related to actual cases that have occurred.

So no, I don't agree with the "no benefits at all" argument.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Not quite. From Policy Options:

That writer is an Ontarian.

I'm sure you could find a German editorialist who rails against Quebec's speed limits being a bad society choice, too.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

While governments can’t be explicitly religious, they also can’t be explicitly irreligious: the state must treat religious groups equally.

Like... Muslims can do honor killings whenever needed, non-Muslims cannot?

That's what Anglo-Canada actually means by "treating all religious groups equally"?!?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lio45

That writer is an Ontarian.

Not relevant. Try again.

Originally Posted by lio45

Like... Muslims can do honor killings whenever needed, non-Muslims cannot?

That's what Anglo-Canada actually means by "treating all religious groups equally"?!?

False equivalency. Try again.

If you're not going to discuss this in good faith then you have no business being in this thread.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

"Criticizing" and "harassing" are on the same continuum: it's a truism that there exists a point where one eventually becomes the other.

"I'm not harassing, I'm just criticizing... extremely rabidly, unpleasantly, and relentlessly"

BTW, I'm completely fine with reasonable criticism. I totally agree with you (who doesn't?) that it's a core aspect of democracy to be able to criticize the government's choices.

It's touchy because Quebec is part of Canada, but still it's weird to have ROCers so obsessed with Bill 21.

Sort of, but not quite like if the French were super obsessed with Germany's speed limits and spent thousands of pages online and in newspapers discussing them, with only a few actual Germans in the discussion providing the view from inside Germany.

Or maybe a better example would be people in Zurich spending years hotly debating the colour of margarine in francophone Swiss cities like Geneva and Lausanne.

[lio45]

Quebec's way (of having the Law of the Land officially trumping whatever religious doctrines people come up with) most definitely constitutes "treating all religions equally". Period.

You disagree with my example because it's just not EXACTLY where YOU personally choose to place the line between reasonable accomodation and unreasonable accomodation, but there totally exists a slightly more extreme version of you and Hybrid247 that argues that it's "reasonable" to let a Muslim father murder his daughter, in some situations, notwithstanding what the (lesser) laws against murder say.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's touchy because Quebec is part of Canada, but still it's weird to have ROCers so obsessed with Bill 21.

If Quebec didn't want to be under a microscope then it shouldn't have introduced legislation to discriminate against protected groups under the Charter. Difficult to play the victim card when this stuff is out in the open like this.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Not quite. From Policy Options:

This is just his non-definitive opinion, which is why this will be going to the highest court in the land, I assume.

Of course, we also have the Notwithstanding Clause (s.33).

And regardless of the outcome, the Constitution and the Supreme Court don't always get everything right, no more than the Quebec legislature always gets everything right (or, alternatively, "wrong").

But sure, eventually we will have the final legal word on this and that is what will stand. Not necessarily the same thing as what's "correct", though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If Quebec didn't want to be under a microscope then it shouldn't have introduced legislation to discriminate against protected groups under the Charter. Difficult to play the victim card when this stuff is out in the open like this.

Who's playing the victim? If anything the Quebec government are being cocky fuckers on this one.

"Go ahead, make my day, bucko!"

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If Quebec didn't want to be under a microscope then it shouldn't have introduced legislation to discriminate against protected groups under the Charter.

Honestly, you will have to give me a plausible reason why Canada is not right now "discriminating against protected groups under the Charter" by having anti-murder laws on the books -- which totally clash with the Coranic command to eliminate relatives who are perceived to have brought shame on the family, and therefore, constitute blatant discrimination against the subset of Muslims that find honor killings to be their divine obligation.

Go ahead. Try to make an argument. I'll be waiting.

... if you stopped trolling for a second, you would admit that having SOME stuff from SOME religions (the stuff that clashes with our laws) be officially illegal IS NOT DISCRIMINATION. (Nor is it genocide.)

There's the law.

AND under it, you are free to be as religious as you want. But you have to follow the law. Just like everyone else. Period.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who's playing the victim? If anything the Quebec government are being cocky fuckers on this one.

"Go ahead, make my day, bucko!"

Plus, Bill 21 is perfectly constitutional and everyone knows it, and our current government has at the very least four years ahead of it.

Angry Old Anglo-Canadian Man Yelling At Cloud.

[Acajack]

Worth noting: opponents to Bill 21 within Quebec itself, including the somewhat woke mayor of Montreal Valérie Plante, have said that ROCers should MYOFB when it comes to this debate.

[JHikka]

I know you're trying to raise even more false equivalencies in an attempt to change the subject, but during the Shafia family murders in 2009 those who perpetrated the honour killings were convicted with first-degree murder sentences. The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, along with other Muslim orgs, came out against the killings and called them un-Islamic.

Canada has laws against murder and there are no religions calling for murder to be allowed or legalized. Your position is untenable.

Also your link doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Worth noting: opponents to Bill 21 within Quebec itself, including the somewhat woke mayor of Montreal Valérie Plante, have said that ROCers should MYOFB when it comes to this debate.

Quebec is still a part of Canada, so nah. It doesn't exist in a vacuum.