Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Acajack]

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???

It most definitely does apply to Trumpists and the far right as well.

That's why I feel even more strongly that the middle ground is being vacated - or at least emasculated (disempowered).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

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.

The middle ground and the people in it, even if still a majority, is increasingly disenfranchised, jaded, disempowered and apathetic.

So the end result is that the "poles" are going to set the tone.

People who care typically have more resolve than people who don't care, and therefore more often get their way.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

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.

Are you trying to become the TWAK of SSP Canada by calling "dibs" on certain things?

Anyway, my parents are from villages in the Maritimes with 130 and 700 people, respectively, and I spent all of my childhood and youthful summers there. Half of my upbringing was also in "cities" of less than 20,000 people.

Anyway 2, obviously I don't think Montreal is "backward". That would be stupid.

Opposition to Bill 21 is not the main driving factor in lower CAQ support in Montreal. Lots of Montrealers be they of French Canadian, Italian, Greek, Christian Middle Eastern, Caribbean, ex-Muslim and even moderate Muslim origins support laïcité and Bill 21. Bill 21 actually polls higher than the CAQ does in Montreal. A lot of these people don't vote for the CAQ for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is that in many allophone communities voting Liberal is just "something you do" automatically and intergenerationally. It often has little to do with the platform or the issues.

As a former francophone from outside Quebec, I know all about this type of thing. Those would be my "dibs".

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

- 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...

I think there's some validity to the other points (even if hyperbolic) but this one seems very off base. Most of these movements will happily eat their own at the drop of a hat - the moment someone says something "against the grain" or even outdated they tend to be ousted completely*. This is part of the reason I think that the woke stuff is more ephemeral and not as concerned outside of the forces that are co-opting it for their own uses.


*I'm sure there are counter-examples, but as someone who spends too much time on Twitter I constantly see woke types dragged for saying the wrong thing (which is also very funny). The same thing happens on the right end of the spectrum now too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

I think there's some validity to the other points (even if hyperbolic) but this one seems very off base. Most of these movements will happily eat their own at the drop of a hat - the moment someone says something "against the grain" or even outdated they tend to be ousted completely*. This is part of the reason I think that the woke stuff is more ephemeral and not as concerned outside of the forces that are co-opting it for their own uses.


*I'm sure there are counter-examples, but as someone who spends too much time on Twitter I constantly see woke types dragged for saying the wrong thing (which is also very funny). The same thing happens on the right end of the spectrum now too.

Well, even though I don't really hate him myself, we do have a Prime Minister who sported blackface not once, not twice, maybe even three times (he doesn't remember exactly how many) and fairly easily managed to hold on as if he was covered in Teflon.

Agreed that in some cases they do in fact "eat their own" but it seems quite calculated depending on how valuable or expendable they are.

And yes of course the righties do this too, though they're clearly less concerned about virtue on that side. Not sure if that's a feature or a bug...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

So, you think it's Montreal that's the most backward part of the province?

On some metrics, the answer is a resounding yes: it’s in Montreal that the people are the most likely to turn out to have views and opinions that to most Québécois will look like they’re straight out of the Neolithic period.

Examples of such “knuckle-dragging cavemen” views more often found in Montreal:

- women are men’s property;
- the universe was created exactly as is ~5,000 years ago;
- etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

On some metrics, the answer is a resounding yes: it’s in Montreal that the people are the most likely to turn out to have views and opinions that to most Québécois will look like they’re straight out of the Neolithic period.

Examples of such “knuckle-dragging cavemen” views more often found in Montreal:

- women are men’s property;
- the universe was created exactly as is ~5,000 years ago;
- etc.

Along these lines: Montreal is by far the most church-going part of Quebec. (By "church-going" I mean attendance at religious services, of any religion.)

Probably the least actively and outwardly religious places in all of Canada are ironically smal towns and villages in "regional" Quebec where close to 100% of the population is Québécois French Canadian.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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



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.

Wow.

For anyone who’s read all my posts on the topic …… these two paragraphs pretty much sum up the entirety of them, much more concisely than I would ever have thought possible!

Impressive

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Architype

You realize that these extreme factions are a mere minority of the population, they only have the illusion of control.

The woke left have seized control of government and education. The commercial marketplace and corporate world obey their diktats because failing to do so would be bad PR and result in scorched earth campaigns against them.

The true believer Trump faction were a minority of the Republican base, but they ran the US for four years. There's nothing unusual about small minorities exerting asymmetrical control over societies.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

The woke left have seized control of government and education. The commercial marketplace and corporate world obey their diktats because failing to do so would be bad PR and result in scorched earth campaigns against them.

The true believer Trump faction were a minority of the Republican base, but they ran the US for four years. There's nothing unusual about small minorities exerting asymmetrical control over societies.

That's the main difference between Canada and the US (as I said a few pages ago): in the US the two extremes tend to balance each other off.

Not saying myself that wokism has triumphed or is all powerful in Canada, but whatever influence it does have or gains isn't really counter-balanced by anything credible, formidable and equally extreme on the other side.

[JHikka]

If this can't be kept relative to Quebec then this thread will be locked. The fascination with culture wars fearmongering can go on the Current Events board if you all want to discuss that with such intent.

[begratto]

Originally Posted by Architype

I should add, just to clarify, my small rural ancestral area is by most metrics, more progressive than Quebec.

No offence, but I highly doubt that. Which specific metrics are you referring to?

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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).

Perhaps I need to clarify my position. I'm actually not totally against Bill 21 with regards to judges, police officers and prison guards being subject to limitations on their dress code. Those occupations carry enormous power and the uniforms they wear are a direct representation of that power and authority. Therein lies a valid reason for having a restrictive dress code. An administrative civil servant or school teacher, on the other hand, is essentially permitted to wear just about any clothes, as long as it remains professional.

This is where the "reasonable" part of reasonable accommodation comes into play. I'm sure many would agree it is reasonable to restrict a teacher from wearing a face covering because it has direct implications with regards to teacher-student communication and the social development of children. Wearing a headscarf, on the other hand, doesn't carry an implications with regards to being able to effectively teach. So if it doesn't directly compromise their ability to do their job, is it not reasonable to allow a teacher to wear a headscarf? Why is it reasonable for a doctor but not a teacher or administrative civil servant?

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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.

It also wouldn't be the first time a government abuses its power to appease the majority's ideological beliefs at the expense of the minority, just like what we've seen in the US with Roe v. Wade. In either case, there will always be people that attempt to hijack and weaponize social movements for their own ends, but that in itself does not invalidate the social movement or make the stated objective disingenuous.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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

Yes, laws impact some people more than others all the time, but these are usually justified by clear, tangible, and measurable benefits. The government has failed to provide an evidence-based rationale as it relates to teachers and certain civil servant positions.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

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.

Everyone has an opinion about the meaning of life and what comes after death, including atheists, because humanity has not been able to answer life's grand question. Everyone likes to think they have the answer, but no one really knows. That's why our society has typically allowed people to practice their own faiths within reasonable limits. Allowing reasonable accommodations does not equate to putting people above others. That is truly a simplistic and, quite frankly, juvenile way of looking at things.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by begratto

No offence, but I highly doubt that. Which specific metrics are you referring to?

I've always had a hard time with the term "progressive".

For example, is it correct accepted usage to say that Afghanistan progressed from an older, less-enlightened situation where girls were going to school, to a newer, "progressive" situation where they have evolved, awoken and seen the light and thus decided that girls should be completely banned from receiving any education...?

If that's not "progress", then who decides which evolutions from a situation to a different newer situation constitute "progressing" and which ones are "regressing"? Seems to me that would be mostly in the eye of the beholder, no?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Everyone has an opinion about the meaning of life and what comes after death, including atheists, because humanity has not been able to answer life's grand question. Everyone likes to think they have the answer, but no one really knows. That's why our society has typically allowed people to practice their own faiths within reasonable limits. Allowing reasonable accommodations does not equate to putting people above others. That is truly a simplistic and, quite frankly, juvenile way of looking at things.

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

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've always had a hard time with the term "progressive".

Progress is the central tenet of the West. It's the idea that civilization is essentially linear, progressing through time from barbarism to apotheosis. Both progressives and conservatives have this view, with the former ironically taking a laissez-faire approach and the latter proposing a kind of dirigisme.

(This is an uncommon cosmology and a cyclical view is more usual. In antiquity, Greeks and Egyptians arguably viewed themselves as almost degraded versions of something that had come before.)

Rejecting this model in the West is a kind of fundamental dissidence, and is rare.

[Hybrid247]

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.

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.

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.

Firstly, I'm very much a centrist when it comes to my political position. Accusing critics of Bill 21 of being lefties and lumping them in with the "ultra-religious" is just strawmanning, plain and simple.

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.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Perhaps I need to clarify my position. I'm actually not totally against Bill 21 with regards to judges, police officers and prison guards being subject to limitations on their dress code. Those occupations carry enormous power and the uniforms they wear are a direct representation of that power and authority. Therein lies a valid reason for having a restrictive dress code. An administrative civil servant or school teacher, on the other hand, is essentially permitted to wear just about any clothes, as long as it remains professional.

This is where the "reasonable" part of reasonable accommodation comes into play. I'm sure many would agree it is reasonable to restrict a teacher from wearing a face covering because it has direct implications with regards to teacher-student communication and the social development of children. Wearing a headscarf, on the other hand, doesn't carry an implications with regards to being able to effectively teach. So if it doesn't directly compromise their ability to do their job, is it not reasonable to allow a teacher to wear a headscarf? Why is it reasonable for a doctor but not a teacher or administrative civil servant?

.

For the record, "administrative civil servants", ie a paper pusher working in an office for the environment ministry, or someone who processes your licence renewal at the DMV (known as the SAAQ here), are not subject to Bill 21.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

For the record, "administrative civil servants", ie a paper pusher working in an office for the environment ministry, or someone who processes your licence renewal at the DMV (known as the SAAQ here), are not subject to Bill 21.

Still, I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to be naked at work, even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Still, I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to be naked at work, even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands it.

Correct. Though in theory they can show up for work dressed as Rabbi Jacob, the Flying Nun or the Human Tent if they want to.