Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JHikka

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

There's stuff that's federal in scope, and there's stuff that's provincial in scope.

If some Québécois were on a crusade to have speed limits in Ontario changed, while an overwhelming majority of Ontarians find that speed limits are fine as they currently are, you guys would (correctly) tell us to fuck off.

(Even if we sometimes have to drive through Ontario in order to get somewhere )

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

Yes of course, because nowhere in the world in 2022 do they legitimize or even applaud killing people for transgressing religious rules! Nowhere!

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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".

Agreed, but at the same time, religious and spiritual beliefs are core aspects of human life. To some, following those beliefs it is not considered a choice, but a non-negotiable requirement. You and I can consider that ridiculous, which I generally do, however our only concerns at the end of the day should be: does allowing people to follow their religious beliefs conflict with our protected rights?

If there are certain aspects of others' religions that impede our rights, then those specific aspects absolutely should be regulated. Anything beyond should be none of our concern. The issue here is, people genuinely believe that a teacher wearing a headscarf equates to imposing their religious beliefs on others, and compromising the religious neutrality of the state, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. There is no evidence or objective rationale supporting that; only popular opinion, and popular opinion is not enough to directly violate a charter-protected right.

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

I see no issue with exceptions and accommodations within reasonable limits. Regulations that consider the nuanced nature of such fundamental aspects of our society is better than regulations based on blanket generalizations and intolerance.

[Acajack]

I suck at memes but right now would be about the time to do a HOW IT STARTED-HOW IT'S GOING one with a stern-looking Briitsh guy (preferably with an ascot on his neck) confidently saying:

"Quebec is no different from and exactly the same as the rest of Canada - it only uses a slightly different code to communicate!"

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly: Canada "discriminates against protected groups under the Charter" and it's how things should be, because protected groups, despite being protected, shouldn't have the power to violate our laws, regardless of what their Flying Spaghetti Monster says. Laws trump religion (a.k.a. in JHikkaspeak: "Religion gets discriminated against, whenever it would violate Law".)

Quebec would like things to remain that way.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly: Canada "discriminates against protected groups under the Charter" and it's how things should be, because protected groups, despite being protected, shouldn't have the power to violate our laws, regardless of what their Flying Spaghetti Monster says. Laws trump religion (a.k.a. in JHikkaspeak: "Religion gets discriminated against, whenever it would violate Law".)

Quebec would like things to remain that way.

A teacher wearing a hijab doesn't violate any laws. Nor if they wear a cross, turban, or yarmulke.

Not sure why you feel the need to mock other users, or people who are religious at all. Please see what I posted earlier about entering this thread in good faith.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

A teacher wearing a hijab doesn't violate any laws.

.

It does in Quebec, right?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It does in Quebec, right?

For now, because Quebec wants to violate the Charter.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Agreed, but at the same time, religious and spiritual beliefs are core aspects of human life. To some, following those beliefs it is not considered a choice, but a non-negotiable requirement. You and I can consider that ridiculous, which I generally do, however our only concerns at the end of the day should be: does allowing people to follow their religious beliefs conflict with our protected rights?

If there are certain aspects of others' religions that impede our rights, then those specific aspects absolutely should be regulated. Anything beyond should be none of our concern. The issue here is, people genuinely believe that a teacher wearing a headscarf equates to imposing their religious beliefs on others, and compromising the religious neutrality of the state, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. There is no evidence or objective rationale supporting that; only popular opinion, and popular opinion is not enough to directly violate a charter-protected right.

.

I apologize if I may have the impatience of someone who has repeated something many times, but this is true in my case.

So what you just described is a very Anglosphere view of society and societal evolution. There are other views out there when it comes to such matters, and in perhaps the most relevant one to our discussion, there is in French (and therefore francophone) sociology and political science, the idea that society can and should be "steered" in a desirable direction.

If you consider this, then you understand where Bill 21 is coming from. Even if you don't agree with it.

It's the same philosophy that's behind Bill 101, which over four decades later anglophones both inside and outside Quebec still haven't really gotten over.

It's OK and even normal to have views consistent with one's ideological sphere, but the truly open-minded person at least recognizes that there other ways out there of viewing the exact same thing we're all looking at.

I mean, you guys all seem able to do that with traditionalist Islam, even if none of you are believers of that faith.

Why is it so hard to do the same when it comes to Quebec?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

For now, because Quebec wants to violate the Charter.

You are aware that section 33 is part and parcel of the Charter?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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 am actually a lefty myself - and in favour of Bill 21 because I am a lefty, not in spite of it.

And I am not lumping left-wing critics of Bill 21 in with the ultra-religious. I referred to them as "caucusing" together, i.e. banding together for a cause. Hence my comments a few pages back about strange political bedfellows.

It's a flirtation, not a marriage.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, along with other Muslim orgs, came out against the killings and called them un-Islamic.
.

LOL Oh well gee thats great. I mean hey it's good they made it clear they think murder is bad.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

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.

The issues you raise around the forced/coerced wearing of hijabs are valid, but they are not universal, far from it. However, I fail to see how Bill 21 actually achieves any benefit in that regard, as all it does is exclude those women from participating in society, further isolating them. If they are truly being forced to wear the hijab, excluding them will only make their problems worse. By allowing them to participate, they are more exposed to an environment that empowers women and offers them supports to deal with any abuse they may be facing at home. There are also other more effective legal means of dealing with such issues that don't involve social exclusion.

As for the "role model" side of things, I also understand where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree with the idea that permitting hijabs compromises the neutrality of the school environment or necessarily sends the signal that they are submitting to the will of Muslim men. I know many Muslim women who wear the hijab fully of their own will, mainly for the religious requirement but also because of the cultural side where it is considered more modest. In fact, I've seen instances where Muslim women insist on wearing the hijab despite their husbands preferring that they remove it.

This is the nuanced side of things that isn't captured in news headlines and social media. Unless you have direct human interactions and discussions with Muslim women, which most Quebecers probably don't, your understanding of the role the hijab plays in religion and different cultures will be limited to what you see/hear in your social bubble. At the end of the day, I think freedom of choice is the most important, and sending the signal that women have the right to choose should be the main concern.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You are aware that section 33 is part and parcel of the Charter?

Exactly. I must have pointed this out 100 times so far. Bill 21 is totally Charter-compliant, which is why it's guaranteed to pass the tests of the courts.

To recycle something I recall posting in the past, Bill 21 is someone who takes advantage of a tax credit measure, who JHikka calls a tax-fraud-committing-criminal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The issues you raise around the forced/coerced wearing of hijabs are valid, but they are not universal, far from it. However, I fail to see how Bill 21 actually achieves any benefit in that regard, as all it does is exclude those women from participating in society, further isolating them. If they are truly being forced to wear the hijab, excluding them will only make their problems worse. By allowing them to participate, they are more exposed to an environment that empowers women and offers them supports to deal with any abuse they may be facing at home. There are also other more effective legal means of dealing with such issues that don't involve social exclusion.

As for the "role model" side of things, I also understand where you're coming from, but I don't fully agree with the idea that permitting hijabs compromises the neutrality of the school environment or necessarily sends the signal that they are submitting to the will of Muslim men. I know many Muslim women who wear the hijab fully of their own will, mainly for the religious requirement but also because of the cultural side where it is considered more modest. In fact, I've seen instances where Muslim women insist on wearing the hijab despite their husbands preferring that they remove it.

This is the nuanced side of things that isn't captured in news headlines and social media. Unless you have direct human interactions and discussions with Muslim women, which most Quebecers probably don't, your understanding of the role the hijab plays in religion and different cultures will be limited to what you see/hear in your social bubble. At the end of the day, I think freedom of choice is the most important, and sending the signal that women have the right to choose should be the main concern.

I have mentioned before that ex-Muslim and moderate Muslim women in my entourage are the ones who convinced me to support stuff like Bill 21.

In the past I would have been strongly against this law.

[MolsonExport]

Interesting. As for me, moderate Muslim women in my entourage are the ones who convinced me to oppose stuff like Bill 21.

In the (admittedly distant) past I would have been strongly for this law.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have mentioned before that ex-Muslim and moderate Muslim women in my entourage are the ones who convinced me to support stuff like Bill 21.

Sadly their voices are the ones that most often get shouted down or completly ignored. While the more fundamentalist and extremist voices are catered to.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

Would it be protected if a religion decided it was now mandatory for their followers to drive fast? Like some people can bring a knife to school under religious pretenses.

[begratto]

I’ll guess that Muslim women that Acajack knows are mostly from Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco (and maybe Lebanon) while MolsonExport would know Muslim women from more conservative Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

This would certainly affect the way they view the question. Immigrants from the Maghreb, having come to Quebec to escape their countries’ conservatism in many cases, can be the most strongly in favour of bill 21.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by lio45

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?

"Progressive" is more a marketing or a product placement term, It presents a political view in a more favorable way.