Will Toronto benefit from the Quebec Charter of values fisaco?

[Silence&Motion]

Well said

While Quebec may have gone a bit too far with a clumsily written law at least they are trying to establish a strict separation between church and state. Compare this to Ontario where Premier Wynne fully supports clerics coming into public schools to preach in make-shift "multi-faith" prayer spaces during the school day. The prayer sessions involve gender separation with girls forced to sit at the back of the room and they are taught from a holy book that can only be described as a hate manual (for example it calls for the execution of gays).

While there has been a lot of debate in Ontario about what is going in Quebec there has been NO debate in Ontario about what is happening here!

No one is asking Kathleen Wynne why she supports turning our public schools into Madrassa's. I'm sure if asked she would say its all in the name of and "diversity" and "inclusiveness".

To me being tolerant does not mean tolerating the intolerant but that is what we are being asked to do in Ontario.

And the insanity is not just limited to Ontario. Just today I read that in Saskatchewan $35,000 in public funds were spent to install foot washing stations inside the University of Regina to accommodate a certain religious ritual! Where is the national debate on this?

http://metronews.ca/news/regina/798...ties-help-muslim-students-prepare-for-prayer/

Canadians outside of Quebec need to take a good look at what is happening in their own province before they start criticizing Quebec!

No matter how you define tolerant, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include venomous Islamophobic statements like calling the Quran a "hate manual", or stereotyping all Muslims as "intolerant" (not to mention all the xenophobic statements in your earlier post, which would make Rob Ford look like a paragon of political correctness).

How much money has been spent by Canadian universities in support of other religious and cultural groups? How much has the University of Waterloo spent celebrating the German heritage of the city? Probably quite a bit. Of course, Germans are not the ethnic group you seem to despise so much, so you wouldn't be paying attention to that.

 

[OttoSchloss]

I think there's a definite need to distance the public realm from the religious one. But it's more about religious values and beliefs contaminating the public sector rather than symbols of religion or belief doing so. Headscarves and coverings in Islam are not religiously mandated, they are cultural. Infusing public policy with religious demagoguery is dangerous. But having an Xmas tree at city hall????

 

[TOareaFan]

Separating church and state does not necessarily mean that government workers must, individually, be banned from expressing their own personal religious or cultural beliefs.

Just because we value that decisions of the state not be influenced by religion does not mean that every person working in a public institution be banned from expressing their own, personal, religious beliefs. How is the Quebec government affected by one individual wearing a cross or headscarf?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Of course you can have both. Canada has been dealing with issues like these for decades (and arguably since we were founded as a liberal democracy and a union of multiple cultural/religious groups). There are well established social and legal procedures for dealing with conflicts over where one person's freedom begins to infringe upon another person's freedom. This is definitely not unique to religion.

I am against the Quebec law, as it is being applied. I think Peepers is too.

I don't think banning headscarves is the answer. I do think that curtailing absolute religious freedom in the name of preserving Western liberal values (eg. that women and LGBT people are equals) is necessary if it comes to that, even if it's only being applied internally within a group.

For example, a woman in a Muslim family in Scarborough who is under the yoke of Sharia law offends and impacts me, even though I'm not the person (the woman in question) being directly impacted. It offends me and impacts me because I don't like the idea that women can be abused and treated as second class citizens in our society. This happens all the time in countries in the Middle East, and it's a tragedy there too, but I live here in Canada and I have the legal recourse to fight for the rights of women here and here I have a legitimate way to stop this. However, following Sharia law is exercising the "right" to religious freedom of expression among the more fundamental sects of Islam, including those who live there. I don't think this should be a right. So, no, I don't think you can have both.

And it's really BS that people (mostly white men) break out the feminism to blast minorities for the way they choose to dress or the seating plans of their churches/mosques, when actually women in Canada have far greater problems to worry about. Who gives a damn where women sit in a mosque. I'm more interested in why so few women are seated in parliament and in corporate boardrooms, and why they get paid so much less for doing the exact same work as men. What exactly is banning headscarves going to do to solve this problem? Most likely it will actually exacerbate it by removing a sizable group of Muslim women from the workforce.

I'm breaking out the feminism because I believe in feminism, not because I have some ulterior motive. I give a damn that women are dictated where they sit in a mosque and I give a damn that there aren't enough women represented in parliament and on the boards of our major corporations and institutions.

However, here's a fact for you:

Number of women Muslim clerics in 1900: zero
Number of women Muslim clerics in 2013: zero

Number of women MPs and number of women CEOs in 1900: zero
Number of women MPs and number of women CEOs in 2013: more than zero

For all its faults, Western liberal society is actually making a move towards women's equality while Islam (or other religious groups whose freedom would be curtailed) is not. The same is true for gay rights, and the rights of other minority groups.

How much money has been spent by Canadian universities in support of other religious and cultural groups? How much has the University of Waterloo spent celebrating the German heritage of the city? Probably quite a bit. Of course, Germans are not the ethnic group you seem to despise so much, so you wouldn't be paying attention to that.

Being proud of your German descent does not infringe on the rights of people according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Also, I'm pretty sure that most women at Oktoberfest who wear the Dirndl with a lace-up corset are adults who do so voluntarily and probably go back to wearing whatever clothes they think looks nice the next day (also voluntarily).

I think there's a definite need to distance the public realm from the religious one. But it's more about religious values and beliefs contaminating the public sector rather than symbols of religion or belief doing so. Headscarves and coverings in Islam are not religiously mandated, they are cultural. Infusing public policy with religious demagoguery is dangerous. But having an Xmas tree at city hall????

The difference between a burqa and a Christmas tree is that a Christmas tree doesn't reduce 50% of the population to the status of male property.

 

[Johnny Au]

This is a very fun thread.

The separation of church and state is a lightning rod.

Officially, Canada does not separate the two (hence publicly-funded Catholic schools in many provinces, the line "God keep our land" in our anthem, and Queen Elizabeth II's title of Dei Gratia (DG) Regina in our coinage). The United States officially separates church and state, though there are the fundamentalists and evangelists who want to have the two together (note controversies over the origin of life, homosexuality, women's rights, the morality of certain media (such as popular music, film, television, and video games), gun rights, and so on and so forth), and American coinage already has the words "In God We Trust".

 

[M.R.Victor]

I find this line or reasoning to be flawed for a number of reasons, which I will list below. So that you are aware where my biases may lie, I'm a convinced atheist, raised catholic, who finds very little personal value in religious teachings, except perhaps as literature and, to a vague extent, philosophy. I too would personally love to live in a post-religious liberal democracy, but I would much prefer to work towards the realizable outcomes of sound governance instead of touting my personal fictions.

1. As others have mentioned, there is already legal recourse for most of the instances in which observing religious traditions impinges upon personal rights. Those areas where there is no such legal recourse should be addressed, but certainly not by curtailing religious freedom en masse.

2. Although noble in intent, these women's rights shouting matches often reek of patriarchal and neo-colonial subtext. Has anyone thought of consulting the fair women "subjugated" by Islam what they would like to do? Are they too helpless to have their opinions counted? Should we, logical western men step in to rescue these hopeless damsels from their dirty, backwards, brutish captors?

3. Although Catholicism is equally sexist in conferring religious offices to women, there's never a peep about that.

4. The reason Muslims have gender separated institutions is due to the physical position of individuals during the act of prostration during prayer. Presumably the forehead to the ground, ass up in the air is likely not very conducive to a spiritual experience in mixed gender situations.

5. When was the last time that banning socially ingrained practices resulted in positive outcomes? How often have such moves been met with resistance, if not willful disobedience and social breakdown?

6. This whole Quebec bullsh*t has, fundamentally, nothing to do with any of this anyway

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think there is a huge difference between a piece of legislation that would ban, of all things, individuals in the public/parapublic
sector from wearing hijabs and turban to the government actually enabling sexist/extremist behaviour. Besides, I question the ultimate motivation of the legislation itself - is it really about secularism, or is it about thinly veiled racism of which any appearance of difference becomes an unbearable reminder of the pure laine fallacy?

It's a superficial policy in search of the wrong problem (the right one, on the other hand, is the limits of religious freedom - e.g. demanding Sharia Law within the Canadian state)

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Don't tell me you believe this BS about the law being "equally applied"? Did you see the list of acceptable vs. unacceptable religious wear?

To be honest, no, I hadn't looked at things too closely. That said, my point stands. If things are applied evenly - i.e. the Christian cross is as unacceptable as any other religious symbol - there should be no issue with a secularist stand... and again, this is only within the public service, it's not as though this is infringing on what people do in their greater lives.

So yes, there are flaws here to be sure but I don't feel that the fundamental premise here is flawed, on face value at least.

You can glance at any map of Quebec and see all sorts of religious (Christian) references too. There's other no place in Canada where religion (Christianity) is so entrenched and institutionalized and visible in the public sphere than in Quebec.

Incorrect. Since the 1960s Quebec has evolved itself into just about one of the most secularist societies on earth, as attested to by declining church attendance rates and marriage rates, among other things. The religious references you mention are largely viewed as 'Ye Olde Quebec' cultural relics, in a 'my isn't it quaint how catholic we used to be' sort of way... to which:

is it really about secularism, or is it about thinly veiled racism of which any appearance of difference becomes an unbearable reminder of the pure laine fallacy?

I'm not completely convinced this is so. In Ontario we are quick to label almost anything other than 100% tolerance as 'racist', and this probably skews our perspective on these issues because most other places simply aren't like this. In Quebec in particular they are shamelessly not tolerant of everything (think of the language laws), there are compromises to tolerance that are accepted as necessary for the greater good, which means we have to consider whether such compromises to tolerance really do amount to racism or whether they are more about cultural preservation, a value which is extremely important to the francophone world in general (France has enacted similar legislation)? In other words, perhaps it is our concept of 100% 'tolerance' that's unrealistic, not theirs?... but before you judge, be careful:

Quebec is a backwards place.

... it's really BS that people (mostly white men) break out the feminism to blast minorities for the way they choose to dress or the seating plans of their churches/mosques, when actually women in Canada have far greater problems to worry about.

Many who would attack these values are showing a pretty distasteful lack of tolerance themselves.


and also...

Separating church and state does not necessarily mean that government workers must, individually, be banned from expressing their own personal religious or cultural beliefs.

Yeah, it kind of does! All citizens should be able to access government services without being subjected to another person's religious views, many of which are offensive. If the hiring policies and job requirements are equally applied there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't demand this separation.

 

[TOareaFan]

Just because we value that decisions of the state not be influenced by religion does not mean that every person working in a public institution be banned from expressing their own, personal, religious beliefs. How is the Quebec government affected by one individual wearing a cross or headscarf?

Yeah, it kind of does! All citizens should be able to access government services without being subjected to another person's religious views, many of which are offensive. If the hiring policies and job requirements are equally applied there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't demand this separation.

Are you making the assumption that just because I can tell what someone's religious views are that a) somehow my access to government services is compromised or b) their views somehow influence those services?

The individual working for the government is free to have, and express, whatever religous views they have.....as is the person accessing those services....but it does not change the services and does not influence the level of separation between church and state.

 

[Peepers]

No matter how you define tolerant, I'm pretty sure it doesn't include venomous Islamophobic statements like calling the Quran a "hate manual", or stereotyping all Muslims as "intolerant" (not to mention all the xenophobic statements in your earlier post, which would make Rob Ford look like a paragon of political correctness).

.

Before throwing around terms like "Islamophobic" you should to a little research on the Qur'anic verses. For example this is what the Qur'an has to say with regards to Homosexuality:

In the Qur'an,Allah has given warnings for homosexuals in the story of Luth prophet. In surah 7 Al Araaf verse 80 and 83 Luth prohibited his tribe (Sodom) to do faahisyah (homosexual) because it is included in cruelty acts. In surah 27 An Naml verse 54 and 56 Allah spoke that homosexual is the relationship between a man with a man.In surah 29 Al Ankabut verse 28 and 29 Allah spoke that homosexuality was not done by humans before Luth's tribe..In surah 26 Asy Syuara verse 160 and 168 .The homosexualists forgetted rasool and they wanted to oust rasool(Luth).In surah 11 Hud verse 77 and 81 Luth received angel who emerged just a handsome man..In surah 15 Al Hijr verse 61 and 66 the angel (jibril) said that he submitted revelation to Luth from Allah that homosexualists (including lesbianists) will be killed before fajr .In surah 16 An Nahl verse 67 Luth tribe homosexualsists came to him and they asked him to surrender the handsome man. In surah 54 Al Qamar verse 37 and 39 Allah spoke that all homosexualists were killed and in verse 33 and 35 Allah spoke also that they were killed by stone rain with the wind and the soil had been upside downed.
By those verses it is clear that Allah hates homosexuals and they deserved death penalty.Islamic countries or arab countries make a death penalty based on those verses.

Do you still think that a book that calls for the killing of Homosexuals is NOT a hate manual? Do you still consider that anyone such as myself who believe this to be a hate manual is just an "Islamophobe". Do you still think it is OK for clerics to come into taxpayers funded public schools and preach to impressionable children messages of intolerance from this holy book?

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm really interested in what people are so afraid of when it comes to people wearing religious symbols?

Like how probable is it that a young woman is going to go in to get her drivers license photo at the provincial serves desk, see a woman wearing a hijab and say to her self: "wow, that woman is just like so cool looking in her hijab. I wish I could wear something like that. My friends would think I was so cool and Steve in English class is so going to notice me and want to be my boyfriend if only I could show off my modesty like that. I've been wearing slut shorts all year and I can't even get him to say hi!".

What is so ironic about Quebec's proposed charter and it's so awkward it can only be interpreted as hilarious diagrams of what is and is not appropriate to wear, is that it is probably a good model for someone trying to impose something draconian like sharia law on a population.

 

[Johnny Au]

It would be interesting to know what Christian evangelists and fundamentalists (especially the "ban controversial media" types) think of Quebec.

 

[Memph]

Maybe it's because people will feel pressured to hide their religious beliefs if they conflict with those of the government official out of fear that the government official will not treat them fairly as a result?

As for influencing people to change their religion, that would mostly apply to young children and teachers; teenagers and adults are much less likely to be affected especially if their family and friends have beliefs that are different from the government official.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Before throwing around terms like "Islamophobic" you should to a little research on the Qur'anic verses. For example this is what the Qur'an has to say with regards to Homosexuality:



Do you still think that a book that calls for the killing of Homosexuals is NOT a hate manual? Do you still consider that anyone such as myself who believe this to be a hate manual is just an "Islamophobe". Do you still think it is OK for clerics to come into taxpayers funded public schools and preach to impressionable children messages of intolerance from this holy book?

I'm not going to pretend to be a religious expert, but from what I've read of various religious texts, most have one thing in common - they become hate manuals at one point or another. We really shouldn't be using taxpayer funded anything to preach religion and the intolerance that they promote to children or anyone else.

 

[doady]

Incorrect. Since the 1960s Quebec has evolved itself into just about one of the most secularist societies on earth, as attested to by declining church attendance rates and marriage rates, among other things. The religious references you mention are largely viewed as 'Ye Olde Quebec' cultural relics, in a 'my isn't it quaint how catholic we used to be' sort of way...

Umm... I never claimed that Quebec is religious place.

Secularism has nothing to do with low church attendance rates and marriage rates anyways.

And this bill is not really about religion, it's about culture.