I really don’t know what to think about Quebec’s Charter of Values.
Part of me says that it’s intolerant; the other part says, welcome to the ‘War on Christmas’, other religions.
I really don’t know what to think about Quebec’s Charter of Values.
Part of me says that it’s intolerant; the other part says, welcome to the ‘War on Christmas’, other religions.
When in doubt, go with the Quebecers are Nazis argument, it’s always a winner.
It’s a balancing act, and it looks like Quebec’s backing off a bit and getting close to getting it right:
Marois et al should just have come out and said it at the start: Quebec’s Charter of Values was an attempt to deal with non-integrating Islamism and the niqab. Judeo-Christian symbols – like small silver crucifix necklaces – were just collateral damage from the attempt to deal with the most standoffish Islamists.
A niqab isn’t really a “religious symbol” like an Islam crescent image on a ring would be, it’s more akin to dragging a ten-foot cross around the office while flagellating oneself: it’s in everyone else’s face – and in their minds – at every moment.
For what its worth, I believe Kenny is wrong on this. I do not think it is discriminatory as it treats all religions equally. It does not ban you from working, it merely asks that you remove all religious symbols. If you choose your religion over you job then that is your choice. BTW I am Catholic but I try not to let the guy in the pointy hat run my life 😉
I call it quebec’s war on the colonization and eventual take over of our country.
We should all support this unless you really don’t like our culture and our society and want to be either a dimmi a Muslim or a headless body.
I, OTOH, am not conflicted at all. Government should not be in the business of banning personal choices that are harmless to others. This includes:
food – high sugar drinks, salty foods, food carts, Happy Meals
religious symbols/clothing – crosses, turbans, kirpans, headscarves of any kind (Hindu, Catholic Nuns, *Muslims or Hutterites)
other – guns, pot, English language signs, helmet free biking…
I find it odd that Big Government journalists who advocate for some bans while finding others appalling do not understand how statism evolves.
*I must admit that I find the complete face covering of Muslim women disturbing. Not because of the garment or even that it is a symbol of oppression, as long as it is freely chosen (collared and leashed goths, for example). Although I do find it disturbing. It is the lethal violence with which the custom is enforced. If a Hutterite woman/girl chooses to ditch the black scarves you won’t find that her relatives have drowned her and her daughters in the South Sask. River. to preserve the family’s ‘honor’. Can it be freely chosen if dear old mom and dad can point to such cases as an example of what could happen to a rebellious teen?
It’s obviously a gross over-reach by a bigoted government that is in no comparable to the laughable ‘War on Christmas’.
Doesn’t matter. Kenny is blowing smoke out his a**. PMSH has all ready stated Queerbec is a free and separate part of the ROC. Besides,they(the Queerbecers) will enact the not withstanding clause so fast,the CINOs we have elected will be to busy kissing and soothing each others bums to wonder what happened.I can only see good coming out of this.
The Quebeckers have themselves to blame for their waning culture and influence (and let’s not forget Trudeau’s political multiculturalism). Dare it be said, this is what happens when you do not defend and live your values but instead have immigrants take the jobs you won’t take, pay the taxes you won’t pay and have the children you won’t have. Forcing the French language on everyone won’t preserve the French culture just as the outright banning of little crucifixes and stars of David won’t address the growing Islamisation of Quebec society.
It’s also Marois’ attempt to stamp out all religions. History has shown that kind of thing doesn’t work.
There is nothing funny about the very real war on Christmas.
God bless us everyone.
Honesty would be nice. They’re not against Christian symbolism. They *are* against Jewish symbolism but they’ll let them pass. No, they’re against mohammadans in islamic bee keeper garb, but they’re too afraid/too stupid to go the common sense route, which would be to prevent them from getting in the door in the first place.
Imagine what’s going through every Western politician’s mind: “We know you’re a problem, but we can’t stop you from coming in because our political foes will take advantage of that, so we’ll let you in the door and then deal with you later, at the expense of all others: Quebec’s Charter of Values, the NSA snooping in the USA, the TSA charade in the USA, etc.”
The PQ is using this move as part of their long running chess game to make the ROC the Other. Frankly, we are the Other to the majority of K-Bekers. We generally don’t speak their language and don’t comprehend their idiosyncratic collective. The PQ is hoping that the GoC will react loudly and strongly, reminding all K-Bekers they are ruled by the Others. An indignant response by the Others (RoC) to this will give the PQ a springboard to a majority government that will be seen as a mandate to separate.
Is it time to let them go? With K-Bek gone how will Justine look to the RoC? Like a boy child who lives in another country?
This is just another attempt by the political class in Quebec to pick a fight. They bring out something controversial to get a reaction from the federal government.
The separatists say “none of your business Canada, stop trying to subjugate us”, the provincial liberals say “the separatists are threatening national unity by this intolerable act”. The Laurentian elites jump on the band wagon saying “we must support the federalist option” the media play along and look for any act/speech/column/blog/statement by a non-francophone outside of Quebec (read conservative) to prove anyone not getting on board with this ruse is a racist, bigoted, anti-Canadian.
This is the old game where the choices, preordained, are between tolerating the socialist-separatists or liberal corruption.
The correct response to this latest rant from the perpetually agrieved is to pray for an asteroid.
If they really wanted to address the problem, they would stick to making it manditory to show your face when in a government or civil office.
Instead, they look for another way to create a constitutional crisis.
Nice digression Madame Marois. Now you won’t have to worry about pesky questions regarding job losses and corruption — until the next scandal surfaces.
After reading the comments I must add:
I find it odd that social conservatives who advocate for small government do not understand how statism evolves.
If you oppose progressives restricting free speech to only speech they approve of or “balancing” free speech in favor of special interest groups then it should be obvious why banning an individual’s freedom of expression and religion (via clothing and jewellery) is wrong.
Employers certainly have the right to enforce a reasonable dress code and curb proselytizing on company time but religious clothing itself is not offensive. For instance, I doubt the computer guy helping me at Target was offending anyone because of his blue turban.
This bill is about conformity to the Quebec governments view of what a true Quebecer should sound like and look like, just like all of their other bizarre regulations.
It is long past time to let them go.
With a six-month passport and two free suitcases provided by the taxpayers of Canada. They can go anywhere they like, any time they like, but that land is part of Canada. If they don’t like where they end up, they can apply to return as immigrants.
You’re surprised by this? SoCons hate real freedom. Their version of ‘freedom’ is the freedom to have government impose whatever values they deem ‘wholesome’ ie Christian.
Wisely enough for Quebec, they distrusted PET and his intention (his lust for centralizing political power in Ottawa/PMO) and they never signed nor ratified his douchebag charter – so it is NOT the law of the land in Quebec and Quebec has a separate and different legal jurisdictional relationship with Ottawa than does ROC. If they want to legislate a values bill that may be arguably inconsistent with a charter they dd not sign that is their choice – Harper would be a fool (even larger than Chretien) to take that to the SCC – Like the Shawinigan Strangler, he won;t get the answer he was expecting from the jurocrats – the Charter is such a massive fraud I sit in awe that we even go through the motions of pretending it has any force and effect outside the jurisdiction of government.
Oh, do shut up.
See how well your marijuana “libertarianism” works in the caliphate.
Politics can be so political. And that is what the PQ attack on religious paraphernalia is. This move by Pauline Marois will help shape the political landscape of Quebec and Canada for the next decade. Pauline Marois provincially, and perhaps even the dormant PQ federally, will get a huge bump in the polls from this ham-fisted move. By defending and thereby appearing to promote the “outsiders” in Quebec, as Mulcair was cleverly forced to do, the federal NDP may see their Quebec base dwindle to 10 or 15 seats. Since Mulcair already alienated much of his western Canadian base by always taking Quebec’s side over western Canadian interests, the NDP will remain stagnant out west in the next federal election. Depending on how many more brain farts Justin has between now and the next election, the Liberals may pick up a few or quite a few more seats in Quebec. And, once again, there will not be many serious questions about the state of Quebec’s economy and how the rest of Canada keeps them afloat for at least another two or three years. Nice work Ms. Marois.
I think we should ignore the values sideshow that is meant to distract everyone from the corruption inquiry taking place in Quebec. Last week they found out that organized crime was funnelling illegal contributions to all of the provincial parties in the province, including the PQ (the Libs got the bulk). But no one is talking about that today, are they?
The venerable CBC with it’s carefully crafted non-judgemental approach ran with one of it’s leading interviewers and a Quebec based person. To the credit of the interviewer he did let the man explain in very careful language where Quebec is going. Only twice did Evan Soloman (sp) seem to break in.
I have listened to CBC and there is no doubt in my mind. that they are trying to drum up support against Quebec. It not for religious icons per se, but for the adherents of Islam.
It is notable how little CBC has taken up cudgels for Christianity in the past. Now they appear on side for religion.
Could they have a secret fear of offending the Islamic residents of Quebec? Then they scramble to become the righteous defenders of that particular religion, pretending no particular bias.
Little Mosque on the Prairie anyone!
OMG. ‘THE CALIPHATE’. Too funny.
A quote from another blog where they equate what Marois wants as: “……equal citizens should be forced to choose between their conscience and their job is tantamount to shredding the social contract that binds the citizen and the state in equilibrium.”
Tell me that some provincial marriage commissioners didn’t have to make that choice between their religious convictions and their jobs when asked to marry a gay couple?
Marois has shot herself in the foot. We already had the Sikh thingy with the RCMP…we lost. Harper should post all Sikh RCMP in each and every Federal jurisdiction in Quebec exclusively, should this legislation pass.
As EBD said, Marois has now tried to make the new law more palatable by the revision of allowing small crucifix necklace, earrings, and rings.
Mississauga Matt is right, some politicians are attempting to figure out how to deal with the bee-keeper outfits.
Another comment suggested that this law also serves as a distraction to the masses and media of the corruption trials, as does the phoney war on Syria by the greatest general of all time distracts the American people from all the corruption and mismanagement in this administration.
I have no problem with dealing with Sikhs, a Muslim girls with scarves, or a Mennonite girls with scarves or little caps behind counters. I can see their face.
The main game here I believe is the elimination of the bee-keeper outfits in the public service sphere.
Hang in there Osumashi.
Lance nails it. Part of this is good, part is bad. Remember Marxists are atheists and hate all religions because they want to replace them with the religion of the stomach and the new man.
Quebec = uni-que
First prize to Mississauga Matt for “islamic bee keeper garb”
There’s an easy way to deal with the bee-keeper outfits: grow a skin and ignore them.
I’ve long admired Quebec and their ability to thumb their noses at Political Correctness, and ‘politics as usual’. I’ve said in the past that although I disagree with him 99% of the time; I still admire(d) Gilles Duceppe and his honesty.
So, with that said, I say “good for Quebec; and I wish them luck”.
Now, I understand that the CPC will challenge this QBoR out of political necessity; and so be it. Personally, I support Quebec in their quest for ‘Self Determination’ and Provincial Rights because… it will result in a trickle-down effect benefiting western Canadian provinces who wish to pursue their own goals and agendas; but don’t have the ballz to go against Political Correctness.
For example, I’d like to live in a province that has the Right to say “NO!” to homos that want to share my daughter’s Public Washrooms.
In other words… I want the same Rights for Alberta and Saskatchewan that Quebec now enjoys, and plans on enjoying.
Go Quebec Go!
LAS,
I do not think you know what the caliphate is.
You think freedom = anarchy,
You are clueless.
With freedom comes responsibility and rules to keep fools like you and Fatima. And Abdul and all Che T Shirt wearers in check because those I mentioned do not co exist well.
PMSH should grant all provinces “unique status”.
Quebec’s politicians, like the late Christopher Hitchens, can never bring themselves to admit that the problem is Islamic supremacism, not religion.
Nowhere in the Koran does it say all Muslim women have to wear the beekeeper’s garb. It says that Muhammad’s wives must wear them. So, unless all Muslims are Muhammad, then Islam is nothing more than a narcissistic philosophy where all other unlike them are inferior.
And, the way to create peace is to kill those who disagree with you.
But Quebec’s politician, like Hitchens, are to cowardly to actually call Islamic supremacists out.
On the other hand, I’ve been wrong before.
not true las
the problem with the covered face is that the person(s) dealing with them cannot accurately identify that person if identification is required. Period.
putting that aside, i think you will find most conservative and libertarian folks have no qualms with the remainder of the religious items we’re speaking of; unlike the bigoted Progressive a-holes we must all tolerate.
also, your analysis of SoCons is very inaccurate and rooted in ignorance. I suspect you’ve never read the Bible and have no direct knowledge of that which you spew.
This is nothing more or less than Marois saying “look, shiny thing!” in French. As they said in the SUN News video, the Sepera-tits straining frantically to be relevant. And true to form, they go for the Nazi end of the spectrum.
Its also a Pur Lain shot across the bows to all the various immigrant groups, to remind them who’s boss. Know-nothing French rednecks, that’s who.
No turbans in court? Sure, that’ll fly. That kinda thing is why Sikhs wear kirpans. I’d wear a turban myself just to be a pain in the arse to these Quebecois cretins. With a great big cross AND a yamaka, just to be dead sure they got the point.
Also, I see no reason why this conflicts with banning the veil and the burka etc., particularly in government offices. A turban or yamaka or even a headscarf is -clothing-. In a free country you get to pick what kind of frickin’ hat you’re going to wear, and how and when you’re going to wear it.
A veil isn’t clothing, its a mask. You don’t get to go around masked. Because its Canada, we don’t put up with that here. Nobody says you HAVE to come to Canada, so if you do you should be prepared to do things our way. You want to be masked, stay in the desert.
LASsie thinks having goals like tax cuts and less government = Nazis. That is because LASsie isn’t very well read. And isn’t very old. Or very bright, either.
Wow learn how to read. Does it hurt to be as mendacious and stupid as you are?
It is not the government’s place to decide if you or an immigrant wears a mask or not. Don’t like it too bad. If face to face interaction is required then require it for that circumstance.
This is just another spasm in Quebec’s decline into a ghetto.
LAS, ignoring the burka is just as wrong as ignoring the slaves in the Southern US. There is a level at which a person can reasonably sell themselves and their labour and then there is a line after which it becomes slavery. There is equally a line at which a person can subject themselves to their religious beliefs and across that line is the burka (and genital mutilation, and then further still things like human sacrifice. Religious freedom is not an absolute). Just as some slaves were happy to be slaves you can brainwash a little girl into believing she must live her life in a stultifying bag. To ignore her is to condemn future generations to the same hell.
Quebec: old Indian word meaning “people with many arrows in their feet”.
At the heart of Quebec’s intolerance is massive insecurity, small-mindedness and a culture that is rooted in victimhood and self-obsession.
There is a level at which a person can reasonably sell themselves and their labour and then there is a line after which it becomes slavery.
The only line is whether it’s being done voluntarily. That’s it. Everything you just wrote is a rationalization for the use of force to get people not to dress in ways you disapprove of.
The only line is whether it’s being done voluntarily.
You know that is wrong. You can deny it in print but you cannot deny it inside yourself. You know there is a line across which you cannot voluntarily abuse yourself. We have debated plural marriage and come to the conclusion that the potential for abuse is too great to allow religious protection even though some people can live happily like that. The burka is the same. There may be some women who can voluntarily decide to wear one but the majority are indoctrinated as children. That, too, is abuse and the potential for abuse is too much to risk in the name religion. Deny and debate all you want, LAS, you know your statement is simply wrong.
The whole hide-your-face thing can be solved by giving people (and that includes the state) the right to say no.
No face – no drivers licence and no driving
No face – I don’t have to cash your cheque or take your credit card
No face – you can’t vote
No face – etc.
I agree about Gilles Duceppe, sterling fellow in person…good fellow well met.
Rene Levesque as well…..
I used ta say Layton was living proof, that I have control…..
Yeah no beekeeper outfits….
If they make beekeeper outfits legal….I claim the right to carry my ceremonial SMG………
We have debated plural marriage and come to the conclusion that the potential for abuse is too great to allow religious protection even though some people can live happily like that. The burka is the same.
“Hi I’m rat. I’m from the government and I’m afraid you can’t _____ because you know you’re just too stupid to make what we arbitrarily decided were excessively risky decisions. Also, I have a God complex and honestly believe I somehow have the right to make these decisions for you.”
So you gonna ban Catholicism too? Gotta save those kids from abuse.
Conservativism: it’s Latin for hypocrisy.
So LAS, I assume you are against gun control then?
Actually, Doofus, you’re reading things backwards. It’s the statist left that tells Joe Sixpack he can’t eat salt or Big Gulps, or hosts of other lefist stupidity.
Keep feeding the crocodile all you please; history shows you and your lot are the first to be ingested, and rightly so.
Correct!
It’s the statist left that tells Joe Sixpack he can’t eat salt or Big Gulps, or hosts of other lefist stupidity.
The statist right, while less effective, will also force V-chips into Joe Sixpack’s TV and even ban him from engaging in sodomy until the SCOTUS tell the Texas government where to go (Lawrence vs Texas). Lots of blame for everybody-except libertarians.
Cross-posted at BCF in response to another comment: “I’m no fan of the PQ, but this was more about banning the niqab, the other religious symbols were collateral damage.”:
I agree about the collateral damage.
But why should Christianity and Christians, whose Holy Book is the foundation of our democratic laws and legal system, be shunted aside in order to rid Quebec of niqabs and burqas? Just get rid of the damned niqabs and burqas, because they’re not in keeping with Canadian values concerning equality for women.
As a Christian, I deeply resent that I would not be able to wear signs of my faith in public places if I lived in Quebec. Like Jason Kenney says, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Christians and Christian churches have made — and still make — countless contributions to Canadians, especially those who are less fortunate. I can’t say the same for Muslims and their mosques.
Sometimes “equality” isn’t “equal.” Muslims have not made comparable contributions to Canadians — and, in fact, run a closed shop. Tell them their women cannot wear niqabs and burqas in public places and leave Christians alone. We’ve lived peaceably in Canada for over 400 years and should not be made to be “collateral damage” for a cult newly introduced to Canada.
“A veil isn’t clothing, its a mask.”
I totally agree. I can’t go around in public with my face covered and neither should any Muslim woman be allowed to. It would appear that wearing either piece of clothing is not a religious requirement but a political statement.
Canada needs to say NO to masks in public places. Period.
LASsie said: “It is not the government’s place to decide if you or an immigrant wears a mask or not.”
Actually, it is. Government does have its uses, three of them to be exact. One of which, probably the most important one, is ENFORCING CONTRACTS between sovereign individuals. And you can’t enforce a contract if you don’t know who the parties are. So, NO MASKS.
Besides which, from a purely moral and cultural standpoint, the veil marks a woman as -property-. That’s it purpose. Our culture has ended the whole women-are-property thing. Newcomers need to be fully clued in, and banning the veil is a hefty swing of the cluebat. You may be property back home baby, but here you are a FREE AGENT. You want to be a chattel, hie thee back to the sandy places.
And of course, the only people opposed to it are liberals, and LASsie. Which only goes to show how far the liberals have strayed from their own alleged core values. Which is why we hold them in contempt. I assume LASsie is just an idiot.
Now go upstairs LASsie, your Mum is calling you for dinner.
I strongly oppose the charter.
I am an atheist and I think religion is evil but I think the problem is religion poisoning the humanity will eventually solve itself with time and education.
The % of atheist in the developed world is going up with time all the time. Religion is a virus and time is the cure.
When the Muslim world reach modernity (maybe in 50-60-100 years who knows) the same will happen naturally.
There is no point trying to stigmatize Muslim francophone. We should unite with them.
Also the PQ really need a new leader.
Pauline is quite a joke.
I wish I could vote for the PQ again but I am stuck voting for Option Nationale for the time being.