How do you say “push back” in French?
QMI Agency has learned the Parti Quebecois government plans to amend the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms and ban most religious signs and symbols from public institutions such as daycare centres, public schools, hospitals, clinics, and other government buildings.
Visible crosses, yarmulkes, hijabs, niqabs, burkas and turbans would all be banned.
According to sources close to the government, all health workers, public school teachers and public daycare workers would have to leave their religious symbols at home when they go to work.
As one of the architects of the legislation indicated, this is the Bill 101 of their generation. Can anyone say “Notwithstanding Clause” after this is challenged under the Charter?
Justin T will be very upset about this, the media will be scrambling for his opinion.
Of course, the only quasi-religious symbol that will be allowed is the fleur-de-lis. And gigantic portraits of Pauline Marois on public streets, watching over the pure laine pedestrians below.
Progressivism at its silliest: if no religious symbolism is allowed, then, de facto, the only religious symbolism allowed becomes the state. Every 20th Century tin-pot dictator has tried this approach; from blatant cult-of-personality propoganda, to more the more modest crushing of religious symbolism and authority.
All have failed; you cannot contain religion by throttling it. It’s like grabing a bucket of water by dipping your fists into the water. This attempt will fail too.
What a joke the PQ have become.
I believe the appropriate phrase is : fuir or S’enfuir
Linguistically, legally, culturally, and practically speaking- it is simply not possible to translate ‘pushback’ directly into French.
Yes, push can be translated pousses or appuyer and back can also be translated arriere – however, the meaning of pushback in English does not easily convey itself in French – as such a thing rarely, if ever, happens and usually leaves most frenchmen speechless (an accomplishment in its own right).
Typically, the situations in which a non-frenchmen might ‘pushback’ are usually the same situations in which a frenchmen would shout ‘fuir’ thus this translation is probably the most accurate.
Typical Frakophile paranoia – the whole nationaliste culture is schizoid.
It is a double edged sword IMO. I largely agree with the Quebec government on this one. If you want a government job then present yourself in a way that does not offend the people you serve. I appreciate that ‘offend’ can be interrupted in many ways. I do not believe in government paid and sponsored multi-culturalism. By the same token I don’t have a problem if citizens maintain their religion and culture on their own time and dime.
As the country continues to run deficits in some convoluted attempt to recover to ‘normal’ growth the taxpayer continues to have their pockets picked by special interest groups. Whether it is special interest ethnic or economic it makes no difference to me. Cut them all off the government teat!
Vladimir Lenin would approve.
Today’s Marxists are just implementing their long range plan slower than Lenin did.
I don’t think there is a direct translation of pushback with the same semantics. However, contre-coup is quite close.
coa-coa
“Excuses” (fr) will be issued around September 16th.
A common theme I see in internet comments made by the Left is that “people must leave their religious beliefs out of the public square.” (Fine. Socialism is a religion).
Of course it only applies to Christians and possibly Jews. But when mohammadans are affected, whoa Nelly! – somehow religiousness is A-OK.
Trudeau oddly foisted multiculturalism on English Canada as a perceived sop to Quebec. Quebec wasn’t stupid enough to adopt it herself.
“Good on Quebec. They are showing the balls that the feds and the other provinces lack. We are being colonized just like Europe. Do Canadians really want to saddle their children and grandchildren with large numbers of these monsters who hate our culture, but love our money and amenities?
Good on Quebec for standing up for their culture.”
What a fascist hole. Pretty sure this is illegal.
I will add this to my previous comment … yes the Jews will need to take off their beanies and the christians will need to take off their gold crosses, but that is a small price to pay to let the muslims (and that is whom this is all about) know that we don’t want their brand of insanity on our streets and in our buildings. They need to assimilate or go home to the cesspools that spawned them.
Yes,this is push back against the Muslims,who are getting a little too bold and aggressive for Quebec’s government.
Quebec stopped Muslims from their absurd demand of voting while completely covered up,so no one could see their face. I doubt any other Province would have had the guts to do it.
I agree with Quebec on this one.
M Steyn has tended to defend the ideal of personal liberty as THE ideal. Despite his justifications, I’ve never bought his arguments for banning the burkha, hijab etc. I remain a stalwart defender of those who want to wear whatever they want to wear. Deal with the issue through immigration policy if you must.
I wonder what will they do in Quebec about pagan tatoo imagery?
I have dealt with civil servants who were obviously sikhs, hindus, or muslims all my life. Had no more trouble with them than I did with nominal christians or atheists. As long as they treat people according to the rules why should this matter?
Telling people they can’t do their job simply because they are wearing a kipa, turban, or crucifix is what bigots do.
What I mean, how important is freedom next to indulging your cultural insecurity and xenophobia?
Well, they may have overreached a bit, but fundamentally the approach is the right one.
For example, in any kind of official situation, one needs to show one’s face (courts, voting, driving license, etc).
Teachers in hijab teaches kids values antithetical to western values.
Exaggerated religious symbolism by representatives of the government is an implicit attack on the separation of church & state.
Canada (and the west) is based on liberal democratic values. Let’s defend them.
Back when the KKK ran the State of Oregon at the start of the 20th century, along with banning Catholic schools (overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1924), they also banned public school teachers from wearing any religious symbols. That law remains on the books, and the last that I heard, the ACLU was busily defending it.
I would say this was ridiculous but there isn’t anything funny about this. As usual, government circles around the problem rather than addressing it with personal freedom thrown to the dogs. If you want to make it mandatory to have ones face visible in a public place, do so. Of course the Quebec folks are not totally to blame. No doubt they feared a constitutional challenge unless they took everyone’s rights away.
Teachers in hijab teaches kids values antithetical to western values.
No they don’t.
OFAY: Teachers in hijab teaches kids values antithetical to western values.
lAS: No they don’t.
Yes, they do. OFAY didn’t expand his argument, so let me do it for him. A teacher, who is in most cases, a person who the children respect, imparts lessons just from his/her deportment, dress, etc., in addition to the lessons they nominally teach. If you don’t accept this premise, you clearly have no experience in the real world.
For example, let’s say a teacher came in day after day unshaven, wearing dirty clothes, and smelling of alcohol (although not technically drunk). Regardless of whether he was teaching math, history, or phys ed, he would be demonstrating a particular value (or lack thereof) to his students. Similarly, a teacher who swears frequently, or speaks in Ebonics, is also demonstrating his/her belief in particular values.
A teacher wearing a hijab implicitly says to the children: I am a woman, therefore, I must not show my uncovered face to the world. (Frankly, I’m not sure why; there is nothing in the Koran, AFAIK, that forbids this, but I don’t pretend to be an expert on barbaric religions.) Therefore, women do not have all the freedoms that men do. Therefore, women are not equal to men. This latter conclusion is, as Ofay alluded to, contrary to western beliefs.
Note that women are equal to men does not mean that women are the same as men, and can do all the jobs, etc., as well as a man can. As I’ve stated here before, female infantry, female firefighters, etc., are ridiculous extensions of the concept of equality. But any group that suggests that women can’t appear in public dressed (i.e. not naked) as they wish is antithetical to Western values.
However, my main point in responding is this: what if you are wearing a dress with a print of crucifixes on it? A scarf patterned with Stars of David? What if, as ancient Christians did, you wear the sign of the fish? In the long run, this law will prove impossible to enforce.
oops, wrong attribution: it was Johann, not Ofay. Sorry
I agree with you to some extent, and I will say that I’ve long admired Quebec’s record of applying ‘Self Determination’ although I completely disagree with the society they wish to build; and, the fact that they feel entitled to have western Canada pay for it. Also, I admired Gilles Duceppe as the only politician for whom I believed what was coming out of his mouth; although, I disagreed with him almost 100%.
All of that said, I agree with you comment about Quebec’s Right(my word) to decide their own fate. Where I part ways with you, and the mainstream POV about such things(see Oklahoma’s law against Sharia what was recently struck down by their courts…see link below), is that I believe a city, state, province or country should have to right to pick and choose what religious items are appropriate for the public square. For example, a city should be able to continue their tradition of maintaining a Christmas display in public places and STILL reserve the right to deny the Atheist, or whatever else display they wish to deny. The public has the Right to maintain their traditions, change their traditions, or include more diversity in their traditions IF THEY WISH!
You are not infringing on anyone’s religious freedoms by displaying religious symbols in public; nor are you infringing on anyone’s religious beliefs by not granting equal time and space for displays and traditions that are not part of that jurisdiction’s traditions. IF… the public in that jurisdiction wishes to discriminate against certain displays in certain areas IT IS THIER RIGHT!
IMO the courts have repeatedly gotten this wrong; and deliberately so.
https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/court-upholds-ruling-blocking-oklahoma-sharia-and-international-law-ban
A teacher wearing a hijab implicitly says to the children: I am a woman, therefore, I must not show my uncovered face to the world.
A Hijab doesn’t cover the face.
When I was growing up and watched movies you could always tell the good guys from the bad guys by the hat they wore. Maybe religious headdress is the same thing? That being said my wife, for religious reasons, keeps her head covered when out in public. Today she is wearing a baseball cap with a corporate logo on it.
I think you are correct here LAS; what you are missing though, is that in some people’s POV, and according to Quebec law, it is within their purview as Quebec to decide for themselves; regardless of the discriminatory nature of the proposed law.
The fact that some Quebecers wish to infringe on their own Rights in this case seems to be their own business. I believe that is the root of the support you are seeing for Quebec on this thread(in my case anyways).
All of that said, I do take umbrage to the fact that Quebec has more Rights that the ROC regarding Rights to ‘Self Determination’.
Also, see your own position on Egypt, and yours and my belief that they have the Right to elect whom they wish and install the laws(discriminatory or not) that they wish. On the surface, it appears that your view on the broader issue is inconsistent. With all due respect, why do you support freedom of choice for Egyptians but not for Quebecers?
Pushback indeed! This is theatre. The PQ make quite clear that the Roman crosses on Mount Royal and in the “National” Assembly aren’t going anywhere—and there’s no word on the money being funneled to the Church of Rome to keep their empty, crumbling temples from falling down being cut off.
Bill 101 of our generation? I suppose so. If this law is ever strictly enforced at all, the only significant targets will be the long-suffering Protestants and Jews of Lower Canada, just as was done with Bill 101. The Muslims? Forget it. Montreal’s already well on its way to becoming North Beirut, and the ponces of the Plateau have no intention of doing anything of substance about it. They, like their friends in Toronto, quite enjoy having charladies in hijab to clean their toilets for them, and the charladies’ pups to help the likes of Amir Khadir solve what remains of Montreal’s “Jewish problem” for them. By the time the government of the Islamic Republic of Quebec starts converting all those Roman temples into mosques the Plateau ponces plan to be long since gone to their reward, which they plan to enjoy, of course, in Florida.
Not to mention only Christians and Jews can be persuaded with any effectiveness to take the light of the world and put it under a bucket. Annoying Muslims or opposing the spreading of the Islamic creed is a good way to get a pressure cooker left on your doorstep, reducing the value of your Plateau walkup terribly when it goes off.
Tell me more about pushback when the likes of Amir Khadir show up at Dorval airport in their thousands to wipe the dust of Montreal off their feet and leave it behind, reminding the Parti quebecois that God’s kingdom is very near in the departure lounge—guns in the hands of Canadian soldiers at their backs if necessary. Right now it’s good Canadians like Howard Galganov who are the ones continuing to leave.
—
I should add that the responsibility for our Muslim problem is ultimately that of the French Canadian nation. Too vain to accept defeat in a fair fight at the Plains of Abraham, and to leave Canada forthwith never to return, they rewarded the English for showing them mercy and recognizing French law and Roman religion in Canada by plotting to do away with English dominion and replace it with a French commonwealth.
That was why they supported a “multicultural” Canada that feathered their nests at English and Jewish expense and favoured in an immigrant a passing knowledge of French over his ability to show up for work on time and sober, to do something useful and to understand and accept English law and the Christian faith. They it was who thrust Pierre Elliott Trudeau into office over and over even as they elected Rene Levesque twice.
Their vanity made sure that they never thought to ask whether the masters of the “multicultural” state they established wouldn’t simply replace the French themselves with something more to their own taste, that worked for nearly nothing, spoke a jabber resembling French, and did not even pretend to be Christian. Even now they flatter themselves that they can avoid paying the price of treason forever.
A new record! It only took three sentences before I correctly identified the author of that screed as our resident hater of Catholics, Dick Slater. And the first two were just short exclamations…
a burka does, ur splitting hairs
Yeah well, La Bell Province has certainly changed.
Once the Francophone elites attended Oxford and Cambridge and the English elites attended the Sorbonne….now it seems like the French elites attended Patrice Lamumba University (Moscow)…..actually Alan Runt’s indoctrination centre…U of O……..
A burka and a hijab are not the same. The hijab is quite similar to a nun’s habit. Neither are appropriate dress for a public servant in an official capacity. A simple scarf head-cover meets all the religious requirements.
This is not about head coverings, this is about immigrants trying to set themselves apart from Canadian society and create isolated ghetto communities, while still enjoying all our ‘free’ benefits.
That’s not Canadian; they should assimilate/integrate or go back to where they call ‘home’.
Agreed, but LAS appears to have being trying to nullify an argument by pointing out a simple error in someone’s statement. It is similar to the person who deflects a debate by focusing on spelling errors instead of the content of someone’s comment.
My point is that a society should have the Right to determine what they deem is appropriate or not. The problem is the bloody activist courts conflating the issues of ‘religious discrimination’ and hurt feelings.
You and I seem to agree that we all, states/provinces, should have the right to determine what is suitable for our public places; just like Quebec!
LAS would prefer only Egyptians have such Rights, and would advocate for stripping Quebec of its special status.
Remember, the goal for any socialist(like LAS) is ‘shared misery’. It is no coincidence that the ONE TIME LAS strays from his unwavering support of socialist Quebec and their socialist government, is when they CHOOSE to exercise their independence, and stray from the socialist ‘company line’; or should I say ‘dogma’?
The bottom line is, in the eyes of a socialist(LAS), even Quebec can’t be ‘different’; because if they are, it would thus justify Alberta being ‘different’, or anyone else for that matter, and we can’t have that.
My point is that a society should have the Right to determine what they deem is appropriate or not.
Society has no ‘rights’ at all. Only individuals have rights.
LAS would prefer only Egyptians have such Rights
WTF are you talking about? Did your meds expire?
Marois, like the first PQ government will likely include a Section 33 Notwithstanding clause in the Bill.
Then, and more importantly, does anyone in Ottawa have the balls to say ‘Disallowance’?
Actually no, Rights are not exclusive to the individual. You just make isht up!
Ever heard of “State Rights”?
Once again, you are deflecting, as it doesn’t matter what I call it, ‘Rights’, ‘Power’, ‘ability to’; the gist of the comment is still the same.
You are a good puppy, and are very good at doing the tricks you’ve been taught. Unfortunately, like all puppies, you’ve forgotten what you just did a few minutes ago(the same trick): “LAS appears to have being trying to nullify an argument by pointing out a simple error in someone’s statement.”( although in this case there was no error on my part); so, I won’t beat you for ‘pissing on the carpet’, figuratively speaking of course.
So, besides spelling, definitions, grammar, or any other nit-picking, please, make a cogent argument to disagree with me, or agree with me; but please spare us all of the obfuscation; or, we’ll have to put the little puppy outside for the night.
“LAS would prefer only Egyptians have such Rights
WTF are you talking about? Did your meds expire?”
You should ask yourself the same question.
You have repeatedly said you support the Arab Spring, and the free election of the MB in Egypt; and by proxy, their vicious application of discriminatory laws.
Then, on this thread, you object to Quebec’s ability to institute laws that we both agree are discriminatory; thus the statement from me: “LAS would prefer only Egyptians have such Rights, and would advocate for stripping Quebec of its special status.”
It’s not your fault LAS, it is literally impossible to defend your world POV with any consistency; hence, wishing for a dictatorial Utopia here and demanding an end to totalitarian rule in Egypt(see your own previous statements regarding the Arab Spring).
Ever heard of “State Rights”?
States rights and all government powers only pertain to defending individual rights. ‘Society’ (whatever that is) still does not have rights.
You have repeatedly said you support the Arab Spring
Sort of.
and the free election of the MB in Egypt; and by proxy, their vicious application of discriminatory laws.
I see you’ve graduated from the Knightderp school of lying and the ET school of sophistry.
“‘Society’ (whatever that is) still does not have rights.”
Agreed, a poor choice of words; I should have said “the citizens in a specific jurisdiction such as a State, Province or City”.
Still, you are nit-picking and obfuscating. Nice trick(again).
I am not writing an essay, or taking time to properly proof read and edit; just like most commenters. But you are wrong about your definition of “States Rights” regardless, which refer to the powers delegated to the States, not the Feds by the Constitution. Similarly, Quebec has special legal status, similar to States Rights. None of this pertains to the individual, and your statement that only individuals have Rights is still wrong.
Now LASsy, outside for the night; and don’t bite the mailman’s ankles.
Yes lets all submit our National heritage’s. So one Religious group will not be offended.
Easier to submit that way.
This is exactly why I didn’t vote for the PQ in the last election (Option Nationale was my choice) and I’ll not vote for the PQ in the next election.
There is no problem of major religious extremist in Quebec.
Marois and that joker Bernard Drainville are damaging the PQ.
I really wish I could vote for the PQ again.
La Balls Province
children arguing in the playground sandbox name calling and throwing epithets.
Don’t argue with an idiot, they will always try to bring the discussion down to their level.
El-ASS
a governing body recieves it’s “right” to govern from the electorate, this means that they represent the collective rights of the individual rights, so yes, the government (or state) effectively do have rights.
“A common theme I see in internet comments made by the Left is that ‘people must leave their religious beliefs out of the public square.'”
Yes, and the Left also tries to expand the “public square” beyond all rational bounds, by taking over education, health care, transportation, and many other endeavours that should be in the private sector. In practice that too is an attack on freedom of religion, an indirect one.
Justin has spoken, as expected he’s not happy. His Quebec nemesis Thomass Mulcair is a tad smarter, he calls it a trial balloon, he’ll deal with it only if it goes beyond that.