PQ's charter of values

421 posts / 0 new
Last post
WyldRage

The state is not the government, and the government is not the state. Elected official by definition are partisan and have no obligation of neutrality (political or otherwise). If they wore a symbol that the voters do not agree with (like a swastika, to make sure I do not offend anyone), the voters can and will fire them.
State workers are not elected, they do not represent anyone but the State itself. They have to be neutral since the State has to treat every citizen equally. If they wore a swastika, no one gets to vote them out of office, and thus there are laws limiting what they can and cannot wear and limiting their freedom of speech WHEN they are at work ONLY.

Unionist

Smith - if you answer my questions, maybe I can understand your view better. Sorry to be repetitious:

Quote:

So, Smith, if a judge's religion requires him to say a prayer out loud thanking the Pope for the strength to decide cases wisely, would you stick up for a lesbian that felt uncomfortable having her case heard by him? Or a worker in an abortion clinic who had been threatened by some anti-choicer? Or would you stick up for the judge's freedom of religion and expression?

 

 

Unionist

[url=http://live.montrealgazette.com/Event/Charter_of_Quebec_Values_protest]Here's the Montreal Gazette live blog[/url] of today's demo, which just ended. Crowd estimates are hazy - ranging from a thousand to "40-50,000". Check the photos and gauge for yourselves. Lots of good slogans though - like, "if I wanted to be told how to dress, I would have stayed in my country of origin".

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Smith - if you answer my questions, maybe I can understand your view better. Sorry to be repetitious:

Quote:

So, Smith, if a judge's religion requires him to say a prayer out loud thanking the Pope for the strength to decide cases wisely, would you stick up for a lesbian that felt uncomfortable having her case heard by him? Or a worker in an abortion clinic who had been threatened by some anti-choicer? Or would you stick up for the judge's freedom of religion and expression?

 

Unionist, your question makes no sense, as in, it is completely loaded, and frankly, insulting. You might as well throw in that the judge has to sacrifice a goat in the middle of court. But to cut to the chase, are you saying that an accused should be able to hand pick a judge? I thought you said that was out of line.

If you seriously want an answer and couldn't parse it from what I said already, it is this: No.

If we want to talk about triggers, I'd say the biggest three are ones which I expect you and I share - white, male and well-fed. I expect that's the first thing anyone winding up in the dock in this town notices way before they get out their opera glasses and look for the crucifix.

You can't change who you are and say you are qualified to be a judge anyway? Too bad, so sad.

Now if you want to start a movement saying that the only people qualified to sit on the bar in this country are Native grandmothers I'd actually back that. Until that day comes, I am not with you when it comes to holding someone else to a standard that I don't apply to myself.

 

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

Unionist, your question makes no sense, as in, it is completely loaded, and frankly, insulting.

Gee, so sorry, that wasn't the intent. I was actually looking for an answer.

Quote:
But to cut to the chase, are you saying that an accused should be able to hand pick a judge? I thought you said that was out of line.

Are we having a communication problem here? NO - NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO HAND-PICK A JUDGE. How many times do I need to say that?

Society determines the criteria for being a judge. Not the accused or the litigant.

Quote:
If you seriously want an answer and couldn't parse it from what I said already, it is this: No.

Um, I asked three questions - just for clarity, you're saying "no, I wouldn't stick up for the judge's right to say a prayer"? Is that your answer? That would be my answer too. But how is that different from the right to wear a nun's habit (which I assume - not sure - you're saying must be allowed)?

Sorry, I was seriously trying to understand your view on the issue, and I can't decipher it past the verbiage.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist.

Stop it, please.

I said above, if a judge prays to a god for the power of discernment, it is none of your business. And personally, I have no problem with it.

I answered your damned question. Twice already.

Do you want me to say I'd throw your accused under the bus? I guess if that's how your question is framed, then yes I would (though I have said so a couple of times).

Yes Unionist. I think that judge has a right to work, so long as he or she can do so in an unbiased way.

Is that clear enough?

Don't feel any pressure to answer my counter-question - whether white guys like you and me should be allowed to be judges, seeing how many people might feel threatened by our presence there.

 

wage zombie

I would stick up for a lesbian who was tried by a judge whose "religion requires him to say a prayer out loud thanking the Pope for the strength to decide cases wisely".

But I think it's a terribly contrived example, and maybe a non-sequitur.

I am undecided about the issue for judges.  I think if someone is working as a judge then while on the job they need to be an agent of the state, and not a devotee of their religion.  However, I think if being a devotee of their religion does not prevent them from being an agent of the state, then their religious freedom should be represented.

Is a Sikh wearing a turban less able to effectively be an agent of the state than a Sikh not wearing a turban?

6079_Smith_W

wage zombie wrote:

I would stick up for a lesbian who was tried by a judge whose "religion requires him to say a prayer out loud thanking the Pope for the strength to decide cases wisely".

haha...

Don't worry about the extreme example. I think the point was my position automatically meant I thought she should be pilloried by the justice system and thrown in jail.

Sorry my answer took awhile. I was just busy drowning some kittens and starving my children.

 

 

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Is a Sikh wearing a turban less able to effectively be an agent of the state than a Sikh not wearing a turban?

Is a mayor who says a prayer to Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Ghost, out of profound religious conviction, less able to be effectively an agent of the state than a mayor who bans prayers at council meetings?

This is NOT about who is an "effective agent of the state". This is about whether the state is, and appears to be, secular, neutral as to religion.

Anyway, there is no debate in Québec on this issue. Only lectures from abroad telling us how to behave.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I said above, if a judge prays to a god for the power of discernment, it is none of your business. And personally, I have no problem with it.

Fine, thanks for a clear answer. Then your opinion would be rightly discounted in any judicial system of any state that pretends to be secular. I wasn't sure until you decided you'd answer, instead of feeling "insulted" by the question. Now it's clear. Thank you, again.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Don't feel any pressure to answer my counter-question - whether white guys like you and me should be allowed to be judges, seeing how many people might feel threatened by our presence there.

 

Your "counter-question" is utterly irrelevant to the topic here - which is what a secular state is and how it presents itself.

However, I would definitely support affirmative efforts to appoint judges, not on the basis of their "right to work" (what a joke) or their "merit" (another funny one), but to help repair the historic bias against everyone except rich white males. Absolutely. I gather you wouldn't, from your comments. But that's another conversation than the one taking place in Québec. The program, please.

 

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, there is no debate in Québec on this issue. Only lectures from abroad telling us how to behave.

Well the only way for other people to figure it out is to talk about it.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

... but to help repair the historic bias against everyone except rich white males.

I'm not sure how shutting the door on people who for the most part aren't white is going to accomplish that, (never mind all the white guys sure to be in the cheering section).

But obviously this is far too progressive for me to understand. Do carry on.

(edit)

Though I am confused about why you think no secular society would allow judges who pray to a god. We already have plenty of judges who are presumably religious. Do you think only atheists should be allowed in positions of authority? Or was your question that a judge should be allowed to pray in court? Of course I don't believe that, hence my comment about sacrificing goats. We AREN'T talking about that.

 

wage zombie

Unionist has been specifying "out loud" pretty clearly.

autoworker autoworker's picture

What about statutory, religious holidays (holy days): Good Friday, Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas? Should they also be abolished, or only for public servants?

lagatta

Good Friday doesn't seem to be a stat holiday here, at least not in terms of supermarkets and the SAQ closing. That is in Ontario, no?

Thanksgiving is meaningless in Québec; it has Protestant roots.

Christmastime has become a secular or multifaith booze-up.

I don't think being secular means getting rid of traditional holidays. I have lived in France, and my nominally Jewish and Muslim friends celebrated "les Fêtes" with no religious reference just as my even more nominally Catholic friends did.

As a hardline leftie, I will NOT work on May Day.

O

6079_Smith_W

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist has been specifying "out loud" pretty clearly.

Did he?

I didn't get that, though if that was his intent I wonder what this convenient made up religion is called.

I mean, he could have chosen something interesting AND real like ancient Druid or Mayan human sacrifice.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Though I am confused about why you think no secular society would allow judges who pray to a god.

Yeah, you're confused all right. This is not about individual's religion or prayer. It's about keeping it out of people's faces. Like, the state being secular, and showing neutrality.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist has been specifying "out loud" pretty clearly.

Thank you, WZ. I didn't think I was being all that enigmatic. But one person's clarity is another's mystery.

 

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

Good Friday doesn't seem to be a stat holiday here, at least not in terms of supermarkets and the SAQ closing. That is in Ontario, no?

Here are the absolute minimum stat holidays as per law (of course, all this changes where there are collective agreements):

Quote:

  • January 1st (New Year’s Day)
  • Good Friday or Easter Monday at the employer’s choice
  • The Monday preceding May 25th (National Patriots’ Day)
  • June 24th (National Holiday)
  • July 1st. If this date falls on a Sunday: July 2nd
  • The 1st Monday in September (Labour Day)
  • The 2nd Monday in October (Thanksgiving)
  • December 25th (Christmas Day).

Quote:
Thanksgiving is meaningless in Québec; it has Protestant roots.

Lagatta, what??? It's American, and it was imported throughout Canada long ago. After WWI, it was moved from November to October, because we (mostly) adopted Remembrance Day as a new stat (not in Québec, but Thanksgiving was moved anyway). It doesn't exist in Europe. And it's definitely a stat holiday in Québec. "Action de grâce" - right?

Quote:
As a hardline leftie, I will NOT work on May Day.

Me neither. There's a demo to go to!

 

lagatta

Oh, Thanksgiving is a stat here, but it is mostly simply a day off.

I remember arriving in Ottawa on Good Friday and the nice big LCBO on Rideau was closed. Had to walk to Gatineau to pick up the liquid compoent of the supper.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Though I am confused about why you think no secular society would allow judges who pray to a god.

Yeah, you're confused all right. This is not about individual's religion or prayer. It's about keeping it out of people's faces. Like, the state being secular, and showing neutrality.

Unionist. I'm not arguing in favour of allowing prayer in court or in any other government space.

If I was a bit thrown by your original hypothetical situation, perhaps it is because it is not something required of Catholics. I just assumed you meant prayer at home or in silence.

(edit)

Anyway, to drag this back into the real world, I don't have a problem with judges, police, or other authority figures wearing outward signs which are a requirement of their faith.

 

DaveW

jerrym wrote:

TIf the PQ were consistent they would ban overtly religious people from creating and influencing political policies by preventing their election. If this were Canadian policy throughout the 20th century, Andrew Hogan, a Roman Catholic priest, or for that matter Bill Blaikie, J.S. Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles or even Tommy Douglas, who were all church ministers, could not have run for the NDP. Logically the PQ has to twist their policy into a pretzel with a big hole in the center in order to make it appear to have even the slightest whiff of fairness. 

Ridiculous. The proposed charter, while too extensive, affects PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES ... need one repeat?

any general, public political expression is of course entirely exempt

btw,

There was an op-ed in The Gazette the other day by a Pakistani immigrant to Montreal who was strongly in favour of the PQs proposal.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Opinion+believe+charter+stands+tolerance/8905068/story.html

I have often thought that if somehow Quebec had as large a Turkish popuation as it does North African we would hear this view much more, as the history of modern Turkey is largely wrapped up in excluding religious input from the public sector, and the Turkish middle class supports this, as does this gentleman.

pookie

FWIW, the judicial issue is a complete non-starter.

Try passing a law regulating judicial dress.  See how far you get.  It was an idiotic recommendation from BT. It would never survive.

Unionist, the problem with your example is that the judge SAYS something, in court, that indicates an inability to balance his religious beliefs with his judicial duties.  Yes, such a judge would be subject to a complaint for misconduct, or a party could move for a mistrial or bias.  Just as he would for saying anything similarly inappropriate.  Judges' don't have carte blance to say whatever they want in court.

But that's not the basis of the argument about judges' dress.  That basis of that argument is that merely identifing yourself as a religious minority means that you cannot be impartial.  That, because you have chosen to abide by a particular dictate about clothing you cannot balance your religious beliefs with your professional duties. 

If the judge didn't wear anything in court, but you happened to observe him at a synagogue, could you challenge him on that basis too? Why not - he's publicly avowing his religion.

Religious freedom can be limited.  But this isn't about something posing a phsyical obstacle to a workplace mandate, like health and safety.  This is about whether the religious significance of the chosen item makes the person wearing it incompatible with public servive.  

Then, we come to public perception.  The public has a right to expect neutrality.

What is the basis for perceiving that an identifiable Sikh judge is not going to be impartial in a case where one of the parties is a Sikh?  Is it reasonable? I don't think so.

How is is different from perceiving that a female judge is not going to be impartial in a case involving violence to women?  This sort of challenge has occurred in the past.  

Or perceiving that an openly gay judge will not be impartial in a case involving discrimination based on sexual orientation?  A version of this happened in the Proposition 8 case in California.

 

 

 

WyldRage

You do realize that the gender or sexual preference of a person is part of who they are, while religion and political beliefs are choices (made for them during their childhood maybe, but choices nonetheless)? That is where your comparison breaks down. A judge has to be neutral politically yet, for some reason, does not have to be when it comes to religion. 

autoworker autoworker's picture

WyldRage wrote:

You do realize that the gender or sexual preference of a person is part of who they are, while religion and political beliefs are choices (made for them during their childhood maybe, but choices nonetheless)? That is where your comparison breaks down. A judge has to be neutral politically yet, for some reason, does not have to be when it comes to religion. 

I disagree. An individual's beliefs may very well be integral to personal dentity, regardless of sexual orientation.

Unionist

pookie wrote:

FWIW, the judicial issue is a complete non-starter.

Try passing a law regulating judicial dress.  See how far you get.  It was an idiotic recommendation from BT. It would never survive.

I agree. I think I said in my previous posts that it's a prima facie Charter violation. I'm not expert enough to know whether it would survive on some balancing argument.

My main point above, which got lost in my plunging into this specific debate, is that there are bigger fish to fry in Québec right now. We need people of all walks of life opposing the PQ's charter (not ALL the charter - just the part about dress codes). Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

 

pookie

WyldRage wrote:

You do realize that the gender or sexual preference of a person is part of who they are, while religion and political beliefs are choices (made for them during their childhood maybe, but choices nonetheless)? That is where your comparison breaks down. A judge has to be neutral politically yet, for some reason, does not have to be when it comes to religion. 

This is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.  I agree that the personal characteristics generally protected against discrimination are not all biologically immutable (marital status is a good example).  But we don't follow what is essentally the American approach.  Instead, it's the importance of the characteristic to the individual that matters, as well as whether that particular characteristic historically has been used as a basis for state oppression.

In the case of religious belief, the answers to those questions are obviously "very important' and "yes".

pookie

Unionist wrote:

pookie wrote:

FWIW, the judicial issue is a complete non-starter.

Try passing a law regulating judicial dress.  See how far you get.  It was an idiotic recommendation from BT. It would never survive.

I agree. I think I said in my previous posts that it's a prima facie Charter violation. I'm not expert enough to know whether it would survive on some balancing argument.

My main point above, which got lost in my plunging into this specific debate, is that there are bigger fish to fry in Québec right now. We need people of all walks of life opposing the PQ's charter (not ALL the charter - just the part about dress codes). Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

 

Just for sake of clarity, the reason that judicial dress is a non-starter is that the courts would throw out any attempts to control them in that way, as a violation of judicial independence.  They probably wouldn't even get to the Charter.

I had not really understood your point in some of your previous posts, so thanks for the above encapsulation.  

Unionist

I don't think we need to debate whether religious beliefs need to be accommodated. The law, and consensus throughout Canada, are more than clear on that issue. The question, as in all accommodation, is: At what point does it impose "undue hardship", and what factors enter into that calculation? [I'm going by my workplace experience here, not having any legal training as such...]

One of the elements to look at is the "hierarchy of rights". There is broad consensus in Québec that religious belief accommodation should stop where it infringes on gender equality. That's one element of the PQ's draft charter that I fully agree with. For example, a 911 caller asking for a male cop because God won't let him be alone with a woman who isn't his wife? Proper reply: "Please hang up and try your call again." Or the example I gave earlier: I want my kid in public school, but it needs to be in an all-girl / all-boy environment for religious reasons. "Try the school down the street. They do stuff like that."

WyldRage

autoworker wrote:
WyldRage wrote:

You do realize that the gender or sexual preference of a person is part of who they are, while religion and political beliefs are choices (made for them during their childhood maybe, but choices nonetheless)? That is where your comparison breaks down. A judge has to be neutral politically yet, for some reason, does not have to be when it comes to religion. 

I disagree. An individual's beliefs may very well be integral to personal dentity, regardless of sexual orientation.

Not my point. One can change religion or political beliefs (I know, I have done both), you can't change gender or sexual orientation (talking about gender identity, not physical. I'm not certain if I have the right term, I don't wish to offend any transgendered person).

I consider my political belief in an independent Québec central to who I am right now (it was not always so), more than any religious inclination. Yet, if I were a teacher or a copy, I could not display it at work, which is a limit to my freedom of speech. Still, I find it quite acceptable, as you probably do (though I shouldn't assume). Why does religion, which is a choice just as much as politics or personal values, have a free pass on this? Is it because religious laws are more important than secular ones? What about optional symbols, like the cross? Since there is no obligation to wear it, is it sending a message? After all, you are far more likely to encounter a cross than any other symbol in Québec. If the person wearing it uses it to mark their opposition to LGBT rights, reproduction rights, or other political considerations, is it still acceptable? You want to counter with a LGBT flag? You can't: it's a personal value and it's not worth as much as a religious value.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

No. It's called having a discussion. You know, like people have in an internet forum? Who is drawing any line in the sand?

And yes, we had such a united front we were all ready to troop off and storm the barricades before it got spoiled.

There were a few mentions upthread about serving as a judge or police officer as being a bit different than other public sector workers. I simply said that I don't see any difference when it comes to this issue of required dress.

But speaking of diversons, I was thinking last night about that funny poster and the things that ARE allowed - the stickpins and earrings. Do those actually exist or is that just made up too? Whatever the case, if they are supposed to be some compromise they illustrate that the government has no idea of why people wear the attire they are required to. That, or they are they just meant to play to the racists and show how magnanimous they are.

WyldRage

Unionist wrote:

 Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

 

Unfortunately, that's in the BT commission report, which Mulcair has said that's the official NDP position.

6079_Smith_W

WyldRage wrote:

Not my point. One can change religion or political beliefs (I know, I have done both), you can't change gender or sexual orientation (talking about gender identity, not physical. I'm not certain if I have the right term, I don't wish to offend any transgendered person).

Changing one's beliefs or politics is an inner process. Until that happens, or if it does not, you can take it as just as much a part of identity as orientation.

The notion that one can change one's values like a hat is absolute nonsense. It's not the values. It is the person. Sorry, but there is no difference, and there have been enough people willing to lose jobs, be forced out as refugees, and go the the gallows to prove it.

For that matter, racists and those who hate don't always accept those "conversions" and there are plenty of places where it is simply not an option.

Especially when it comes to something personal like how you carry and treat your body - which is exactly what we are talking about here - it IS part of identity.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

No. It's called having a discussion. You know, like people have in an internet forum? Who is drawing any line in the sand?

Oh Lord. I'm not talking about our conversation here. Read the whole brief paragraph that preceded that sentence. I'm saying that in Québec, right now, with thousands in the streets, in real life, we should NOT have fights among allies as to whether judges can wear turbans. We need to defeat the key evil in the PQ's charter, and there's a very broad alliance that can be built on that. If we start yapping about judges and cops, we'll lose everyone. Rightly or wrongly. Including me. And yet... I have no problem, personally, with judges wearing stuff that Allah and Jesus and Leviticus ordained. It's just not the hill to die on in Québec right now.

Meanwhile, the rest of Canada should start padlocking publicly-funded religious schools which discriminate on the basis of religion. And they can stop voting for Harper and his Office of Worldwide Defence of Jesus Christ. Show us how it's done, please.

WyldRage

We are talking about a judge. They have a responsibility to be impartial: to keep their personal values out of their work. They can't remove their gender or their race, but any other sign must be removed to give the appearance of neutrality... Except for religion, which is the greatest divider and yet perfectly acceptable for some reason. The BT commission said it should not be so and put it on the same level as any other value: keep it to yourself when on the job.

6079_Smith_W

As I said above, WyldRage, I don't know about your part of the world I'd say the greatest divider is how many in power in the justice system are white, male, and have no understanding of poverty. I'm sure that's what many here in Saskatchewan notice when they see the judge, lawyers and jury pool.

Christians have the option to slip the cross off their necks. Many protestants don't even observe the cross as a christian symbol. 

We are talking about members of two already oppressed minority religions who don't have a similar option. You can't equate their position with the real power in this country.

 

WyldRage

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

No. It's called having a discussion. You know, like people have in an internet forum? Who is drawing any line in the sand?

We need to defeat the key evil in the PQ's charter, and there's a very broad alliance that can be built on that. 

And that is why you will find people in Québec extremely unreceptive to the noise coming from Canada. It is a discussion, and using absolutes as "evil", "xenophobes", "racists" will hurt your side. While I find the proposition from the PQ goes too far in some places, not far enough in others, it is built on the premises of the BT commission. The religious symbols ban WAS already on the table in that commission, which Mulcair agrees with, all the PQ did was apply it to more people. Is it too many? There lies the discussion.

By playing into Trudeau's hysteria, you hurt both your cause, and the chances of getting the PQ to back down. As my brother said to me: "I thought it went too far, but sinceall I'm getting from the other side is name-calling and Québec-bashing, all I can do is back it up in the hopes it will be softened latter."

WyldRage

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As I said above, WyldRage, I don't know about your part of the world I'd say the greatest divider is how many in power in the justice system are white, male, and have no understanding of poverty. I'm sure that's what many here in Saskatchewan notice when they see the judge, lawyers and jury pool.

Christians have the option to slip the cross off their necks. Many protestants don't even observe the cross as a christian symbol. 

We are talking about members of two already oppressed minority religions who don't have a similar option. You can't equate their position with the real power in this country.

 

 

Let me just add that as a white male who happens to make a good amount of money through hard work, I find your stereotype quite insulting. I think you can appreciate that skin color or gender do not determine who a person is, or what their values are. The problems is with a self-perpetuating system that rises people to be judges that share the previous generation's values, like the Catholic Church.

6079_Smith_W

And yet you're okay passing judgment about someone based on their faith

I don't think anyone likes being mis-judged, but as I said upthread, too bad, so sad for all the white guys. My point is comparing who this law is targetting (and it sure isn't Catholics; it doesn't touch them one bit) with where the real power and the real bias lies in pretty much every court in the land.

 

WyldRage

Where have I said that they are not qualified to be judges? You're the one going around saying that white male judges are the problem!

You think it doesn't affect catholics? You've never been outside Montreal to say that: there are many who still wear large crosses. While they are not forced by their religion to wear them, they use them to send a message about who they are and what they stand for. 

6079_Smith_W

Exactly. It is not a requirement, and if needs be it can be tucked under a shirt.

I have a customer who is a nun. The only way I can tell is from the cheque.

People don't wear modest attire or refuse to cut their hair to send a message and tell others what they stand for. They do it because that is how they treat their bodies. They aren't like crosses or smiley face pins or any other message and they can't be tucked away out of convenience.

And I'm saying that if the complaint here is appearance, then the sea of white male faces in pretty much any courts stands out far more than the little cross someone might have around a neck.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

WyldRage wrote:

autoworker wrote:
WyldRage wrote:

You do realize that the gender or sexual preference of a person is part of who they are, while religion and political beliefs are choices (made for them during their childhood maybe, but choices nonetheless)? That is where your comparison breaks down. A judge has to be neutral politically yet, for some reason, does not have to be when it comes to religion. 

I disagree. An individual's beliefs may very well be integral to personal dentity, regardless of sexual orientation.

Not my point. One can change religion or political beliefs (I know, I have done both), you can't change gender or sexual orientation (talking about gender identity, not physical. I'm not certain if I have the right term, I don't wish to offend any transgendered person).

I consider my political belief in an independent Québec central to who I am right now (it was not always so), more than any religious inclination.
Yet, if I were a teacher or a copy, I could not display it at work, which is a limit to my freedom of speech. Still, I find it quite acceptable, as you probably do (though I shouldn't assume). Why does religion, which is a choice just as much as politics or personal values, have a free pass on this? Is it because religious laws are more important than secular ones? What about optional symbols, like the cross? Since there is no obligation to wear it, is it sending a message? After all, you are far more likely to encounter a cross than any other symbol in Québec. If the person wearing it uses it to mark their opposition to LGBT rights, reproduction rights, or other political considerations, is it still acceptable? You want to counter with a LGBT flag? You can't: it's a personal value and it's not worth as much as a religious value.

Some people are prepared to suffer for their convictions, are you prepared to persecute them?

WyldRage

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Exactly. It is not a requirement, and if needs be it can be tucked under a shirt.

 

 

Welcome to the pro-Charter camp! Asking a public worker to tuck in or remove a visible religious symbol is what this law does.

WyldRage

autoworker wrote:
WyldRage wrote:

autoworker wrote:
WyldRage wrote:

You do realize that the gender or sexual preference of a person is part of who they are, while religion and political beliefs are choices (made for them during their childhood maybe, but choices nonetheless)? That is where your comparison breaks down. A judge has to be neutral politically yet, for some reason, does not have to be when it comes to religion. 

I disagree. An individual's beliefs may very well be integral to personal dentity, regardless of sexual orientation.

Not my point. One can change religion or political beliefs (I know, I have done both), you can't change gender or sexual orientation (talking about gender identity, not physical. I'm not certain if I have the right term, I don't wish to offend any transgendered person).

I consider my political belief in an independent Québec central to who I am right now (it was not always so), more than any religious inclination. Yet, if I were a teacher or a copy, I could not display it at work, which is a limit to my freedom of speech. Still, I find it quite acceptable, as you probably do (though I shouldn't assume). Why does religion, which is a choice just as much as politics or personal values, have a free pass on this? Is it because religious laws are more important than secular ones? What about optional symbols, like the cross? Since there is no obligation to wear it, is it sending a message? After all, you are far more likely to encounter a cross than any other symbol in Québec. If the person wearing it uses it to mark their opposition to LGBT rights, reproduction rights, or other political considerations, is it still acceptable? You want to counter with a LGBT flag? You can't: it's a personal value and it's not worth as much as a religious value.

Some people are prepared to suffer for their convictions, are you prepared to persecute them?

I'd prefer they apply the BT commission's recommendation. Still, compared to Bill 101, the reaction to the Charter is much, much weaker.

6079_Smith_W

WyldRage wrote:

Welcome to the pro-Charter camp! Asking a public worker to tuck in or remove a visible religious symbol is what this law does.

No it doesn't. No I'm not, and you know the difference.

Again, I know it's not your motivation, but this (and those ridiculous stickpins and earrings) are how all the racists and right-wing Christians this is going to appeal to can snicker into their sleeves and say, "See! It treats everybody equal."

 

Unionist

Almost 11,000 signatures on this declaration and petition (although I notice that the signatures aren't up to date - the site is fairly primitive):

[url=http://quebecinclusif.org/]Pour un Québec inclusif[/url]

Here's an English version:

[url=http://translatingtheprintempserable.tumblr.com/post/60955036892/manifes... an inclusive Québec[/url]

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks Unionist that is the best thing I have read on this topic. The author nails every single point. I also liked his reference to the role of the media in inflaming the divisions in society.  In all parts of Canada the MSM plays the same role and one of the divisions that Post Media and others like to play up in my part of the world is Quebec xenophobia. It is good that we all remember that the MSM in each others parts of the country is not the voice of the reasonable people of Canada.

Quote:

From the outset, the fact that the government calls on the few requests for accommodation as being responsible for a social crisis speaks volumes about the work done by some of the province’s most prominent media columnists. Explosive and populist headlines, sweeping and judgemental commentaries and superficial analyses have marked Quebec’s media landscape since the emergence of the public debate on religious accommodation. Using manifold shortcuts, tabloids and news channels continuously portrayed a besieged Montreal, inundated by unreasonable requests for accommodations from intransigent immigrants. Over the years, they were able to anchor a real fear for the survival of the québécois identity in many of our fellow citizens. We regrettably note that today, our government seeks to exploit this fear for votes.

...

We also wish to denounce the misleading association made ​​by some commentators between Canadian multiculturalism and respect for religious minorities. Far from being a Canadian invention, freedom of religion was protected by different apparatuses in most democratic countries over the course of the second half of the twentieth century. As such, Quebec legislated on the topic before the federal government had, by adopting its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1975, seven years before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . In addition, the Quebec Charter of Rights goes further than its federal counterpart by also governing matters of private rights. This means that Quebec has historically chosen to give additional protection to vulnerable groups, including religious minorities. And Pierre Elliott Trudeau has nothing to do with it

II. Exclusionary effect

We hope that the government’s objective is not to exclude thousands of our fellow citizens from employment within the public sector. Yet under the guise of promoting the neutrality of the state, the expected effect of the prohibition to wear any obvious religious symbol in fact would be to exclude citizens unable to choose between the requirements of their conscience and those of their job. It is precisely to avoid this kind of dilemma that Charters of Rights have protected freedom of conscience and religion for over thirty years.

The unemployment rate dramatically affecting Quebec immigrants is among the urgent problems in terms of integration. However, the ban on religious symbols in the public service, schools and daycares can only exacerbate the exclusion of immigrants from the Quebec labour market. In this regard, the ban will only contribute to making women wearing the hijab more vulnerable and increase inequality between men and women, particularly in terms of access to employment. It is therefore to be expected that this Charter, proffered as a tool to help achieve gender equality, would have the opposite effect.

http://translatingtheprintempserable.tumblr.com/post/60955036892/manifes...

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

 Drawing a line in the sand about cops and judges just won't help build that alliance. It's a diversion.

WyldRage wrote:

Unfortunately, that's in the BT commission report, which Mulcair has said that's the official NDP position.

Could you or someone else elaborate on what this means?  Is the recommendation for the BT commission report for Quebec only, or for all of Canada?  Does the federal NDP have an official position on the recommendations of a provincial commission?

WyldRage

All I have is this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-religious-symbols-ban-doubtful-to...

If you want more, I guess you'll have to ask him. Frankly, I think he is lucky the EMSM doesn't care about the NDP or what's happening in Québec (unless they have something to scream about): if the journalists knew about what was in the BT commission's report, Trudeau would be having a field day accusing Mulcair of racism or xenophobia. 

Pages