PQ's charter of values

421 posts / 0 new
Last post
WyldRage

As I said, everything is not black and white on this: here are the point of view of two Muslim women, in favor of the charter (French-only report on Radio-Canada, CBC's French station).

http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media/2013/09/12/Des-femmes-musulmanes-soutiennent-la-charte-des-valeurs?externalId=6825305

wage zombie

ok, thanks for the link.

Quote:

Mulcair made the NDP's presentation to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which conducted public hearings in 2007 on the impact of religious accommodation on Quebec's identity and values. The commission was run by sociologist Gérard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor. He says the NDP agree with the recommendations of that report and will stand up against any proposal contrary to it.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Any thoughts on this:

A recent boost in support for the Quebec Liberals means the party could secure a “hair thin” majority in the province if an election were called today, suggests a new public opinion poll.

The poll, conducted by Forum Research, found support for Liberals in the province has jumped to 42% — up more than 10 points since the 2012 election — in the wake of the proposed Quebec charter of values.

Or this:

Thousands marched through the streets of Montreal on Saturday afternoon to denounce Quebec’s proposed charter of values, calling on Premier Pauline Marois to put an end to “politics of division.”

The protest, billed as an inclusive, multicultural event, drew many members of the Muslim and Sikh communities. Others who claimed no religious allegiance also took part.

WyldRage

A Forum research poll in Québec? When have they ever polled Québec before? Note that they compare with the 2012 results and both LPQ and LPC have new leaders in their honeymoons. Trust Léger Marketing, they are the ones who continually are closest to reality.

As for the March, it was called by the same people that were behind the invitation of Islamist speakers who hold sexist positions against women and who made attempts to create a Charia based court, according to this article:http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2013/09/13/004-manifestatio...

It's no wonder the Jewish leaders boycotted this event and why there were so few people (French journals talk about "over a thousand", while some English newspapers use the organizers' number of "over 40000"). "With Friends like these..." as the saying goes.

6079_Smith_W

WyldRage wrote:

As I said, everything is not black and white on this: here are the point of view of two Muslim women, in favor of the charter (French-only report on Radio-Canada, CBC's French station).

http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media/2013/09/12/Des-femmes-musulmanes-soutiennent-la-charte-des-valeurs?externalId=6825305

In a similar vein, clearly some of the callers to Cross Country Checkup forgot that this was supposed to be a cue for gratuitous Quebec bashing. I caught a full half-hour of ROCers speaking in favour of the charter. One of whom said Quebec had much more "chutzpah" than the rest of us for doing so.

I wasn't all that surprised.

 

DaveW

WyldRage wrote:

As I said, everything is not black and white on this: here are the point of view of two Muslim women, in favor of the charter (French-only report on Radio-Canada, CBC's French station).

http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/media/2013/09/12/Des-femmes-musulmanes-soutiennent-la-charte-des-valeurs?externalId=6825305

as I ventured here the other day, if Montreal had a big Turkish community, there would be a lot more immigrants coming out in favour, as this matches their home country policy on secular State organs

Unionist

WyldRage wrote:

It's no wonder the Jewish leaders boycotted this event and why there were so few people (French journals talk about "over a thousand", while some English newspapers use the organizers' number of "over 40000"). "With Friends like these..." as the saying goes.

Oh come on - the "Jewish leaders" were the CIJA, who didn't like the organizers because of the latters' perceived anti-Israel politics. And Jews (not "leaders") didn't show up because the organizers stupidly called the demo on Yom Kippur, which is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Any Jew who actually wears a kippa would be in synagogue all day and prohibited in any event from participating in a demo. It was also Shabbat, and they've called another demo (Oct. 19) for Saturday as well. Long live Muslim-Jewish mutual understanding!

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:
One of whom said Quebec had much more "chutzpah" than the rest of us for doing so.

We may have chutzpah now, but we won't be able to bring it to work once the charter passes.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, I thought it a bit ironic myself.

I'm pretty sure he was also the guy who talked about dealing with things before the 11th hour, after which Rex mumbled nervously and basically cut him off.

I mean, I know there is some more reasoned support for the Charter, even outside of Quebec. But it was still a bit surprising to hear a string of calls in this vein (though he was the worst).

 

lagatta

Was this another one accusing Québec of being either Nazi Germany or pre-civil-rights Alabama? I refuse to listen to Rex, and in any event was watching the bicycle race.

Lots of Jews who aren't particularly devout or practising wouldn't attend anything on Yom Kippur either. It does not bode well if the organizers organized the second demo also on the Sabbath. Some attending the ecosocialist network meeting, while they would have attended the demo otherwise, were not at all happy about its organizers and orientation.

DaveW

quite a good analysis of the proposed charter and its motivations, rooted in republicanism and Quebec feminism:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-core-of-quebecs-charterrepublicanism-and-feminism/article14332725/#dashboard/follows/

You cannot begin to understand the debate surrounding the Parti Québécois’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values without an appreciation of French republicanism and its influence in Quebec. Both France and Quebec are post-Catholic societies that threw off the shackles of the church. The backlash came later in Quebec, but it was even more virulent.

Indeed, since the Quiet Revolution, feminism has been almost as powerful a force as nationalism. During the 1980 sovereignty referendum campaign, Lise Payette, the province’s first minister of women’s issues, ridiculed female supporters of the No side as “Yvettes,” a reference to the obedient young girl in old school manuals. Her outburst provoked a backlash that may have helped the No win, but feminists won the day a year later. Since 1981, Quebec women haven’t been able to legally take their husband’s name without considerable effort.

Forget turbans or kirpans, the origin of the PQ charter really lies with Quebec feminists – of which Premier Pauline Marois is one – and their attitude toward the hijab. As in France, Quebec feminists and (until recently) most of its intellectual class have seen the Islamic head scarf less as a religious symbol than as a sign of female oppression and submission. In their view, public institutions bound to uphold the principle of gender equality cannot allow it within their walls.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

lagatta wrote:

Was this another one accusing Québec of being either Nazi Germany or pre-civil-rights Alabama? I refuse to listen to Rex, and in any event was watching the bicycle race.

Um no.

In this worst case it was a fellow who used it as an excuse to spin his own xenophobic ideas, but there was no accusation there. He spoke of Quebec's willingness to take steps the rest of Canada has not (which isn't entirely true). That was my point. Contrary to the notion that everyone is using this to bash Quebec (and yes, I know a lot are) I heard a string of anglophone callers who spoke in support of the principle, some of them in terms I may disagree with (the fellow who said he has to cover up his tattoos) but which are not what I would call hateful positions.

And I don't generally turn it on either, and only caught about 40 minutes of it while doing errands, but the show's obvious bias notwithstanding, I'm not going to shut my ears to what some people are saying about this. As I said, in this case I heard something I did not expect - not an endless stream of brickbats thrown at Quebec. Not one, even (though I expect there probably were a few in the part of the show I missed).

(edit)

And while that Globe piece is strictly about the proposed charter, another thing a lot of non-francophones aren't aware of is the reason separate schools were guaranteed in Canada as a means of safeguarding language and culture. They may not now be seen as a positive step, but as originally conceived they were the best option that anyone was going to make happen.

 

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

This poll suggests that support for the Charter in Quebec is dropping. Link to Google translate version of story

QUEBEC - The debate on the draft Charter of Quebec values ​​deeply divides the province, but a small majority of Quebecers is always in favor of banning the wearing of religious symbols by public officials, according to a poll conducted by the QMI Agency Leger.

Nearly 43% of Quebeckers support the draft Charter of Quebec values, while 42% oppose it. "We have not seen such division for the reasonable accommodation crisis in 2007, and since the 1995 referendum," said Christian Bourque, vice-president of Leger.

In a survey conducted by the firm on August 26, nearly 57% of Quebecers say yet believe that the filing of a charter of values, this fall was a good idea.

"The support is lower. The more people hear about it, the more they define their opinion. If we compare the support of there three weeks, there is a crumbling, "said Bourque.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Asian Exclusion League in BC had the support of the majority of the population in its time. This is Islamophobia not secularism. Women choosing there own destiny is a feminist ideal. I know some activist progressive women who wear headscarves when in public and none of them are oppressed anymore than other women in this society.  Feminism does not require conformity of some women to some other women's idea of what is good for them.

WyldRage

Yes, but interestingly, the measure of the religious symbols ban still meets 51% approval. Oh, and Montrealers approve of the charter by 40%, denying the oft-mentioned myth about Montreal being more tolerant than the rest of the province (though it is true that they oppose it by 59% *edit: it's 49%). Considering the amount of allophones and anglophones in Montreal, it also means that being in contact with religious and cultural diversity makes you LESS tolerant of it.

Don't mind me, I'm just finding the results a bit funny when compared to the myths from the MSM.

Unionist

I think xenophobia is inherent to the human condition.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That is why we have laws against discrimination. Otherwise the majority would pass all kinds of nasty laws and engage in all kinds of practices that only affect "other" people.

DaveW

 

as the Quebec minister Drainville pointed out this week, the recent Forum Research poll of Canadians  found that 42 per cent of them supported the charter's principle of prohibiting personal religious displays by public-sector workers, while 47 per cent opposed ...

to argue that this is some really Quebec-specific fear is just wrong ... ask your neighbours

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Harper says the charter isn't going anywhere 'in its current form'...Sounds like the CAQ

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

Harper says the charter isn't going anywhere 'in its current form'...Sounds like the CAQ

Exactly. CAQ is getting desperate. The PQ is actually outmanoeuvring them on the "protect our glorious heritage against the scary immigrants" front. That was the ADQ's brand, inherited by CAQ.

It would be so so so easy for the two of them to sit down and agree to ban religious dress for what Bouchard-Taylor said (judges, cops, prison guards, crown counsel) plus what CAQ said (elementary and high-school teachers), plus maybe a little more so PQ could say it didn't totally capitulate to CAQ. That way, the Charter of Shame could pass. But... that could destroy CAQ. They don't know which way to run. You should have heard that idiot Jacques Duchesneau on the radio today. Running scared.

 

janfromthebruce

DaveW wrote:

quite a good analysis of the proposed charter and its motivations, rooted in republicanism and Quebec feminism:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-core-of-quebecs-charterrepublicanism-and-feminism/article14332725/#dashboard/follows/

You cannot begin to understand the debate surrounding the Parti Québécois’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values without an appreciation of French republicanism and its influence in Quebec. Both France and Quebec are post-Catholic societies that threw off the shackles of the church. The backlash came later in Quebec, but it was even more virulent.

Indeed, since the Quiet Revolution, feminism has been almost as powerful a force as nationalism. During the 1980 sovereignty referendum campaign, Lise Payette, the province’s first minister of women’s issues, ridiculed female supporters of the No side as “Yvettes,” a reference to the obedient young girl in old school manuals. Her outburst provoked a backlash that may have helped the No win, but feminists won the day a year later. Since 1981, Quebec women haven’t been able to legally take their husband’s name without considerable effort.

Forget turbans or kirpans, the origin of the PQ charter really lies with Quebec feminists – of which Premier Pauline Marois is one – and their attitude toward the hijab. As in France, Quebec feminists and (until recently) most of its intellectual class have seen the Islamic head scarf less as a religious symbol than as a sign of female oppression and submission. In their view, public institutions bound to uphold the principle of gender equality cannot allow it within their walls.

Actually I am quite aware of this debate - the perception that the scarf is a sign of female oppression and submission. So there are people who do believe this and is their opinion and has nothing to do with racism but a feminist analysis where power dynamics of the nation are played out on women's bodies.

janfromthebruce

And putting money and action into their position words:

Controversial charter of values

Mulcair was also asked about reports published in the French newspaper La Presse that the Quebec government ignored a legal opinion from lawyers and experts in its Justice Department saying the proposed charter of values was "unconstitutional."

Mulcair said he would have been surprised if the legal opinion had said otherwise because the proposed plan is "patently illegal."

The NDP leader also indicated the party was prepared cover the costs of any legal challenge using Montreal constitutional lawyer Julius Grey to lead the charge.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

DaveW wrote:

quite a good analysis of the proposed charter and its motivations, rooted in republicanism and Quebec feminism:

I think that this this part of the Manifesto posted by Unionist is a very good analysis and certainly in keepng with my own beliefs about equality and diversity..

Quote:

With regards to the argument of male / female equality, extremely important debates should definitely take place in the public sphere in order to promote and protect women’s rights in Quebec society. However, the linkage between the concepts of secularism and equality leads to problematic interpretations. Banning the wearing of religious symbols and namely, let’s face it, the veil by women in the public sphere violates a set of fundamental democratic principles linked to individual rights, the freedom of conscience and religion and minority rights. The Quebec Charter of Values ​​would result in an undue burden … upon women. From this point of view, some might consider this notion of secularism as being, in essence, much more sexist, occidentalist and paternalistic than at first glance. Several feminist voices, including those who have rallied to the positions held by the Women’s Federation of Quebec in the context of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, attest to the fact that the struggle for women’s rights must not be at the expense of freedom of belief. Not only must we respect the autonomy of women in terms of their religious beliefs and their moral and ethical rectitude with regards to the execution of their various professions and public functions, but if there doubts remain in the minds of some as to the kinds of pernicious discrimination that might cause them harm, coercive measures preventing the display of their religious beliefs are not necessarily more important or more effective than addressing the social determinants that can lead to constraints limiting their freedom. In other words, it could be that working towards ensuring equal opportunity, equal access to education, equal socio-economic standards of living, the equality of means of expression, the equality of the options made available to all in a democratic society, constitute the basic measures that a just society should rather promote through public policies in the name of gender equality.

 

DaveW

just to clarify: your argument is not with me, who is  quite opposed to PQ charter oppoortunism,

but rather with Quebec feminists, some of whom are strongly in favour for the reasons outlined in the Globe piece

Unionist

DaveW wrote:

just to clarify: your argument is not with me, who is  quite opposed to PQ charter oppoortunism,

but rather with Quebec feminists, some of whom are strongly in favour for the reasons outlined in the Globe piece

Well, the Globe piece cites one Québec "feminist" who is in favour of the PQ charter - Pauline Marois.

Louise Beaudoin is also mentioned.

Not a very convincing gallery of "feminists".

Real feminists (i.e., not scheming opportunist politicians looking to create wedges by tossing minority women out of the workforce) [url=http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/387451/quel-impact-sur-les-femm... very much opposed[/url].

 

Bärlüer

Speaking of feminist groups: unfortunately, the Conseil du statut de la femme's stated position is in favour of banning religious symbols for "agents of the state".

Won't be the first time, unfortunately, that the Conseil tries to justify a policy of exclusion of certain groups of marginalized women by relying on a dogmatic fantasy in lieu of rational actions, discarding the most closely interested persons' voices and actual demands, disregarding the adverse consequences that the policy can have on their economic status and choosing in their place how to lead their life... (I'm referring here in particular to the Conseil's abolitionist position WRT sex workers.)

HornAfrique

DaveW wrote:

 

as the Quebec minister Drainville pointed out this week, the recent Forum Research poll of Canadians  found that 42 per cent of them supported the charter's principle of prohibiting personal religious displays by public-sector workers, while 47 per cent opposed ...

to argue that this is some really Quebec-specific fear is just wrong ... ask your neighbours

 

 

 

Ask your neighbours? Doesn't take much imagination to put together which kind of neighbours you are alluding to. Certainly not ones who look like me or most of the people who live in my neighbourhood.

 

Never thought I'd read clear dog whistle statements like the above on Rabble, but then again I probably shouldn't be surprised. Throughout the ideological spectrum in Canadian politics, political parties are overwhelmingly made up of and catered to the majority, while the voices and opinions of visible minorities and 1/5th Canada's population continues to be ignored.

Also please save us your elementary handle of Turkish political history to try to ground your support of this xenophobic charter. Turkey's hijab ban was top down, imposed forcefully by a authoritarian and at times brutal miitary. To this day the Turkish majority does not support this ban and many of the most draconian Kemalist regulations have begun to be slowly reveresd. If that's your frame of reference for how this charter would make just policy, it reflects worse on your position than you realize.

Unionist

Hey Bärlüer,  when and how were crosses removed from courtrooms in Québec? What about public schools? Where can I research this stuff??

Bärlüer

Unionist: can't help you, sorry. In fact, do we know for sure that crosses have been removed from all court houses...? I'm not even sure about that... (There tend to be a lot of "cultural" [ha] differences between courthouses depending on the region...)

A friend observed that in one of the Court of Appeal rooms (just the highest court of the province...), "God" still appears relatively prominently on one of the walls.

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

A friend observed that in one of the Court of Appeal rooms (just the highest court of the province...), "God" still appears relatively prominently on one of the walls.

So that's where she hangs out...

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:

A friend observed that in one of the Court of Appeal rooms (just the highest court of the province...), "God" still appears relatively prominently on one of the walls.

So that's where she hangs out...

Has the courtroom become a pilgrimage site?

6079_Smith_W

HornAfrique wrote:

Ask your neighbours? Doesn't take much imagination to put together which kind of neighbours you are alluding to. Certainly not ones who look like me or most of the people who live in my neighbourhood.

Thing is that it's not so cut-and-dried, and certainly not just a pack of racists. Like the connection to feminist principles, mentioned above, there are plenty of people who believe in a stark separation of church and state, and plenty of outright anti-religious people - and in this case, Quebec nationalists - who think this is a good measure.

Some of us don't happen to agree, and see it as a huge blind spot from people with an otherwise good cause. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time that has happened on the right OR the left.

 

DaveW

Unionist wrote:

DaveW wrote:

just to clarify: your argument is not with me, who is  quite opposed to PQ charter oppoortunism,

but rather with Quebec feminists, some of whom are strongly in favour for the reasons outlined in the Globe piece

Well, the Globe piece cites one Québec "feminist" who is in favour of the PQ charter - Pauline Marois.

Louise Beaudoin is also mentioned.

Not a very convincing gallery of "feminists".

[...]

hence the modifying phrase "some of whom" ...

 

janfromthebruce

So some feminists see the headscarf as a sign of oppression, while other feminists see this as a sign of choice.

Wearing a Headscarf Can Be a Feminist Choice

What freedom means to women is the ability to choose, and feminism is all about respecting the choices other women make, regardless if we like it or not, argues Ruwayda Mustafah Rabar.

"You don't have to wear that" my friend once said looking at my headscarf -- damn it, don't I know it already? I know I don't have to wear it, and I also know my choice was not done independently. Years of research, reading feminist literature, philosophical literature, Islamic literature, catholic literature and spiritual literature led me into choosing to wear a scarf. I didn't wake up one morning wanting to wear a scarf. It took me a long time, but in the end, regardless of all the hurdles and struggles. I knew that for me it wasn't just a feminist choice, and it certainly was not done out of rebellion to my parents, nor culture for that matter. It was a spiritual choice. I believe that God commands both men and women to be modest. Though modesty could be a side-effect of wearing a hijab, the primary reason for wearing one is because I believe it was commanded by God.

On Both Sides, a Weak Vision of Feminism 

Sara Yasin is a Palestinian-American blogger and writer.

Wearing a hijab isn’t inherently liberating – but neither is baring one’s breasts. What is liberating is being able to choose either of these things. It’s pretty ludicrous to think that oppression is somehow proportional to how covered or uncovered someone’s body is. Both sides of this argument present a shallow understanding of women’s empowerment, which only drowns out the substantive challenges facing all women – issues that cannot be encapsulated in a debate about a piece of fabric.
snip

Whether it’s a ban on niqabs in France or miniskirts in Uganda, or warped legislation on reproductive rights in the United States, these efforts send a consistent signal: that our bodies are not our own. Secular or religious, liberal or conservative – the factions aren’t on the same side, but they’re all eager to declare war on women’s bodies.

That’s what we’ll overlook if we argue about the hijab. There are women who face inequality in the name of long-held religious or cultural beliefs, but Femen’s one-size-fits-all feminism won’t fix that. What these women need is education, political rights and spaces for dissent. They need to be empowered to shake up institutions. But in focusing on what someone is wearing, we ignore the issues we can’t necessarily see. That’s a pretty sad version of feminism.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

daveW Actually my "argument" is not with some feminists. The point of my posting the quote was to show that like on many issues there is no "feminist" position but a range of positions taken by various feminists.

I have friends from the West Kootenays who still suffer from PTSD after being interned because of their parents religious beliefs. The idea that it is merely a matter of choice is not true for many people. I personally agree with the historic view from Quebec that the state's role should be to give additional protection to vulnerable groups, including religious minorities. 

Quote:

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

Summer

an open letter to Pauline Marois  This person's blog post sums up my feelings on Bill 114.  

Quote:

Rather than providing for an environment of religious neutrality, the Charter seeks to regulate belief. It says that a non-Muslim woman may wear a headscarf when she is having a bad hair day, but it prohibits an observant Muslim from wearing one at all. It insists that religious Jews in public employment go bare-headed at all times, unlike their non-Jewish colleagues, since the essence of a yarmulke is not its shape but its function.

SNIP

In seeking to provide “religious neutrality,” your government’s proposals display ambitions to police the souls of Québec’s citizens and inscribe its power on their very bodies. 

SNIP

It is, in fact, a profoundly Christian secularism. I understand that you don’t see it that way, but it can be difficult to see the forest for the trees. The very values that you hope to enshrine – freedom, personal autonomy, democracy as it emerged in Christian Europe – have a history. They are embedded in a religious genealogy. Even the term laïque, which you seem to favour, was coined to describe the organization of the medieval Catholic Chuch.

SNIP

 To prohibit the display of religious symbols by citizens in public employment while the government of Québec displays them on its letterhead, in the Assemblée nationale, on Sureté de Québec cruisers – the physical embodiment of state power – and our society displays it in its geography and calendar, is not to preserve neutrality but privilege.

You must know that the Charter will be challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada, and that it will likely be struck down… and as I write this I begin to wonder whether you are not, in fact, a reasonable, well-meaning person but a calculating opportunist.

SNIP

 

lagatta

I do have problems with this generalisation: What freedom means to women is the ability to choose, and feminism is all about respecting the choices other women make, regardless if we like it or not, argues Ruwayda Mustafah Rabar.

Not with respect to headscarves, (which are none of my business) but I most certainly do NOT respect all choices other women make.

6079_Smith_W

lagatta wrote:

I most certainly do NOT respect all choices other women make.

If I get your drift, I agree. What we respect is the freedom to choose. We are free to criticize others' choices. Bearing in mind the influence of power, and that is going on here on a number of levels.

The balancing act while making that objection comes in underscoring the support for freedom of choice.

 

 

janfromthebruce

and who gets to choose! It's a matter of power, whether it's power within family, peers, society, culture, nation, global and so on.

mark_alfred

When I was a kid we had a big picture of the Queen (to which we sang "God Save the Queen"), the Lord's Prayer, and the strap in our school.  Schools became more secular by the time I was a youth, and I was fine with that.  Odd how now a big ruckus is being made over the right to wear religious stuff.  As a youth, I never would have expected this.  That said, well, sure, why not allow people to wear religious stuff?  Whatever rocks your boat.

DaveW

I'm so old I can remember when the new flag and national anthem came in ... I still call it the "new flag" sometimes, ha

HornAfrique

6079_Smith_W wrote:

HornAfrique wrote:

Ask your neighbours? Doesn't take much imagination to put together which kind of neighbours you are alluding to. Certainly not ones who look like me or most of the people who live in my neighbourhood.

Thing is that it's not so cut-and-dried, and certainly not just a pack of racists. Like the connection to feminist principles, mentioned above, there are plenty of people who believe in a stark separation of church and state, and plenty of outright anti-religious people - and in this case, Quebec nationalists - who think this is a good measure.

Some of us don't happen to agree, and see it as a huge blind spot from people with an otherwise good cause. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time that has happened on the right OR the left.

 

 

Sorry but I cannot accept how so many here so easily dismiss the concerns/fears of people of colour when it comes to legislation like this. I'm not sure how you guys can be the arbitrator of whether we feel xenophobic and/or racist sentiment. The proposed charter won't effect you or any of your relatives or friends, so its much easier to rationalize it from a theoretical standpoint. I can assure you the xenophobic backing behind this charter is real and to ignore it so to stick your head in the sands.

 

This was a non issue that has been drummed up to capitalize on populist xenophobia and its hard to view it any other way. It also is clear the PQ would like to use it as a wedge issue between the ROC( even though many of these same feelings exist outside of Quebec). This reminds of the legislation to ban niqab in a Swiss town with a 1.5% Muslim population with less than 1 percent Niqab-wearers within the population itself. It also is in the same spirit of legislation passed to ban Sharia in American states with tiny Muslim populations who've never expressed interest in anything of the sort. Incidents like this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-bus-video-appears-to-sho... , this http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-mosque-vandalized-with-pos... , and this http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-muslim-badia-senouci-told-... are par for the course and will only become more commonplace now that such people have tacit support from the provinical government.

pookie

HornAfrique wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

HornAfrique wrote:

Ask your neighbours? Doesn't take much imagination to put together which kind of neighbours you are alluding to. Certainly not ones who look like me or most of the people who live in my neighbourhood.

Thing is that it's not so cut-and-dried, and certainly not just a pack of racists. Like the connection to feminist principles, mentioned above, there are plenty of people who believe in a stark separation of church and state, and plenty of outright anti-religious people - and in this case, Quebec nationalists - who think this is a good measure.

Some of us don't happen to agree, and see it as a huge blind spot from people with an otherwise good cause. But it certainly wouldn't be the first time that has happened on the right OR the left.

 

 

Sorry but I cannot accept how so many here so easily dismiss the concerns/fears of people of colour when it comes to legislation like this. I'm not sure how you guys can be the arbitrator of whether we feel xenophobic and/or racist sentiment. The proposed charter won't effect you or any of your relatives or friends, so its much easier to rationalize it from a theoretical standpoint. I can assure you the xenophobic backing behind this charter is real and to ignore it so to stick your head in the sands.

 

This was a non issue that has been drummed up to capitalize on populist xenophobia and its hard to view it any other way. It also is clear the PQ would like to use it as a wedge issue between the ROC( even though many of these same feelings exist outside of Quebec). This reminds of the legislation to ban niqab in a Swiss town with a 1.5% Muslim population with less than 1 percent Niqab-wearers within the population itself. It also is in the same spirit of legislation passed to ban Sharia in American states with tiny Muslim populations who've never expressed interest in anything of the sort. Incidents like this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-bus-video-appears-to-sho... , this http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-mosque-vandalized-with-pos... , and this http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-muslim-badia-senouci-told-... are par for the course and will only become more commonplace now that such people have tacit support from the provinical government.

Thank you. I also noted with interest that the original thread on this had little interest or reaction to what I thought were some astonishingly intolerant remarks.

Caissa

I remember the new flag being referred to as Pearson's dishrag, DaveW. 

6079_Smith_W

@ HornAfrique

If you have read my comments throughout this thread you probably get that I think this is a terrible piece of proposed legislation that does exactly the opposite of what is claimed. I see nothing good about it.

I think it is designed to appeal to racists. But I also recognize that there are some who support it on principles of equality for women, Quebec nationalism, separation of church and state. Noble sentiments which I think in this case are seriously misguided, and completely wrong. My point was that I don't consider everyone who has fallen for this to be a tobacco-chewing member of the KKK.

If I understood DaveW correctly he said that there are similar sentiments throughout Canada, and I expect that he's right. I'd say where I live it is probably worse. I don't like it at all, but he's right. The point being that Quebec is not an anomaly when it comes to racism.

And pookie. We have all engaged in a fair bit of blame in this thread and I doubt we'll get get far if we don't try to bridge that. Beyond that, sorry, but I don't know what in the other thread you are referring to.

 

 

 

DaveW

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If I understood DaveW correctly he said that there are similar sentiments throughout Canada, and I expect that he's right. I'd say where I live it is probably worse. I don't like it at all, but he's right. The point being that Quebec is not an anomaly when it comes to racism.

correct,

 and since national polls show 42 per cent of Canadians in favour of similar restrictions on religious markers in the public sector (vs 47 pc against), it means by extension that, yes, looking down any street in Canada statistically many pedestrians you see  will share these views;

 I used the term neighbours, but I mean any broad cross-section of Canadians you see and meet

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Canada has a long way to go to become a truly inclusive country.  The fact that we still have bigots amongst us is a call to more education. Canadians are indeed rather ignorant about immigrants and poverty in this country.  The majority think we should only let in immigrants with skills and education so that they can clean our toilets and mind our children, as long as they don't bring their religion with them.

Quote:

More than half of Canadians think immigrants are a burden on the country's strapped social services and two-thirds believe the federal government should give priority to educated or highly skilled foreigners when considering who to let into the country.

Results of a worldwide poll by Ipsos released this week show 56 per cent of Canadians think immigration has put too much pressure on public services in Canada compared to 17 per cent who disagreed with the statement (22 per cent were neutral and four per cent said they did not know).

However, it is a misconception that immigrants are costly, Jeffrey Reitz, an expert in immigration and pluralism at the University of Toronto, told Postmedia News.

"Immigrants are actually helping us pay for these things, not the other way around," he said, citing research showing immigrants tend to use social services less than Canadian-born citizens and actually make positive fiscal contributions to the country.

The survey also shows that 62 per cent of Canadian respondents think priority should be given to immigrants with higher levels of education who can fill gaps in certain professions. In fact, Canadians ranked first among all countries on the question, followed by Australia and Great Britain.

http://www.bipt.ca/node/1185

As well it appears that half of my neighbours support our own version of the Statsi looking into all the detalis of all oiur lives. So what. I would rather work on a better society and not accept that everything in life is relative.

Quote:

Canadians are split on whether it is acceptable or not for governments to monitor email and other online activity in some circumstances, according to a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. Specifically, one half (49%) of Canadians say that they find it ‘completely unacceptable’ for ‘governments to monitor everyone’s email and other online activities’, while the other half of Canadians (51%) says it is either ‘acceptable in some circumstances’ (47%), or ‘completely acceptable’ (4%).

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6233

Geoff

Same topic, slightly different angle.  So far, Canadians have been responding only to a trial balloon, not the actual legislation (one of the oldest tricks in the book).  Clearly, the PQ knew a) that there would be a significant backlash, and that b) they would be amending the trial balloon before the final bill is put before the National Assembly.  It, therefore, will be interesting to see what the final bill really looks like and what the response is to it, as opposed to the reaction against the 'decoy'.

DaveW

the response: backpedal backpedal backpedal,

 esp. as there is much more division in the ranks of artists, intellectuals and urban progressives than the PQ expected ....

the minister responsible has stated they will make consequent changes in the bill, including perhaps .... dropping the religious accoutrement ban

Go figure.Undecided

Summer

DaveW wrote:

Summer wrote:

sanizadeh wrote:

Meanwhile, an Ontario hospital finds this an excellent opportunity to attract much needed talent from Quebec:

"We don't care what is on your head. We care what is in it".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/09/12/quebec-values-ch...

 This is a BRILLIANT ad campaign!  Good for them.   It won't be the first time that Ontario has benefitted from Quebec driving some of its residents out of the province.    

No, frankly, that is stupid, and I would expect the ONT provincial govt to step in and ban similar ads, should they appear;

 ONT premier Davis did that in late 1970s, when there was some movement westward from QC

The Ontario government has passed a unanimous motion promising not to restrict people from publicly expressing their religious beliefs.   Source.   The government is going out of its way to distinguish its position from that of the Quebec government.    Finally something our minority government can agree on!

 This is not the same situation as the 1970s.  There is a huge difference between protecting French language rights and interfering with religious rights.  (and I say this as an atheist.)

 

Pages