As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The integration of immigrants and forced secularism, how far is too far?

1235»

Posts

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Then those people are big old fucking racists

    like the Bloc Quebecois

    Hey hey at least one member of the Bloc Québécois opposes the Charter. Or rather, opposed. They kicked her out.

    sig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    The article has two diagrams, one of what's not allowed, one of what's allowed. (Spoilers: Crosses are allowed, as are small islamic star-and-moon earings and small star-of-david rings...)

    It sends a pretty strong message, really... "This Province is secular (read: Catholic) and you better look the part or get out."
    Not the defend the Charter (because I won't) but how is a small Islamic star-and-moon or a small star-of-David sending the message that the province is Catholic?
    Of course, the crucifix at the National Assembly is not against that charter, as are prayers before assemblies. Because those are "cultural" and not religious.
    Yes, they are. There is an overlap between religion and culture, and symbols can move between these two spheres over time. I do not see that as a particularly shocking realization. Same holds true in the USA, where things like "in God we trust" on the currency has survived Supreme Court challenges because it has moved from being a declaration of faith (whether or not it was initially) to being today a phrase that's always been found on the money and as such a part of American culture.

    The Charter is a horrible, negative step backwards for Québec, but not for the reasons you've listed here.

    sig.gif
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    The article has two diagrams, one of what's not allowed, one of what's allowed. (Spoilers: Crosses are allowed, as are small islamic star-and-moon earings and small star-of-david rings...)

    It sends a pretty strong message, really... "This Province is secular (read: Catholic) and you better look the part or get out."
    Not the defend the Charter (because I won't) but how is a small Islamic star-and-moon or a small star-of-David sending the message that the province is Catholic?
    Of course, the crucifix at the National Assembly is not against that charter, as are prayers before assemblies. Because those are "cultural" and not religious.
    Yes, they are. There is an overlap between religion and culture, and symbols can move between these two spheres over time. I do not see that as a particularly shocking realization. Same holds true in the USA, where things like "in God we trust" on the currency has survived Supreme Court challenges because it has moved from being a declaration of faith (whether or not it was initially) to being today a phrase that's always been found on the money and as such a part of American culture.

    The Charter is a horrible, negative step backwards for Québec, but not for the reasons you've listed here.

    Please do not confuse the actual reasons for something with the flimsy excuses that people come up with to justify them after the fact. I don't find it surprising in the least that Catholics in Quebec don't notice the religion permeating their 'culture' much in the same way that fish don't notice the water they're swimming in.

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Not the defend the Charter (because I won't) but how is a small Islamic star-and-moon or a small star-of-David sending the message that the province is Catholic?

    Because neither of those religions actually use those types of jewelry as religious garb, whereas Catholics do use a crucifix on a necklace to show faith since they lack other identifiers outside of the monastic orders or clergy. It is doubly funny since the only cross they show as ostentatious is in the Orthodox style. The whole thing reads like a parody, except it is sadly not.

  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    Its worth pointing out that the French have a long and rather ruthless history when dealing with minorities they view as inconvenient or a threat

    While I figure the French in Algeria, Vietname, as well as the spot of guillotining they did, are well known, there are also less known incidents:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_the_Vendée
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Don't forget that it is not compulsory for a catholic to wear a crucifix, unlike the other religious symbols they want to ban.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    The article has two diagrams, one of what's not allowed, one of what's allowed. (Spoilers: Crosses are allowed, as are small islamic star-and-moon earings and small star-of-david rings...)

    It sends a pretty strong message, really... "This Province is secular (read: Catholic) and you better look the part or get out."
    Not the defend the Charter (because I won't) but how is a small Islamic star-and-moon or a small star-of-David sending the message that the province is Catholic?
    Of course, the crucifix at the National Assembly is not against that charter, as are prayers before assemblies. Because those are "cultural" and not religious.
    Yes, they are. There is an overlap between religion and culture, and symbols can move between these two spheres over time. I do not see that as a particularly shocking realization. Same holds true in the USA, where things like "in God we trust" on the currency has survived Supreme Court challenges because it has moved from being a declaration of faith (whether or not it was initially) to being today a phrase that's always been found on the money and as such a part of American culture.

    The Charter is a horrible, negative step backwards for Québec, but not for the reasons you've listed here.

    Those are absolutely religious symbols. Just because something has become ubiquitous, doesn't mean it stops being religious.

    I know you're a Christian - Would you be comfortable making a Muslim prayer? Saying something about Allah as a greeting or farewell?

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • 21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Yes, they are. There is an overlap between religion and culture, and symbols can move between these two spheres over time. I do not see that as a particularly shocking realization. Same holds true in the USA, where things like "in God we trust" on the currency has survived Supreme Court challenges because it has moved from being a declaration of faith (whether or not it was initially) to being today a phrase that's always been found on the money and as such a part of American culture.

    The Charter is a horrible, negative step backwards for Québec, but not for the reasons you've listed here.

    What? you're gonna need to explain to me how a crucifix in the seat of legislative power is secular to me, because it's kinda hard for me to look at it and think that it's anything other than a symbol of a covenant between the catholic church and the national assembly.

    Plus, last I checked, we don't actually have "In God We Trust" on our money (and if we did have it, you can bet your ass i'd be against it), and a crucifix isn't a nondescript religious symbol, it's specifically a christian symbol. it kinda has no place in the seat of legislative power because, honestly? it kinda gives off a message by its presence.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    I can agree that perception of religious symbols can over time switch to perceiving them as cultural/historical/national symbols instead.

    For example, the Quebec flag would be perceived as a national symbol rather than a religious one even though it's got a cross on it. France won't start tearing down their cathedrals even though it is a secular state because of their historical value.

    A crucifix in the seat of legislative power does not fall in those categories. It is definitely a religious symbol.

    What's somewhat hilarious is that the previous PQ leader, André Boisclair, wanted to get rid of it.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Sure they are. You want them to be different because you feel like immigrants should have to integrate, while québécois shouldn't because they started on equal footing.

    But it's not a moral imperative, it's a human process of cultural blending and integration that, when it's not regulatorally interfered with, creates wonderful results.

    Like Jessica Alba.

    Why is that you think the United States has not 'blended into' Canada?

    See what i did there?


    This is the problem - assuming you want to call it a problem, which I don't - Quebec has a national identity. Quebecois believe that they are a nation with their own sovereignty, and to expect Quebec to fully assimilate into Canada is as foolish as expecting America to fully assimilate into Canada.

    The issue of xenophobia, Christian dominance & racism is not relegated to Quebec, and in my opinion has little to nothing to do with the contemporary debate about Quebec's geopolitical status. Take a trip to Red Deer in Alberta and try to tell me with a straight face that the prairies have been successful at meshing with immigrant populations.

    With Love and Courage
  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    I'm just going to point out that trying to convince Quebecois that something isn't really part of their cultural values, it's actually a religious value they should be willing to jettison, is unlikely to succeed.

    If you're a minority surrounded by what you perceive to be a hostile majority intent on absorbing you, absolutely every difference between you and that majority is going to come to be viewed as an important and essential cultural marker. I'd also argue that for most of human history, religion has been tied up into culture generally and not easily separable. For example, (gross simplification incoming) Germany fought the 30 years war to determine which religion would be part of German culture.

    It's also true that symbols can move from religious to cultural pretty easily. I'd argue Christmas and Easter have done that in the US.

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Employers should have the right to tell someone to dress in accordance to a code; no hats of any kind if they want, they should also be able to make exceptions to accommodate someone if it is reasonable and definitely be able to ban certain things if they are health safety hazards. Banks and other places should be able to refuse service to anyone with a covered face for obvious reasons, but beyond that I'm basically for letting things slide. Outright bans with no exceptions just make the governing body appear to be racist.

    Any religious garb or symbol should not be something an employer can require an employee wear/not wear unless the business can prove the garb interferes with the business or is a safety hazard. An office can't say that a desk worker cannot wear a turban for instance, but a machine shop should be able to.

    EDIT: That's assuming that I understand turbans. I've never actually worn one, so I'm not sure how much of a safety hazard they pose around mechanical equipment.

    In most of America (and canada to my knowledge), a private employer can have any kind of dress code they want, and if it interferes with your religion you can't work there

    override367 on
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Employers should have the right to tell someone to dress in accordance to a code; no hats of any kind if they want, they should also be able to make exceptions to accommodate someone if it is reasonable and definitely be able to ban certain things if they are health safety hazards. Banks and other places should be able to refuse service to anyone with a covered face for obvious reasons, but beyond that I'm basically for letting things slide. Outright bans with no exceptions just make the governing body appear to be racist.

    Any religious garb or symbol should not be something an employer can require an employee wear/not wear unless the business can prove the garb interferes with the business or is a safety hazard. An office can't say that a desk worker cannot wear a turban for instance, but a machine shop should be able to.

    EDIT: That's assuming that I understand turbans. I've never actually worn one, so I'm not sure how much of a safety hazard they pose around mechanical equipment.

    In most of America (and canada to my knowledge), a private employer can have any kind of dress code they want, and if it interferes with your religion you can't work there

    this is not true, at least in theory. if the plaintiff can show deliberate religious discrimination, this is straightforwardly illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. And as religion is a protected class, it is subject to disparate-impact tests, and so plaintiffs don't even have to necessarily demonstrate discriminatory intent; if they can show disparate impact, then it is up to the defendant employer to convince the court that the dress code is a bona fide business requirement (e.g., requiring that waitresses at Hooter's be attractive young women willing to wear minimal clothing)

    canadian law is, to my knowledge, the same, although their terminology is different.

    aRkpc.gif
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    this is not true, at least in theory. if the plaintiff can show deliberate religious discrimination, this is straightforwardly illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. And as religion is a protected class, it is subject to disparate-impact tests, and so plaintiffs don't even have to necessarily demonstrate discriminatory intent; if they can show disparate impact, then it is up to the defendant employer to convince the court that the dress code is a bona fide business requirement (e.g., requiring that waitresses at Hooter's be attractive young women willing to wear minimal clothing)

    Indeed. Abercrombe and Fitch is currently undergoing a slow motion judicial reaming on this very issue. They were preventing Muslim employees from wearing the hijab under their Looks Policy. A&F already lost the first round of legal proceedings. And A&F has arguably better rationale for their policy (brand consistency) than most employers.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Sure they are. You want them to be different because you feel like immigrants should have to integrate, while québécois shouldn't because they started on equal footing.

    But it's not a moral imperative, it's a human process of cultural blending and integration that, when it's not regulatorally interfered with, creates wonderful results.

    Like Jessica Alba.

    Why is that you think the United States has not 'blended into' Canada?

    See what i did there?


    This is the problem - assuming you want to call it a problem, which I don't - Quebec has a national identity. Quebecois believe that they are a nation with their own sovereignty, and to expect Quebec to fully assimilate into Canada is as foolish as expecting America to fully assimilate into Canada.

    The issue of xenophobia, Christian dominance & racism is not relegated to Quebec, and in my opinion has little to nothing to do with the contemporary debate about Quebec's geopolitical status. Take a trip to Red Deer in Alberta and try to tell me with a straight face that the prairies have been successful at meshing with immigrant populations.

    You want me to explain why a population of nearly 300million hasn't integrated into a population of 35million? Is it because Americans find Canadians scary? Probably is.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    edited September 2013
    The Ender wrote: »
    Sure they are. You want them to be different because you feel like immigrants should have to integrate, while québécois shouldn't because they started on equal footing.

    But it's not a moral imperative, it's a human process of cultural blending and integration that, when it's not regulatorally interfered with, creates wonderful results.

    Like Jessica Alba.

    Why is that you think the United States has not 'blended into' Canada?

    See what i did there?


    This is the problem - assuming you want to call it a problem, which I don't - Quebec has a national identity. Quebecois believe that they are a nation with their own sovereignty, and to expect Quebec to fully assimilate into Canada is as foolish as expecting America to fully assimilate into Canada.

    The issue of xenophobia, Christian dominance & racism is not relegated to Quebec, and in my opinion has little to nothing to do with the contemporary debate about Quebec's geopolitical status. Take a trip to Red Deer in Alberta and try to tell me with a straight face that the prairies have been successful at meshing with immigrant populations.

    TL:DR - Quebec is the Texas of Canadan.

    Heffling on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited September 2013
    Saammiel wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    this is not true, at least in theory. if the plaintiff can show deliberate religious discrimination, this is straightforwardly illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. And as religion is a protected class, it is subject to disparate-impact tests, and so plaintiffs don't even have to necessarily demonstrate discriminatory intent; if they can show disparate impact, then it is up to the defendant employer to convince the court that the dress code is a bona fide business requirement (e.g., requiring that waitresses at Hooter's be attractive young women willing to wear minimal clothing)

    Indeed. Abercrombe and Fitch is currently undergoing a slow motion judicial reaming on this very issue. They were preventing Muslim employees from wearing the hijab under their Looks Policy. A&F already lost the first round of legal proceedings. And A&F has arguably better rationale for their policy (brand consistency) than most employers.

    It seems to me this will just lead to A&F firing all of their muslims employees for having negative attitudes or the second they're .5 seconds late to work or whatever

    in my experience employment laws mean fuck all in an at-will employment country, then again in this situation they can get enough people together to sue them as a group

    Wait so does this mean Hooters can't stop their women from wearing a hijab?

    override367 on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    Saammiel wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    this is not true, at least in theory. if the plaintiff can show deliberate religious discrimination, this is straightforwardly illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. And as religion is a protected class, it is subject to disparate-impact tests, and so plaintiffs don't even have to necessarily demonstrate discriminatory intent; if they can show disparate impact, then it is up to the defendant employer to convince the court that the dress code is a bona fide business requirement (e.g., requiring that waitresses at Hooter's be attractive young women willing to wear minimal clothing)

    Indeed. Abercrombe and Fitch is currently undergoing a slow motion judicial reaming on this very issue. They were preventing Muslim employees from wearing the hijab under their Looks Policy. A&F already lost the first round of legal proceedings. And A&F has arguably better rationale for their policy (brand consistency) than most employers.

    It seems to me this will just lead to A&F firing all of their muslims employees for having negative attitudes or the second they're .5 seconds late to work or whatever

    in my experience employment laws mean fuck all in an at-will employment country, then again in this situation they can get enough people together to sue them as a group

    Wait so does this mean Hooters can't stop their women from wearing a hijab?

    I'm guessing hooters could just point to the suit they won against a male waiter. Boobs and hot pants are a much bigger part of their brand than fuckable sales clerks are for A&F.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    Saammiel wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    this is not true, at least in theory. if the plaintiff can show deliberate religious discrimination, this is straightforwardly illegal under the 1964 civil rights act. And as religion is a protected class, it is subject to disparate-impact tests, and so plaintiffs don't even have to necessarily demonstrate discriminatory intent; if they can show disparate impact, then it is up to the defendant employer to convince the court that the dress code is a bona fide business requirement (e.g., requiring that waitresses at Hooter's be attractive young women willing to wear minimal clothing)

    Indeed. Abercrombe and Fitch is currently undergoing a slow motion judicial reaming on this very issue. They were preventing Muslim employees from wearing the hijab under their Looks Policy. A&F already lost the first round of legal proceedings. And A&F has arguably better rationale for their policy (brand consistency) than most employers.

    It seems to me this will just lead to A&F firing all of their muslims employees for having negative attitudes or the second they're .5 seconds late to work or whatever

    in my experience employment laws mean fuck all in an at-will employment country, then again in this situation they can get enough people together to sue them as a group

    Wait so does this mean Hooters can't stop their women from wearing a hijab?

    hence disparate impact, which means that intent counts for exactly nothing. the disparate impact itself is sufficient to demonstrate violation of Title VII

    Hooters has a bona fide business requirement (the business, ahem, model requires it)

    aRkpc.gif
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    As far as I'm aware places like strip clubs/hooters/etc. have an out in that their literal business model is "present a person who looks like this to the public", which means they can argue that they'll be unable to operate if they're required to hire without consideration of looks.

    I'm not certain exactly how airtight it is, but I imagine at least part of it is that there simply aren't an enormous number of challenges.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • VorpalVorpal Registered User regular
    I'm honestly a little surprised that flies. It seems a little bit like saying 'discrimination is ok if it is built into your core business model'. I admit I'm not very well informed on the relevant decisions, but that seems rather inconsistent with our rulings elsewhere. At least in spirit.

    steam_sig.png
    PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Vorpal wrote: »
    I'm honestly a little surprised that flies. It seems a little bit like saying 'discrimination is ok if it is built into your core business model'. I admit I'm not very well informed on the relevant decisions, but that seems rather inconsistent with our rulings elsewhere. At least in spirit.

    Well if they could not, you would see model agencies being forced to hire ugly models next, or possibly movies forced to have the best actor on leading role, not the best looking.

Sign In or Register to comment.