The main thing I grew to find out as I got older and travelled and lived around the country more and met people from elsewhere in the country is that a lot of people hate Toronto for no discernible reason and people from Toronto neither understand it nor, frankly, even know it's a thing most of the time. I always remember comedians telling jokes about it while I was growing up but it never made any sense to me till I met people when I was grown up who actually thought that way. It's all very strange.
Out west is where people were the most adamant about the whole thing. Quebec seemed to just disdain Toronto as being too uptight. The people I knew from rural Ontario, if they had any opinions all, mostly seemed to think the city was dangerous and scary and full of crime or something. That was my experience anyway.
For the longest time all the local newspapers out west would have a huge amount of news about things happening in Toronto, likely because the head offices of many of the papers got shifted to Toronto as part of the media consolidation. The TV nightly news often also had an outsized amount of reporting on the happenings of Toronto. Both tended to happen at the expense of reporting on local events more relevant to the typical viewer or reader. It also tended to happen as local papers were bought up and had their local content dry up to be replaced by more Toronto-centric reporting. Hence, the jokes about how Toronto thought itself to be the centre of the universe and that if it didn't happen in Toronto, that it wasn't worth knowing about.
Meanwhile, Québec media, being francophone, were never consolidated in Toronto, and thus we were exempt of this phenomenon and we hate Toronto for completely distinct reasons from the ROC.
Another thing I just remembered. It used to be almost impossible to get a hockey game on TV with a western Canada team (Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton) unless they were playing one of the eastern teams (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa). Frequently, unless they were playing Toronto. There were a number of notable occasions where there'd be a very big game that would decide if a team would get into the playoffs or not, or were between two big rivals and all you could find on TV was another game focusing on Toronto who was fighting for second last in the league or even between a couple of American teams. That adds the whole sports rivalry aspect into the relationship and many believed it was because Hockey Night in Canada and TSN were both based in Toronto.
The stuff I heard in BC was more of "Toronto thinks it is the centre of the universe" and less full on hate for the place. More of a butt of regional jokes like how BC is all flower picking hippie stoners or Alberta is all redneck cowboys, and Toronto is not aware that anything exists beyond Thunder Bay because of the Toronto event horizon.
Maybe its because I'm first generation Canadian from an immigrant family, but I am sure that I have never felt like that. But I have been told, to my face, that I do. If a Torontonian looks down on you, its probably retaliatory.
I'm curious if it's more prevalent the further towards each coast/farther from Ontario you get. I know out west there's alot of the breakaway just because there's a notion that we're forgotten out here by federal ( I've never really been able to figure out for sure one way or other if that's true)
Wonder if east has similar, where some is just caused by distance . It's tricky to remember how huge Canada is.
Now THAT is something to be mad about. The fines are capped at $1k, which is ridiculous.
They're log book violations. There actually wasn't much regulations on the books that directly affected the accident in question.
Sure, but he was allowing his employees to operate unsafely, very likely contributing to the incident. How fucked up is it that the new employee gets 8 years of prison time and (very likely) deportation, but the owner of the company who is responsible for the training and monitoring this process gets a $1,000 fine per instance.
If the driver is getting turbo fucked because the crime was failing to stop at a stop sign but the CONSEQUENCE was life altering/ending, should we not be holding the managing parties to a similar standard?! I don't believe that the owner should get the same punishment, but this disparity is a bit much for my taste.
If the log book violations directly contributed to the accident occurring then, yes, it would be reasonable to charge those perpetrators similarly. Unfortunately, it does not appear that those violations actually had anything to do with the accident in question. It should be noted that training-wise, until -after- the crash, there was no mandated additional training that an employer had to provide to a driver with respect to driving. It was assumed that if the government saw fit to issue the appropriate class of license to a person, that the person was therefore fit to drive any vehicle that they were licensed to drive. That is the purpose of licenses. New rules are requiring more on-the-job experience and training in order to secure said licenses, but they did not exist until afterwards.
I dunno, we've gotten a lot less flak for having moved to BC from Toronto than I thought we would. I feel like the Rockies insulate BC from a lot of the attitudes the rest of Western Canada seems to have (though maybe it's different in some of the more rural communities; I don't know). It's kind of its own world out here, and I like it. Fits well because being transnational, I'd say my biggest overall identity is as a West Coaster (grew up in California, and I feel at home now that I'm here in BC despite the climate being completely different). I get more response (not particularly hostile as soon as they suss out that I'm not MAGA) for being a US expat than my husband does for having been a lifelong Torontonian until 2015.
But man, some folks... the CBC call-in show over the weekend was about the trend of living single. A ton of people from everywhere called in to say they were single and happy. One woman who happened to be from Toronto called in to say that her kids had just left home and at the same time her husband had needed to get a job in another province. She was lonely and struggling, which is completely understandable. Some silly goose then called in and said that all he'd been hearing was a bunch of WHINERS from TORONTO and he was from REAL CANADA and thus could handle living alone. Yeah, that'll show those Toronto people... acting like an inconsiderate jerk always works!
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
PEI will be heading to the polls on April 23rd.
In addition to the general election, they'll also be voting on electoral reform. The referendum has two options; Staying with FPTP, or switching to a mixed member proportional system.
On the day the writ was dropped, the PEI Green party was polling at about an 11 point lead.
+2
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Come on PEI. Please be our David casting that first stone toward toppling Goliath ...
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
You read the part where they just want to move it to somewhere else in the building, yeah?
And to specifically highlight it in it's new home?
Yes, they move it to an exhibit section of the building, where it belongs. It's part of our history, but not part of our governance.
You are assuming a lot since none of that is mentioned in the article.
I'm just happy I moved away from that proto-fascist state. I'm not cool with the state forcing people to speak a certain language ( and I'm french) and I am quite happy to live in a society where people can worship whatever sky wizard they want.
I don't get why you are defending this.... It's a non-withstanding clause used again to go against the charter.... Probably the only "canadian" thing that unites us all that's not hockey.
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
You read the part where they just want to move it to somewhere else in the building, yeah?
And to specifically highlight it in it's new home?
Yes, they move it to an exhibit section of the building, where it belongs. It's part of our history, but not part of our governance.
You are assuming a lot since none of that is mentioned in the article.
I'm just happy I moved away from that proto-fascist state. I'm not cool with the state forcing people to speak a certain language ( and I'm french) and I am quite happy to live in a society where people can worship whatever sky wizard they want.
I don't get why you are defending this.... It's a non-withstanding clause used again to go against the charter.... Probably the only "canadian" thing that unites us all that's not hockey.
Because I think a completely secular state is a good idea. I mean, you only need to look south to see how government employees allowing their religion to creep into their professional functions leads to disaster.
I don't know where you're going with the freedom of worship bit. No one's putting that in question. Individuals get to do what they want. The state (and its representatives when on duty) don't.
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
You read the part where they just want to move it to somewhere else in the building, yeah?
And to specifically highlight it in it's new home?
Yes, they move it to an exhibit section of the building, where it belongs. It's part of our history, but not part of our governance.
You are assuming a lot since none of that is mentioned in the article.
I'm just happy I moved away from that proto-fascist state. I'm not cool with the state forcing people to speak a certain language ( and I'm french) and I am quite happy to live in a society where people can worship whatever sky wizard they want.
I don't get why you are defending this.... It's a non-withstanding clause used again to go against the charter.... Probably the only "canadian" thing that unites us all that's not hockey.
Because I think a completely secular state is a good idea. I mean, you only need to look south to see how government employees allowing their religion to creep into their professional functions leads to disaster.
I don't know where you're going with the freedom of worship bit. No one's putting that in question. Individuals get to do what they want. The state (and its representatives when on duty) don't.
Because we live in a free society where people has a freedom of expression. And to be real here.... This is to ban anyone that has mandatory religious garb (certain Muslims, sikhs , orthodox Jews etc etc etc.. ) from having government jobs.
My super atheist mom fell down a flight of stairs and got rushed to the Jewish general where she was treated superbly... Do you think anyone cared that her doctor wore a Kippah?
I don;t know any Christians that will be affected by this... I know of about a dozen of people in my personal circle that will. My friend Afaf who wears a Hijab and works for a government daycare? Certainly.
If you think this is not targeted towards a certain tranche of people you need to reevaluate my friend.
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
You read the part where they just want to move it to somewhere else in the building, yeah?
And to specifically highlight it in it's new home?
Yes, they move it to an exhibit section of the building, where it belongs. It's part of our history, but not part of our governance.
You are assuming a lot since none of that is mentioned in the article.
I'm just happy I moved away from that proto-fascist state. I'm not cool with the state forcing people to speak a certain language ( and I'm french) and I am quite happy to live in a society where people can worship whatever sky wizard they want.
I don't get why you are defending this.... It's a non-withstanding clause used again to go against the charter.... Probably the only "canadian" thing that unites us all that's not hockey.
Because I think a completely secular state is a good idea. I mean, you only need to look south to see how government employees allowing their religion to creep into their professional functions leads to disaster.
I don't know where you're going with the freedom of worship bit. No one's putting that in question. Individuals get to do what they want. The state (and its representatives when on duty) don't.
Because we live in a free society where people has a freedom of expression. And to be real here.... This is to ban anyone that has mandatory religious garb (certain Muslims, sikhs , orthodox Jews etc etc etc.. ) from having government jobs.
My super atheist mom fell down a flight of stairs and got rushed to the Jewish general where she was treated superbly... Do you think anyone cared that her doctor wore a Kippah?
I don;t know any Christians that will be affected by this... I know of about a dozen of people in my personal circle that will. My friend Afaf who wears a Hijab and works for a government daycare? Certainly.
If you think this is not targeted towards a certain tranche of people you need to reevaluate my friend.
Actually, the bill that will be tabled should have a grandfather clause. So your friend who already works at a daycare won't be affected. And I think that's fair - she chose her career under a set of rules that allowed her to wear her hijab, changing those rules after the fact would be unfair to her.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Wait, hang on, the bill is to ban people from wearing anything religious if they work for government?
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
Wait, hang on, the bill is to ban people from wearing anything religious if they work for government?
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
Québec doesn't have public Catholic schools like Ontario does. Private schools (Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise) are not public and thus not affected by the law.
And the bill bans people in positions of government authority from wearing anything religious. Not all government workers. It targets specifically teachers and school directors, law enforcement, judges and crown attorneys, and the president of the National Assembly. So numbers-wise, it's actually a minority of government workers.
Québec provincial budget is in! Still going over it, but highlights include a budget surplus somewhere between $2B and $5B, depending on who you ask, and plans to stay in the black for their entire mandate. There's a new pilot program to help driving schools move to electric vehicles, which according to the electric-car advocates in my newsfeed will greatly speed up transition to electric cars because "once you drive an electric car, you can't go back to fuel". Also a new service to facilitate access to government databanks for researchers, which is good news because, frankly, Québec has been lagging in that respect compared to other provinces.
Light Googling says that Quebec has a right(ish) wing government? What's the catch here?
They are right-wing, but not alt-right. They're akin to the PC of olden days.
Aren't they still keeping tabs on government employees that show religious affiliations?
You read the part where they just want to move it to somewhere else in the building, yeah?
And to specifically highlight it in it's new home?
Yes, they move it to an exhibit section of the building, where it belongs. It's part of our history, but not part of our governance.
You are assuming a lot since none of that is mentioned in the article.
I'm just happy I moved away from that proto-fascist state. I'm not cool with the state forcing people to speak a certain language ( and I'm french) and I am quite happy to live in a society where people can worship whatever sky wizard they want.
I don't get why you are defending this.... It's a non-withstanding clause used again to go against the charter.... Probably the only "canadian" thing that unites us all that's not hockey.
Because I think a completely secular state is a good idea. I mean, you only need to look south to see how government employees allowing their religion to creep into their professional functions leads to disaster.
I don't know where you're going with the freedom of worship bit. No one's putting that in question. Individuals get to do what they want. The state (and its representatives when on duty) don't.
Because we live in a free society where people has a freedom of expression. And to be real here.... This is to ban anyone that has mandatory religious garb (certain Muslims, sikhs , orthodox Jews etc etc etc.. ) from having government jobs.
My super atheist mom fell down a flight of stairs and got rushed to the Jewish general where she was treated superbly... Do you think anyone cared that her doctor wore a Kippah?
I don;t know any Christians that will be affected by this... I know of about a dozen of people in my personal circle that will. My friend Afaf who wears a Hijab and works for a government daycare? Certainly.
If you think this is not targeted towards a certain tranche of people you need to reevaluate my friend.
Actually, the bill that will be tabled should have a grandfather clause. So your friend who already works at a daycare won't be affected. And I think that's fair - she chose her career under a set of rules that allowed her to wear her hijab, changing those rules after the fact would be unfair to her.
Sorry but no, forcing government workers to remove religious attire as a condition of employment is ridiculous, period. And as was pointed out, and as we've seen elsewhere, these laws are always portrayed as ecumenical, but in practice are anything but - in part because of the principle laid out by Anatole France about equality of the law, and in part because bad actors will happily abuse the former part to hurt people.
Wait, hang on, the bill is to ban people from wearing anything religious if they work for government?
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
Québec doesn't have public Catholic schools like Ontario does. Private schools (Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise) are not public and thus not affected by the law.
And the bill bans people in positions of government authority from wearing anything religious. Not all government workers. It targets specifically teachers and school directors, law enforcement, judges and crown attorneys, and the president of the National Assembly. So numbers-wise, it's actually a minority of government workers.
Quebec doesn't do any Catholic school funding?
I thought Catholicism was a strong component of Quebecois identity.
Wait, hang on, the bill is to ban people from wearing anything religious if they work for government?
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
Québec doesn't have public Catholic schools like Ontario does. Private schools (Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise) are not public and thus not affected by the law.
And the bill bans people in positions of government authority from wearing anything religious. Not all government workers. It targets specifically teachers and school directors, law enforcement, judges and crown attorneys, and the president of the National Assembly. So numbers-wise, it's actually a minority of government workers.
Quebec doesn't do any Catholic school funding?
I thought Catholicism was a strong component of Quebecois identity.
Wait, hang on, the bill is to ban people from wearing anything religious if they work for government?
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
Québec doesn't have public Catholic schools like Ontario does. Private schools (Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise) are not public and thus not affected by the law.
And the bill bans people in positions of government authority from wearing anything religious. Not all government workers. It targets specifically teachers and school directors, law enforcement, judges and crown attorneys, and the president of the National Assembly. So numbers-wise, it's actually a minority of government workers.
Doesn't matter.
Might as well just say : Sikhs, Muslims , Jews need not apply.
Wait, hang on, the bill is to ban people from wearing anything religious if they work for government?
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
Québec doesn't have public Catholic schools like Ontario does. Private schools (Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise) are not public and thus not affected by the law.
And the bill bans people in positions of government authority from wearing anything religious. Not all government workers. It targets specifically teachers and school directors, law enforcement, judges and crown attorneys, and the president of the National Assembly. So numbers-wise, it's actually a minority of government workers.
Quebec doesn't do any Catholic school funding?
I thought Catholicism was a strong component of Quebecois identity.
It's really not. You underestimate how strongly people turned away from the Catholic Church after the Quiet Revolution. There's a generational gap to be sure (and old people voting more and being more religious skews political pandering) and protecting historical and cultural heritage (which is tightly linked with Catholicism) muddies the waters, but people do not link their identity to their religion, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in church who is under 60 and not an immigrant.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Also the more stoned someone is will increase the likelihood of them informing you if they live/have lived in B.C.
My wife and I visited Vancouver last week. Literally the first thing I remember after getting off of the skytrain from the airport is some dude on a street in Yaletown with all his weed set up on a collapsible table.
Policing clothing is just ridiculous. I'm not Muslim, so could I wear a hijab since for me it's not religious garb? Similar headscarves are frequently worn by older women from Eastern Europe - they aren't manadatory religious garb, but they hearken back to Orthodox tradition. Could a teacher or doctor from Romania wear a headscarf without reprisal? Can somebody wear a large Celtic cross necklace, since Celtic crosses are actually pre-Christian design? But wait, Celtic crosses are often worn by Christians AND Pagans to symbolize their faith. Or just by people celebrating their Celtic heritage with no religious overtones. You gonna thought police that?
When you start asking these kinds of questions, it all falls apart. It's as bad as porn laws where you "know it when you see it." No you don't. You're relying on your own biased perceptions of how people dress, and that ultimately works to the detriment of the most vulnerable groups in society. Even if you have good intentions of a secular state, you still have those societal biases baked in. That's why we say it's racism disguised as secularism. Not that everybody pushing the law is a virulent racist, but that the law itself is informed by and enforced by racist thoughts and assumptions.
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
+8
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
Policing clothing is just ridiculous. I'm not Muslim, so could I wear a hijab since for me it's not religious garb? Similar headscarves are frequently worn by older women from Eastern Europe - they aren't manadatory religious garb, but they hearken back to Orthodox tradition. Could a teacher or doctor from Romania wear a headscarf without reprisal? Can somebody wear a large Celtic cross necklace, since Celtic crosses are actually pre-Christian design? But wait, Celtic crosses are often worn by Christians AND Pagans to symbolize their faith. Or just by people celebrating their Celtic heritage with no religious overtones. You gonna thought police that?
When you start asking these kinds of questions, it all falls apart. It's as bad as porn laws where you "know it when you see it." No you don't. You're relying on your own biased perceptions of how people dress, and that ultimately works to the detriment of the most vulnerable groups in society. Even if you have good intentions of a secular state, you still have those societal biases baked in. That's why we say it's racism disguised as secularism. Not that everybody pushing the law is a virulent racist, but that the law itself is informed by and enforced by racist thoughts and assumptions.
Yeah I don't know how you could possibly begin enforcing these rules:
if you have a cross tattooed on your body, do you have to have it covered up?
if you wear a cross but nobody can see it, does that count?
I'm pretty anti-religion but this is ridiculously overbroad.
I'm super anti-religious but still believe that people have a freedom of choice. What hat/head covering/cross someones is wearing is none of my business.
Alberta is pretty racist in spots.... Quebec is outright xenophobic outside of the big cities.
The fear of the "other" is amplified by already having a very distinct language and culture from pretty anywhere else in north america.
This is the same province that tried to enact "cultural identity laws" not that long ago.
Just make the laws & rules or whatever in the institution where you are secular. I don't care what the individual people working inside the building wear.
I care about the output of their work and whether or not it has a specific religious agenda.
Christ preaches charity? Great! let's get some charity up in here!
Gotta believe in Christ to get said charity? Nah, go fuck yourself.
I would be shocked if this kind of law also doesn't lead to a rise in hate crimes. It isn't just anti-religious, it's discrimination against other cultures from the highest level. It's an attempt to force people who value their cultural identity to either abandon it for the local norm, or remove themselves from their line of work entirely. It's racist as hell, and sexist too, given how it's obviously intended to prevent Muslim women from wearing a key piece of clothing for their identity as if they couldn't decide for themselves if they wanted to wear it. (Spoiler alert! They do.)
How in the world does seeing a woman in a hijab threaten your freedom to be atheist? How does what that person wears have a higher priority over their capacity to do the job? The ban diminishes the strength of any public role by reducing the amount of qualified candidates, forcing them to choose between their career and their freedom. It's bullshit, and pretending it's about anything other than racism is disingenuous at best.
I'm just hoping that someone immediately gives it a charter challenge and the supreme court stomps that shit.
The CAQ is already planning to use the notwithstanding clause.
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
I'm not a constitutional lawyer by any means, but the notwithstanding clause isn't bulletproof. It only allows a province or the federal government to ignore certain of the charter clauses, not all of them... So it could still be challenged- just a lot more difficult to do so, especially if the law is drafted with this kind of opposition in mind (I'm sure it was)
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Has there ever been a good use of the notwithstanding clause? As an American it basically looks like a 'screw your freedoms' button. The Wiki on the subject is a bit thin, but all the examples in it seem to be pretty horrible.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
Has there ever been a good use of the notwithstanding clause? As an American it basically looks like a 'screw your freedoms' button. The Wiki on the subject is a bit thin, but all the examples in it seem to be pretty horrible.
It's very very rarely used, though the right wing premiers that are getting elected want to do shitty stuff and aren't afraid to use it. It's scary stuff.
Has there ever been a good use of the notwithstanding clause? As an American it basically looks like a 'screw your freedoms' button. The Wiki on the subject is a bit thin, but all the examples in it seem to be pretty horrible.
Protecting the French language in Québec. It's easy to forget that a few generations ago we didn't even go to an épicerie to buy our food, we went to a grocerie.
So you're saying Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to protect quebec culture, and was good.
And now you're saying Quebec using the notwithstanding clause to ban other cultures from holding positions of authority is also a good thing.
I'd consider you the height of hypocrisy.
Unless the quebecois culture is that of xenophobia and racism that is.
Psykoma on
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
He pretty specifically didn't say that. There's a post above about how he does have a preference to separate religion and government, and I don't think anyone in this thread is going to disagree. There's been a lot of good perspective on why the bill means more than just that separation, and I think it's worth continuing that sort of dialogue instead of spouting hyperbole and thinly veiled insults. We can be better than that.
Posts
Said mostly in jest.
Maybe its because I'm first generation Canadian from an immigrant family, but I am sure that I have never felt like that. But I have been told, to my face, that I do. If a Torontonian looks down on you, its probably retaliatory.
Wonder if east has similar, where some is just caused by distance . It's tricky to remember how huge Canada is.
If the log book violations directly contributed to the accident occurring then, yes, it would be reasonable to charge those perpetrators similarly. Unfortunately, it does not appear that those violations actually had anything to do with the accident in question. It should be noted that training-wise, until -after- the crash, there was no mandated additional training that an employer had to provide to a driver with respect to driving. It was assumed that if the government saw fit to issue the appropriate class of license to a person, that the person was therefore fit to drive any vehicle that they were licensed to drive. That is the purpose of licenses. New rules are requiring more on-the-job experience and training in order to secure said licenses, but they did not exist until afterwards.
But man, some folks... the CBC call-in show over the weekend was about the trend of living single. A ton of people from everywhere called in to say they were single and happy. One woman who happened to be from Toronto called in to say that her kids had just left home and at the same time her husband had needed to get a job in another province. She was lonely and struggling, which is completely understandable. Some silly goose then called in and said that all he'd been hearing was a bunch of WHINERS from TORONTO and he was from REAL CANADA and thus could handle living alone. Yeah, that'll show those Toronto people... acting like an inconsiderate jerk always works!
Well what do you know... the CAQ's state secularism bill will include removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room.
You read the part where they just want to move it to somewhere else in the building, yeah?
And to specifically highlight it in it's new home?
In addition to the general election, they'll also be voting on electoral reform. The referendum has two options; Staying with FPTP, or switching to a mixed member proportional system.
On the day the writ was dropped, the PEI Green party was polling at about an 11 point lead.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Yes, they move it to an exhibit section of the building, where it belongs. It's part of our history, but not part of our governance.
You are assuming a lot since none of that is mentioned in the article.
I'm just happy I moved away from that proto-fascist state. I'm not cool with the state forcing people to speak a certain language ( and I'm french) and I am quite happy to live in a society where people can worship whatever sky wizard they want.
I don't get why you are defending this.... It's a non-withstanding clause used again to go against the charter.... Probably the only "canadian" thing that unites us all that's not hockey.
Because I think a completely secular state is a good idea. I mean, you only need to look south to see how government employees allowing their religion to creep into their professional functions leads to disaster.
I don't know where you're going with the freedom of worship bit. No one's putting that in question. Individuals get to do what they want. The state (and its representatives when on duty) don't.
Because we live in a free society where people has a freedom of expression. And to be real here.... This is to ban anyone that has mandatory religious garb (certain Muslims, sikhs , orthodox Jews etc etc etc.. ) from having government jobs.
My super atheist mom fell down a flight of stairs and got rushed to the Jewish general where she was treated superbly... Do you think anyone cared that her doctor wore a Kippah?
I don;t know any Christians that will be affected by this... I know of about a dozen of people in my personal circle that will. My friend Afaf who wears a Hijab and works for a government daycare? Certainly.
If you think this is not targeted towards a certain tranche of people you need to reevaluate my friend.
Actually, the bill that will be tabled should have a grandfather clause. So your friend who already works at a daycare won't be affected. And I think that's fair - she chose her career under a set of rules that allowed her to wear her hijab, changing those rules after the fact would be unfair to her.
What the shit?
Wait, how is this going to affect Catholic schools? Or do the nuns get to wear their habit while Muslims are told off for their hijabs?
School boards are not religious anymore in Quebec.
This is Quebec xenophobia coated in a "progressive" shell.
And they call Albertan's backward...
Québec doesn't have public Catholic schools like Ontario does. Private schools (Catholic, Muslim, or otherwise) are not public and thus not affected by the law.
And the bill bans people in positions of government authority from wearing anything religious. Not all government workers. It targets specifically teachers and school directors, law enforcement, judges and crown attorneys, and the president of the National Assembly. So numbers-wise, it's actually a minority of government workers.
Sorry but no, forcing government workers to remove religious attire as a condition of employment is ridiculous, period. And as was pointed out, and as we've seen elsewhere, these laws are always portrayed as ecumenical, but in practice are anything but - in part because of the principle laid out by Anatole France about equality of the law, and in part because bad actors will happily abuse the former part to hurt people.
Quebec doesn't do any Catholic school funding?
I thought Catholicism was a strong component of Quebecois identity.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution
Doesn't matter.
Might as well just say : Sikhs, Muslims , Jews need not apply.
It's really not. You underestimate how strongly people turned away from the Catholic Church after the Quiet Revolution. There's a generational gap to be sure (and old people voting more and being more religious skews political pandering) and protecting historical and cultural heritage (which is tightly linked with Catholicism) muddies the waters, but people do not link their identity to their religion, and you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in church who is under 60 and not an immigrant.
My wife and I visited Vancouver last week. Literally the first thing I remember after getting off of the skytrain from the airport is some dude on a street in Yaletown with all his weed set up on a collapsible table.
I'm pretty anti-religion but this is ridiculously overbroad.
When you start asking these kinds of questions, it all falls apart. It's as bad as porn laws where you "know it when you see it." No you don't. You're relying on your own biased perceptions of how people dress, and that ultimately works to the detriment of the most vulnerable groups in society. Even if you have good intentions of a secular state, you still have those societal biases baked in. That's why we say it's racism disguised as secularism. Not that everybody pushing the law is a virulent racist, but that the law itself is informed by and enforced by racist thoughts and assumptions.
Yeah I don't know how you could possibly begin enforcing these rules:
if you have a cross tattooed on your body, do you have to have it covered up?
if you wear a cross but nobody can see it, does that count?
I'm super anti-religious but still believe that people have a freedom of choice. What hat/head covering/cross someones is wearing is none of my business.
Alberta is pretty racist in spots.... Quebec is outright xenophobic outside of the big cities.
The fear of the "other" is amplified by already having a very distinct language and culture from pretty anywhere else in north america.
This is the same province that tried to enact "cultural identity laws" not that long ago.
I care about the output of their work and whether or not it has a specific religious agenda.
Christ preaches charity? Great! let's get some charity up in here!
Gotta believe in Christ to get said charity? Nah, go fuck yourself.
I could make like, way better, laws.
How in the world does seeing a woman in a hijab threaten your freedom to be atheist? How does what that person wears have a higher priority over their capacity to do the job? The ban diminishes the strength of any public role by reducing the amount of qualified candidates, forcing them to choose between their career and their freedom. It's bullshit, and pretending it's about anything other than racism is disingenuous at best.
This is what that ban fucking does. Are you going to seriously say she doesn't seem like she deserves to teach?
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
Word is that the CAQ is going to preemptively invoke the notwithstanding clause on this to head off the inevitable court challenges...
It's very very rarely used, though the right wing premiers that are getting elected want to do shitty stuff and aren't afraid to use it. It's scary stuff.
Protecting the French language in Québec. It's easy to forget that a few generations ago we didn't even go to an épicerie to buy our food, we went to a grocerie.
And now you're saying Quebec using the notwithstanding clause to ban other cultures from holding positions of authority is also a good thing.
I'd consider you the height of hypocrisy.
Unless the quebecois culture is that of xenophobia and racism that is.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?