Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] Takin' out the trash to replace it with... whoops.

1404143454662

Posts

  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Well, I voted NDP. Fingers crossed!

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    AridholRichyTubularLuggageGnome-InterruptusBrolomonikerCelloPsykomashrykeApogeeEl SkidCaulk Bite 6BouwsTShadowenCanadianWolverineLoisLane
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    I did advance voting this year and it was the most painless and easygoing election experience I've ever had. No lineups so my SO and I were in and out in under two minutes.

    We had a big surprise last election, I'm hoping for another one this time around.

    steam_sig.png
    twitch.tv/kragaar
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    I did advance voting this year and it was the most painless and easygoing election experience I've ever had. No lineups so my SO and I were in and out in under two minutes.

    We had a big surprise last election, I'm hoping for another one this time around.

    Surprise! You elected ... Stephen Harper!?
    ... Or is that the Calgary Airport? I can never tell them apart.

    Apogee
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    @Richy
    If the law was adopted federally, you would be okay with telling the current defense minister to get rid of his turban or he gets fired?

    That law prohibits Sikhs and some Muslims from certain government jobs for no other reason than they're wearing the wrong thing. There's nothing obscene or offensive about a headscarf or turban, and there's nothing about being a Sikh or Muslim that says those individuals are unable to do their jobs just as well as anyone whose faith is not obvious. There is no evidence that someone wearing a headscarf is more likely to have their religious influence their decisions than any other people of faith.

    There is no way to apply this law without it being a defacto government restriction on certain religious beliefs.

    CelloPsykomaGnome-InterruptusAridholmrondeauSteelhawkTubularLuggageCaulk Bite 6EtiowsaEntriechHappy Little Machine
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited April 16
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    Nova_C on
    CelloSteelhawkCaulk Bite 6mysticjuicerShadowenEntriechLoisLaneHappy Little Machine
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    Well, what colour are they?
    /s obviously

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited April 16
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Also, Easter and Christmas don't have official recognition in a secular society. And I'm very generous towards Thanksgiving and Halloween here.

    mrondeau on
    Gnome-InterruptusCelloPhoenix-DCaulk Bite 6ShadowenHappy Little Machine
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    sig.gif
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    Cool! That cross doesn't contribute anything to the workforce itself though, as it is an inanimate object and not a human being. And removing it doesn't have the same impact as telling an entire class of people they can't work because they want to wear an article of clothing. Which I notice you've pointedly not addressed.

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
    Caulk Bite 6Shadowen
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    That is a very fair point, and another aspect on which the law is ambiguous.

    In my opinion, a religious symbol is such because of its intrinsic properties, not because of the beliefs of the person wearing them. A turban, crucifix, or burka are religious symbol. Whether the person wearing them is doing so because of religious beliefs, fashion, peer-pressure, to make a statement, or whatever other reason, is not relevant.

    sig.gif
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    I am going to opt out of the conversation here as I am shaking with anger and would prefer not to eat an infraction.

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
    Caedwyr
  • PsykomaPsykoma Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    To be placed in another place of respect in the same goddamn building.

    There's no way in hell you didn't know that it would be moved but would stay on display in the building, and didn't realize including that little tidbit would defeat your entire argument.

    CelloKetBraGnome-InterruptusShadowenLoisLaneHappy Little Machine
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    That is a very fair point, and another aspect on which the law is ambiguous.

    In my opinion, a religious symbol is such because of its intrinsic properties, not because of the beliefs of the person wearing them. A turban, crucifix, or burka are religious symbol. Whether the person wearing them is doing so because of religious beliefs, fashion, peer-pressure, to make a statement, or whatever other reason, is not relevant.

    I would consider requiring someone dress in a manner contrary to their personal religious beliefs as a prerequisite for a job to be rather relevant. I would also consider it to be an imposition on what should be the secular nature of government employment.

    CellomrondeauGnome-InterruptusShadowenLordSolarMachariusHappy Little Machine
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Richy wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    That is a very fair point, and another aspect on which the law is ambiguous.

    In my opinion, a religious symbol is such because of its intrinsic properties, not because of the beliefs of the person wearing them. A turban, crucifix, or burka are religious symbol. Whether the person wearing them is doing so because of religious beliefs, fashion, peer-pressure, to make a statement, or whatever other reason, is not relevant.

    I'm less interested in grilling you (I feel like your heart is in the right place, even if we've all pretty pointedly disagreed with you), and am just really curious about this statement. What intrinsic properties do you think religious symbols have? I'd think by their very nature of being symbols they have no properties other than the ones people assign them.

    ArcticLancer on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    Asking someone to wear/not wear a certain outfit as part of their work uniform/dress code strikes me as being very different when the question is one of wanting to be fashionable and denied that desire versus one of wanting to hold to your religious beliefs and being denied that.

    Cello
  • ApogeeApogee Lancks In Every Game Ever Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    To be placed in another place of respect in the same goddamn building.

    There's no way in hell you didn't know that it would be moved but would stay on display in the building, and didn't realize including that little tidbit would defeat your entire argument.

    Eh, as much as I'm in favour of removing the cross I don't see having it in another display is a bad thing - so long as the religious objects are kept out of proceedings and left as an item of 'look at this thing, it's part of our history'.

    Obviously if you moved the cross to, say, a prominant point in the foyer without any context to suggest it was just there for historical display it would be bad, as it would imply the cross was being endorsed by the state. It's a fine line here... but that doesn't mean we have to go full 'everything is OK' or 'everything must go'. Nuance is important!

    Apogee on
    8R7BtLw.png
  • The Cow KingThe Cow King Walls of Jakiro Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Secularism isnt also the destruction and removal of religion from a society despite that some want that

    Im not like a fan of religion but its a part of the human condition

    The Cow King on
    icGJy2C.png
    monikerCelloEl SkidApogeeGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6Evil MultifariousEtiowsaShadowenJacobyBeef AvengerHappy Little Machine
  • PsykomaPsykoma Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Apogee wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    To be placed in another place of respect in the same goddamn building.

    There's no way in hell you didn't know that it would be moved but would stay on display in the building, and didn't realize including that little tidbit would defeat your entire argument.

    Eh, as much as I'm in favour of removing the cross I don't see having in another display is a bad thing - so long as the religious objects are kept out of proceedings and left as an item of 'look at this thing, it's part of our history'.

    Obviously if you moved the cross to, say, a prominant point in the foyer without any context to suggest it was just there for historical display it would be bad, as it would imply the cross was being endorsed by the state. It's a fine line here... but that doesn't mean we have to go full 'everything is OK' or 'everything must go'. Nuance is important!

    So muslim women should only have to remove their head coverings once they step over the line into the actual national assembly room?
    This is a ridiculous, racist position to adopt, that christian religious iconography is fine to be on display in public buildings but other religions are banned.

    Psykoma on
    CelloCaulk Bite 6
  • ApogeeApogee Lancks In Every Game Ever Registered User regular
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Apogee wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    To be placed in another place of respect in the same goddamn building.

    There's no way in hell you didn't know that it would be moved but would stay on display in the building, and didn't realize including that little tidbit would defeat your entire argument.

    Eh, as much as I'm in favour of removing the cross I don't see having in another display is a bad thing - so long as the religious objects are kept out of proceedings and left as an item of 'look at this thing, it's part of our history'.

    Obviously if you moved the cross to, say, a prominant point in the foyer without any context to suggest it was just there for historical display it would be bad, as it would imply the cross was being endorsed by the state. It's a fine line here... but that doesn't mean we have to go full 'everything is OK' or 'everything must go'. Nuance is important!

    So muslim women should only have to remove their head coverings once they step over the line into the actual national assembly room?
    This is a ridiculous, racist position to adopt, that christian religious iconography is fine to be on display in public buildings but other religions are banned.

    I'm talking about the cross, not the head coverings. Very different things.

    Having the cross (or any object) in the room in a position of significance effectively puts the values of that symbol on everyone in the room. Like, say, a flag or a coat of arms does. If we put a bowl of pasta on the wall in the House of Commons, everyone is going to wonder why Canada cares so much about pasta.

    Clothing/other personal items only apply to the person in question and not everyone else. If you choose to wear religious garb, then hey, everyone can see those values on you. But that's your choice, and so long as you still do your job I don't see the problem.
    This is a ridiculous, racist position to adopt, that christian religious iconography is fine to be on display in public buildings but other religions are banned.

    But great, thanks for strawmanning me immediately as a religious racist. I'll assume you thought you were replying to someone else. Did you even read my original post?

    8R7BtLw.png
    ArcticLancer
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Apogee wrote: »
    Psykoma wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    More importantly, this law would create zero problems for the theocrats down south. In fact, it is part of their agenda.
    They want laws like this, since they reinforce the status of their religion as the default, unlike those other religions which have weird, nonsecular practice, like wearing special clothing.

    Actually, the law includes removing the crucifix from the National Assembly room, and several cities have been following suit (or leading, even) and have been removing their crucifixes as well. I think the theocrats down south would have a problem with that.

    To be placed in another place of respect in the same goddamn building.

    There's no way in hell you didn't know that it would be moved but would stay on display in the building, and didn't realize including that little tidbit would defeat your entire argument.

    Eh, as much as I'm in favour of removing the cross I don't see having in another display is a bad thing - so long as the religious objects are kept out of proceedings and left as an item of 'look at this thing, it's part of our history'.

    Obviously if you moved the cross to, say, a prominant point in the foyer without any context to suggest it was just there for historical display it would be bad, as it would imply the cross was being endorsed by the state. It's a fine line here... but that doesn't mean we have to go full 'everything is OK' or 'everything must go'. Nuance is important!

    So muslim women should only have to remove their head coverings once they step over the line into the actual national assembly room?
    This is a ridiculous, racist position to adopt, that christian religious iconography is fine to be on display in public buildings but other religions are banned.

    I know Apogee already responded to this, but is seems kind of ridiculous to make such weird binary statements about a post that literally ended with "nuance is important."

  • PsykomaPsykoma Registered User regular
    I read your post, the one where you said it was fine that public buildings display christian religious iconography where other religious iconography would be banned.

    Don't want to be called a religious racist, maybe don't say religious racist things.

    Caulk Bite 6
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Removing the crucifix is not a generous compromise, it's the bare minimum.

    I would expect a law forbidding all religious signs in the national assembly, and all municipal council or equivalent, and explicitly forbidding prayers, in particular opening prayers. For starters.
    A motion condemning the installation of the crucifix as a terrible mistake of the past would be good.

    Then, you could pass laws forbidding the government from giving preference to one religion over the other by considering its practices as the default and therefore secular.
    For example, baptised people should not be allowed to have a position of authority, especially if they occasionally go to church.
    People following those practice are just as biased as people following other religious practices.

  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Okay, can we acknowledge that the conversation has diverged into "how people decorate themselves" and "how the building is decorated" and these are two very different things that we shouldn't be interchanging them every other post? :/

    ArcticLancer on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    Asking someone to wear/not wear a certain outfit as part of their work uniform/dress code strikes me as being very different when the question is one of wanting to be fashionable and denied that desire versus one of wanting to hold to your religious beliefs and being denied that.

    My point was, are all headscarfs banned? Or just the ones that say MUSLIM across the front?

    AridholCelloCaulk Bite 6Shadowen
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I can't tell if you are joking but people who are baptised or occasionally attend church not being able to have a position of authority?

    People get baptized as babies and people go to church often for the community aspect. None of this is in any way prescriptive as to how they would act in any role.

    I'm not on board making religious people into second class citizens.

    How long until we go full China on religious people to "save them" from their ignorance and fantasy?

    CelloShadowen
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    Asking someone to wear/not wear a certain outfit as part of their work uniform/dress code strikes me as being very different when the question is one of wanting to be fashionable and denied that desire versus one of wanting to hold to your religious beliefs and being denied that.

    My point was, are all headscarfs banned? Or just the ones that say MUSLIM across the front?

    Its not defined because it's not the point of the law and it's a Fucking lie to try and argue its not motivated by scary brown invaders.

    CelloGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6Shadowen
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I just fundamentally disagree that say a police officer in a headscarf is different than a police officer in a pony tail.
    It makes no difference.

    When I see a police officer in a turban I don't think "oh shit it's the Sikhs! Run!"
    I think
    "oh shit it's the police!"

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Nova_C wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Not to mention, a headscarf is also fashion. If someone is wearing a headscarf because they like it, without any reasons of faith, is that okay?

    How do you tell the difference?

    Asking someone to wear/not wear a certain outfit as part of their work uniform/dress code strikes me as being very different when the question is one of wanting to be fashionable and denied that desire versus one of wanting to hold to your religious beliefs and being denied that.

    My point was, are all headscarfs banned? Or just the ones that say MUSLIM across the front?

    When it comes to a job with a literal uniform, like police officers, everything is banned. Which is why reasonable accommodation is considered necessary and what the law would tread over.

    moniker on
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Quebec religious attire law is dumb, bad, and blatantly discriminatory.

    Not sure how much there is really to be debated.

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    El SkidAridholCelloApogeeGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6EtiowsaShadowenAegisJacobyHandkor
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    The idea was to ban anyone in a public position with coercive powers and the original report on accommodation recommended banning public sector workers with coercive state power from wearing those symbols - including police officers and judges, but excluding teachers. To be honest, teachers are in an amazing position of coercive power. Not that a teacher, judge or cop couldn't influence an outcome based on their faith with or without said religious gewgaws.

    I'm perfectly happy to see them chip away at all religion, so long as it's applied equally across all forms of hocus pocus nonsense and not just one brand of magical sky wizards.

    Oh, and Doug Ford is gonna merge all the Ambulance services in Ontario but didn't tell them before today apparently. No plan or data or anything, just gonna do it, git 'er done folks, efficiencies!

  • ApogeeApogee Lancks In Every Game Ever Registered User regular
    edited April 16
    Psykoma wrote: »
    I read your post, the one where you said it was fine that public buildings display christian religious iconography where other religious iconography would be banned.

    Don't want to be called a religious racist, maybe don't say religious racist things.

    Where did I say that? I said, pretty explicitly, that having the cross as an object of historical significance is OK. Because it literally is! If they had reason to put up some other religious icons as historical displays then, sure, go for it. I'm sure some case can be made for Jewish items and who knows what else - my knowledge of religious history in Quebec is pretty limited.

    If you're gonna make big claims (e.g. 'you're a racist'), you better be specific about it, or no one will take what you say seriously.
    KetBra wrote: »
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Quebec religious attire law is dumb, bad, and blatantly discriminatory.

    Not sure how much there is really to be debated.

    Pretty much. The only clothing rules that should be mandated are the ones that relate to the ability of the person doing the job - i.e. surgeons should be wearing surgery appropriate clothing. Construction workers need hi-vis stuff and helmets. A hijab on a construction site would probably not fly for that reason, but maybe someone can get creative and make it work, I dunno.

    For a government worker, it really doesn't matter what they're wearing unless it's somehow going to interfere with their job. If a person feels threatened by a Service Ontario employee, it's probably a bad thing. Say, if they're wearing a shirt that says 'I will cut you if you complain'. If client feels threatened by an employee wearing hijab/keepah/cross necklace, the problem isn't with the employee.

    Apogee on
    8R7BtLw.png
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    The only way this law makes sense is if it makes the following assumption: "If an agent of the government is displaying any religious affiliation then people will see the services they provide as biased towards other members of their religious group".

    I don't think this is correct- I certainly haven't seen any research to back it up, anyway.

    The government needs to be secular- that is treat all groups in the population equally. Making everyone delivering those services look neutral is not required for this... What is required is that the government does not make all of these officials wear a particular religious symbol.

    It would be a problem if the government required all its agents to wear a cross. Or a turban. Or a headscarf. This is not a problem in Quebec. And there are no problems currently with for instance Sikh police officers treating people differently if those people also wear turbans. Or headscarves. Or anything.

    I agree with taking down the cross in the assembly, as this is a show that the government as a whole bears some allegiance to a particular religion. But preventing individuals from wearing a cross or turban or headband doesn't have anything to do with whether the government is secular, because the government didn't make these people wear these symbols.

    The only way this makes sense if it's a racist ploy that is using feelings from the quiet revolution, and warping them enough that this law seems legit. But it really really isn't legit. It's wrong and offensive and abhorrent. And I hope someone finds a way to put a stop to it.

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
    Gnome-InterruptusApogeeAridholCelloCaulk Bite 6mrondeauCaedwyrShadowenJacobyphysi_marc
  • DissociaterDissociater Registered User regular
    So apparently without notice to anyone, the government of Ontario just cut all funding to Legal Aid for refugees and immigrants effective 4p.m. today. Trying to find an official source for this but haven't found anything yet. Pretty crappy, yet completely unsurprising move if true.

  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Yeah, sounds about right re: Ontario

    God, fingers crossed for a hung legislature in Alberta

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I can't tell if you are joking but people who are baptised or occasionally attend church not being able to have a position of authority?

    People get baptized as babies and people go to church often for the community aspect. None of this is in any way prescriptive as to how they would act in any role.

    I'm not on board making religious people into second class citizens.

    How long until we go full China on religious people to "save them" from their ignorance and fantasy?

    Assuming that you are referring to my post: the no-prayer part is serious.

    The other part is applying the same standard to all religions, to show why bill 21 is a problem. I'm only serious in the sense that this is a serious problem.

    Although I will point out that when it comes to religion unduly affecting the decisions of someone in a position of authority, it's the Christians that are a problem. There's way more of them.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    If you ban religious clothing or ornament in certain positions, then you are effectively banning certain religions from that position.

    There are religious groups which value their beliefs or traditions in this context to the extent that they would not take the job if they could not e.g. wear the turban.

    This amounts to employment discrimination against people because of their religion. And it so happens that the people most affected by this discrimination are brown people and people whose religions are currently the centre of a major global xenophobic backlash. I don't think that's coincidence, and it seems absurd and myopic to suggest it is unrelated to xenophobia. People are frightened by the idea of a brown man in a turban taking an office of power, and they see this as a means to prevent that from happening. At best, they find it aesthetically offensive to their conception of a desirably secular society. This is not sufficient grounds to discriminate based on religion.

    There are cases where a religious belief directly interferes with the duties of a position. That is a legitimate reason to refuse a position; if someone e.g. will not perform a necessary surgery because of their religious beliefs, they are unfit to be a surgeon.

    That is not the case here. Religious clothing and ornament do not inherently interfere with the carrying out of these duties. The claim that this is a matter of symbolism, that agents of the secular state must be stripped of non-secular symbology, is weak. If you have evidence of any kind to suggest that such symbols in these offices somehow undermines secular governments or functions, please present it. If you have evidence that other states or provinces which allow such religious garb have encountered problems with the undermining of secular offices or functions, please present it. If you do not, then how is it anything but a made-up idea that has no grounding in fact, that simply sounds plausible as support for an idea that you already agree with?

    I am an atheist, and I don't like religion, and I don't want it affecting policy. But freedom of religion is absolutely crucial, and its absence is oppression.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
    monikerBrolomysticjuicerGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6CelloShadowenphysi_marc
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Yeah, sounds about right re: Ontario

    God, fingers crossed for a hung legislature in Alberta

    I'm expecting the worst, hoping for the best. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot more NDP signs on people's lawns up here in Sherwood Park than UCP signs.

    Regardless of who wins, though, the work continues.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    Calgary feels like it will swing back hard to the UCP

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    AridholDecius
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    So apparently without notice to anyone, the government of Ontario just cut all funding to Legal Aid for refugees and immigrants effective 4p.m. today. Trying to find an official source for this but haven't found anything yet. Pretty crappy, yet completely unsurprising move if true.

    I believe as part of the budget, they lost a lot of funding and as a result are not taking on any new cases.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/legal-aid-ontario-cuts-1.5099348

    ArcticLancer
  • ChicoBlueChicoBlue Registered User regular
    There was a nice Bernese Mountain Dog at the polling place, which was cool.

    Almost makes up for the fact that my vote was purely a matter of principle as this riding will undoubtedly go 3 to 1 to the bigoted jerkwad alliance.

    There are a surprising amount of Alberta Independence Party signs around here, so maybe that will put a little dent in the number.

Sign In or Register to comment.