People rightly complained about all of that and weren't lectured on how we just didn't know x province. Quebec isn't immune to criticism from people who aren't living there no matter how desperately it wants to be.
Please feel free to criticize Alberta’s regressive right wing government.
I have done so loudly and consistently. And progressives living here do so just as loudly and consistently - and we welcome other provinces to do the same.
I also criticize the Trudeau government repeatedly because they’ve sacrificed progressive values in the altar of expediency. This is a rare occasion when they aren’t doing that, and I think it’s laudable.
People rightly complained about all of that and weren't lectured on how we just didn't know x province. Quebec isn't immune to criticism from people who aren't living there no matter how desperately it wants to be.
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
People rightly complained about all of that and weren't lectured on how we just didn't know x province. Quebec isn't immune to criticism from people who aren't living there no matter how desperately it wants to be.
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
If you don't want to respond to what I'm saying then don't respond.
People rightly complained about all of that and weren't lectured on how we just didn't know x province. Quebec isn't immune to criticism from people who aren't living there no matter how desperately it wants to be.
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
If you don't want to respond to what I'm saying then don't respond.
Right back at you.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
People rightly complained about all of that and weren't lectured on how we just didn't know x province. Quebec isn't immune to criticism from people who aren't living there no matter how desperately it wants to be.
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
Actually, yes it is. The topic was you saying Trudeau coming out against Bill 21 would cost him the election. That's not fact. That's not truth. It's your feeling about the matter. And you feel that a Prime Minister speaking out against xenophobia will cost him the election. I disagree. And your blatant whataboutism doesn't change that.
+11
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Man, the last 3-4ish pages of this thread have been a trip. I feel like I've been called the enemy of everybody twice over without having even participated. >_>
A federal politician interfering with a provincial jurisdiction in a province where a significant portion of the voters are basing their vote first and foremost on protecting and expending the provincial government power against the federal government is going to cause problems, yes.
It might not give more seats to the PC, but it would certainly help the BQ, since at least some of those voters switched from the BQ to the PLC last time.
Trudeau should not support bill 21, but unless he’s willing to reopen the constitution to get rid of the notwithstanding clause and redefine areas of responsibility, he should avoid the topic as much as possible, and he should 100% avoid talking about fighting it.
Not bothering with translations is not going to help either.
... where any fault in the group become indicative of a deep cultural inadequacy that proves that that culture should be eradicated. You know, the excuse that was used all along.
I think there's some projection going on here.
Guys, no one in this thread wants to eradicate Quebecois culture. There are even other Francophones who would love to see more French in Canada.
Yes, there were threats to the culture in the past. No one is denying that. But xenophobic legislation like Bill 21 is just yesterday's marginalized group carrying on an ugly tradition. If anything, people are as upset as they are about it because we know Quebec can be better than that. (Also, you're the second biggest province. You're going to get attention when things like this happen).
People rightly complained about all of that and weren't lectured on how we just didn't know x province. Quebec isn't immune to criticism from people who aren't living there no matter how desperately it wants to be.
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
Actually, yes it is. The topic was you saying Trudeau coming out against Bill 21 would cost him the election. That's not fact. That's not truth. It's your feeling about the matter. And you feel that a Prime Minister speaking out against xenophobia will cost him the election. I disagree. And your blatant whataboutism doesn't change that.
First of all it's not my opinion. I posted last page (or the page before, it's been going quickly) the polls showing a 7% drop for the LPC in Québec since Trudeau picked up the subject.
Second, my whataboutism was in response to TubularLuggage saying "if any of the other provinces did anything like this, Trudeau would stand up against it" and the general feeling in the thread tha Québec is trying to shield itself unfairly against criticism and threats that other provinces would receive openly. My point is that lots of other provinces did similar things and Trudeau did not stand up against it and those provinces were spared the criticism and threats that Québec is receiving. Whether or not people in this thread were upset about those events (and they were, I fully acknowledge that) is not relevant to the argument we were having about Trudeau.
Third, you're once again describing what Trudeau did as opposing xenophobia, as if (1) it actually accomplished anything against xenophobia, which it didn't, and (2) it was the only way, or even the best way, to oppose xenophobia, which it wasn't.
Not bothering with translations is not going to help either.
I don't know if you'll believe me, but when I wrote my first post on this Bill 21 debacle, I actually had a line in my post to the effect of "Maybe Trudeau will take a shit on the French langauge next to finish killing off his chances in Québec." Then I felt it was far too cynical and I deleted it before posting.
Next time something bad happen in your province, you won't see a bunch of editorials saying it's caused by an uniquely shitty culture. It happens every time for Québec. Sometimes retroactively, and changing the facts to support a narrative.
That's one of the differences.
You also keep superposing your interpretation of events in the province, completely ignoring any nuances added by people who are actually living there. The rest of the country might not care about federal-provincial power, but a large chunk of Québécois votes purely on that. That's a good way of losing votes.
Same thing about the soft support for bill 21 caused by antireligious sentiment. It can be reduced, or removed, by actually talking and presenting arguments. Not so much by lumping them with the actual xenophobes. Just because antireligious sentiments are not common in your province doesn't mean they are not common in Québec.
Next time something bad happen in your province, you won't see a bunch of editorials saying it's caused by an uniquely shitty culture. It happens every time for Québec. Sometimes retroactively, and changing the facts to support a narrative.
That's one of the differences.
You also keep superposing your interpretation of events in the province, completely ignoring any nuances added by people who are actually living there. The rest of the country might not care about federal-provincial power, but a large chunk of Québécois votes purely on that. That's a good way of losing votes.
Same thing about the soft support for bill 21 caused by antireligious sentiment. It can be reduced, or removed, by actually talking and presenting arguments. Not so much by lumping them with the actual xenophobes. Just because antireligious sentiments are not common in your province doesn't mean they are not common in Québec.
Alberta get a lot of heat about a lot of things..... And should. We deserve it. If we can't take the criticism then clearly we don't have enough arguments to back our positions.
I'm not sure if it's that you are living in a cultural bubble but thinking that QC is the only province that cares about Federal powers is cute. Literally not a day goes by where you don't see an editorial about transfer payments, pipelines or environmental regulations here. Say "Carbon tax' out loud and people's eyes start bulging out of their heads.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to pretend that QC is not going down a dark fucking path with CLEARLY TARGETED RACIAL LEGISLATION. If they were at all serious about being "secular" I would love to see the cops with cross tattoo's and teachers with wedding rings losing their jobs but so far it just seems to be 100% POC.
I'm not going to be a good German and keep my mouth shut, you know?
PSN: Canadian_llama
+11
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Honestly, if people can't agree with Trudeau's stance on Bill 21 without being accused of hating Quebec and secretly plotting the downfall of Quebecois culture, I'm not sure what there is to discuss here.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
What, they’re worried about the creeping influence of Sharia law? And this is supposed to make me feel less contemptuous of their position?
This is some serious bullshit. ‘It’s about anti-religious feelings against the Catholics (as if that bigotry is supposed to make it better) but never mind that the actual impact on Catholics will be minimal and will instead hit disturbingly furrin looking types.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
What, they’re worried about the creeping influence of Sharia law? And this is supposed to make me feel less contemptuous of their position?
This is some serious bullshit. ‘It’s about anti-religious feelings against the Catholics (as if that bigotry is supposed to make it better) but never mind that the actual impact on Catholics will be minimal and will instead hit disturbingly furrin looking types.
Thanks for the great example of superposition.
It's not about Sharia law. It's about religion in the public sphere. All of them. Including Catholicism. That's why I didn't mention Sharia law.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Funny thing about wedding rings: when I mention them, the conclusion is either that the whole thing is indeed pointless and should be scrapped, or that wedding rings should be added to the list.
It's one of the best way to attack soft support for bill 21.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Also, this is so reductive it's crazy.
It's the fear of brown people religion.... Even the last PQ attempt at this specifically exempted christian symbols.... To the extent of exempting the giant cross in the assembly.
The CAQ just had the political savvy to realize that would not fly and made sure the law was tailored to generally not affect Christians.
You are really bending over backwards to paint this as some stance against religion when it's blatantly Quebec being xenophobic about protecting their "culture" I.E racial demographics.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Funny thing about wedding rings: when I mention them, the conclusion is either that the whole thing is indeed pointless and should be scrapped, or that wedding rings should be added to the list.
It's one of the best way to attack soft support for bill 21.
Cool.
why were they exempt if all other religious symbols were banned?
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Wedding rings both predate Christianity and are also widely used in secular society with zero religious meaning.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Wedding rings both predate Christianity and are also widely used in secular society with zero religious meaning.
So are head coverings.
And yet one is banned and the other is not.... Could it be because generally non-whites are the ones rocking the head coverings?
Small town Quebec is still the most over racist places I have ever been and people here seem to be trying their best to take race out of the Question... When this is the same place that wanted a charter on new immigrant behavior and has a government that has been very anti-immigration.
Anyway, good for Trudeau on standing up for the people that just want to live their lives without being targeted.
Quebec's history with religion does not absolve the bill from criticism because it both actively harms people and doesn't actually solve a problem.
Someone taking off their Kippah in class doesn't remove their religious influence (if they were actually doing that in the first place!). Also, you can look at what people actually do instead of what they wear and accomplish the same thing.
Finally, this implies that the rest of the country is unprotected from the takeover of religion in all our public spheres which is total bullshit.
And the lack of nuances is back again. The hard support for bill 21 is rooted in xenophobia. There's a reason I oppose it and argue against it. The soft support, aka those who support it but can be convinced otherwise, is not.
A group of xenophobes are using it to be xenophobes, and to get the votes of other xenophobes, but this only works because most people don't think too much about it and get convinced by fear of the return of religion.
If anything, they see non-Catholic religions as a Trojan horse for the church.
Point out all the Catholic practices that are allowed, and that support drop significantly.
EDIT: also, yes, small towns Québec are deeply racist. That's the hard support. Personally, I don't bother talking to them. Save time.
Given that I have voted for a party that was promising to reduce my quality of life because it was the only one with a chance of winning opposing the charter of xenophobia, I think it's rather obvious I'm oppose to it. It's also a good idea to understand why some people are not opposed to it... It helps convincing them.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Wedding rings both predate Christianity and are also widely used in secular society with zero religious meaning.
So are head coverings.
And yet one is banned and the other is not.... Could it be because generally non-whites are the ones rocking the head coverings?
Small town Quebec is still the most over racist places I have ever been and people here seem to be trying their best to take race out of the Question... When this is the same place that wanted a charter on new immigrant behavior and has a government that has been very anti-immigration.
Anyway, good for Trudeau on standing up for the people that just want to live their lives without being targeted.
It's because head coverings of a certain type are widely viewed as being a religious symbol whereas wedding rings are not. Frankly, I think the vast majority of people would be deeply confused at the idea that wedding rings are a christian symbol.
You can't take race out of the issue but you also can't take the cultural backdrop out of the issue either. The history of french secularism looms over this, especially given how recent that history is in Quebec.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Wedding rings both predate Christianity and are also widely used in secular society with zero religious meaning.
So are head coverings.
And yet one is banned and the other is not.... Could it be because generally non-whites are the ones rocking the head coverings?
Small town Quebec is still the most over racist places I have ever been and people here seem to be trying their best to take race out of the Question... When this is the same place that wanted a charter on new immigrant behavior and has a government that has been very anti-immigration.
Anyway, good for Trudeau on standing up for the people that just want to live their lives without being targeted.
It's because head coverings of a certain type are widely viewed as being a religious symbol whereas wedding rings are not. Frankly, I think the vast majority of people would be deeply confused at the idea that wedding rings are a christian symbol.
You can't take race out of the issue but you also can't take the cultural backdrop out of the issue either. The history of french secularism looms over this, especially given how recent that history is in Quebec.
Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. You're making a distinction between the two based on absolutely nothing. I'm willing to bet people were wearing things on their head long before they were ritualizing coupling pairs being bonded through the symbology of a ring.
If bill 21 was drafted out of a fear of religion encroaching on the province, were these issues ever documented anywhere? Are there actual examples of religion swaying a court decision due to a biased judge? I'm legitimately asking. Because the timing of the bill when you look at the added context of immigration across Canada seems incredibly suspect...
In case anyone is interested, the CBC has a one-pager giving a breakdown and simple critique of all the major party platforms leading up to the election here:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids Christian, Jew, Muslim, and Sikh from wearing the head coverings mandated by their religion.
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Wedding rings both predate Christianity and are also widely used in secular society with zero religious meaning.
So are head coverings.
And yet one is banned and the other is not.... Could it be because generally non-whites are the ones rocking the head coverings?
Small town Quebec is still the most over racist places I have ever been and people here seem to be trying their best to take race out of the Question... When this is the same place that wanted a charter on new immigrant behavior and has a government that has been very anti-immigration.
Anyway, good for Trudeau on standing up for the people that just want to live their lives without being targeted.
It's because head coverings of a certain type are widely viewed as being a religious symbol whereas wedding rings are not. Frankly, I think the vast majority of people would be deeply confused at the idea that wedding rings are a christian symbol.
You can't take race out of the issue but you also can't take the cultural backdrop out of the issue either. The history of french secularism looms over this, especially given how recent that history is in Quebec.
Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. You're making a distinction between the two based on absolutely nothing. I'm willing to bet people were wearing things on their head long before they were ritualizing coupling pairs being bonded through the symbology of a ring.
I'm making a distinction based on exactly what I said: certain head coverings are almost universally seen as a religious symbol, whereas wedding rings are really not, no matter how many times a few of you keep trying to make fetch happen.
The point is that the distinction for head wrappings is being made out of ignorance and is therefore invalid for the same reason you're saying wedding rings should be.
In case anyone is interested, the CBC has a one-pager giving a breakdown and simple critique of all the major party platforms leading up to the election here:
If bill 21 was drafted out of a fear of religion encroaching on the province, were these issues ever documented anywhere? Are there actual examples of religion swaying a court decision due to a biased judge? I'm legitimately asking.
Yes. Most of Québec's history for the past three generations, including the Revolution Tranquille and the rise of nationalism and sovereignty, can trace its roots in this period of provincial history.
In case anyone is interested, the CBC has a one-pager giving a breakdown and simple critique of all the major party platforms leading up to the election here:
Useful for those who may not be up to date and need a primer.
Weird.... I don't see "be evil" on there for the conservatives or the PPC....
They just used a lot of paraphrases for it. I especially liked the one about collaborating with First Nations that want to develop energy projects. So much unsaid there...
If bill 21 was drafted out of a fear of religion encroaching on the province, were these issues ever documented anywhere? Are there actual examples of religion swaying a court decision due to a biased judge? I'm legitimately asking.
Yes. Most of Québec's history for the past three generations, including the Revolution Tranquille and the rise of nationalism and sovereignty, can trace its roots in this period of provincial history.
Ok.... And where was this fear for the last 30 years?
Because no one I know in my experience had even the slightest problem with the current churches.
People wearing funny hat's though.... I knew a lot of folks that had issues there.
If bill 21 was drafted out of a fear of religion encroaching on the province, were these issues ever documented anywhere? Are there actual examples of religion swaying a court decision due to a biased judge? I'm legitimately asking.
Yes. Most of Québec's history for the past three generations, including the Revolution Tranquille and the rise of nationalism and sovereignty, can trace its roots in this period of provincial history.
Ok.... And where was this fear for the last 30 years?
Because no one I know in my experience had even the slightest problem with the current churches.
People wearing funny hat's though.... I knew a lot of folks that had issues there.
People were too busy ridiculing religious beliefs to be afraid. The fact that some people still cared about religion came as a nasty shock to them.
Posts
MWO: Adamski
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
I have done so loudly and consistently. And progressives living here do so just as loudly and consistently - and we welcome other provinces to do the same.
I also criticize the Trudeau government repeatedly because they’ve sacrificed progressive values in the altar of expediency. This is a rare occasion when they aren’t doing that, and I think it’s laudable.
I -wish- they’d do it more often.
The conversation topic isn't what people in this thread feel about those things.
If you don't want to respond to what I'm saying then don't respond.
Right back at you.
Actually, yes it is. The topic was you saying Trudeau coming out against Bill 21 would cost him the election. That's not fact. That's not truth. It's your feeling about the matter. And you feel that a Prime Minister speaking out against xenophobia will cost him the election. I disagree. And your blatant whataboutism doesn't change that.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
It might not give more seats to the PC, but it would certainly help the BQ, since at least some of those voters switched from the BQ to the PLC last time.
Trudeau should not support bill 21, but unless he’s willing to reopen the constitution to get rid of the notwithstanding clause and redefine areas of responsibility, he should avoid the topic as much as possible, and he should 100% avoid talking about fighting it.
Not bothering with translations is not going to help either.
I think there's some projection going on here.
Guys, no one in this thread wants to eradicate Quebecois culture. There are even other Francophones who would love to see more French in Canada.
Yes, there were threats to the culture in the past. No one is denying that. But xenophobic legislation like Bill 21 is just yesterday's marginalized group carrying on an ugly tradition. If anything, people are as upset as they are about it because we know Quebec can be better than that. (Also, you're the second biggest province. You're going to get attention when things like this happen).
First of all it's not my opinion. I posted last page (or the page before, it's been going quickly) the polls showing a 7% drop for the LPC in Québec since Trudeau picked up the subject.
Second, my whataboutism was in response to TubularLuggage saying "if any of the other provinces did anything like this, Trudeau would stand up against it" and the general feeling in the thread tha Québec is trying to shield itself unfairly against criticism and threats that other provinces would receive openly. My point is that lots of other provinces did similar things and Trudeau did not stand up against it and those provinces were spared the criticism and threats that Québec is receiving. Whether or not people in this thread were upset about those events (and they were, I fully acknowledge that) is not relevant to the argument we were having about Trudeau.
Third, you're once again describing what Trudeau did as opposing xenophobia, as if (1) it actually accomplished anything against xenophobia, which it didn't, and (2) it was the only way, or even the best way, to oppose xenophobia, which it wasn't.
I don't know if you'll believe me, but when I wrote my first post on this Bill 21 debacle, I actually had a line in my post to the effect of "Maybe Trudeau will take a shit on the French langauge next to finish killing off his chances in Québec." Then I felt it was far too cynical and I deleted it before posting.
Then this happened.
That's one of the differences.
You also keep superposing your interpretation of events in the province, completely ignoring any nuances added by people who are actually living there. The rest of the country might not care about federal-provincial power, but a large chunk of Québécois votes purely on that. That's a good way of losing votes.
Same thing about the soft support for bill 21 caused by antireligious sentiment. It can be reduced, or removed, by actually talking and presenting arguments. Not so much by lumping them with the actual xenophobes. Just because antireligious sentiments are not common in your province doesn't mean they are not common in Québec.
Alberta get a lot of heat about a lot of things..... And should. We deserve it. If we can't take the criticism then clearly we don't have enough arguments to back our positions.
I'm not sure if it's that you are living in a cultural bubble but thinking that QC is the only province that cares about Federal powers is cute. Literally not a day goes by where you don't see an editorial about transfer payments, pipelines or environmental regulations here. Say "Carbon tax' out loud and people's eyes start bulging out of their heads.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to pretend that QC is not going down a dark fucking path with CLEARLY TARGETED RACIAL LEGISLATION. If they were at all serious about being "secular" I would love to see the cops with cross tattoo's and teachers with wedding rings losing their jobs but so far it just seems to be 100% POC.
I'm not going to be a good German and keep my mouth shut, you know?
Yeah, that's how laicite works. Which sprung, both in France and much later in Quebec, as blowback against the Catholic Church more then anything. In that context the lack of overt religious symbolism makes a lot more sense since it's not anywhere near as heavy a lift given the general lack of mandates for overt religious dress there.
Yep. That's where the soft support for bill 21 is coming from: absolute terror that religion is invading the public place again and will, once more, be imposed on everyone, like in the bad old times.
You can reduce that soft support by talking about all the problems that are not addressed by bill 21, and how what it actually does is not really useful to protect us against the imposition of religious norms. Going on about xenophobia is not useful in that case, since that soft support is not rooted in xenophobia.
In the case where someone support bill 21 because of xenophobia, well, you can tell pretty quickly, and then you can just insult them.
Not of which is going to help with the many, many voters who oppose bill 21, but oppose federal intervention in provincial matters even more.
Especially when you start just lumping every measures taken to protect Québec's culture with bill 21.
What, they’re worried about the creeping influence of Sharia law? And this is supposed to make me feel less contemptuous of their position?
This is some serious bullshit. ‘It’s about anti-religious feelings against the Catholics (as if that bigotry is supposed to make it better) but never mind that the actual impact on Catholics will be minimal and will instead hit disturbingly furrin looking types.
Thanks for the great example of superposition.
It's not about Sharia law. It's about religion in the public sphere. All of them. Including Catholicism. That's why I didn't mention Sharia law.
Cool.
Tell me one rule they put in place that generally targets whites.
Also, get back to me when they ban wedding rings.... That Judeao Christian symbol of marriage.
Funny thing about wedding rings: when I mention them, the conclusion is either that the whole thing is indeed pointless and should be scrapped, or that wedding rings should be added to the list.
It's one of the best way to attack soft support for bill 21.
Also, this is so reductive it's crazy.
It's the fear of brown people religion.... Even the last PQ attempt at this specifically exempted christian symbols.... To the extent of exempting the giant cross in the assembly.
The CAQ just had the political savvy to realize that would not fly and made sure the law was tailored to generally not affect Christians.
You are really bending over backwards to paint this as some stance against religion when it's blatantly Quebec being xenophobic about protecting their "culture" I.E racial demographics.
Cool.
why were they exempt if all other religious symbols were banned?
Wedding rings both predate Christianity and are also widely used in secular society with zero religious meaning.
So are head coverings.
And yet one is banned and the other is not.... Could it be because generally non-whites are the ones rocking the head coverings?
Small town Quebec is still the most over racist places I have ever been and people here seem to be trying their best to take race out of the Question... When this is the same place that wanted a charter on new immigrant behavior and has a government that has been very anti-immigration.
Anyway, good for Trudeau on standing up for the people that just want to live their lives without being targeted.
Someone taking off their Kippah in class doesn't remove their religious influence (if they were actually doing that in the first place!). Also, you can look at what people actually do instead of what they wear and accomplish the same thing.
Finally, this implies that the rest of the country is unprotected from the takeover of religion in all our public spheres which is total bullshit.
A group of xenophobes are using it to be xenophobes, and to get the votes of other xenophobes, but this only works because most people don't think too much about it and get convinced by fear of the return of religion.
If anything, they see non-Catholic religions as a Trojan horse for the church.
Point out all the Catholic practices that are allowed, and that support drop significantly.
EDIT: also, yes, small towns Québec are deeply racist. That's the hard support. Personally, I don't bother talking to them. Save time.
Given that I have voted for a party that was promising to reduce my quality of life because it was the only one with a chance of winning opposing the charter of xenophobia, I think it's rather obvious I'm oppose to it. It's also a good idea to understand why some people are not opposed to it... It helps convincing them.
It's because head coverings of a certain type are widely viewed as being a religious symbol whereas wedding rings are not. Frankly, I think the vast majority of people would be deeply confused at the idea that wedding rings are a christian symbol.
You can't take race out of the issue but you also can't take the cultural backdrop out of the issue either. The history of french secularism looms over this, especially given how recent that history is in Quebec.
Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. You're making a distinction between the two based on absolutely nothing. I'm willing to bet people were wearing things on their head long before they were ritualizing coupling pairs being bonded through the symbology of a ring.
If bill 21 was drafted out of a fear of religion encroaching on the province, were these issues ever documented anywhere? Are there actual examples of religion swaying a court decision due to a biased judge? I'm legitimately asking. Because the timing of the bill when you look at the added context of immigration across Canada seems incredibly suspect...
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/party-platforms/
Useful for those who may not be up to date and need a primer.
I'm making a distinction based on exactly what I said: certain head coverings are almost universally seen as a religious symbol, whereas wedding rings are really not, no matter how many times a few of you keep trying to make fetch happen.
Weird.... I don't see "be evil" on there for the conservatives or the PPC....
And wow, the PPC's platform gets batshit in places.
Yes. Most of Québec's history for the past three generations, including the Revolution Tranquille and the rise of nationalism and sovereignty, can trace its roots in this period of provincial history.
They just used a lot of paraphrases for it. I especially liked the one about collaborating with First Nations that want to develop energy projects. So much unsaid there...
Ok.... And where was this fear for the last 30 years?
Because no one I know in my experience had even the slightest problem with the current churches.
People wearing funny hat's though.... I knew a lot of folks that had issues there.
People were too busy ridiculing religious beliefs to be afraid. The fact that some people still cared about religion came as a nasty shock to them.