Who will replace Mulcair? (NDP leadership)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

It appears like Anglo-Canadians (and Americans) have more of an attitude like "Christianity (Protestantism) has historically dominated here. Therefore after the weakening of the dominant religion, the dominant religion should be kept out of public life, but religious minorities, who historically haven't got the chance to dominate but were dominated by others, are to be tolerated a bit (perhaps given some leeway for that reason)."

Quebec is more like "Christianity (Catholicism) has historically dominated here. Therefore, after the of weakening the dominant religion, religion in general, whether majority or minority, should be kept out of public life. The question is not whether or not the dominant religion dominates others, both religious minorities or non-religious, but that religion itself should not dominate aspects of non-religious life."

Did Quebec's laïcité come about from a parallel development to (during the Quiet Revolution), or was it influenced by France's laïcité first as a model?

Is it a French vs. Anglo thing, or Anglo-American vs. European thing?

It seems like it originated as a component of the de-ethnicization of the francophone majority group's identity. Prior to that happening, if you were francophone you had French background going back to New France (or Acadia) and were Catholic. Everyone else was assumed to be anglo (or on the path to becoming anglo). We had almost no people of the Joe DiMaggio or Zbigniew Bryzinsky variety who were iconically "of the nation" in spite of being of obviously foreign origins.

More recently there has been a good amount of French influence on this issue. People like Michel Houellebecq and Pascal Bruckner are sometimes discussed by people in the chattering classes, for example.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Prior to that happening, if you were francophone you had French background going back to New France (or Acadia) and were Catholic. Everyone else was assumed to be anglo (or on the path to becoming anglo). We had almost no people of the Joe DiMaggio or Zbigniew Bryzinsky variety who were iconically "of the nation" in spite of being of obviously foreign origins.

What about the Irish Quebecers?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

What about the Irish Quebecers?

They were the notable exception to the rule. And by the late 20th century most of them were likely primarily of French origin anyway with the Irish surname simply passed down by chance through a long sequence of male children and their descendants.

Jean-Jacques Flynn is not likely the son of Euclide Flynn and Marguerite Callaghan, but more like the son of Euclide Flynn and Marguerite Tremblay. And Euclide Flynn is likely the son of Augustin Flynn and Ernestine Dumouchel. And so on...

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They were the notable exception to the rule. And by the late 20th century most of them were likely primarily of French origin anyway with the Irish surname simply passed down by chance through a long sequence of male children and their descendants.

Jean-Jacques Flynn is not likely the son of Euclide Flynn and Marguerite Callaghan, but more like the son of Euclide Flynn and Marguerite Tremblay. And Euclide Flynn is likely the son of Augustin Flynn and Ernestine Dumouchel. And so on...

I've wondered why the Irish assimilated to the "native" Quebecois culture much more than even groups like the Italians.

If it were about religion, why didn't the other Catholic groups assimilate. If it were about language, Italian, Portuguese etc. speak Romance languages even closer than what the Irish immigrants spoke, since they either spoke Irish (or English), neither of which was a Romance language.

[ssiguy]

Whether we think wearing a turban is relevant or not {and I do} that is NOT the point.

People will say that not voting for him because he wears a turban "isn't fair" don't understand politics. Politics is a lot of things but fair is definately not one of them and anyone who thinks it is needs therapy. Of all parties the NDP knows what it's like sitting on the outside looking in and one would think they of all people, after the niqab debate, would know that electing a leader who wears a turban is a minefield. To make matters even worse he has never even sat in the House.

Just the fact that we are having this discussion just a few months after he got elected leader tells a huge story. Whether you love Singh or hate him, are supportive of him wearing a turban or a vehemently opposed to it, or are indifferent to either is not the issue. The issue is that the NDP has made an incredibly moronic choice in leader and it will have cataclysmic repercussions in the next election. Is the word "cataclysmic" a bit of hyperbole?.........I don't think so because I really think this could put the NDP on life support after the next election results are in.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In French the word "pays" is used for regions within countries that don't really have anything nationalistic (or otherwise) that distinguishes them from the larger whole. The most classic example is the Pays de la Loire in France.

Those uses of "pays" would translate to the broader "land", I'd say (I believe that traditionally, in West Germanic languages, the two concepts are somewhat blending into the same word just like they do in modern French).

Place names like Scot-land, Pole-land, etc. would be faithfully translated to "le pays des Écossais", "the homeland of the Scots".

"Country" would most accurately translate in French to "un État".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Meanwhile, as Quebecois moan about Singh's outrageously religious turban, has their "national" assembly finally voted to remove the cross from the legislative chamber?

Just FYI, it's likely not going anywhere, and by the way nor is the cross that's the base of our flag. Sorry...

BTW, it's Singh's right to wear a turban, just as it's anyone's right to not vote for him for whatever reason, good or not.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Just for the record: I also think religious attire is dumb, and would never wear any of it even if I shared their beliefs. I also think it's weird to practice abstinence, not drink alcohol, fast, spend your weekends going to church or temple, or even just believe in some magical entity. But what I think here doesn't matter, because these are all personal, inward-focused beliefs that have no impact on me or others (unlike some of those actually extreme examples of religious fervour I listed earlier) - and most importably, no impact on that person's ability to be a decent person or to do good at their job - political leaders included.

Let's say I'm running for office in the jurisdiction you live in, and I'm on record saying I sincerely believe the Earth is flat. Except for that, my resume looks good. Would you say that one belief of mine has an impact on my ability to do my job? Obviously, strictly speaking, it does not, right? Unless you want to get into extremely specific scenarios (say, I get sent as a representative of my country to an international work meeting to negotiate the allocation of geostationary orbit paths for satellites, etc.) that are unlikely to ever come up anyway. Would that be a deal-breaker for you or not?

Yes, as a practicing Sikh he obviously believes in a higher power. Is your problem therefore that he believes in a higher power at all, or specifically, that he believes in a higher power that prohibits him from showing his hair? If it's the former, then do you not also have a problem with every other Canadian PM & party leader? And if the latter, does the hair thing specifically make his god egregiously worse than Trudeau & Scheer's - enough so as to make you not even consider voting for him or his party (ignoring the fact that you'd probably never vote NDP to begin with)?

It's a continuum. If someone semi-consciously believes in a vaguely-defined higher power somewhere, it ranks pretty low on the nuttiness spectrum.

The weirder and more of a nuisance the particular tenets of the flying spaghetti monster you actually decide to go out of your way to faithfully obey, the nuttier you are.

Someone who forces themselves to starve all day long for a whole month every year is more of a religious nut than someone who doesn't, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I've wondered why the Irish assimilated to the "native" Quebecois culture much more than even groups like the Italians.

If it were about religion, why didn't the other Catholic groups assimilate. If it were about language, Italian, Portuguese etc. speak Romance languages even closer than what the Irish immigrants spoke, since they either spoke Irish (or English), neither of which was a Romance language.

A lot of the Irish element comes from orphans adopted by francophone families. The parents of these kids died on ships or in quarantine at Grosse Ile. But they kept their Irish surnames.

Look up heritage minute irish orphans on youtube.

[Acajack]

Still with Irish vs Italians the migrations happened under different circumstances and eras. The Irish came much earlier when Quebec was much more rural and pre-industrial. The Italians came when Quebec had become an urban and industrialized society.

The relative disadvantages of being francophone were much more apparent and acute by then.

[lio45]

Exactly, the Italians/Portuguese/Greek all automatically arrived in urban, anglophone-heavy Montreal which was the place to be at the time.

There are various little rural towns that have significant Irish heritage in several areas of the province, but you don't see that at all with the later groups, up to and including obviously the present era -- for example Manitoba probably doesn't have rural towns founded and built by Filipinos, they're likely all in Winnipeg, etc.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by lio45

BTW, it's Singh's right to wear a turban, just as it's anyone's right to not vote for him for whatever reason, good or not.

I don't think anyone is debating his right to wear a turban, it's just the fact it was an incredibly stupid decision to vote him in as leader. The NDP are going to pay dearly for this and, unfortunately for Sheer, so are the Conservatives. Anyone who would consider voting for the NDP but won't vote for Singh is a defacto Liberal vote as none will go to the Conservatives. The only ones besides the Liberals who could possibly make gains over this are the BLOC.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Because Quebec isn't a nation.

Nation does not always mean a sovereign country. We have First Nations for example.

Quebec is more of a cultural and societal nation. "Nation" is often used there instead of "province" and "national" is often used instead of "provincial." And even very pro-Canada federalists use those terms.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I've wondered why the Irish assimilated to the "native" Quebecois culture much more than even groups like the Italians.

If it were about religion, why didn't the other Catholic groups assimilate. If it were about language, Italian, Portuguese etc. speak Romance languages even closer than what the Irish immigrants spoke, since they either spoke Irish (or English), neither of which was a Romance language.

It's interesting that you bring up Italian-Canadians. Timmins is a place where you will find a lot of people who are of half Italian and half French-Canadian descent. Most of them speak French fluently, they all speak English but almost all don't speak even a bit of Italian.

But I do know people here where both parents immigrated from Italy, they spoke only Italian at home, but they went to a French-language school and can speak both French and English perfectly. They can even be mistaken for being a francophone.

And on another note, there are some francophones here who have Irish surnames. A couple I can think of off the top of my head are McManus and Johnson.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's a continuum. If someone semi-consciously believes in a vaguely-defined higher power somewhere, it ranks pretty low on the nuttiness spectrum.

The weirder and more of a nuisance the particular tenets of the flying spaghetti monster you actually decide to go out of your way to faithfully obey, the nuttier you are.

Someone who forces themselves to starve all day long for a whole month every year is more of a religious nut than someone who doesn't, etc.

I guess you just mean that somebody who is nutty is irrational, and believes things even when they go against evidence and reason?

If so I disagree that these beliefs necessarily have to do with nuttiness.

If you're born into a community like the Sikhs, there is a huge social advantage to following along and doing what you are supposed to. There is almost no cost to vague belief in a higher power. There's very little cost to wearing a turban. So you can be completely rational and claim to believe these things. Sometimes the social benefit to belonging to a group (or cost to leave) is so high that it is greater than the cost of some pretty demanding beliefs and behaviours.

Human psychology being what it is, it's easier to just believe stuff than it is to pretend to believe, and sometimes believing just happens after pretending. So a lot of people probably aren't faking it and yet in a sense are still being rational in the way that matters. They have a utility-maximizing set of beliefs.

(Note: I am not endorsing religion at all. But maybe I would if that were the only way to keep all of my friends and family from disowning me or worse. )

[PhantomSwami]

I have always lurked on this forum but after reading the last few pages of this thread there seems to be a lack of understanding of Sikhs and Sikhism despite them being quite visible. I come from an agnostic Sikh Punjabi family no one really wears the turban. Maybe half of all Sikhs wear a turban. First of all the turban itself is not religious rather it is the idea of uncut hair. The turban itself is just a way to keep the hair out of the way and clean. For instance, a BC Sikh musician called Saint Solider is a devout Sikh and does not always wear a turban he often just leaves his hair up or tied back sometimes he even wears a toque!

In Sikhism like other Indian religions there really is no baptism or conversion however, there is a ceremony for very orthodox Sikhs where they are not allowed to cut their hair. It is a choice. Most believe that cutting and styling hair (body and facial hair as well) takes away from natural beauty and feeds the ego. The body is seen is temporary and the whole point of life is to skip the life cycle and reincarnation and for your soul to join eventually join that of god.

Another reason for long hair and beards is that during the time it was implemented Hindus and Muslims were killing each other over religion there were a lot of forced conversions. Sikhs adopted long hair and turbans as a way to signal their religion to keep them from being wrongly identified as Muslim or Hindu. Later the turban served as an important reminder and symbol of Sikh identity during a lot of religious conflicts in India. For instance, around the partition of India where there many riots that led to Sikh deaths by Muslims demanding the creation of Pakistan. Later many Sikhs were killed in 1984 after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. These incidents led to the turban being seen as a symbol for Sikhism and it became proudly embraced. The state of Punjab where most Indian Sikhs live is on the border with Pakistan and there is a lot of trauma there from communal violence and the partition.

Sikhs are a minority even in India they are only the fourth largest religion after Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Despite being silly to some the turban has a complex history in Sikh communities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

It's interesting that you bring up Italian-Canadians. Timmins is a place where you will find a lot of people who are of half Italian and half French-Canadian descent. Most of them speak French fluently, they all speak English but almost all don't speak even a bit of Italian.

But I do know people here where both parents immigrated from Italy, they spoke only Italian at home, but they went to a French-language school and can speak both French and English perfectly. They can even be mistaken for being a francophone.

.

Wouldn't artist Clément Berini be an example of that?

[ssiguy]

PhantomSwami......................Thank you for the post is was very informative and interesting.

All things being equal it shouldn't matter what his faith is but this is politics and things are not equal or as I stated above, fair. Voters WILL view it as a religious expression and although perhaps they shouldn't, that doesn't matter. Politics is about perception and fairness and equality matter little. The burqa has absolutely nothing to do with Islam as a religion and in fact woman are not allowed to wear it when making the pilgramage to Mecca but that doesn't change the fact that people view it as a religious symbol.

He was voted in as the leader of a national party and you don't do that because he/her is a swell person. The first, last, and second priority for a leader is to get into power. They are going for the nation's top job and anything that is seen as too controversial inhibits that. Canadians don't like religion interferring with their government as we see the repurcussions of that in many countries in the world including our southern neighbour. Canadians want secular government where policy {hypothetically} is determined in a manner than is not based on religious beliefs and voting in anyone that looks to stand in contrast to that view {whether fairly or not} is an incredibly stupid political move.

[whatnext]

So what's this about Jagmeet Singh getting married, maybe?

http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...t-say-for-sure

[esquire]

^ That would be easier to accept if just about every, if not every single PM in Canadian history wasn't Christian. I realize there is a spectrum that they might fall along from hardcore practicing Christian to somewhat nominal Christian in name only, but the point is that religious party leaders are nothing new in Canada and it remains the case today. No question that Scheer and Singh are religious, Trudeau probably is Catholic in that Quebec kind of way where you identify with Catholic heritage but that's about the extent of it. I don't know about the Bloc's leader but I'd wager it's not far off from the standard Quebec model that Trudeau follows.

So if it's not an issue that Scheer (or Harper before him) and Trudeau are Christian, let's say, then what is the matter with Singh? The mere fact that he doesn't cut his hair and wraps it in a turban is a bridge too far? At this point it's starting to look a bit like racism. If the issue here is not wanting to vote for someone who professes a faith, why does only the brown guy get singled out? It doesn't make sense.