Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[Architype]

Originally Posted by lio45

Since we’ve had, for a long time, well-established and well-accepted rules for cops and judges and government employees, it becomes a binary question: do we want to formally grant the veil a special law-trumping status, or do we not want to do that?

The people of this province are strongly in favor of the latter. Hence, Bill 21.

If you want to wear the veil, fine, do it on your own time.

If you’d rather throw your career in the trash over this, that’s duly noted; we don’t need more crazies, everyone will be better off if you move to Ontario. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Why is it such an issue in Quebec but not in other places?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Architype

Why is it such an issue in Quebec but not in other places?

Because in Quebec the working class still matters.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Because in Quebec the working class still matters.

So it's okay to discriminate or fire people based on ethnic tradition or religious garb, because it may offend the less enlightened folk, thus respecting normal prejudicial xenophobic biases. Remember that Archie Bunker was iconically representative of the working class mentality. Of course there are happy mediums to be found, acceptable normality finds its own level socioeconomically, and doesn't really need to be legislated.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

Why is it such an issue in Quebec but not in other places?

Pretty sure it’s an issue in most places. It’s the Anglosphere with its “When in Rome, demand that the Romans adapt to you” view that is the exception, not the other way around.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Architype

So it's okay to discriminate or fire people based on ethnic tradition or religious garb, because it may offend the less enlightened folk, thus respecting normal prejudicial xenophobic biases. Remember that Archie Bunker was iconically representative of the working class mentality. Of course there are happy mediums to be found, acceptable normality finds its own level socioeconomically, and doesn't really need to be legislated.

There’s no discrimination: the cases discussed are perfect examples of the purest absence of discrimination (“here’s the uniform and here are the regulations; take it or leave it”)

Unless you’re using a definition that’s so grotesquely expanded as to be dysfunctional: where it would be “discrimination” for a hospital to refuse to hire some random crackhead as chief neurosurgeon right now, for example.

[JHikka]

Guess i'll feed the trolls one last time.

Originally Posted by lio45

If you’re on the side of the people who oppose the Iranian theocracy, you know that one of the main things they’re fighting for is getting rid of the veil? How is that compatible with actively opposing Bill 21? “Anti-veil when it’s Iran, pro-veil when it’s Quebec” is not consistent, it’s trolling / Quebec bashing.

Aside from your general logic being flawed, the goal isn't to 'get rid of the veil'; it's to guarantee that women have the option to choose. Something that civil servants in Quebec currently do not have, lest they lose their job.

Originally Posted by lio45

There’s no discrimination: the cases discussed are perfect examples of the purest absence of discrimination (“here’s the uniform and here are the regulations; take it or leave it”)

There is discrimination: minority religious rights are being violated. Various courts and experts have already confirmed this numerous times. Quebecers seem fine with it.

[lio45]

“Comply with your workplace’s rules, lest you lose your job” is not discrimination. All civilized societies operate like this. People lose their jobs all the time due to having broken some rule or another. It’s life.

If you decide to piss in a customer’s coffee while working at Tim’s, it’s not “discrimination” (nor “genocide”) for your boss to fire you over it. There were rules, you could have followed them and kept your job, but you didn’t.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by lio45

“Comply with your workplace’s rules, lest you lose your job” is not discrimination. All civilized societies operate like this. People lose their jobs all the time due to having broken some rule or another. It’s life.

It's discrimination against religious minorities, violating rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief, under both the Canadian and Quebec Charters. No amount of goalpost-moving or red herrings can change that fact.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Architype

So it's okay to discriminate or fire people based on ethnic tradition or religious garb, because it may offend the less enlightened folk, thus respecting normal prejudicial xenophobic biases. Remember that Archie Bunker was iconically representative of the working class mentality. Of course there are happy mediums to be found, acceptable normality finds its own level socioeconomically, and doesn't really need to be legislated.

That is not what I meant. Upholding secularism is not discriminatory. Please stop.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's discrimination against religious minorities, .

You do realize Christians are not exempt from these rules right? Anyone is allowed to practice any religion they like in Quebec.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Architype

So it's okay to discriminate or fire people based on ethnic tradition or religious garb, because it may offend the less enlightened folkd.

That's a actually pretty condescending and discriminatory comment itself. Pretty typical elitist liberal attitude.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Luisito

That's a actually pretty condescending and discriminatory comment itself. Pretty typical elitist liberal attiude.

Actually, I can see points on both sides, not to worry. I think Canada is already a very secular country.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Architype

Actually, I can see points on both sides, not to worry. I think Canada is already a very secular country.

Ultimately, yes.

I think there's also a difference in what different people mean by secularism.

In both cases I think the end goal is to limit the influence of religion in decision-making and the public sphere. One approach tends to treat religion as a mostly-inherited, mostly-immutable cultural quality that a person simply is, and the process of secularization involves treating all religions as equally valid, with the aim that no one should be disadvantaged due to their religion not aligning with that of the majority/decision-makers. It's considered oppressive to prevent someone from adhering to their religion.

The other approach tends to treat religion mostly as a philosophy and/or set of rules that a person can choose to follow/adopt or discard/ignore, and the process of secularization involves treating all religions as equally invalid. Religion is largely viewed unfavourably as a tool of oppression.

I don't really think either approach is "wrong" necessarily, but they're at odds with each other. I would say that most of Anglo-Canada is "Type A", while Quebec (and much of Europe) is "Type B". The US mainstream is sort of "Type A" as well, but "not very secular" is probably a better description for most of the States.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's discrimination against religious minorities, violating rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief, under both the Canadian and Quebec Charters. No amount of goalpost-moving or red herrings can change that fact.

Neither the Canadian nor the Quebec Charters taken in a narrow literal interpretation are the final definitive unchallengeable words on what abhorrent or unacceptable discrimination actually are.

They are just lists of rules to live by that certain humans made up for themselves (and others) at a specific point in time.

Humans redefine their rules all the time.

I mean, we even redefine the rules and definition of murder - as we have been doing with medically-assisted dying.

So yeah people can have different opinions on what discrimination is.

[Acajack]

Ý

Originally Posted by Hali87

Ultimately, yes.

I think there's also a difference in what different people mean by secularism.

In both cases I think the end goal is to limit the influence of religion in decision-making and the public sphere. One approach tends to treat religion as a mostly-inherited, mostly-immutable cultural quality that a person simply is, and the process of secularization involves treating all religions as equally valid, with the aim that no one should be disadvantaged due to their religion not aligning with that of the majority/decision-makers. It's considered oppressive to prevent someone from adhering to their religion.

The other approach tends to treat religion mostly as a philosophy and/or set of rules that a person can choose to follow/adopt or discard/ignore, and the process of secularization involves treating all religions as equally invalid. Religion is largely viewed unfavourably as a tool of oppression.

I don't really think either approach is "wrong" necessarily, but they're at odds with each other. I would say that most of Anglo-Canada is "Type A", while Quebec (and much of Europe) is "Type B". The US mainstream is sort of "Type A" as well, but "not very secular" is probably a better description for most of the States.

At least in my definition, Type A inasmuch as it allows people who are religious (because it's innate and unchangeable) to be exempted from the same rules everyone else must follow, isn't really secular. Since the same exemptions are not available to people with other beliefs or preferences.

Religion in such cases is treated as "special" and is subtly revered.

Which is why in the US and other countries it has come to have such an influence on public policy. I mean, duh. That's the whole point.

Most very religious people would at least passively view in a positive light the idea that all of society (in aome cases all of the world) would live according to their religion's ways. When there is an opportunity for that to happen, they will go along with it even if prior to that most wouldn't be actively working towards that goal at all.

Type A is in theory an open door to that type of evolution happening. It's also naïve in its view that the risk of it happening is almost nil. Its end goal isn't to limit religion's influence at all. It's "whatever happens, happens".

Type B locks down the door on that type of thing.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

Actually, I can see points on both sides, not to worry. I think Canada is already a very secular country.

Canada is a very secular country in practice but the ROC does not really have secularism as a societal value anymore.

Its values on this front are more extreme (do not view this word as negative) deference and reverence for cultural and religious differences - which in the latter case especially can entail exceptions to and bending of collective rules and such.

This is not necessarily a bad thing but it's not secularism.

I don't think it's happened (yet) but while some might see it as peak enlightened diversity, having a judge or a cop representing the state and wearing a niqab or burqa, isn't secularism either.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

Why is it such an issue in Quebec but not in other places?

Pretty weak.

It's an issue in a dozen or so European countries including many EU members. Several have even stricter laws on the books or have them in the works.

Even some Muslim majority countries have these types of laws.

They often go much further and sometimes ban the garb when simply walking down the street, or attending university classes as a student.

In many cases they actually explicitly focus just on one religion and its garb, as opposed to Québec which treats all of them equitably.

But sure yeah Québec is not equitable between people who follow the rules and those who want to sidestep the rules by invoking religion.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by theman23

Muslims make up 4.8% of the population of Quebec, versus 6.7% in Ontario and 4.8 % in Alberta. Didn’t realize that was considered a big difference.

Source?

Also, your Muslim Gujarati merchant is not exactly the same thing as a Muslim North African in terms of conservatism and above all proselytism.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I guess the conservative Islamic world and the Francophonie both share an affinity for positive rights...

Not sure at at all that we have much in common, but "positive rights" (assuming we're talking about the same thing) are generally seen as a step forward in the evolution of human rights.

On a somewhat related issue, it's true that since Iranian women started (rather inconveniently for some people in the West, it seems) fighting to remove their modesty head coverings, the forces of anti-secularism in France, Quebec and other societies (including those that like to bash on the latter) have been trying really really hard to sell the image that "Iran and Quebec/France = two sides of the same coin". In that both are ordering women around - one orders them to wear it, the other orders them to take it off.

I guess they've also been trying really hard to find mass graves here of women who refused to take their hijabs off to occupy jobs with a dress code, but so far they've come up short.

As Emmanuel Macron once said not long ago: la laïcité n'a jamais tué personne.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Architype

There is a big difference between not being allowed to do something, and being forced to do that very thing. Democracy isn't necessarily restricted to binary or exclusionary choices, it's rooted in equality and freedom of choice.

What you don't understand, like many people, is that these young women in their immigrant communities are forced to wear it due to peer pressure. By forbidding the veil in schools, for example, it's one of the only way for them to remove it without incurring the wrath of their "brothers".