Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Perhaps I need to clarify my position. I'm actually not totally against Bill 21 with regards to judges, police officers and prison guards being subject to limitations on their dress code. Those occupations carry enormous power and the uniforms they wear are a direct representation of that power and authority. Therein lies a valid reason for having a restrictive dress code. An administrative civil servant or school teacher, on the other hand, is essentially permitted to wear just about any clothes, as long as it remains professional.

Thanks for clarifying. As I said before, I am on the fence for teachers. I understand the arguments of both side. Teachers don't have coercition power (and contrary to what a teenager might thing, detention is not the same as prison). But they do have a lot of influence on young people at a very sensitive stage of their lives.

Beside judges, police officers, prison guards and teachers, I think the only main public servants affected by Bill 21 are prosecutors (rightfully so, I think). Other public servants don't hold coercitive power.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Interesting. As for me, moderate Muslim women in my entourage are the ones who convinced me to oppose stuff like Bill 21.

In the (admittedly distant) past I would have been strongly for this law.

I can see why ex-Muslims may support it*, but I admit I'm confused about moderate ones as well. I try and avoid wading in as much as possible (it's not my province/culture), but it occasionally comes up on my personal social media from acquaintances in Quebec. Self-selecting bias but those predominantly from Montreal don't, including a mostly secular Jewish person who considers it to be discriminatory.

A lot of this comes down to what one considers to be human rights (inalienable or otherwise), which is a muddied topic to say the least.


*I grew up around a lot of Mormons and have a personal distaste for the religion (for reasons) but also fascinated with it. Ex-Mormons are some of the most vehemently opposed to the religion, which is understandable.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by begratto

I’ll guess that Muslim women that Acajack knows are mostly from Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco (and maybe Lebanon) while MolsonExport would know Muslim women from more conservative Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

This would certainly affect the way they view the question. Immigrants from the Maghreb, having come to Quebec to escape their countries’ conservatism in many cases, can be the most strongly in favour of bill 21.

This is a good point. In my experience I would have to add Jordanians in the more moderate category. Growing up I had freinds from Jordan. Not a single woman in the their families wore any type of religious clothing. They were very laid back and freindly people.

Grew up with quite a few Lebanese people around but they were almost all Christians.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Would it be protected if a religion decided it was now mandatory for their followers to drive fast? Like some people can bring a knife to school under religious pretenses.

I've got my eye on a V8/RWD car right now (material for another thread!) so I'm thinking, I might have to start a Lioian Sub-Branch of Pastafarianism under which it's totally heretical to drive under 150 km/h on the freeway

It's either that, or a radar detector.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I apologize if I may have the impatience of someone who has repeated something many times, but this is true in my case.

I understand. I'm not consistently active on this forum so I haven't seen everything you've said in the past. There's far too many pages to sift through everything, so I apologize if this discussion is making you repeat yourself.

Originally Posted by Acajack

So what you just described is a very Anglosphere view of society and societal evolution. There are other views out there when it comes to such matters, and in perhaps the most relevant one to our discussion, there is in French (and therefore francophone) sociology and political science, the idea that society can and should be "steered" in a desirable direction.

If you consider this, then you understand where Bill 21 is coming from. Even if you don't agree with it.

It's the same philosophy that's behind Bill 101, which over four decades later anglophones both inside and outside Quebec still haven't really gotten over.

It's OK and even normal to have views consistent with one's ideological sphere, but the truly open-minded person at least recognizes that there other ways out there of viewing the exact same thing we're all looking at.

I mean, you guys all seem able to do that with traditionalist Islam, even if none of you are believers of that faith.

Why is it so hard to do the same when it comes to Quebec?

Hmmm, I'm struggling to see this. I don't think the idea that society should be "steered" in a desirable direction is necessarily foreign to the anglosphere. I mean, laws are being enacted here in Canada and across the anglosphere to steer society towards environmentally sustainability, for example. We're also going in a direction which attempts to normalize and support the LGBTQ community.

While there are multiple ways of looking at Bill 21, it's difficult not to see it as the will of the majority being imposed on minorities with little more than popular sentiment driving the rationale - sentiment which seems to be based on generalizations and misunderstandings of certain religious symbols more than anything. IMO, that equates to empowering ignorance and allowing it to bully minorities into submission.

If that's the French way of doing things, I can't pretend that I'm fine with it. I don't exactly see France as a good example to follow either. They banned women from wearing what are essentially scuba-like wetsuits (burkini) on public beaches because they are so vehemently anti-hijab. France also has a serious issue with the marginalization and segregation of minorities, which contributes to radicalization, racial tension and violence. Is that direction Quebec wants to follow?

I think Canada's way has been significantly better when it comes to managing a racially and culturally diverse society. Not perfect, but better.

[Binour]

I follow this thread since a little while.

As far as I know, the Catholic school boards in Ontario are publicly funded, and this privilege is not available for other religions. This is what I call religious discrimination.

And if you think that the word «catholic» has no meaning or is just symbolic, look at the requests for being a teacher in a catholic school (eastern Ontario catholic school board for instance).

You will have to provide «a pastoral letter of reference dated within the last 12 months, or completed Priest Reference Form (available under Resource Downloads»

And the mission of the school is: «Inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ, we transform the world with justice and peace through Catholic education»

All this being completely publicly funded, and not available to other religions, in the inclusive Ontario. LMAO!

https://www.cdsbeo.on.ca/our-board/m...-vision-theme/

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Why is it so hard to do the same when it comes to Quebec?

Because Québec is a province of Canada. If Québec was a neighboring foreign country, I suppose they couldn't give a fig how Québec legislates these things.

You have to admit it, it will be like that for as long as Québec remains a province of Canada. But then the Québécois seem to be fine with that as they voted twice against independence and don't seem too keen to vote a 3rd time.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Binour

I follow this thread since a little while.

As far as I know, the Catholic school boards in Ontario are publicly funded, and this privilege is not available for other religions. This is what I call religious discrimination.

And if you think that the word «catholic» has no meaning or is just symbolic, look at the requests for being a teacher in a catholic school (eastern Ontario catholic school board for instance).

You will have to provide «a pastoral letter of reference dated within the last 12 months, or completed Priest Reference Form (available under Resource Downloads»

And the mission of the school is: «Inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ, we transform the world with justice and peace through Catholic education»

All this being completely publicly funded, and not available to other religions, in the inclusive Ontario. LMAO!

https://www.cdsbeo.on.ca/our-board/m...-vision-theme/

It's truly ridiculous and I wish Ontario would follow Quebec's footsteps in that regard.

[Binour]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It's truly ridiculous and I wish Ontario would follow Quebec's footsteps in that regard.

It's not ridiculous, it is discriminating other religions, period. Shame on you Ontario!!!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I understand. I'm not consistently active on this forum so I haven't seen everything you've said in the past. There's far too many pages to sift through everything, so I apologize if this discussion is making you repeat yourself.



Hmmm, I'm struggling to see this. I don't think the idea that society should be "steered" in a desirable direction is necessarily foreign to the anglosphere. I mean, laws are being enacted here in Canada and across the anglosphere to steer society towards environmentally sustainability, for example. We're also going in a direction which attempts to normalize and support the LGBTQ community.

While there are multiple ways of looking at Bill 21, it's difficult not to see it as the will of the majority being imposed on minorities with little more than popular sentiment driving the rationale - sentiment which seems to be based on generalizations and misunderstandings of certain religious symbols more than anything. IMO, that equates to empowering ignorance and allowing it to bully minorities into submission.

If that's the French way of doing things, I can't pretend that I'm fine with it. I don't exactly see France as a good example to follow either. They banned women from wearing what are essentially scuba-like wetsuits (burkini) on public beaches because they are so vehemently anti-hijab. France also has a serious issue with the marginalization and segregation of minorities, which contributes to radicalization, racial tension and violence. Is that direction Quebec wants to follow?

I think Canada's way has been significantly better when it comes to managing a racially and culturally diverse society. Not perfect, but better.

I still think the anglophone and francophone approaches are different, which is why the negative term social engineering is what comes to mind in English for what I am talking about whereas in French one might refer to a projet de société, which is positive.

Also, viewing one's approach as "better" is also a very anglo thing. And even very Anglo-Canadian. Most cultures don't view matters and issues as obsessively in those terms. They just do their own thing and live with it.

Haven't you ever had someone from another culture tell you "that's just the way we do things", as if no other explanation was required?

(And damn the torpedoes I guess.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Because Québec is a province of Canada. If Québec was a neighboring foreign country, I suppose they couldn't give a fig how Québec legislates these things.

You have to admit it, it will be like that for as long as Québec remains a province of Canada. But then the Québécois seem to be fine with that as they voted twice against independence and don't seem too keen to vote a 3rd time.

You'd still think that the self-proclaimed world champions for respecting cultural differences would do better than this.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Hmmm, I'm struggling to see this. I don't think the idea that society should be "steered" in a desirable direction is necessarily foreign to the anglosphere. I mean, laws are being enacted here in Canada and across the anglosphere to steer society towards environmentallycommu sustainability, for example. We're also going in a direction which attempts to normalize and support the LGBTQ community.
.

We were already there. It was normalized along time ago. What we are seeing now is something else. We are seeing the government trying to control peoples speech and how people view gender. Some one can now lose their job for saying biological males can't be females or for using the wrong gender pronouns. This is totally backwards.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are you trying to become the TWAK of SSP Canada by calling "dibs" on certain things?
...
As a former francophone from outside Quebec, I know all about this type of thing. Those would be my "dibs".

Yeah, he's a real influencer.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You'd still think that the self-proclaimed world champions for respecting cultural differences would do better than this.

I don't think this is really a bonafide part of Quebec culture, it's more of a reaction to the historic domination, control, and abuse, by the RC church, but perhaps results in the punishment of others for one's own sins, metaphorically. Other jurisdictions have had similar issues, but they were not as singular in the culture, and the reaction is different. I think the language issues come from a similar place, and they are easier to understand, as much as we don't like it.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Luisito

LOL Oh well gee thats great. I mean hey it's good they made it clear they think murder is bad.

Users here seem to want to imply that murdering people is a part of Islam. It's up to others to remind them that isn't the case.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Because Québec is a province of Canada. If Québec was a neighboring foreign country, I suppose they couldn't give a fig how Québec legislates these things.

Quebec would be able to do as it pleases if it were its own country, the same as any other country. They're not, and so here we are.

Originally Posted by Acajack

You'd still think that the self-proclaimed world champions for respecting cultural differences would do better than this.

Misrepresentation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Architype

I don't think this is really a bonafide part of Quebec culture, it's more of a reaction to the historic domination, control, and abuse, by the RC church, but perhaps results in the punishment of others for one's own sins, metaphorically. Other jurisdictions have had similar issues, but they were not as singular in the culture, and the reaction is different. I think the language issues come from a similar place, and they are easier to understand, as much as we don't like it.

I wasn't referring to Québec in that specific post. I was talking about Anglo-Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Misrepresentation.

Same as above. I was talking about Anglo-Canada, not Québec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Users here seem to want to imply that murdering people is a part of Islam. It's up to others to remind them that isn't the case.
.

It's actually part of many if not most religions. Even Christianity. "Obviously" Christianity in fact. It's just that some religions have more thoroughly expunged those fundamental aspects of their tenets than others.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Same as above. I was talking about Anglo-Canada, not Québec.

That's what I was referencing.

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's actually part of many if not most religions. Even Christianity. "Obviously" Christianity in fact. It's just that some religions have more thoroughly expunged those fundamental aspects of their tenets than others.

Murder is pretty much the most major sin in Islam. What you're trying to do is extrapolate the beliefs of small sects of extremists within each religion and portraying that as the fundamental belief of all adherents, which not only is wrong but is dangerous rhetoric to try and carry forward.

We're coming up on the sixth anniversary of the Quebec City mosque shooting and we're not two years removed from the Afzaal family murder in London, both driven by Islamophobia, and are events that we should keep in mind when trying to drive narratives about religious minorities in Canada and the present challenges faced when trying to overcome discrimination and hate-based rhetoric against them.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Murder is pretty much the most major sin in Islam. What you're trying to do is extrapolate the beliefs of small sects of extremists within each religion and portraying that as the fundamental belief of all adherents, which not only is wrong but is dangerous rhetoric to try and carry forward.

We're coming up on the sixth anniversary of the Quebec City mosque shooting and we're not two years removed from the Afzaal family murder in London, both driven by Islamophobia, and are events that we should keep in mind when trying to drive narratives about religious minorities in Canada and the present challenges faced when trying to overcome discrimination and hate-based rhetoric against them.

It doesn't help anyone (starting with Muslims themselves, especially if they live in Muslim-majority countries) to deny that a (large enough) segment of this religion has undergone a tragic and toxic evolution in recent decades.

These attempts to muzzle frank discussions are a perfect example of what is being pushed with respect to anti-blasphemy: legitimate criticism of certain aspects of Islam is equated with islamophobia and, even worse, wanting Muslims dead.