CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Detroit Red Wings


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 300
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:49 pm
 


Quote:
The Gazette
War of words heats up on secularism

Another shot was fired Saturday in the war of words surrounding the Parti Quebecois government’s controversial secularism charter.

On Friday, Liberal Leader Phillipe Couillard demanded that Premier Pauline Marois apologize for an interview in which she suggested multiculturalism is responsible for people “smashing each other in the face” and “throwing bombs” in England. The following afternoon, Marois responded to the opposition leader by accusing him of “lighting fires” around the issue of secularism in Quebec instead of actually discussing it.

She also clarified while she did use the word “bombs” in an interview with Le Devoir published Friday, Marois was referring metaphorically to a heated debate between British Prime Minister David Cameron and former prime minister Tony Blair.

“I almost couldn’t believe it,” Couillard said of Marois’s comments. “I had to read it two or three times just to be sure. ... To link or associate multiculturalism with violence, particularly interracial violence — I think she should immediately rectify or apologize because this is a very serious way to talk about the communities.”

The PQ’s Charter of Quebec Values would forbid government employees from wearing religious symbols such as kippas, niqabs and head scarves at work in order to keep religion out of the affairs of state. However, the law would allow public-sector employees to wear the Christian crucifix on the job, which has critics of the policy claiming it’s hypocritical and discriminates against religious minorities.

The Liberals and Québec solidaire have rejected the charter’s central tenants as have a number of high profile union leaders and academics. Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has also weighed in on the secularism debate, claiming the charter is xenophobic and beneath the values of Quebec.

However, polling data suggests the majority of Quebecers are in favour of the controversial measures proposed by the PQ. The Coalition Avenir Québec, which holds the balance of power in the National Assembly, supports an amended version of the Charter of Values.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/wor ... story.html

Although I am not Miss Marois's biggest fan (hell I can't even speak French), I do have to agree with parts of her charter. Immigrants who move to our continent from country X need to understand that once here, they need to put aside whatever culture they we a part of and work towards assimilating to the mainstream culture. We are not a part of a multicultural society, but instead a multiethnic one. Multiculturalism doesn't work as we've seen with London England.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22351
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:19 pm
 


Jughead wrote:

Although I am not Miss Marois's biggest fan (hell I can't even speak French), I do have to agree with parts of her charter. Immigrants who move to our continent from country X need to understand that once here, they need to put aside whatever culture they we a part of and work towards assimilating to the mainstream culture. We are not a part of a multicultural society, but instead a multiethnic one. Multiculturalism doesn't work as we've seen with London England.



I agree Jughead, it is a bit weird to actually agree with Marois about anything.

Multicult has been a huge failure, even Cameron and Merkle have finally come out and admitted it; to be blunt it may be too late for the UK.

The 'keep the Catholic ban everything else' is a bit whiffy, but I think overall this is a good
direction for the province to move in.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2624
PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:22 pm
 


I have my days, I like the idea and I don't like the idea. Its hard for me to articulate, I'll be very interested to see how this plays out.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11171
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:03 am
 


IF this was being applied to ALL religions then it would make sense. You can't call it a secularism charter while maintaining an "official religion".
Although I do agree entirely about the banning of face coverings, particularly for govt employees. But if you're going to allow crucifixes to be worn, I can't see how you can ban a headscarf that doesn't cover the face in the least and still call it "secularism".


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22351
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:05 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
IF this was being applied to ALL religions then it would make sense. You can't call it a secularism charter while maintaining an "official religion".
Although I do agree entirely about the banning of face coverings, particularly for govt employees. But if you're going to allow crucifixes to be worn, I can't see how you can ban a headscarf that doesn't cover the face in the least and still call it "secularism".



They don't call it secularism, the call it the QUEBEC Charter of Values.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11171
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:15 am
 


martin14 wrote:
PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
IF this was being applied to ALL religions then it would make sense. You can't call it a secularism charter while maintaining an "official religion".
Although I do agree entirely about the banning of face coverings, particularly for govt employees. But if you're going to allow crucifixes to be worn, I can't see how you can ban a headscarf that doesn't cover the face in the least and still call it "secularism".



They don't call it secularism, the call it the QUEBEC Charter of Values.

Yeah, you're right. Semantically, I guess it would be the fascism charter then :lol:
Either way, an official religion in Quebec is going to be established if it goes through and that is bullshit in this country.
That stupid notwithstanding clause has been so badly abused, it makes the Canadian Constitution a complete and utter joke, barely worth the paper it is written on.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22351
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:30 am
 


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... uebec.html


Bahh, my bad. They will include crucifixes as well.

Quote:
The plan is to ban civil servants from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, kippas and crucifixes while on the job.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 320
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:47 pm
 


I've given my take on this issue elsewhere, so I won't repeat that here, suffice to say that I'm not at all fond of it and that I think the "interculturalism" approach, which Quebec thinkers themselves have contributed a lot to, would serve not only Quebec but all of Canada much better.

That said, I do want to point out how the mentality behind this charter is far from limited to Quebec:

Here's Ezra Levant's take on the issue.

Here's the federal Conservatives' similarly controversial actions on trying to ban the burka.

And here's what's happening in Ireland.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3680
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:23 pm
 


I'm as secular as they come, but I have my suspicions that this is more about entrenching the supremacy of the French culture than secularism. The nationalists seem to have reached the limits on the amount of French identity they can impose on people so they are switching tack and trying to suppress non-French identity.

And how would this work in practice? Hippie chicks who wear headscarves cuz they think its cool would be allowed to, but Muslim chicks would not? A non-Sikh can grow his beard to any length but a Sikh must be clean-shaven?

And, I don't think the topic of this thread is necessarily apt. Allowing someone to grow a beard or wear a scarf is not "accommodation" since it doesn't affect anyone other than the individual in question. Accommodation is when one party has to make special effort or experience inconvenience in order to meet the needs of another party, which is not really the main issue here, but for perhaps some limited circumstances for face-coverings.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22351
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:01 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
I'm as secular as they come, but I have my suspicions that this is more about entrenching the supremacy of the French culture than secularism.



I have to wonder, is that really such a bad thing ?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11171
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:28 pm
 


martin14 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
I'm as secular as they come, but I have my suspicions that this is more about entrenching the supremacy of the French culture than secularism.



I have to wonder, is that really such a bad thing ?

Replace Quebec with Ontario and French culture with British and then ask yourself that same question.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22351
PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:33 pm
 


k, I don't have a problem with that either.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3680
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:21 am
 


martin14 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
I'm as secular as they come, but I have my suspicions that this is more about entrenching the supremacy of the French culture than secularism.



I have to wonder, is that really such a bad thing ?


As i recall, you're opposed to things like Bill 101 and the Quebec French language police. I suspect that all this activity surrounding religious garb and "charter of Quebec values" is really more about the nationalist agenda than secularism.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3680
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:27 am
 


martin14 wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/09/09/montreal-catholic-archbishop-opposes-secular-charter-quebec.html


Bahh, my bad. They will include crucifixes as well.

Quote:
The plan is to ban civil servants from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, kippas and crucifixes while on the job.



Seems it only bans the wearing of "large" crosses. The smaller, more common crosses are exempt.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... alues.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22351
PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:57 am
 


BeaverFever wrote:
martin14 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
I'm as secular as they come, but I have my suspicions that this is more about entrenching the supremacy of the French culture than secularism.



I have to wonder, is that really such a bad thing ?


As i recall, you're opposed to things like Bill 101 and the Quebec French language police. I suspect that all this activity surrounding religious garb and "charter of Quebec values" is really more about the nationalist agenda than secularism.



Funny you should mention that, the 2 issues are not mutually exclusive.

I have always thought that Quebec does deserve some consideration with regards to language. I objected to the implementation of Bill 101 (and enter the language police) because of the insane and idiotic way the laws were implemented.

lil Justin has already said his blah blah blah about it, the Notwithstanding clause will be used to sell the law.

I just can't wait for Mulcair to open his fat mouth, and cost the NDP all their Quebec gains in the next election. :)


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.