How many people in Quebec are like Viper and Grallon?

[HVC]

It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.

To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.

yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.

[Grallon]

How is their prayer harming you in any way? So you stand there for a few minutes listening to what you term as dribble, and then move on. It's no different than listening to a speech that you think is a waste of time before an event.

As the others have said there should be no religion in public - it's private so you keep it private - unobstrusive - invisible.

You guys attach far too much to the term "religion" as an excuse to ban things. ...

I've already explained why our history has predisposed us to take that stance.

So long as my actions do not impinge on you or yours, then the government has no right to dictate to me what I can or cannot do.

A very American reply   Contrary to you guys we (mostly) don't see the government as some sort of ennemy out to get us...  In this case its power is intended to be used to counteract the debilitating effects of Canadian multiculturalism - by marking out clear lines of what is acceptable or not when it comes to religion in the public sphere.

Naturally we woulnd't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who govern us had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: immigration from sub standard and/or traditionalist societies  




G.

[viper37]

How would one go about legislating away private groups ability to ask other private groups to do things, religious or otherwise?

This might be one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard of - I keep thinking I must be missing something.

Actually, the Quebec legislation isn't (as far as I know) actually intended to legislate away the ability of religious groups to ask for stuff. They will still be just as able to ask for stuff as before.

Rather, the supporters of the legislation are using the fact that religious groups have in the past asked for stuff as proof that religious folks are a serious problem with Canadian society, which needs "fixing" by legislation harrasing such folks over what they wear.

I know this argument lacks somewhat in logic, but there it is.

you have a good grasp of the situation.  It's not a serious problem, not now, but it may become one, as in Europe, if we don't do anything.  Now, doing something and going way overboard... there is lattitude.

[viper37]

In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?

What happens now is that the government cafeteria will be required to serve Halal food for everyone if one employee request it claiming his religious rights are violated.

[Maximus]

Naturally we woulnd't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who govern us had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: immigration from sub standard and/or traditionalist societies  

Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.

Lord Carleton's early experiment in multiculturalism isn't looking so good now, eh?

[viper37]

It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.

To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.

instead of language issues, you have race and sexual orientation issue.  Especially in your own political party.  And the Mexican "problem" down south, with all those border patrol, Arizona's stance on illegal immigration, etc, etc.  I really don't see how the American way is better.  Different, but not better.  Certainly not more tolerant of difference.

[merithyn]

when you work for the government you're a representative of that government. That means you don't get to proselytise for your particular religion, sportsclub, music, sexual oriëntation or any other personal opinions. You get to do that in your own free time, not when your working.

Oh, I absolutely agree!

Luckily, wearing certain jewelry or headwear != proselytizing.

[garbon]

It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.

To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.

instead of language issues, you have race and sexual orientation issue.  Especially in your own political party.  And the Mexican "problem" down south, with all those border patrol, Arizona's stance on illegal immigration, etc, etc.  I really don't see how the American way is better.  Different, but not better.  Certainly not more tolerant of difference.

The difference is you cry about intolerance to your own group and then spew intolerance for other groups.

[viper37]

Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.

Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south.  We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.

[Neil]

But the requests was made.

And this is why there can never be any agreement with Quebec.  It's not just that they're assholes, it's that they're totalitarians.  So long as a francophone is allowed to wield power in Canada, we'll never be safe.

[garbon]

Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.

Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south.  We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.

Max is an American.

[Berkut]

In your view if there was an event the employee had to attend on behalf of the government which serviced ham sandwiches that a person who does not eat ham because of their religious beliefs would still have to eat it so as not to proselytise?

What happens now is that the government cafeteria will be required to serve Halal food for everyone if one employee request it claiming his religious rights are violated.

Really?

Everyone will have to eat halal food if 1 person asks for it?

I am skeptical.

[merithyn]

I like your line of reasoning, and I could even agree with it... except we don't have the same definition as to what is impinging on someone.  Orthodox Jews are offended by women in bathing suits, so they asks that women do not use the bathing pool near their community.  They are offended.  So we comply, and we block the windows to the gym, we bar women from this pool.  Muslim men are offended if women bathe in the same pool as men.  So we have seperate hours for men and women, at twice the costs.

Where does this bullshit stops?  Men&women are equals, it's the way of the land over here.  Why shoud we tolerate middle age behavior because some religious people are offended?  My grandpa never tolerated his daughters in bikini, but once they were married, he stopped talking about it, it was no longer his business.  My grandpa was a very religious man, but he never seek to impose his values on the outside, never required that others adapt to please him.

The things that you're talking about were done by private individuals by private companies. They're allowed to make those changes if they want. The government has no business requiring - or forbidding - them, however. That's where the line should be drawn.

[Maximus]

Naturally we wouldn't have to go through all these legal hooplas if those who governed had had the courage to deal with the problem at its source: the french-speaking peoples of Lower Canada.

Well, you would all be Americans by now, and some of your former compatriots did not like that idea at all, so they gave some token rights to francophone, making them believe they would build a better country than the savages living down south.  We did make something different, but the jury is still on if it's better or not.

I'm actually in favour of it, I think. My point is Franco-Canada only exists because of an official multicultural policy that was not common in its time.

It is the height of irony that those who benefited the most from that multicultural policy now wish to deny that benefit to others.

[viper37]

It's always the French speaking western people who have a bug about language and other cultures. Quebec, France, the Walloons. Wonder why that is.

To be fair we also have bigots as Viper likes to point out as twisted justification for his behavior. Its just that no one sensible trucks with them.

yes, but those bigots don't get national and legislative support.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/25/ariz-senators-immigration-town-hall/2697087/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Schools_Question#Abolition_of_French_as_an_Official_Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955%E2%80%9368%29