[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Hypocritical in what sense?

I get the impression G. thinks everyone in the rest of Canada feels about immigrants and outsiders the way he does, but won't admit it.

[garbon]

Hypocritical in what sense?

I get the impression G. thinks everyone in the rest of Canada feels about immigrants and outsiders the way he does, but won't admit it.

That's pretty presumptuous.

[Malthus]

As for the joke chart - it was funny but not particularly accurate. For example, it tagged Ontario as high-crime, when the reality is that crime in Canada is more severe in the west and north.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292-eng.htm#a3

[crazy canuck]

Hypocritical in what sense?

I get the impression G. thinks everyone in the rest of Canada feels about immigrants and outsiders the way he does, but won't admit it.

That's pretty presumptuous.

One would need to have that quality to support the Charter of Values.

[Grey Fox]

Hypocritical in what sense?

I get the impression G. thinks everyone in the rest of Canada feels about immigrants and outsiders the way he does, but won't admit it.

That's pretty presumptuous.

One would need to have that quality to support the Charter of Values.

We've discuss at large the prohibition on wearing religious symbols but what do you think of the other 4 proposition?

I ask this to all of you.

[Barrister]

Hypocritical in what sense?

I get the impression G. thinks everyone in the rest of Canada feels about immigrants and outsiders the way he does, but won't admit it.

That's pretty presumptuous.

One would need to have that quality to support the Charter of Values.

We've discuss at large the prohibition on wearing religious symbols but what do you think of the other 4 proposition?

I ask this to all of you.

Do you have a link explaining what they are?

[garbon]

Hypocritical in what sense?

I get the impression G. thinks everyone in the rest of Canada feels about immigrants and outsiders the way he does, but won't admit it.

That's pretty presumptuous.

One would need to have that quality to support the Charter of Values.

We've discuss at large the prohibition on wearing religious symbols but what do you think of the other 4 proposition?

I ask this to all of you.

I thought all 5 proposals all circled around the same thing.

http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/5

AMEND THE QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS>
ESTABLISH A DUTY OF NEUTRALITY AND RESERVE FOR ALL STATE PERSONNEL>
LIMIT THE WEARING OF CONSPICUOUS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS>
MAKE IT MANDATORY TO HAVE ONE'S FACE UNCOVERED WHEN PROVIDING OR RECEIVING A STATE SERVICE>
ESTABLISH AN IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR STATE ORGANIZATIONS

[Jacob]

Seems to me it's more of the same - about "religious neutrality" in various places, and enshrining it further.

Before this brouhaha I'd likely be in favour of it, based on the name, but since it's been made excessively clear that "religious neutrality" means targeting minorities I'm not. Th five different points are all part and parcel of the same don't-wear-funny-hats-rage targeted at non-Christians.

[crazy canuck]

We've discuss at large the prohibition on wearing religious symbols but what do you think of the other 4 proposition?

I am not sure how you separate it from the rest of the proposal.  The whole thing is based on the premise that the State knows best how people should act and think and therefore the State will mandate certain norms.

[Grey Fox]

If it's with that premise that you disagree with than this has once again being reduce to a Right vs Left divide.

[Malthus]

If it's with that premise that you disagree with than this has once again being reduce to a Right vs Left divide.

I'm not sure it's totally a right-versus-left thing. Some people on the right support the measure because in effect it sticks it to minorities and immigrants, which some people on the right are all in favour of.

[Barrister]

I thought all 5 proposals all circled around the same thing.

http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/5

AMEND THE QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS>
ESTABLISH A DUTY OF NEUTRALITY AND RESERVE FOR ALL STATE PERSONNEL>
LIMIT THE WEARING OF CONSPICUOUS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS>
MAKE IT MANDATORY TO HAVE ONE'S FACE UNCOVERED WHEN PROVIDING OR RECEIVING A STATE SERVICE>
ESTABLISH AN IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR STATE ORGANIZATIONS

So GF, this doesn't really sound like 5 new proposals.  It's at best two new proposals, followed up with some re-statements of the obvious.

Amend the Quebec Charter is to "enshrine the secular nature of the state".  I didn't know this was ever questioned.  There never has been an official state church.
Establish Neutrality and Reserve for state personnel.  Again, fairly obvious.  I would be fired if I went around handing out copies of the New Testament while at work.

But then you get to the meat of it.  A blanket ban on religious symbols by state employees.

Then the other main objective.  You have to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state.

And finally some stuff about implementation.



So, we're not just focusing in on one part of it.  We're focusing in on the only substantive part that exists.

[Grey Fox]

If it's with that premise that you disagree with than this has once again being reduce to a Right vs Left divide.

I'm not sure it's totally a right-versus-left thing. Some people on the right support the measure because in effect it sticks it to minorities and immigrants, which some people on the right are all in favour of.

Fair point. Big vs Small government?


I mean, nothing happens in Quebec if the provincial government is not involved.

[Grey Fox]

I thought all 5 proposals all circled around the same thing.

http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en/propositions/5

AMEND THE QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS>
ESTABLISH A DUTY OF NEUTRALITY AND RESERVE FOR ALL STATE PERSONNEL>
LIMIT THE WEARING OF CONSPICUOUS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS>
MAKE IT MANDATORY TO HAVE ONE'S FACE UNCOVERED WHEN PROVIDING OR RECEIVING A STATE SERVICE>
ESTABLISH AN IMPLEMENTATION POLICY FOR STATE ORGANIZATIONS

So GF, this doesn't really sound like 5 new proposals.  It's at best two new proposals, followed up with some re-statements of the obvious.

Amend the Quebec Charter is to "enshrine the secular nature of the state".  I didn't know this was ever questioned.  There never has been an official state church.
Establish Neutrality and Reserve for state personnel.  Again, fairly obvious.  I would be fired if I went around handing out copies of the New Testament while at work.

But then you get to the meat of it.  A blanket ban on religious symbols by state employees.

Then the other main objective.  You have to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state.

And finally some stuff about implementation.



So, we're not just focusing in on one part of it.  We're focusing in on the only substantive part that exists.

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

[Malthus]

Alright. What you think of the having to have your face uncovered when dealing with the state?

Depends on context. In some contexts, it makes sense from a purely functional POV to require an uncovered face for ID purposes.

Every time one deals with "the state" makes it sound more like a respect/obedience thing, like taking your hat off in church.