[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

We don't have a culture of Islamophobia. We have a culture of religiophobia.

I have certain problems with that but considering the ridiculous amount English speaking countries seem to do to accommodate religions: basically enabling them to launder money, cover up criminal activity, and destroy people's lives just because we don't want to threaten religious freedom. I mean it comes from a noble place but sometimes I think we go too far. Maybe taking a little bit more of an adversarial approach might not be too bad. I guess my main criticism of the Franco model is it seems to come down on more on Joe Christian or Abdul Muslim and less on the institutions themselves. Though French have shown a willingness to remove religious protections from religions that they think are harmful. I don't know, there are problems with both approaches.

The primary problem with the current approach in Quebec is that the measures, while on their face neutral, mostly affect traditionally disfavoured religious minorities, and not religions or religious people in general. Unless you happen to be a nun, few Catholics commonly wear religious headgear, for example.

It is like the classic law that is completely impartial - it prohibits both the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges ...

[viper37]

We don't have a culture of Islamophobia. We have a culture of religiophobia.

That is why the law disproportionately affects those whose religion has face coverings.  Ya, right.  No issue there at all.

It affects one interpretation of the religion, usually held by extremists.

Next on the agenda: let's forbid abortion because it is against religious values for some Canadians.  All in favor, raise your hands, please.

[Jacob]

I don't think it's correct to say that people who want to cover their head as part of their religious expression are extremists.

[Valmy]

The primary problem with the current approach in Quebec is that the measures, while on their face neutral, mostly affect traditionally disfavoured religious minorities, and not religions or religious people in general. Unless you happen to be a nun, few Catholics commonly wear religious headgear, for example.

It is like the classic law that is completely impartial - it prohibits both the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges ...

Well even so this particular aspect of the law comes down on individual Muslims, instead of going after abusive practices by Islamic institutions, to the extent they exist. I mean if somebody is being forced to wear the head covering against their will then there might be better ways of dealing with that then forcing people who do want to wear them to not wear them.

Also: abusive religious organizations and cults love when society persecutes their members. It increases their power and influence over their members, by enhancing their us vs. them narrative and maybe counter-productive.

[Oexmelin]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

[Valmy]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

Because it made this Ontario dude run over Muslims. At least that is my understanding.

[Zoupa]

I don't think it's correct to say that people who want to cover their head as part of their religious expression are extremists.

Probably not, but that's not really the point. My understanding of laicity is that religion has no place in public institutions.

Viper's point is a good one. Where do we draw the line when it comes to religious beliefs, customs and demands? Laicity says we won't muddle through what's acceptable to us and what's not, let's ban it all in state institutions.

I keep coming back to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm sure all the parents in Ontario would be a-ok with a teacher wearing a pasta strainer on his head while teaching a class. Right? How about a policeman? A judge?

[Malthus]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

It should not be.

Current news is about a terrorist outrage that targeted a Muslim family in Ontario. Has nothing to do with Quebec.

[Oexmelin]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

It should not be.

Current news is about a terrorist outrage that targeted a Muslim family in Ontario. Has nothing to do with Quebec.

Exactly. I don't find it entirely surprising that some pundits and journalists would jump on the chance to make it about Quebec, I just find it appalling that it came up within five minutes of the events - I mean, has the possibilities of islamophobia, hate-crimes, etc. in Ontario, based in Ontario, caused by Ontario factors, even been evoked at this point?

[crazy canuck]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

because some people seem to believe that Islamophobia magically stops at provincial borders.

[crazy canuck]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

It should not be.

Current news is about a terrorist outrage that targeted a Muslim family in Ontario. Has nothing to do with Quebec.

Exactly. I don't find it entirely surprising that some pundits and journalists would jump on the chance to make it about Quebec, I just find it appalling that it came up within five minutes of the events - I mean, has the possibilities of islamophobia, hate-crimes, etc. in Ontario, based in Ontario, caused by Ontario factors, even been evoked at this point?

I am surprised that anyone would argue that Islamophia is discrete to provincial locations rather than something that is widespread and can cause a wide range of actions, including legislation which breaches the Charter.

[crazy canuck]

Quebec was a factor in introducing s. 33, but there was hesitancy / opposition to the Charter in English Canada as well.  Plus in the end Quebec did not sign off on the Constitution.

That was a nuance I missed at the time.

Where the the hesitancy originate from in English Canada? I have assumptions I could make, but they'd be just that....

It is not what you think. 

The notwithstanding clause was a non negotiable part of the Charter in order to balance the competing interests of Parliamentary Supremacy and the protections in the Charter.   If the possibility of allowing Parliament to be supreme was not preserved the Charter would never have been passed.  It had nothing to do with Quebec or any other particular provincial interests.  The pre-eminent constitutional scholars of the day debated the place of Parliamentary Supremacy and this was the compromise that was created.  No one suggested that Parliamentary Supremacy should be completely removed.  Nobody wanted to adopt the US system.

[Barrister]

Quebec was a factor in introducing s. 33, but there was hesitancy / opposition to the Charter in English Canada as well.  Plus in the end Quebec did not sign off on the Constitution.

That was a nuance I missed at the time.

Where the the hesitancy originate from in English Canada? I have assumptions I could make, but they'd be just that....

It is not what you think. 

The notwithstanding clause was a non negotiable part of the Charter in order to balance the competing interests of Parliamentary Supremacy and the protections in the Charter.   If the possibility of allowing Parliament to be supreme was not preserved the Charter would never have been passed.  It had nothing to do with Quebec or any other particular provincial interests.  The pre-eminent constitutional scholars of the day debated the place of Parliamentary Supremacy and this was the compromise that was created.  No one suggested that Parliamentary Supremacy should be completely removed.  Nobody wanted to adopt the US system.

I don't exactly have a transcript of the 1982 meetings but several people certainly did oppose the Notwithstanding clause.  PE Trudeau was chief amongst them.  There were plentiful negotiations on this point.

[Zoupa]

I am sorry: why is Bill 21 even discussed right now?

because some people seem to believe that Islamophobia magically stops at provincial borders.

Not sure what that statement has to do with Bill 21.

[crazy canuck]

Quebec was a factor in introducing s. 33, but there was hesitancy / opposition to the Charter in English Canada as well.  Plus in the end Quebec did not sign off on the Constitution.

That was a nuance I missed at the time.

Where the the hesitancy originate from in English Canada? I have assumptions I could make, but they'd be just that....

It is not what you think. 

The notwithstanding clause was a non negotiable part of the Charter in order to balance the competing interests of Parliamentary Supremacy and the protections in the Charter.   If the possibility of allowing Parliament to be supreme was not preserved the Charter would never have been passed.  It had nothing to do with Quebec or any other particular provincial interests.  The pre-eminent constitutional scholars of the day debated the place of Parliamentary Supremacy and this was the compromise that was created.  No one suggested that Parliamentary Supremacy should be completely removed.  Nobody wanted to adopt the US system.

I don't exactly have a transcript of the 1982 meetings but several people certainly did oppose the Notwithstanding clause.  PE Trudeau was chief amongst them.  There were plentiful negotiations on this point.

I should have qualified, nobody other than the Federal Liberal party of Canada.... But Trudeau was forced to back down, because nobody (other than perhaps NB?) was going to go for that.