[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Yes it is a huge problem the fact that English Canada just irrationally loves and idealizes Quebec. They just look over there to Quebec and see nothing but goodness and light and are blind to Quebec's flaws. It is finally time you guys stop giving Quebec and pass on everything. Damn. Say something critical about them for once.

I realize this is sarcasm but I have no idea what your point is.

[crazy canuck]

Just want to point out Islam was not harmed in this attack. People were. Muslims, and just because you are a Muslim doesn't even mean you endorse all the ideas of Islam.

I hate Scientology and manipulative cults, however I don't think this means I endorse persecution of members of these kinds of groups. Lets not conflate the two.

This law is bad because it impacts the rights of people, not because it goes against Islam. Lots of laws in Canada are directly opposite to many of the ideas of traditional Islam, but I don't think you would call them bigoted in anyway.

Now you are just being a Fucking Asshole.  A Muslim family was run down because they were Muslim.  Fuck you!

[Barrister]

Just want to point out Islam was not harmed in this attack. People were. Muslims, and just because you are a Muslim doesn't even mean you endorse all the ideas of Islam.

I hate Scientology and manipulative cults, however I don't think this means I endorse persecution of members of these kinds of groups. Lets not conflate the two.

This law is bad because it impacts the rights of people, not because it goes against Islam. Lots of laws in Canada are directly opposite to many of the ideas of traditional Islam, but I don't think you would call them bigoted in anyway.

Now you are just being a Fucking Asshole.  A Muslim family was run down because they were Muslim.  Fuck you!

I think your anger is misplaced.

[viper37]

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.

those who insist real muslim women cover their heads are.
those who insist real X do X are extremists.
Live and let live.

I know Canada has a high tolerance for religious extremism, especially under Trudeau, but it is not the way of Quebec.

[viper37]

It notwithstanding clause exists as it was necessary to keep Quebec in during the last constitutional settlement.

that's what I like about Canadians.  No matter the political alignment, everything they don't like in their country can but put on the fault of Quebec.
Quebec did not sign the Constitution as it was not privy to all these discussions between Chrétien, Trudeau and all the Premiers.
The clause was proposed by English Canadian negotiators to gain the approval of the charter by the provinces, excluding Quebec because, hey, it's impossible to reach someone in Gatineau from Ottawa when you are negotiating a new Constitution.  Saskatoon, not a problem, but Hull/Gatineau is way too far.  I guess the Quebec delegation didn't have phones in their hotel.
And it's been used a lot by other provinces to circumvent court's decisions.  It's just that most of the time the govt won on appeal and didn't require it to come in effect.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#History

[viper37]

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....

Alberta and Saskatchewan were dead set against the Charter as it gave the tribunals too much power over the elected assembly.  Other provinces, I am unsure.  It was proposed by Chrétien while the negotiations were stalling, and they subsequently plotted behind Quebec's back to reach a new deal with the Feds.
Chrétien and his team where able to reach Roy Romanow and bring him back to Ottawa (he had gone back to Saskatoon), but not anyone from Lévesque team who were staying in a Gatineau hotel.
There are still people who believe Chrétien&Trudeau's version that they never intended to sideline Quebec, they just were unable to reach anyone.

[viper37]

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.

If by religious institution you mean, say, the Catholic Church, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, than Quebec's power is extremely limited into what it can do against group that abuse their religious rights and victimize their constituants.

An exemple: Quebec's laws during the pandemic, aimed at curbing religious gatherings, were partially struct down by the courts as it violated the charter.  So, religious gatherings where authorized for a number far greather than any private gathering in a large room.

Quebec is defenseless against the Jeovah's Witnesses who "counsel" their hospitalized members against receiving any blood transfusion.
Quebec can not determine by itself the legality or not of any religious movement, that is a Federal parliament prerogative.  They were much faster to act in the proud boys case than in any religious sect.

Quebec can act in its own competence fields (chiefly health care & education), but still with limited power.  It can't force parents to send their children to school, it can only verify that children receive "adequate" education, and the bar is very, very, very low in case of religious organizations.

And in any case, it will always come down on the believers.  Quebec was accused of anti-semitism when it removed children from the Lev Tahor jewish sect. 

When Quebec refused to intervene to defend Catholice institutions accused of molesting children under their care, it wasn't really the long deceased abusers who paid the prive, but all the catholic church goers of Quebec who eventually footed the bill to defend these super rich communities.

Quebec could still decide a particular religious organization is no longer tax exempt, but that would create confusion with the Federal legislation that usually define who is exemple or not.  For a principle of harmonization (it's always better if an individual, corporation or institution faces the same statute in the province and in the country), we follow whatever decision was made by Canada Revenue Agency.
In the end, everything goes back to the Federal government: criminal law is their domain, immigration is their domain and fiscality is mostly their chiefdom too.  If they decide a hate preecher is allowed to stay in Canada, there's nothing the "franco model" of Quebec can do.  We can't legally expell someone from the province, even less the country.  In any case, radical imams whose students mysteriously appear fighting on Isis side are covered by religious freedom.  Suspected terrorists can't be watched by the provincial police, it's a Federal responsbility.  If we can't do anything against them, we certainly can't do anything against lesser offences.
But that this the anglo-saxon way, I guess.  People fighting for freedom of religion, as Raz would say. 

[viper37]

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 ...

defining islam as mandatory burqa wearing for the sake of religious conformity is the problem you have.  I can't do anything for anyone mistakingly believing that. 

Not all muslims wear religious symbols, not all muslims are mysoginist, and many of them approve of bill 21.  But religious radicals certainly hate it.  If, in the future, it prevents even one more Shafia-style murders, I'll be happy.

[viper37]

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.

They can still wear them all they want, at home, in the streets, in the shopping centers, in their cars (although the burka might be against the law here ), in their religious gatherings, nearly anywhere they want.  They just can't have it when they represent the state.
Many european countries have similar laws, and even some predominantly muslim country have face covering bans.
There is nothing extreme with this law except in the heads of Canadians. 

Anyway.  Everything that is wrong in Canada is to be blamed on Quebec.  Hearing them, you'd think their country would be perfect if only everyone were to speak english and be good Commonwealth citizen swearing allegiance to the Queen.  FFS, up the '80s this country's leaders insisted that indians had to be assimilated for their own good, but we're the fucking racist ones :roll:

We're the only reason there's racism in this country. Double-:roll:

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.

And as I recall, "persecution" can mean anything from "you can't refuse to serve a gay couple" to "we will stone you to death for your beliefs".

[viper37]

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

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

And I thought, for a time, I might have misjudged you and you were actually one of the good ones.
I guess all anglos are the same.
Unless you can prove to me islamophobia in Canada never existed before 2019, I don't think you have a serious argument.

[viper37]

You are taking some reporter's question to Trudeau, and making of it an unwavering truth. Don't do that.

Just on the first page of a Google news search:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/bill-21-london-attack-1.6059756
https://globalnews.ca/news/7934352/bill-21-quebec-secularism-criticism/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-naheed-nenshi-london-attack-hate-motivated-terrorism-1.6058029
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-trudeau-will-fight-discrimination-against-muslims-only-if-they-dont/
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montrealers-stress-inclusion-tolerance-at-vigil-for-london-family-1.5464043
https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgk35/justin-trudeau-promises-action-on-anti-muslim-hate-but-wont-fight-quebecs-anti-muslim-law

[viper37]

We are discussing it here because one journalist decided to bring it up in a press conference.

Viper then decided this was a massive outrage and brought it up here, because the important part is of course what some idiot says about Quebec. That has completely derailed the discussion.

Not one journalist.  Many English Canadian journalists and politicians.
If one Quebec journalist had said the muslim family was targetted because of Ontario's tolerance to muslim radicals, you would be outraged and rightly so.  If it was a line spouted by multiple medias and politicians in Quebec, you would be outraged.
But Quebec and franco bashing is totally fine.  It has nothing to do with racism in Canada, no, not all.
Well, fuck you too asshole.

[Jacob]

those who insist real muslim women cover their heads are.
those who insist real X do X are extremists.
Live and let live.

I know Canada has a high tolerance for religious extremism, especially under Trudeau, but it is not the way of Quebec.

Sure. You don't get to impose the headcovering on others.

Jagmeet Singh wears a turban. He does not to my knowledge insist that anyone else wears one. Is he an extremist?

The Jews at my parents' synagogue who choose to wear a kippah on a daily basis, are they extremists?

The Muslim women who feel that their hair is an intimate body part and prefer to cover it when among strangers, are they extremists?

[Valmy]

Just want to point out Islam was not harmed in this attack. People were. Muslims, and just because you are a Muslim doesn't even mean you endorse all the ideas of Islam.

I hate Scientology and manipulative cults, however I don't think this means I endorse persecution of members of these kinds of groups. Lets not conflate the two.

This law is bad because it impacts the rights of people, not because it goes against Islam. Lots of laws in Canada are directly opposite to many of the ideas of traditional Islam, but I don't think you would call them bigoted in anyway.

Now you are just being a Fucking Asshole.  A Muslim family was run down because they were Muslim.  Fuck you!

They were people who were killed because they looked like Muslims. Anti-Muslim bigotry is a serious issue and that I do care about. Endorsing religious ideas is not. They are not the same.

If by religious institution you mean, say, the Catholic Church, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, than Quebec's power is extremely limited into what it can do against group that abuse their religious rights and victimize their constituants.

Yeah, which is why I was being specific about mentioning France there.

[Jacob]

Not one journalist.  Many English Canadian journalists and politicians.

My mistake.

If one Quebec journalist had said the muslim family was targetted because of Ontario's tolerance to muslim radicals, you would be outraged and rightly so.  If it was a line spouted by multiple medias and politicians in Quebec, you would be outraged.

I would not be outraged, no. I would:

1) Agree that there's a serious problem, as we can see from this attack.

2) Think that they're trying to change the subject.

But Quebec and franco bashing is totally fine.

It isn't. But a family was brutally murdered by some Ontario racist. The topic we should be discussing is Ontario racism, not Quebec bashing.

It has nothing to do with racism in Canada, no, not all.

It has everything to do with racism in Canada.

Well, fuck you too asshole.

I - as I have said - agree with you that it's completely bullshit to be changing the topic to racism in Quebec. I agree that this is indicative of racism in ONTARIO. That the journalists and politicians who are trying to change to topic to Quebec are completely out of line.

But you're so far up your own asshole that all you can ever talk about is how mean Ontario is to Quebec. How about we talk about, you know, how shitty and racist Ontario is to Muslims instead of playing along with the journalists and politicians who want to change the topic?

In conclusion: fuck you too, you self-centred whiny bitch.