[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Several Quebec politicians are speaking out against the Charter - but still support a partial ban.  They want to ban religious clothing on anyone who is in a 'position of authority'.  Bouchard came out saying something similar.  Not sure if Parizeau is in this camp, or rejects the idea of any ban entirely.

Bouchard:

Le compromis est assez simple, dit Lucien Bouchard: «Les signes religieux seraient interdits uniquement pour ceux qui exercent des fonctions coercitives de l'État: juges, procureurs, gardiens de prison, policiers; les services de l'État seraient donnés et reçus à visage découvert; les textes réaffirmeraient la laïcité de l'État, la neutralité religieuse, l'égalité hommes-femmes et les règles de sagesse déjà exprimées par les tribunaux.

Compromise is simple: Religious symbols would be forbiddent only to those who exercice the cohercitive functions of the state: judges, prosecutors, prison gaurds, police officers; state's services would be given and received with open face; the texts would reaffirm the laicity of the State, religious neutrality, equality between men and women and the wisdom rules already express by tribunals

I see nothing wrong with that position. 

I see lots that's wrong with that position.  I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but one of my colleagues is a practicing sikh.  The fact that he goes to court in a turban makes no difference to anything he does.  What possible public interest is there for him to have to either quit his job or violate his rights by forcing him to take off the turban?  And frankly I'd be afraid he'd just quit - he's very good, and he's worked in other areas before coming here.

Not that PQ has any interest in seeing the charter adopted, mind you.  They want to:
a) create conflicts with Canada so that every seperatist and nationalist will rally behind them (besieged mentality)
b) get the 4-5% in a few select ridings in the 450 area (meaning Montreal subburbs, outside of the island) they need to form a majority government.

They believe the charter will allow them to that.  Option Nationale has lost its leader, so they believe (and most likely, they are right to do so) that the vote won't be divided between 2-3 seperatists party at the next election.  They also believe that no one who's already voting PQ will stop voting PQ because of the Charter.  Third, they think there are just enough xenophobes in theoritically takeable ridings to get them the majority they need.

It's also a convenient way of dividing media&public attention as no one really talks about the sad state of our economy anymore.

I have long suspected that you are right, which is why I thought it was wise for Harper and Co to stay silent, and let opposition come from within Quebec.  Which it has.  I suspect the PQ is finding it's plan as outlined by you is not working out very well for them.

[viper37]

And frankly I'd be afraid he'd just quit - he's very good, and he's worked in other areas before coming here.

Prosecutors have a dress code, IIRC.  Can you be at court with jeans&t-shirt?  Probably not.
Why make an exception for religious people? 
He represents the State while in court, and the State is neutral, it has no religion.

I suspect the PQ is finding it's plan as outlined by you is not working out very well for them.

Muclair and Trudeau played into Marois' little game, it only help boost the PQ popularity over the charter.
Most people in Quebec disagree with the part of the charter about religious signs but agree with the rest.

[Barrister]

And frankly I'd be afraid he'd just quit - he's very good, and he's worked in other areas before coming here.

Prosecutors have a dress code, IIRC.  Can you be at court with jeans&t-shirt?  Probably not.
Why make an exception for religious people? 
He represents the State while in court, and the State is neutral, it has no religion.

Why make an exception for religious people?  Because it doesn't hurt anyone.  Wearing a turban makes no impact whatsoever on my colleague's ability to do his job, and if we didn't make that exception we'd lose a talented prosecutor.

He represents the state, but is an individual in the employ of the state.  As a prosecutor I don't lose my individuality either.  I get introduced not as a faceless Crown Prosecutor, but [Barrister], agent for the Crown.

[viper37]

And frankly I'd be afraid he'd just quit - he's very good, and he's worked in other areas before coming here.

Prosecutors have a dress code, IIRC.  Can you be at court with jeans&t-shirt?  Probably not.
Why make an exception for religious people? 
He represents the State while in court, and the State is neutral, it has no religion.

Why make an exception for religious people?  Because it doesn't hurt anyone.  Wearing a turban makes no impact whatsoever on my colleague's ability to do his job, and if we didn't make that exception we'd lose a talented prosecutor.

He represents the state, but is an individual in the employ of the state.  As a prosecutor I don't lose my individuality either.  I get introduced not as a faceless Crown Prosecutor, but [Barrister], agent for the Crown.

if a judge has the Ten Commandments on a sign, behind him, do you think it is harmless?

[Grey Fox]

I'm happy to see Viper has finally showed up.

[Barrister]

And frankly I'd be afraid he'd just quit - he's very good, and he's worked in other areas before coming here.

Prosecutors have a dress code, IIRC.  Can you be at court with jeans&t-shirt?  Probably not.
Why make an exception for religious people? 
He represents the State while in court, and the State is neutral, it has no religion.

Why make an exception for religious people?  Because it doesn't hurt anyone.  Wearing a turban makes no impact whatsoever on my colleague's ability to do his job, and if we didn't make that exception we'd lose a talented prosecutor.

He represents the state, but is an individual in the employ of the state.  As a prosecutor I don't lose my individuality either.  I get introduced not as a faceless Crown Prosecutor, but [Barrister], agent for the Crown.

if a judge has the Ten Commandments on a sign, behind him, do you think it is harmless?

What does that have to do with anything?  No religion mandates that you must have a ten commandments sign behind you while you work.

[Grallon]

Just a little aside from the usual cavalcade of self congratulations from our Canadian friends - and their unanimous deriding of the Charter project we are currently discussing in Quebec.  A very enlightening lecture from British author melanie Phillips - about the islamisation of Britain and the debilitating effects of multiculturalism in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OISOOmTGPcA



G.

[Malthus]

Just a little aside from the usual cavalcade of self congratulations from our Canadian friends - and their unanimous deriding of the Charter project we are currently discussing in Quebec.  A very enlightening lecture from British author melanie Phillips - about the islamisation of Britain and the debilitating effects of multiculturalism in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OISOOmTGPcA



G.

She has some interesting stuff to say about gays, too.

As it turns out, she likes them even less tham she likes Muslims. 

She opposed the introduction of civil partnerships for gay couples in the UK, and has said that what she calls "the traditional family [...] has been relentlessly attacked by an alliance of feminists, gay rights activists, divorce lawyers and cultural Marxists who grasped that this was the surest way to destroy Western society."[29] She has said that giving IVF fertility treatment to lesbians would "help destroy our understanding of human identity", and expressed her opinion that opposition to it represents "a fightback to save our civilisation".[29] She said the UK government was brainwashing children by including references to gay people in lessons about censuses and population movement.[30] Philips called it "an abuse of childhood", part of a "ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour". She received the 'Bigot of the Year' award from gay equality organisation Stonewall in 2011.[31][32]

I never knew Obama was an Islamicist ... 

Since the election of Barack Obama, Phillips has accused him of "adopting the agenda of the Islamist" and of being "firmly in the Islamists camp".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips

[viper37]

What does that have to do with anything?  No religion mandates that you must have a ten commandments sign behind you while you work.

How do you know that?  Do you know every religion of the world, every Christian sect?

This judge certainly thought it had its place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Had it been in Canada, you guys are telling me this would be acceptable... He believes it has its place, therefore it is ok?  It is a religious symbol like any other.

I know we don't have seperation of Church and State in Canada, at least according to the latest ruling on the subject (Saguenay), but I think it would be very a good thing to have.  Oh, and abolition of monarchy too

Imho, to re-affirm the state neutrality in terms of religion, to clearly establish secularity, some state employees should not wear any religious symbol, just as you can't wear any political symbol.  Maybe for prosecutors it's going too far, I don't know.  But I sure don't want veiled teachers in public schools or judges with Ten Commandments in their courtroom.

It took a lot of efforts from Québécois to kick religion out of our politics, and it's only very recently that our schools are totally secular, I see no valid reason on going back to what things were in the past.  No more prayers in public schools, no crucifix.  I can't see why I would allow other religions to sneak in from the back door after all the efforts we made to get rid of ultra-catholicism.

I totally respect other people's religions and faith.  But shouldn't believers respect my lack of faith?  I believe in true seperation of State and Church, secularity (or laïcité as it seems it is accepted as an english word) for the State.

I also think, that whenever there are policies in place, they should apply to everyone the same.  I don't think a lawyer can wear a cap in a courtroom.  Why should any other head covers be allowed?  Why should a veiled woman be allowed to vote as such without identifying herself?  I need to show an id card with my picture on it so I can be correctly identified if I want to vote, why give a preferential treatment to other groups?  Isn't there any difference between wearing a cross under your shirt and covering your head&face?

I think we go to far on what kind of behavior we tolerate, and that only increases the determination of religious fanatics.  And since I'm not a lawyer, I believe in making things clear from the start, I believe in solving problem before they appear whenever that's possible.

[viper37]

about the islamisation of Britain and the debilitating effects of multiculturalism in general.

G.

that's not really a problem, for now, in Quebec.  Secular muslims are all right.  And there are many of them, much more than there are bloody crusader fanatics. 

And we should seek to protect them from the extremists as much as possible, seek their help, hear their voice. Something the PQ is really bad at doing.  Well, something Marois sucks at, period.  She wants power for the sake of power.  After all, she could simply have gotten Bouchard-Taylor reports from the closet if was locked in and that would have been a very good first step.  Later on, if religious fanatics keeps coming here to poison everyone's lives, then we move a step further.

[Barrister]

What does that have to do with anything?  No religion mandates that you must have a ten commandments sign behind you while you work.

How do you know that?  Do you know every religion of the world, every Christian sect?

This judge certainly thought it had its place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Had it been in Canada, you guys are telling me this would be acceptable... He believes it has its place, therefore it is ok?  It is a religious symbol like any other.

I know we don't have seperation of Church and State in Canada, at least according to the latest ruling on the subject (Saguenay), but I think it would be very a good thing to have.  Oh, and abolition of monarchy too

Imho, to re-affirm the state neutrality in terms of religion, to clearly establish secularity, some state employees should not wear any religious symbol, just as you can't wear any political symbol.  Maybe for prosecutors it's going too far, I don't know.  But I sure don't want veiled teachers in public schools or judges with Ten Commandments in their courtroom.

It took a lot of efforts from Québécois to kick religion out of our politics, and it's only very recently that our schools are totally secular, I see no valid reason on going back to what things were in the past.  No more prayers in public schools, no crucifix.  I can't see why I would allow other religions to sneak in from the back door after all the efforts we made to get rid of ultra-catholicism.

I totally respect other people's religions and faith.  But shouldn't believers respect my lack of faith?  I believe in true seperation of State and Church, secularity (or laïcité as it seems it is accepted as an english word) for the State.

I also think, that whenever there are policies in place, they should apply to everyone the same.  I don't think a lawyer can wear a cap in a courtroom.  Why should any other head covers be allowed?  Why should a veiled woman be allowed to vote as such without identifying herself?  I need to show an id card with my picture on it so I can be correctly identified if I want to vote, why give a preferential treatment to other groups?  Isn't there any difference between wearing a cross under your shirt and covering your head&face?

I think we go to far on what kind of behavior we tolerate, and that only increases the determination of religious fanatics.  And since I'm not a lawyer, I believe in making things clear from the start, I believe in solving problem before they appear whenever that's possible.

Roy Moore was a whole other kettle of fish.  He wasn't saying "sorry, my religious faith demands that I have a copy of the 10 Commandments in my courtroom".  Rather he was saying "The US is a Christian nation and everyone needs to learn morality from the 10 Commandments!".

And sorry, I just don't see how letting my colleague wear his turban in court means Quebec is going to slip back into ultra-catholicism.

[Jacob]

So Harper is going to boycott the Commonwealth meetings in Sri Lanka over human rights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24433188

Can any of you better tuned to the Conservative pulse shed some light on the particulars of this decision?

[Barrister]

So Harper is going to boycott the Commonwealth meetings in Sri Lanka over human rights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24433188

Can any of you better tuned to the Conservative pulse shed some light on the particulars of this decision?

These is a large Tamil-Canadian community.  The human rights violations in question are related towards Tamils.

It's the same reason the Liberals always turned a blind eye to Tamil Tiger fundraising in Canada, even though by any conceivable definition they were a terrorist organization.  But now that the civil war is over, the Tamils are a much easier cause to embrace.

[Jacob]

These is a large Tamil-Canadian community.  The human rights violations in question are related towards Tamils.

It's the same reason the Liberals always turned a blind eye to Tamil Tiger fundraising in Canada, even though by any conceivable definition they were a terrorist organization.  But now that the civil war is over, the Tamils are a much easier cause to embrace.

Gotcha, thanks.

There's a large constituency, there are genuine human rights concerns, there are few negative political consequences because we  don't have too much in the way of trade with Sri Lanka... it all makes sense

[Grallon]

that's not really a problem, for now, in Quebec.  Secular muslims are all right.  And there are many of them, much more than there are bloody crusader fanatics. 

I know this since I work with several of those.  They keep their faith to themselves, don't wear ostentatious signs of it and are not generally obnoxious about Islam.  But I strongly disagree with your stance that we shouldn't worry since it's "not as bad as elsewhere".  It is *because* it's not as bad as elsewhere that *now* is the time to draw a line.  This charter project is one such attempt to define the borders of what is acceptable or not.  No matter what you personally think of Marois, her government as at least the courage to tackle that topic now instead of too late.




G.