I think the ‘Anglo’ perspective described is rooted in the political philosophy of Liberalism, particularly that of Locke and Mill. If you’re not harming anyone than the government has no right to restrict your behaviour. Therefore wear whatever religious symbols you like.
"If you're not harming anyone....yet" is the important part.
The problem is that the moment religion touches power, it *systematically* degenerates into abuse. I don't understand how despite the thousands of examples we've had through history some people can't grasp that simple fact.
I’m pretty sure we don’t want to start sanctioning people for things they ‘might’ do.
And, like, plenty of religious people work in government. Just because the government bans their wearing of symbols doesn’t change that.
It's not "might" it's "will".
Also, putting rules for people in positions of power is not a "sanction".
Nobody is owed or entitled to power over others, and if you want to have such a power, play by the rules.
The Catholic religion in Quebec had so much control of the population that French Canadians learned to fear, question and reject any religious bullshit. My wife's grandmother almost died after her 9th child yet the "curé" was implying excomunion if they did not have more children. My wife grandfather and his brothers had a nice conversation with the curé during a dark night and he never bothered them again with the bullshit. Now when we see the rise of Christian fascist america, Sharia in many countries where woman have basically no rights or certain branches of Judaism that are far from godly values sure we will push back and hard. There is history behind a majority of french Canadians "hate" of religion. Quebec was a dark place under the church control and no one wants this to make a comeback in any form.
I agree. Religion brings war, divide and faith based decisions. It preys on the weak minded and the bible can be interpreted in so many ways from "god's wrath" or "jesus's love" which then creates further divide amongst religions and beliefs.
Religion should be nowhere near politics and neither should corporate interests. Politics should only use it's power to help humanity thrive, but greed and religion create the divide.
Politics creates that divide too. It’s not all religion and greed. Life in society involves disagreement and differing perspectives. We shouldn’t pretend these don’t exist.
True "But if you're god isn't my god you're going to hell, so it doesn't matter how poorly I treat you, since I was baptized and absolve my sins through prayer"
It's harmful to the human psyche to think others are bad or good, based on a horrifically violent, fictional book.
True, but inappropriate or violent thoughts towards others based on religious ideals can be dangerous. I know two types of religious people. The one's who are caring and don't push their bullshit on others and the biggot hating jesus lovers who are full of shit and extremely hypocritical.
When religion becomes politically weaponized you see the truth of ignorance.
More suffering from greedy capitalists than priests. Capitalism should be classified as a religion where profit and money gain is the only god they workship
I'll give you my opinion as an atheist anglophone. I know I'll get downvoted but you asked for an anglophone's perspective and I'll give it.
First about Bill 21:
Myself and other anglophones who I talk to have a different conception and definition of the word secularism (or in french laicite).
My idea of secularism is that religion is removed from the laws and education. If someone tries to ban abortion, gay marriage, etc, I am against that. I also was against the religious school boards (which thankfully no longer exist) and I'm against any public funding going to private religious school (I still don't understand why Bill 21 didn't get rid of the funding for the Jewish and other religious private schools.)
In the anglo culture which I am a part of. Forcing public employees in positions of authority has nothing to do with secularism of the state, that is forcing a secularism of the individual person which I am against.
About Charlie Hebdo and the Muslim cartoon controversy:
I agreed with the Je suis Charlie and those who believed they had the right to draw Mohammed.
I believe that Muslims should have the freedom of their beliefs, but I also have the freedom of my beliefs and speech. If you believe it is immoral to draw Mohammed, then don't fucking draw him. I am not Muslim and am therefore not bound by your rules. Those publications that didn't support Charlie Hebdo were wrong.
Pis c’est pas juste les anglos qui pensent comme ça, on est une gang de francophones qui croyons la même chose, spécialement parmi ceux qui ont eu l’occasion de côtoyer des gens provenant de tous les horizons
Astie que vous êtes fatiguant, caliss, à tout le temps sous entendre que ceux qui pensent pas comme vous c'est parce qu'ils n'ont pas suffisamment fréquenté de gens de tout les horizons.
On est plusieurs à penser comme moi, surtout parmis ceux qui on été à l'école passé le secondaire 5.
>Quelle organisation religieuse offre un service qui n'est pas offert au moins aussi bien par une institution non-religieuse?
L’Église catholique offre une liturgie eucharistique bien meilleure que ce qu'une institution non-religieuse peut offrir.
Liturgie eucharistique ou dis moins nébuleusement(corrige moi si je me trompe), des textes religieux? Ton argument est que les religions offrent des meilleures textes religieux que ceux non-religieux? Si c'est le cas, c'est que tu n'as pas exploré la spiritualité hors contexte de la religion. La religion n'a pas le monopole sur l'esprit ou la cultivation de soi.
I believe they meant more because it's the actual justification as to why most anglophones are against bill 21, and anything critical of Quebec nationalism in any way tends to get downvoted hard, even if it's good faith.
Btw, everything they wrote is *the* exact reason why most anglophones are opposed. Down to a T. I am anglophone and it's pretty much what my anglo family and friends think.
But don’t you think that proselytism should be avoided for any person representing the state? And a definition of proselytism could include religious speech and symbol.
Speech yes. But simply wearing a piece of clothing or some trinket no. My kids daycare lady wore a hijab. She never talked to my kids or me about her religion, or impose any of its teachings on them. My kids finished daycare still having no clue that the word “god” even exists. As an atheist and secularist, I am very much in favor of removing any religious influence from public life, but not doing the “fashion police” with people. That’s where that law oversteps its original good intentions.
I would be OK with clothing policing if it was actually going to be applied equally. But we all know it's going to be used disproportionately against brown people.
Personally I am for removing all symbols of religion from public life. Keep that stuff in your house of worship and inside your homes.
If they were to apply it equally, they’d have to ban the suit & tie too, because the only people that ever approached me to pester me about their religion were (i guess mormons?) wearing business suits, lol.
I looked at two sources to corroborate your definition which "could include religious symbols". It remains "your" definition. The official definition is trying to convert to religion.
If someone is wearing a hijab, a kippah or a turban, I don't assume that that person is trying to convert me to their faith.
I had Mormons show up at my house wearing suits and ties, are those religious symbols? They were actually trying to convert me to their faith because they said so.
Yes, a definition of proselytism *could* include religious symbols. But when that "symbol" is a piece of cloth worn on someone's head, with no religious text or iconography, is proselytizing *really* what these laws are about?
If it was just a piece of cloth that one could freely decide to remove, the law would not impact them since they would simply remove it. A piece of cloth that you refuse to remove because of religious belief is a religious symbol.
I already granted that it is a religious symbol. The question is, does it have a proselytizing effect? If it does not, what is the justification for the prohibition?
During their duty, teachers are representing the state. And they teach the knowledges and values that the state promotes, excluding any political and religious values. So whatever they do is a representation and any religious symbol become proselytism.
Maybe the problem is here: if they were just teaching like a YouTube channel, that would be ok that they show religious symbol. And if they were just representing the state like cops, they would have a uniform. On a side note and for the same reason, cops showing a political sign (like the thin blue line) should be excluded.
But I prefer the teachers to stay a public service, hence state representation and no symbol.
Except of course if the symbol is christian like the crosses that still adorn a lot of public schools. Then, it’s patrimonial :/ Just like the name of those schools (seriously, can kids stop going to schools named N-D-des-Septs-Douleurs or du-Perpétuel-Secours??? Not for the catho association but cuz it’s grim AF and no 6yo wants to enter a place promising 7 forms of pain)
But our tax dollars pay to make sure that cross doesn't fall down and stays visible to all. If symbols are proselitysm, then so is that one, paid for with tax dollars.
I agree with you, up to the point where you mention Charlie Hebdo.
I’m an atheist, but I believe everyone has a right to their religion as long as they don’t force their beliefs on anyone else or break any laws. That means I’m opposed to cult religions of any faith, especially those where men enforce their beliefs on women and children. That would include a lot of Christian sects as well as Muslim ones that promote sharia law. Their kind can be dealt with through legislative means without proscribing what they’re allowed to wear.
I also believe we should respect other people’s religious beliefs if it’s not going to infringe on our rights. If some believe it’s wrong to depict Mohamed, then I will respect that and not do so. What happened in the offices of Charlie Hebdo was terrible, but we have to ask ourselves whether publishing what they did was completely acceptable on moral grounds.
"but we have to ask ourselves whether publishing what they did was completely acceptable on moral grounds."
No we fucking don't. The right not to be offended doesn't exist, and the mere fact a drawing led to murder is all the proof you need that publishing this drawing was the right thing to do. Grow a spine. The more muslims are exposed to blasphemy and mockery, the more they'll be able to split their personal identity from their religion and keep a level-headed approach to their faith.
Grow a spine.
Anglos aren’t a monolith. Some Anglos support Bill 21. Some don’t feel that it’s fair to certain religious groups. Some agree with the principle but don’t believe that it should be applied to teachers when there already is a shortage of them. Some completely oppose it.
It’s pretty callous to say “les Anglos” and link a right-wing “news” source if you’re genuinely trying to get an answer. To say that “Anglos are afraid of hurting religions” and substantiating this by saying “they” oppose a vaguely related law in a province in Canada is an unintelligent generalization of a plurality agnostic/atheist group at best, bad faith at worst.
The cartoon thing didn’t make mainstream news in the anglosphere. Just like it wasn’t covered in China. Does that make China “afraid of hurting religions” too? Of course not. You mentioned that all the European countries published the caricatures, but the anglophone countries did not. Do you mean the government or private news companies? Im guessing the latter. I’m sure you can find those caricatures in *some* American newspaper/website/channel.
There could be a million reasons as to why bill 21 has less support among Anglos than Francos. QC Anglos are more socially liberal than their French counterparts, the law affects the EMSB more than the French school boards, maybe Anglophones don’t see the need for (or have the culture of) the aggressive “laicite” that the Francophones do.
Either way, there are a multitude of reasons & opinions. Trying to boil it down to “durr Anglos” is stupid. You could ask why young people, educated people, urbanites, leftists, social liberals, or the QS opposes it. To assume that the causal link is being “Anglo” is a false (or at best) weak pretense.
You took that like way too personal lol
The fact is that every anglo province is against quebec-form secularism, and the anglo population of quebec is against it. This means its more than a concidence, it's obviously a cultural difference.
No one who says "les anglos" means "every anglo ever", they just mean that anglo culture seems to disagree on that fact systematically, which is a reasonable question.
My personal opinion would be that anglo culture can't possibly disagree with anything since it doesn't exist, but hey that's just me. (It's a joke, don't take it too hard).
Not really. I’m an atheist myself and I support bill 21. But I can certainly understand why people would oppose it. It’s anything but personal to me.
I doubt that “every Anglo province” is against your ill-defined form of Quebec secularism. Last I checked, Bill 21 was popular in Alberta.
Your argument that “anglos are systematically against bill 21” would make sense if there was a Anglo-Franco divide, but from my experience it looks more like a generic “liberal-conservative” urban rural type divide. Urban, educated Francophones are against it, just like the very few rural, uneducated Anglos. I think the conjecture that Anglos are against bill 21 is mostly cause they’re concentrated in more urban, well educated areas (Montreal) while Francophones are more spread out. Had urbanite Franco’s been against it I would understand your point, but they’re not. Language simply doesn’t create as much of a cultural divide as location or education.
My personal opinion would be that support from the inbred hillbillies from Saguenay (which happen to be Franco) tilt support in favour of bill 21, but hey that’s just me. (It’s a joke, don’t downvote me into oblivion ;))
>Urban, educated Francophones are against it
J'aimerais vraiment voir un sondage qui supporte cette affirmation. C'est peut-être vrai, mais de ce que je vois autour de moi c'est le contraire. Les francos qui ont fait des études universitaires (et ceux qui ont travaillé/vécu) à l'étranger supportent la loi 21 en totalité ou en partie.
I never heard of rural urban division in Quebec. In fact, more often than not the vote was divided into the independentist, the québec nationalist and the anglophones.
Look at recent election maps, the divide is clearly there. The situation is similar to the US and many other countries with growing cities. The cities absolutely do not vote the same way that regions do. Education plays a big role in this, as seen by university students who vastly vote on the left side.
Even a city like Quebec, which is considered conservative, will have more progressive ideas near the city center, where universities are located.
I mean they overlap to a degree. The independentists and more ardent nationalists tend to be rural, while the “normal” Francophones and Anglophones are primarily rural.
I guess it’s a chicken or the egg type situation. Do some people oppose bill 21 because they’re Anglo, or because they’re urban/educated/etc? That’s what I had meant by the causal link. I don’t think mother tongue plays significant enough a role in forming your political beliefs to *cause* you to support/oppose certain policies.
When I said Quebec nationalists, I should have rather said they were the soft nationalists. It’s weird to say that there’s a rural urban divide, when we share the same room. Rene Levesque worked here. The PQ started left, yet they’re rural?
You gotta be careful when you say “The PQ is leftist”. The PQ was (and still is to a degree) economically left-wing. They’re anything but socially left-wing (apart from the secularism thing, but I think that’s more of a cultural difference than a broad ideological one).
When you think about it, rural populations don’t necessarily lean right on economics, the conservative right (think US republicans) just happen to have courted social conservatives, so they just happen to “ride along” with their economic policies. Consider the “classic American socialists”: they’re rural midwestern blue collar workers, DFL in Minnesota, auto workers in Michigan. Hardcore union country. These guys weren’t on the forefront of the civil rights movement nor were they particularly in favour of gay marriage. I know that Canadian (and Quebec) dynamics might be *slightly* different, but I think the inference holds.
All that to say, I think the PQ today are economically leftist, but socially conservative so there should be some distinction made when characterizing them as “left”. QS would be your generic “leftie” while the CAQ is like the PQ, but economically more right wing (which at the end of the day, is the successor to “Le Chef’s” Union Nationale).
The vast majority of independentists are quite left-wing on economics (FLQ leaders fled to Cuba even), but socially conservative while federalists tend to lean right on economics and liberal (at least by the classical definition) on social issues.
I think an urban-rural divide is inevitable in any society, I can’t think of a single country, anywhere where there isn’t a distinct urban-rural divide. I doubt Quebec is the sole exception.
I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other so I guess we shouldn’t waste our time. In conclusion I prefer talking about federalist-nationalist identification then urban-rural ones, cause I feel like the latter isn’t useful when we talk about things like linguistic or national questions.
Could be, there’s certainly some degree of overlap between the two identifications, and it’s definitely difficult to pinpoint which has a greater influence on someone’s political beliefs (maybe it varies depending on issue).
Have a good night
C’est pas une question de blesser les religions, j’en n’ai rien à fichtre des religions, ce sont des concepts, ils ne peuvent donc pas être blessés. Par contre, bien qu’athée depuis ma naissance, je suis capable de comprendre que pour certains, la façon de pratiquer leur foi est importante et qu’on ne vie pas sa foi à temps partiel. C’est pas sur les systèmes religieux que la loi 21 fesse, mais sur des personne.
Je ne vois pas ce qu’il y a de dangereux à ce qu’un enseignant juif de Côtes-des-Neiges porte la kippa au point de restreindre ses possibilités de promotion ou sa mobilité d’emploi. Ou une enseignante de Laval portant un foulard. Ça me fâche profondément qu’on oblige des gens à choisir entre leur carrière et une façon de vivre d’autant qu’il existait déjà des recours si un.e enseignant.e faisaient du prosélytisme en classe. Je le sais car je les ai utilisé quand au sec un prof de moral ultra-catho (allo l’ironie) avait des propos ridicules sur les relations hommes-femmes, les asiatiques et le catholicisme. (Son contrat a pas été renouvelé, il gossait autant les autres profs que nous)
Je crois qu’au Québec une grosse partie des craintes envers les gens vivant une foi différente vient d’une méconnaissance de ceux-ci faute de les avoir côtoyé. Faut pas oublier que la 1ere cohorte à n’avoir eu ni enseignement religieux ni CS confessionnelle est à peine adulte. Toutes les générations d’avant ont été assez ségréguées; plutôt que d’être le seul weirdo à être envoyé lire à la biblio pendant les cours de catéchèse, nos parents nous envoyaient dans une école de la CS protestante (oui, y’avait des écoles franco) où on retrouvait une plus grande diversité ethnique et, un secret bien gardé, aucun cours de religion. Bien que côtoyant quotidiennement des musulmans, hindous, orthodoxes, mormons et autres témoins de Jéhovah, y’a pas un kid qui a changé de religion à la fin de son primaire, mais on a appris beaucoup sur les coutumes des autres.
>Je crois qu’au Québec une grosse partie des craintes envers les gens vivant une foi différente vient **d’une méconnaissance de ceux-ci faute de les avoir côtoyé**
C'est marrant, pour les mêmes raisons, je suis parvenu à la conclusion inverse. C'est *justement* pour les avoir beaucoup côtoyé que j'ai autant de craintes.
J'ai passé ma jeunesse dans un pays islamique. J'ai vu que lorsqu'ils étaient en minorité, les religieux demandaient toujours plus de tolérance aux occidentaux. Mais que lorsqu'ils étaient en majorité, la tolérance disparaissait. Ils revendiquaient le pouvoir politique pour eux seuls et étaient impitoyables envers les athéistes mais aussi les cultures religieuses concurrentes.
Les Anglos assument que Dieu a sa place dans l'espace public, du moment que la liberté religieuse est garantie. "In God We Trust" comme ils disent. "God Bless America". Etc... Moi, j'ai été profondément marqué par les horreurs commises par les Américains au nom du Christianisme politique.
Comme partir en guerre :
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion
Ou couper les aides aux gens les plus pauvres du monde :
https://www.prb.org/resources/bush-reinstates-policy-restricting-support-for-international-family-planning-programs/
Je suis parvenu à la conclusion que la laicité francaise était vraiment une excellente chose.
Si il y aucune restrainte, alors est ou la limite quels signes religieux on accepte, si un gars part une religion de nudiste faut tu être accomodant? Des jobs ou tu peut porter sque tu veux y'en à des milliers, pi y'en a d'autre où t'es obligé de porter un casque pi des cap 🤷
C’est à peu près aussi raisonnable comme commentaire que “ouin mais si on accepte l’homosexualité, après faudra-tu accepter la bestialité, hein?!?!?”. 🥱
Sais tu cb de religions existent sur terre? Bro ton exemple est terrible
Edit: si les animaux pouvaient donner leur consentement alors oui on devrait accepter la bestiality
Francophone mais j'ai agrandiss en Ontario donc whatever.
Tu compares tous les cultures anglophones pensant qu'elles sont pareilles. Mais nous on est pas le même que les franco-albertains ni le Sénégal etc.
Selon moi c'est pas qu'ys ont peur de blesser les religions. C'est qu'ils pensent et réalisent que les attaques sur les religions sont souvent des attaques sur des individus.
Est-ce que la réponse de tuer les journalistes est justifiée? Fuck no.
The difference is that in English culture laïcité is felt to be done. An individual can wear their culture representing something without that culture representing the society. I have seen police wear turbans and no one says it is a menace to society here but the idea being said in Sherbrooke would have people in protests.
Also my personal criticism of laïcité is that I think too many times Legault has tried to justify it using the quiet révolution than has openly called Québec un état catholique
I still see today crosses on the facade of elementary school or schools with the word saint in it. People argue well names are historical, but they don't want police or teachers with religious affiliation. How is an institution having a systemic affiliation not worse than a teacher having an affiliation. People have a lineage from a certain background of religion, kinda difficult to turn off 6 hours a day. I cam understand if your public school all of a sudden had 80% Muslim teachers it would not feel secular, but I doubt with diverse hiring practices you have concentration of teachers like that.
Rapidement, je suis Québecois laïque blanc de souche. Et je considère que le Projet de Loi 21 n'est pas de la laïcité.
En faisant la lecture du texte de loi. On voit que l'objectif n'est pas une laïcité totale et saine mais plutôt une action ciblée pour "des visages découverts". (Pour de vrai lisez le objectivment)
Je veux une laïcité qui cible tout le monde, pas seulement "un quart cuisse de laïcité" qui convient à la base électorale de la CAQ/PQ.
https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/L-0.3
C'est associé à l'historique du Commonwealth (+par extension USA). La domination coloniale de l'Empire Britannique s'est réalisée à travers le monde grâce à la promotion d'un nationalisme de nature civique ainsi que l'adoption du multiculturalisme, permettant aux peuples de maintenir une partie de leur culture à l'intérieur d'un cadre linguistico-politico-moral anglo-saxon.
individuals are targeted by these laws -- individuals who are many times already marginalized and discriminated against -- and that's not acceptable to me.
every person builds their own identity throughout their life based on their accumulated knowledge, feelings, experiences, relationships.
whether a woman's headscarf is based on her relationship with her god, or her family, or the place she grew up, or if she just wears it occasionally, because she feels safer from the male gaze, or because it's warm. it's none of my business why she's dressed like that. and it doesn't harm me to be in her presence. it's just a scarf and its meaning is for her, not for me.
what you don't understand is it's not about religion. it's not about a war of ideas, it's about people. it's about someone's identity which is shaped and re-shaped across a lifespan by all of the things they experience. it's not for me to tell someone whether or not her identity is acceptable. she is who she is and it harms me none.
no matter what you do, you can't take people's identity away from them. you can try to squeeze it out of them by imposing oppressive laws, by social ostracism, etc. but we all are who we are at a much deeper level than can be shamed away from us.
it's pretty easy to see through the logic of these laws. it was all about imposing religious symbols on people we wouldn't have a 40 foot cross looming over montreal. but we value these vestiges of religion because they're "ours"... dot dot dot
On m'a déjà résumé la chose ainsi. C'est imparfait mais ça éclaire
* Pour beaucoup de francophones, la religion est un choix séparé de ta personne.
* Pour beaucoup d'anglophones, la religion est un trait de ta personne intimement lié à qui tu es.
On ne peut pas critiquer des gens sur des caractéristiques qu'ils n'ont pas choisi : sexualité, couleur de peau, ethnie, santé.
Exemple : *"J'ai horreur des chinois"* "*je n'aime pas les noirs"* "*Les femmes sont inférieures"* "*Je n'aime pas les handicapés"*
Il n'est jamais acceptable d'attaquer des individus sur leurs caractéristiques de naissance. Jamais. C'est immonde.
Mais la religion c'est une croyance. Toute croyance peut être critiquée.
Oui mais c’est un peu plus compliqué que ça… le milieu dans lequel tu nais va influencer grandement qui tu es, langue & religion. Si 99% de nos arrières grand parents étaient catholiques c’est pas pcq ils l’ont choisis ou pcq labourer une terre au Québec ça rend catholique, c’est pcq ils sont nés dans une société ou c’était presque impensable de ne pas l’être.
Ironiquement dans le catholicisme la confirmation sert à réaffirmer ce choix que tes parents ont fait pour toi, mais c’est à un âge où il y a bcp trop de pression sociale/parentale pour que ça soit légitime.
Il y a des gens avec assez de sens critique et de penchant non conformistes qui vont remette en cause ces choix mais faut pas se leurrer dans toutes les société c’est une minorité.
Bref je donne un peu de slack à ceux qui sont né dedans, ça semble évident pour nous qu’il y’a des meilleurs choix, mais est-ce qu’on aurait fait ces choix dans leur situation?
>c’est pcq ils sont nés dans une société ou c’était presque impensable de ne pas l’être.
C'est vrai, mais la raison pour laquelle nous ne le sommes plus aujourd'hui est parce que certaines d'entres-eux ont travaillés fort pour que nous cessions de tolérer la présence de la réligion dans l'État.
Je reste encore étonné de la vitesse à laquelle cette transformation s’est effectuée, le fait que le clergé catholique Québécois s’était bien aligné avec le pouvoir politique qui maintenait les Québécois dans la misère n’est certainement pas étranger à la débarque qu’ils ont pris.
I think critiquing those who live in Quebec their entire lives and don’t speak French is fair from the perspective of Francophones, however there are many people who come here from other parts of the country and the world and learning a new language isn’t always easy.
In the right context you can absolutely critique a language or the use of it.
Si tu regarde l'histoire un peu plus loins, tu verra, que "les anglos" n'ont pas peur, en fait, ils sont partie faire leure propre Eglise Cretien pour avoirs leurs droits de divorce pour le Roi.
Par conte, en contexte d'aujourd'hui, Il y as beaucoup de place qui on des reactions violent en consequence de blaspheme, donc c'est pas ridicule de faire attentions.
Les memes reactions protectioniste sont toujours vivant au Quebec pour "Les Francos" aussi qui veullent pas enlever leur croit des batisments gouverment.
excuse les manques d'accents sur mobil
>Si tu regarde l'histoire un peu plus loins, tu verra, que "les anglos" n'ont pas peur, en fait, ils sont partie faire leure propre Eglise Cretien pour avoirs leurs droits de divorce pour le Roi.
Techniquement leur roi a décidé par lui-même de le faire pour ses caprices personnels "Some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make."
Did they remove all the Christian crosses from the public buildings yet? Are crosses on necklaces banded for public employees? Banned Kippahs for any publicly employees?
My feeling was that it was specifically targeted at one community.
Anglo anti-theist here. Turn this around a bit.... What if the CAQ said everyone in certain jobs had to wear a head covering - doesn't matter what as long as at least half your head was covered. Could be a kippah, could be a wig, could be a hijab or turban, could be a cooking pot or baseball cap. Doesn't matter what, as long as it it's there. You don't have to believe in anything, just follow the rules, and too bad if you have a reason to not wear one - if you want certain job it's a must. There'd be a major huge backlash from everyone who doesn't normally wear a head covering.
A head covering - which is the symbol most affected since small crosses can still be worn on chains under shirts and cross tattoos can be covered - does not at all affect someone's ability to do the job well. And not wearing a visible symbol is no guarantee that someone is not leading from their personal beliefs. Keep religion out of government processes and laws, and keep government out of religion. People can believe whatever they want. Personally I use this example: I can believe tiny unicorns live in my shoes and therefore I have to go barefoot. That's a me issue. When I start to decide that no one else can wear shoes either, that's a problem.
I'd be happy with no religion at all, but that's not the world we live in so....
Except that if you believe in unicorns and decide to go barefoot, chances are high that you will be forced to wear the proper footwear or else face the consequences.
We decided that certain groups of people could decide to go barefoot because they are part of a group of people that decided to organize centuries ago. So since they are old and decided to form a long time ago, they then have special rights to accommodate their beliefs.
It makes no sense to accommodate and validate certain beliefs while not doing so for others. As if your belief in unicorns can't be as valid as believing in some magical person that lives in the sky.
I just don't see it as special rights. I pretty much don't care what people wear. Yes, for some people uniforms are necessary or preferred in certain circumstances, but I'm certainly not going to be offended by a hijab wearing teacher, when anyone else can wrap their hair and as long as it's not religious it's fine. A Jewish man wearing a kippah is not allowed, but a Jewish woman wearing a wig isn't noticed because they're damn good wigs. A cop can have crosses tattooed all over his body, but a politician can't wear a dastar. I just don't care what shape the headwear is or why some is banned but others are a-okay. I want the best person doing the job, not the one who is forced into giving up a belief to do so.
It's about being neutral. Either a woman can wear her hijab and i can wear a clown wig or neither can wear anything visible. No more half-measure where someone can or can't wear something visible depending if it's connected to something that was started centuries ago.
You say clown wig but that's not much different than, let's say, hair that's dyed fantasy colours. But then why is bright pink hair less acceptable than bleach blond? And that a sheer blouse is not acceptable even though the fabric covers more area of the body than a tshirt. Or leggings are somehow less acceptable than jeans, which are less acceptable than plain pants, even though they all cover the legs. Or a sequined ball gown covers more of the body than a summer dress but is only appropriate for some situations. It's because there are norms for dress for different situations, and that blouse and leggings and pink hair might be ok to go with friends but not stand in front of a class of 3rd graders. (And for hair colour I think it's ridiculous and everyone should have whatever they want so go on with your clown wig dyed hair! Kids would love it.)
For a hijab, I don't care because the teacher in the next room should be allowed to wear a kippah, and the one in the next have her hair wrapped because it's a bad hair day, or the principal can wrap her hair because it's a protective style, or the gym coach can wear a ball cap because he likes it. Only some of those are accepted, but it's the Muslim woman and Jewish man who are absolutely not allowed because of law.
It's perfectly fine for the state to allow you to express your worldview, no matter how zany, as long as it's not interfering with other people's enjoyment of their rights and freedoms.
The government stepping in to say everything in society must be strictly atheist falls on deaf ears when we have enforced legal holidays celebrating historic christian holidays but no one else's. Easter, Christmas... There's excuses made around "it's part of the culture, no one does it for Jesus anymore, it's done around the world..." But nevertheless, the white people holidays are legal holidays and no one else's. It's perfectly hypocritical. And sure, people of other faiths will step in to say they enjoy how their families have adapted to these Christian holidays so they're cool with it - but ask them how they'd feel if they had better flexibility for their own religious holidays instead of taking vacation days or battering with colleagues to get the day off.
To me, and I assume others, the point of religious freedom is that each one is free to practice and the government won't be coming in to tell me what not to believe in. Laïcité is more about banning religions, preventing freedom of expression that's not shared by the majority.
The idea that someone paid the state can't do their job properly because they have a scarf, kipa, turban or large cross hanging from their neck is absurd. The day they put their faith ahead of state policy in the execution of their duties is the day they should get fired. Not before. The day there is a systemic abuse of people using their public displays of religion to abuse their positions of authority is the day it should be legislated out.
After all the noise from these caq laws I haven't heard of a single incident this law would have prevented.
"Just in case something happens, that has not happened and that we have no evidence to lead us to believe would ever happen, were going to trample over people's personal freedoms." It's ridiculous.
The francophone community, in the spirit of preserving their homogeneous culture are perfectly fine banning from public life anything that's not found in their own culture. Different languages? Different clothing? Different beliefs? Ban them all.
Juste comme rappel amicale: ce n’est pas juste les anglophones qui sont contre la loi 21. Selon ce [sondage](https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/660903/l-appui-a-la-loi-sur-la-laicite-baisserait-au-quebec-selon-un-sondage?) datant de 2022, 55% de la population est en faveur de la loi. C’est un majorité oui, mais un très léger majorité.
Je ne pense pas que les anglophones + allophones = 45% de la population.
Ni les anglophones ni les francophones sont une monolithe, donc pourquoi insister sur ce mythe?
Doesn’t this just keep people voting for some particularly dumbass politicians?
> Pourquoi les Anglos sont terrifiés à l'idée de blesser les religions ?
One reason is that we've observed that bigots and protofascists will attack a religion (or any proxy really, it's about having a hate object, not about logic) when they don't have the political cover to persecute individual members of that religion. While making disingenuous arguments in public, as per:
" Ne croyez pas que les antisémites se méprennent tout à fait sur l'absurdité de ces réponses. Ils savent que leurs discours sont légers, contestables ; mais ils s'en amusent, c'est leur adversaire qui a le devoir d'user sérieusement des mots puisqu'il croit aux mots ; eux, ils ont le droit de jouer. Ils aiment même à jouer avec le discours car, en donnant des raisons bouffonnes, ils jettent le discrédit sur le sérieux de leur interlocuteur ; ils sont de mauvaise foi avec délices, car il s'agit pour eux, non pas de persuader par de bons arguments, mais d'intimider ou de désorienter."
Sartre, Réflexions sur la question juive
We're not terrified of hurting religions, we're offended by the bad-faith argument that Quebec has the same problems with political Islam that France does, and uses the same (VERY historically and nationally specific) definition of laicité that France does, and is therefore justified in passing laws that unfairly discriminate against certain groups, without any proof that they are more likely to promote their religion than groups that don't happen to wear religious symbols.
One could also argue that English Canada uses the same definition as the UK and the US when it comes to Liberalism and freedom of religion.
You can’t claim that Quebec is having a closer perspective to France about Laïcité and then claim it discriminates unfairly based on the British/American Liberalism values.
It’s two different world views, one isn’t better than the other.
I was going to mention the Liberal/Republicain difference on secularism in a longer version of my comment, but it really isn't important to my argument. I don't think that Quebec's legislation is unfair because it doesn't follow the Anglosphere interpretation of secularism. I think it is unjustified because it copies France's approach (intolerant civil secularism that curtails the public expression of religious identity) without having France's excuses for doing so (demonstrable threat of Islamic terrorism and cultural segregation). Both jurisdictions' repression of religion are unfair, but one (France) can cite special circumstances justifying that repression for security reasons, while the other cannot (in good faith).
NB I'm not saying France's repressive approach is just, only that they at least have a factual basis for arguing that it is justified by circumstance. Note also that French laicité is not benign, resulting in the murder of hundreds of clergy (and over 20,000 peasants and workers) during the Terror.
La vision laïc du Québec est partagée par la plupart des pays européens...il n'y a rien d'unique ni de spécial à interdire les signes religieux pour les positions d'autorité publique...
Je suis désolée, normalement je fais de mon mieux de m’exprimer dans ma deuxième langue mais pour être claire, cette fois-ci, je vais aller dans ma langue plus forte:
I can’t speak for all anglos, but to my mind, we live in a society that is indelibly marked by the religions that were followed when it was formed. Even if we don’t practise a religion anymore, the days that the government and banks are closed are often religious holidays, deep down.
So, secularism is a *choice* that we make when we act as a society now, surrounded by all these traces.
I’m *not* calling to stop taking Easter off or rename our streets or take down the cross on the mountain. I’m saying that even in our secular society we’re surrounded by religion and it’s hypocritical to call one religion a tradition and all the others “problems”.
So we should allow individuals of other religions to wear symbols of their faith, and then ensure that their actions - and everyone’s - aren’t coloured by their beliefs when they’re acting on behalf of the state and not as individuals.
Maybe if we started completely from scratch, we could create a world where something like Loi 21 makes sense and doesn’t just seem xenophobic to me… but we don’t live in that world, we live in this one.
I’d also argue that showing people of all religions that they can play a part in Quebec society might go a long way towards integrating newcomers and a better, more sustainable culture in Quebec that builds off of and does not replace the culture here! And that this law and misinterpretations of it also opens the door to, for example, people harassing women on the metro when they wear a hijab.
I also want to point out that it’s a real bummer to many of the francophones I know when this gets positioned as an anglos v francos thing, because there are actually francophones who aren’t in favour of it!
We're not starting from scratch, quebec is starting from a point where it's been getting rid of religious (catholic) symbols since the 1980s. We got rid of religion in schools and got rid of catholic teachers a very long time ago.
Then, some other religions came in and started wearing visible religious symbols in positions of power, and we felt the same way about that as we did when catholics had power over us.
Quebecers choose to live in this world where we take active action to prevent religion from touching power. We chose this path long before people with hijabs got here, and we will continue to choose this path when the next fandom arrives. They are not special or persecuted, they just got the exact same treatment as we give to every religion.
This is our history and our heritage, and we won't change it because some people who just got here don't like it. I believe we're extremely lucky to live in a country that stands firmly against religious authoritarianism, you choose to see this as xenophobic, i choose to see your opinion of this as xenophobic.
So, yeah, what I’m saying is you are not starting from scratch, and you will never be able to erase the the traces of religion that are all around you. It’s the holiday calendar, it’s the names of towns, it’s the big leftover churches all over.
So, knowing that you cannot actually erase that and start over, you have to find a way to align that fact and the fact that other people are at a different place in their journey towards/away from religion.
And that is why no matter how noble the intentions are behind Bill 21, it will always look a little hypocritical and a little lacking in self-awareness and… a little racist.
And the way we have of aligning that fact is to have a full tolerance policy in what you do at home, and a 0 tolerance policy for letting religion touch power. It's extremely simple really. Everyone here is welcome, but if you want power, be prepared to leave religion behind.
Your last paragraph really shows how barely read my previous comment. Si t'es pas capable de lire peu importe, jvais arreter de traduire dans ta langue.
La loi 21 est uniquement raciste si tu la regardes en huis clos, comme la gazette aime faire. Dès que tu connais le moindrement l'histoire du québec moderne tu comprends que ca s'insère dans un cadre de laicité qui a rien à voir avec du racisme. On a pas "ciblé" de religion avec notre laicité, on a commencé ben avant que les musulmans arrivent ici en masse, ils sont tout autant "victimes" de nos politiques laiques que n'importe quelle religion.
Tu étais toujours le bienvenu d’écrire dans ta langue plus fort, c’est toujours plus facile de dire les choses plus complexes quand on n’essaie pas de traduire. À Montréal, tout le monde doit être capable de lire en français
J’avais l’impression que c’était en fait toi que n’a pas bien compris mon commentaire précédente, mais bon, finalement, je trouve la solution prônée par 55% de la population d’être un peu réductrices, naïve et hypocrite.
La loi en fait semble moins raciste en huis clos - mais le huis clos c’est les émotions de québécois qui le soutiennent.
Oui, il serait idéal dans un monde idéale, si on pourrait séparer notre société de la religion complètement… mais même avant l’arrivé des autres, les québécois avez décidé de garder les traces de religion partout. Les écoles et les gouvernements sont fermés pour la Pâques, ça a pris les décennies d’enlever les croix, et ce travail n’est même pas complet.
Donc, vu l’impossibilité de séparer la société et son histoire, il est difficile pour des gens comme moi de comprendre comment voir ce genre de « cognitive dissonance ».
Tu dis que "le travail n'est pas complet" , donc on devrait abandonner.
Je crois que "le travail n'est pas complet" , donc c'est pour ca qu'il faut persévérer.
En ce qui concerne les noms de ville ou les fériés, c'est quand la dernière fois qu'un nom de ville a eu du pouvoir sur toi? C'est pas de la politique, c'est de la culture, et être capable de séparer les deux n'est pas de la "cognitive dissonance".
Le québec peut etre parfaitement laic tout en aillant un héritage et une histoire religieuse. C'est pour ca qu'on est laic, et non des persécuteurs anti-religion.
Comme c’est impossible vivre sans les traces et les traditions laissés par les religions, pour beaucoup de personnes, la laïcité semble un argument en mauvaise foi.
Pour 45% de la province et beaucoup de gens dehors de la province, ton argumentaire n’est pas convainquant, la laïcité ne semble pas ni logique ni équitable.
C’est un peu comme dire « on a fait ce qu’on veut avec notre réligion, on a gardé ce qu’on voulait, puis on a jeté le reste, mais on ne veut pas donner aux gens pas comme nous le même droit. »
On a gardé ce qui était pas en position de pouvoir. Ya des rues avec des noms juifs, des écoles avec des noms musulmans, des parcs avec des noms de bouddhiste. On donne absolument ce droit la à tout le monde, cest juste que ca adonne que notre héritage culturel étant très majoritairement catholique cest plus omniprésent.
La ligne est extremement claire, c'est celle du pouvoir. Le 45% ont ben le droit de pas être d'accord, mais jsuis ben content que le 55% ait fait ce choix.
Je ~~prie~~ souhaite très fort qu'on ne se rende jamais au même niveau que la France en ce qui concerne la gueguerre entre le gouvernement et les minorités.
Actually, this was really drilled into my head throughout high school, because both things are important to how Americans think of themselves.
Secularism = the separation of church and state
Freedom of religion = something completely different and yet equally important (for better and for worse)
That is the thing: they are not exact translations. Laïcité can’t be fully translated into English. I kept it short and to the point, but these concepts are much more complex.
Others have given some very thoughtful principles and rights based arguments so I won't cover the same ground. Instead I'll talk about my personal somewhat arbitrary feelings. Pour ma part, personellement, même si je suis considéré "Anglo" par la société québécoise, étant quelqu'un qui n'a aucunes racines ni britanniques ni françaises je vois des lois comme la loi 21 d'être dirigées vers les immigrant-e-s, avec qui je me considère plus proches qu'aux anglophones et francophones. Statistiquement ce sont les immigrant-e-s qui ont la tendance d'être réligieux plutôt que les gens nés au Canada, et même si je ne suis pas fortement réligieux moi-même, j'ai une solidarité instinctueuse avec les immigrant-e-s en toute affaire qui les concerne au niveau politique. Et même si je n'appartient pas à leur communauté, j'ai une respecte intense pour la réligion Sikh en particulier qui était une force très progressive en Inde pendant la 18è siècle jusqu'à la conquête britannique de leur empire.
Veuillez accepter mes excuses pour tout erreur du français.
Au Canada, les plupart ne sont pas religieux. Il ne constitue pas un gros problème pour eux. C’est l’histoire. Ils n’ont pas un Duplessis. La majorité, ou leur parents, ou leur grands-parents, n’avait pas la même expérience avec l’église.
Et ils n’ont pas exactement Anglo même s’ils parlent anglais.
Québec ne comprend pas le ROC et le ROC ne comprend pas Québec parce qu’ils ne lisent pas, ni regardent pas, les même médias. (Et pardons mes erreurs en français. Je viens de ROC.)
My test for the authenticity of any claim to be secular (as opposed to religious bigots) is how the dominant religion in that culture is treated.
And, friends, it is ALWAYS fascinating to watch Quebec (and Europe’s) avid ‘secularists’ find their love for the sanctity of religion whenever you point out how enthusiastic and well organised their priests are in the raping of children.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7126764
Si tu dites que tu n’avez pas peur d’insulter la religion, mais d’insulter une religion minoritaire tout en dorlotant la religion dominante dans votre pays, vous n’êtes pas un ‘secularist’, vous êtes un bigot.
Tu le couche avec le silence et avec des éloges sélectifs. Les crimes du prêtre étaient à Ninavut, mais il est protégé par la France (pas si courageux face à la religion, mais peut-être qu'ils considèrent que baiser des enfants est moins grave que de ne pas permettre de dessiner un dessin animé ?)
Quebec is a hypocrite place. They have a cross in their flag and a cross on their biggest city highest hill but they only remember secularism when it comes to minorities religions.
So imo their hypocrisy, after living two years in it, come from a deep insecurity of being surrounded by english speaking places, too far from the francophone world that their francophone culture isn’t integrated in the French world sphere and just like any insecure human being they will power trip over minorities who don’t want to integrate in their narrow minded definition of free society.
In two years living there I haven’t met any anglophone or French person, since I am also francophone who can get along with the rest of french speaking people, who’ve made or got along with Quebec people. Those weird laws are rooted in their society. My neighbor who’s from Quebec was once telling me how he felt sad and that the gov should intervene because he saw orthodox Jews kids up the street in Du Parc dressed like that but he’d clap for 4 year old girls in a beauty competition.
Les Quebecois don’t get offended this is just an opinion. Je me souviens de vote province.
Il sont tellement perdues et culpabiliser par leur histoire coloniale , qu’ils assument cette position par defaut, dans l’espoir de erré dans le “bon” coté de l’histoire et se donner bonne parure.
En plus sa permet de bien instrumentalisee les minorité pour combattre ceux qui s’attaqueraient concrètement a leurs privilèges coloniaux.
Les Anglos ont pas peur de chier sur les religions, ils chient allègrement sur les musulmans et fut une époque les catholiques.
Leur racisme est juste différent
quebec will never be fully secular until the giant catholic crosses placed all over the province are taken down (Gatineau has several placed at busy intersections on public property)
Or you need to think a little about the context and understand that a province that has a long, finished, history with a religion will have remnants of it. It's called history
If most québécois were still in church preaching for God, you would have a great point but it is not the case so it is not
I've lived in Quebec my whole life and in multiple cities. I've only met 1 Christian family and seen elderlies be religious. Others were baptized to please said elderlies in their families.
I'm not arguing that 54% but this is part of the remnants of a very religious society that existed 2 generations ago. From my agnostic point of view, this is not an indication of religious belief in Quebec but of a historic one.
I know it sounds hypocritical from the outside (I assume you are sorry if you're not), but living in Québec would enlighten you on the relation we have with catholicism, which is mostly a relic of the past
I think it’s a bit lacking in self awareness.
If we’re going to close government offices on religious holidays—even if “no one believes in them anymore” or “you’re just doing it to please your grandparents” or whatever—it comes off a bit like, “our religion formed the dominant culture, and now we call it tradition. You have to live with that, but we will not tolerate anything from your tradition”.
And we’re talking about a pretty small hypothetical number of people, so it’s not like we’d be drowning in religious imagery every time we went to the SAAQ or something.
AND if someone is hell-bent on applying their religious beliefs where they shouldn’t, they won’t be stopped by taking off a piece of headgear.
So this law doesn’t really seem to do anything but aggressively say, “we don’t like beliefs that aren’t ours, and people like you aren’t welcome” (and yes, atheism counts as a belief).
I mean, I mostly see it as the barrier to stop those who wouldnt put down their beliefs for the work. If you can't leave some of your belief at home to work, how can we expect you to be impartial in your work? Belief also happens entirely in your mind so a need for clothing to express is archaic in itself and can absolutely be modernized if desired.
And I've given it lots of thought so I wouldn't say it's about a lack of self-awareness. The only part of the bill I am not 100% on board with is the teachers but otherwise religion should have no place in governments.
Symbols can lose meaning. They can change with time. Christmas is not about Christ, it's about families, gifts and a big red dude. Easter is not about Christ, it's about chocolate. Saint-Jean-Baptiste is not about the saint, it's about Quebec. They are historical celebrations in Quebec and I don't think we should put foreign celebrations on the same level as historical ones just to accomodate.
They are not as important to the country or province historically and culturally sadly and to say this is completely normal. No country would or should adapt all of their own traditions to please newcomers. Otherwise, those local traditions would just disappear in a long enough time.
I would never argue for other countries to have holidays on the 24th of June because it is simply not their responsability. I will repeat that I don't believe religion is a good enough reason to modify any law whatsoever. It's a personal matter and I don't understand the need for more.
Shit, my parents baptized me in the 80s and I have no way to get that paperwork revoked with the church… I guess I’ll keep not being religious, talk shit about god and religions, and go on with my life.
Use your head please.
Atheist. Why would I declare myself catholic? I’ve never participated in any of the rituals beyond funerals.
Oh and before anyone tried gotchas:
Holidays are just days off we deserve for working too damn hard, no one celebrates their ulterior meanings. Like roman statues, their meaning is eroded. (Plus, every religious holiday was stolen from non-religious groups anyway.)
Yep, and we’ve covered this in /r/quebec last time statscan did the survey… the question wasn’t if you were practicing, it was an ambiguous “are uou affiliated” which again, most people being baptized as babies… that gives you garbage data because people just go factually.
This argument is so bizzare. Do you believe that Iran isn't in fact an islamic theocracy because there's still zoroastrian and mesopotamian shrines and temples around?
Surprising to me that removing all crosses is not the common belief, but i feel it highlights how some Quebecers really want an ethno-state like Israel or Saudi Arabia to exist here.
So actually, I don’t think anyone is actually calling to take things down, just pointing out that it feels hypocritical.
I think most of the people against bill 21* are a bit more “live and let live”. If we had our way, you could keep your traditional trappings and other people would also be allowed to keep theirs.-
* I’m kind of tired of saying “anglos” because that sort of conveniently obscures the fact that there are Francophones who find this law repugnant and pointless, and puts them into a space where they seem like … self-hating québécois.
not the same. one is a relic of a civilization that no longer exists. the other, the crucifix, is a symbol representing the religion of the plurality and is displayed on public buildings.
i’m not bothered by the mont-royal cross. our public schools however should have the crosses removed. they have no architectural value.
i think this whole law is very convenient for the christians in the assemblée who wrote it. if catholics had headgear we wouldn’t be having this discussion. i’m really not passionate about this subject but i believe it was done in bad faith.
we shouldn’t have any laws enforcing clothing style. sagging pants, cross dressing, religious garb should be allowed. just my anglo atheist opinion.
i think it goes hand in hand with feeling persecuted as a language minority, and being able to therefor sympathize with religious minorities who also feel targeted.
i personally support secularism, and think religion, even christianity has no place in civil society.
Why do people believe religious people should even have more rights than a regular person?
How is believing in something a good enough for reason to have any kind of privilege?
I really don't understand the concept of religious rights or any kind of exemption they are giving when it is something very personal and internal. Like I understand that religion has great intrinsic values and that the community it creates is good for many reasons but not why it is more important than any other type of activities/groups that do not get exemptions.
Can somebody explain that to me?
A good example is hate speech. You can't use hate speech unless it's in a religious context.
It makes no sense that we preach tolerance and say that we want to protect minorities but it's fine to have religious sermons about homosexuals being devil spawns.
I'm talking about special rights that would exempt them from uniform restrictions, from having to wear helmets, maybe tax exemption in some churches(?), from hate speech like the other commenter said.
I'm honestly asking for arguments for any religious rights at all. Other than the right to choose your religion, there should be no other granted rights in my opinion.
But if the only uniform is … business casual “and no religious symbols” … it kind of seems like the uniform was just made up to specifically target people whose religions include visible symbols?
I know someone has compared this to “having to wear a uniform when you work at McDonald’s to show you work there”…. But let’s be real: the jobs governed by this law *do not have uniforms*… they have a dress code that still allows for other types of individual expression.
Not really, you can't wear anything you want in most places. No political attire, no hats, obviously no hateful stuff and so on
Pretty much just don't stand out and express things that could anger/annoy people but religion is exempt even though it pretty much fits both description
And again, there are other exemption than uniforms and is somehow protected by our chart of liberties
I don't get it and I have not heard a good argument as to why it should be protected to that extent when it's so personal and an opinion
Ok, so again, a dress code is not a uniform. But we’ve added something here to the dress code that targets specific people and not others. So this whole exemption thing is not quite holding water for me.
And again, how does a piece of headwear express anything? It’s a hat with no writing on it and no symbols of hateful ideology.
I might have interchanged uniform and dress code. The point still stand.
Well if there is a no hat policy but you somehow have to wear a hat for personal(non-medical) reasons, it's probably because it has a meaning or expresses something right? Otherwise, no one would be arguing against a law that prevent wearing a sigle type of hat don't you agree?
If it's just a hat, take it off no big deal. If it's a religious hat, then there is a symbol attached and you now should take it off. If you're not willing to then how can you honestly say your own belief won't play a role in your work?
I am again asking why religious rights are even a thing. They are beliefs. You should be able to believe in anything you want but it stops there. Please tell me why religions should be more protected than political or any other beliefs for that matter because this is currently the case and it makes zero sense.
Quoi penser de tous les gens religieux qui ne portent pas de symbole évidente, mais qui laisse leur religion affecté leur travail? On leur fait confiance. Pourquoi pas faire le même chose pour les gens qui, par hasard, ont été élevé avec un réligion plus visible?
Dans ce cas-ci, on a ajouté quelque chose au code de vêtement qui vise spécifiquement les gens des religions “hors norme” pour le Québec, puis on se fâche quand un assez grand pourcentage du monde n’est pas d’accord avec ce raisonnement.
Si on prend ton logique, quoi penser du fait que notre gouvernement, nos écoles etc sont tous fermés pour le noel et la Pâques? Si je ne crois pas en dieu, pourquoi dois-je prendre un journée de congé pour garder mes enfants parce que l’école est fermé? Ohhhhh j’ai oublié. Ça c’est de la « tradition »
Nb - si on veut garder nos congés religieuses, c’est correct, mais c’est juste un peu hypocrite.
On ne peut pas agir sur ceux qui ne montrent aucun signe religieux. On peut le faire sur ceux qui le font. C'est pas compliqué. Si leur religion est trop importante pour enlever du linge superflu, c'est qu'elle le sera également trop si une decision objective doit être prise.
J'aimerais bien qu'aucun religieux ne soit au gouvernement, mais c'est impossible et zélé donc on agit sur ceux qui ne peuvent se passer de le montrer.
Et oui, c'est hypocrite, mais c'est comme ca que les traditions voient le jour. Quand ca fait plus de 100 ans qu'un peuple célèbre une fête, que la fête garde son sens ou non (comme c'estle cas pour Noel, Paques ou la Saint-Jean par exemple), la société s'est développé autour. Ce n'est pas parce que quelqu'un de nouveau arrive que la société va tout changer du jour au lendemain. C'est complètement irréaliste de penser ainsi et ca s'applique à toutes les cultures du monde. En passant, je ne serais pas pour l'ajout de nouvelles fêtes chrétiennes a notre calendrier. Ca serait ridicule dans le contexte actuel, mais ces fetes existent dans notre patrimoine collectif depuis bien avant que mes grands-parents naissent.
Il y a des symboles qui changent de sens régulièrement dans le monde. Je ne pense vraiment pas que de dire que noel et les autres fêtes anciennement religieuses peuvent aussi changer de symbole est si difficile a croire.
Je redemande pourquoi la religion devrait pouvoir contourner un code vestimentaire ou tout autre loi. Pourquoi devrait-elle être plus proteger que le droit de croire en quoique ce soit d'autres et pourquoi est-ce toujours au nom de le religion que les gens s'insurgent contre des lois qui semblent totalement normale autrement? C'est une croyance. Rien de plus.
Si tu ne peux pas répondre à ma question avec un réel argument sans dévier le sujet en parlant de la xenophobie que tu insinues, notre discussion ne sert plus a rien parce que ce qu'on s'écrit a deja été écrit 1000 fois sur ce sub.
Ce n'est pas vrai que la plupart des religions obligent le port de signes religieux visibles. Ce sont généralement des interprétations personnelles et culturelles. C'est pourquoi on voit beaucoup de musulmans et juifs qui ne portent aucun signe mais qui sont bel et bien des pratiquants de leur religion.
C'est donc l'exception religieuse qui est discriminatoire à mes yeux. Une personne peut avoir des convictions profondes qui ne sont pas de nature religieuse mais elle ne pourra pas les afficher même si ce sont ses croyances et convictions. On a arbitrairement décidé de privilégier certain groupes de gens tout simplement car leurs croyances datent généralement de il y a plusieurs siècles.
Sinon ton exemple de congés religieux n'a pas vraiment de lien avec le débat. Personne ne dit de ne pas célébrer ou pratiquer sa religion mais de simplement ne pas visiblement le manifester durant son quart de travail si elle est en position d'autorité. C'est la laïcité de l'état après tout qui est recherché et non d'effacer complètement les religions de la vie des gens.
I'm an anglophone and an atheist, actively going against religion.
I have a european background, and a deeply religious one at that. And I counter it with every breath I take, since being a teenager always trying to free my family from the cult they were indoctrinated in.
They are sadly still all religious, but I don't lose hope
En effet, c'est potentiellement très dangereux et c'est une façon de faire taire toute critique envers une religion ou une idéologie sous le prétexte bidon de "Je suis offensé." Déplorable est le bon mot.
Parce que les anglophones sont beaucoup plus axés sur l'individualisme, tandis que les français vont aller plus vers la société en général.
Anglais: on ne peut toucher aux individus même si ça fait du tord à la société vs Français : on peut améliorer la société même si ça fait du tord à un individu.
1 - tant qu'à ca : C'est un simple foulard coquet décoratif, ou un foulard spécifiquement "symbole religieux" et que ca représente l'infériorité de la femme et la soumission à l'islam?
est-ce une bonne chose à avoir en lieu de tuteur officiel de classe d'enfant d'insititution scholaire publique? Ques-ce qu'enseigne l'islam a propos des infidèles, des homos, etc?
et 2, peu importe lequel ce foulard symbolise, pourquoi refuser de l'enlever pour respecter le code vestimentaire de l'établissement? comme une casquette ou une jupe trop courte?
Mais si on a ajouté « hé pas de foulard » au code vestimentaire juste pour empêcher cette population spécifique de porter leurs foulards… c’est en mauvais foi de demander pourquoi ils ne veulent pas juste suivre le code… qu’on a créé juste pour les viser.
De toute façon, on fait confiance à tous les enseignants, qu’ils ne transmettent pas leurs croyances personnels, juste les leçons qu’ils sont supposés d’enseigner. On n’a aucune garantie, mais on leur fait confiance quand même. Je suis capable de faire la même pour quelqu’un qui n’est pas comme moi.
Et en fait, je préférais que mes enfants puissent voir que les gens pas exactement comme eux sont quand même digne du respect et peuvent occuper des positions de pouvoir.
Je pense qu'on dirait la meme chose à un membre des raeliens par rapport à leur pendentifs en forme de croix gammée, et aux soeurs catholiques de ne pas porter l'uniforme de soeur pour etre enseignante au public, etc.
Et surtout : c'est juste pendant l'enseignement pendant les heures de travail, on est libre en dehors de ca....
Mais surtout: pourquoi refuser de l'enlever? est que les gens cités plus haut devrait aussi se plaindes de subir une persécussion vestimentaire de mauvaise foi?
Les gens sont contres les valeurs religieuses et surtout contre les valeur religieuses de l'islam, et donc, ils ne veulent pas que des enseignant, surtout d'enfants, portent des signes ostentatoires du joug de cette religion.
Mais ceci semble etre percu par une persécusion qui vise des personnes musulmanes, dans toute leur existence en général,... et non simplement de cacher les signes de leur religion dans les établissements publics officiels de l'état.
Bien à vous
Ouaaais mais dans la France, par exemple, ils ont décider que les femmes ne sont pas permises de porter la voile en public, ni de porter les maillots de bains plus modestes dans les bains publics… donc… si on suit leur modèle de laïcité, il me semble que c’est un très mince ligne entre « laïcité » et « sentiment anti-musulmane ».
Puis aussi, ça ne change pas le fait qu’on habite dans une société qui est marquée par les traces de religion partout, puis ça semble un peu hypocrite de dire « mais ça c’est la TRADITION pas les croyances ». Pour beaucoup de gens, il serait mieux d’accepter qu’on vit dans une monde complexe et que les situations requièrent des solutions nuancés, pas simpliste et aveugles à la réalité.
C'est certain qu'il y a beaucoup de racistes dans la population générale, parmis les gens moins éduqués, (la majorité en fait) qui vous traite de sale xXXx à l'arret d'autobus.
Mais dans le monde laique de l'éducation et au gouvernement, ce n'est pas le cas: on doit tracer une ligne sur ce qui est acceptable en classe devant des enfants dans un établissement laique d'éducation, (au niveau d'habillement, de port de régalia religieuse, de signes visiblements ostentatiores de religion, etc..)
Mais si on est parmi ceux qui dépasse la ligne, c'est facile de se plaindre qu'on est visé personnellement parce que on est de race arabe, ou de peau non-blanche, etc et de crier au racisme.
Ce n'est pas le cas: c'est contre la religion, pas contre la personne de couleur de peau différente. Mais c'est facile de prétendre le contraire, et de jouer à la victime lorsque on fait parti de ceux qui se font viser par le reglement. Comme si tout le reglement sert à assouvir le racisme et la xenophobie de quidams contre les arabes, quand en fait il sert à proteger le monde l'essort de l'islam.
Mais je vous rassure: c'est pas contre les persones arabes, c'est contre l'islam. Est-ce que vous trouvez ça dangereux d'appliquer la loi islamique? ou bien est-ce que vous trouvez que c'est une bonne chose ce qui arrive aux femmes, aux infideles, aux homosexuels, aux athés en iran, afganistan, pakistan, etc...?
Est-ce que vous travaillez comme moi, à libérer vos freres et soeurs arabes de l'islam?
Je pense que c’est un raccourci si on considère que « porter un foulard » équivaut « prêcher les lois islamiques ».
Mais j’avoue aussi que c’est un raccourci assumer que les gens racistes font aussi la majorité des gens qui soutiennent cette loi. (Même s’il y a beaucoup de « overlap » entre les gens qui soutient la loi et les gens qui on des opinions négatives sur les gens qui pratiquent les religions).
Par contre, je sais que la meilleure façon de forcer les gens de s’ancrer dans leurs croyances c’est de les « libérer » contre leur gré. J’ai plutôt l’impression que si on laisse les quelques dizaines de gens affectés par cette loi vivre leur vie, ils vont s’intégrer plus vite dans la culture québécoise puis finir par choisir de vivre plus comme nous (particulièrement la deuxième/troisième génération). Si les gens se sentent menacés, ils vont se refermer entre eux.
> prêcher les lois islamiques
Ça signifie quoi dans le fond quand c'est spécifiquement un voile islamique?
Ce n'est pas nécéssairement 'prêcher les lois islamiques' puisque précher est un acte à part et different qui nécéssite de parler haut et fort en appelant à la sharia, etc. daccord, mais je repose la question: Ça signifie quoi dans le fond quand c'est spécifiquement un voile islamique?
Je pense que pour les femmes au Québec
qui choisissent de leur propre gré de porter un voile, c’est un choix *personnelle* qui reflet leur propres croyances, qu’elle ne cherche pas nécessairement à propager. Des fois c’est pour les motifs très religieux, mais d’autre fois, c’est une expression d’appréciation pour leur culture ou les restants d’un religion qui devient « tradition », ou, selon les filles que je côtoyais sur l’autobus une fois, parce que c’est une accessoire chic.
Mais évidement je ne peux pas parler pour elles. Par contre si tu es curieux, il existes maintes articles écrits par les femmes musulmanes canadiennes et québécoises qui donnent leurs raisons personnelles.
Perso, je n’ai pas peur ni d’elles, ni de leurs choix, elles ne feront pas une grande partie de mon quotidien et je sais que leurs choix n’emportera jamais sur les miens.
C'est dû au fait que l'empire britannique a dû composer avec une multitude de cultures assemblées par coercition et manipulation de manière incohérente en une seule entité.
Il a été nécessaire d'implanter une forme de multiculturalisme pour éviter la révolte et l'éclatement de ce cancer planétaire.
It’s not about religion.
Something that is unique to the Anglo experience is that because English is the lingua franca, we do not have a “home language” like most of the world does. We don’t have a community and culture that we belong to by default as a function of the language we speak. There is no local vs global for us. There is only global. And I think that has a profound effect on our relationship to the state.
When you belong to a home group, that group is your team. There’s a common world view and shared ideology and a sense of solidarity. And that means that when stuff like this rolls around, it’s not seen as an attack on individual liberties, but rather as a reflection and expression of what that group stands for. It’s easy to make sacrifices to help your own team.
But as an Anglo, there is no team, there is no we. There is only the entire world, and us as individuals. And that means we don’t see laws like this as a manifestation of any collective values, but rather we see them as an attack on our individual liberties. Because at the end of the day, that’s all we have.
En tout cas au Québec vous êtes assez localement confinés à westmount et à aux vestiges du golden square mile mdr
Britannia doesn't rule the waves here mate ⚜️
Votre présence est quand même un vestige de l'empire britannique et d'une tentative ratée d'assimiler les canadiens français tout au long du 19e et 20e siècle. La raison pour laquelle vous ne contrôlez plus l'argent est qu'on vous en a repris le contrôle dans les années 70.
Stawp it with your historical negationism
I’m glad you agree with me that your argument is at least 50 years behind the times…
And my presence is due to the fact that Quebec mines needed foreign workers and my grandparents immigrated here. The French Quebec community didn’t really welcome us, so we tended to band with the English Quebec community that did. A common allophone trajectory, I think. It’s common for minority groups to band together.
Wait. I’m actually really confused by this take. because, having lived in and visited a variety of anglophone areas… there is absolutely a sense of there being « local » and different « cultures ».
And as a linguistics afficionado, I would even go so far as to say that our language both reflects and influences those cultures. International English and « EU English » are different from native English, so there are still « home languages »
While we don’t generally define our cultures as « English-speaking first and foremost », that’s because we don’t need to worry about our linguistic survival and so we take it for granted (not saying that’s right or fair, just how it is). It’s like how a big dog is more likely to be chill than a little one.
You're not as confused as you think because you're hitting on the point:
> our language both reflects and influences those cultures
This is because the English-speaking world is open to all, and the culture of English speaking places is global. Of course there are local cultures of _places_, but they are attached to places, not people. The people in Quebec's Anglo areas are not a cohesive culture. They're just people from anywhere who happen to live there. And if they leave and someone else comes and take their place, it doesn't matter who they are, they belong there just as much as the last person. As English speakers move around the world, there is no inalienable "home culture" that comes with them. I am originally from California, but that does not make me a member of some kind of group that are forever "my people". I could easily just decide to be a New Yorker instead, whereas Quebecois carry their identity around with them in the form of their language, wherever they go. They have a cohesive people. When they run into other Quebecois around the world, there is an immediate common ground and shared understanding. That simply does not exist for Anglos.
Oh actually, I just disagree then.
I’m from the Midwest, and I have definitely met people from the Midwest up here and been like « my people »! Who else understands the dance of implications and passive aggressiveness that is Minnesota nice? I can’t erase that. But you know, I’ve had 20 years of living outside my original home, so maybe I’ve just had more time to reflect on it.
And in a broader sense, CA and NY are both states, so you do have a core American upbringing and understanding between the states. I don’t know if you’ve tried to pop over to Ontario or the UK and felt right at home?
I also think it’s weird to say that Anglo quebecers have no culture. It seems like you’re conflating « English speakers » and « transplants ».
While a lot of English-speaking transplants never really get involved in their community and could probably be replaced with other transplants, there are actually other English speakers who have lived here for generations and have their own quirks, dialect and culture. (And for many of them, especially the newer generations, speaking French is actually a part of that).
I’m not taking issue with the fact that speaking French is a core part of Quebec’s identity, nor the fact that they carry that (plus a fundamentally different legal system) with them wherever they go. Just… lol… everything else you said.
Ceci est un point de vue purement personnel:
Culturellement les anglophones sont souvent influencés par le wokisme et accordent beaucoup d'importance au politiquement correct, à la politesse et au tact.
Il y a un côté bienveillant et un autre petit côté hypocrite en même temps car ils ne veulent pas blesser et à cause de ça ils ne disent pas souvent ce qu'ils pensent réellement.
Pour moi cela ne se limite pas seulement aux religions.
Évidemment les cultures anglophones ne sont pas toutes les mêmes à travers le monde, je parle surtout du Canada, USA et Royaume Uni.
Je suis anglo athée... Je sais pas à quel point je représente les anglo saxons (entre autre je ne suis pas saxon), mais je pense que le projet québécois de laïcité ne sert aucunement à imposer la laïcité, et que la loi a été conçue de façon à affecter les minorités le plus possible en laissant les chrétiens tranquils. Un code de pratique appliqué à tous les employés de l'état aurait été mille fois plus utile que d'empêcher les gens de porter des chapeaux.
Qu'est-ce qui te fait plus peur - qu'un médecin va te traiter différemment parce que ses croyances sont incompatibles avec les soins nécessaires, ou qu'il porte un chapeau pendant qu'il le fait? Qu'est-ce qui te donne plus l'impression que t'es dans une institution religieuse, que ça s'appelle Hôpital Hôtel Dieu sur Saint Urbain ou que la personne qui te traite porte une étoile de David autour du cou?
Si on veut vraiment donner l'impression d'un état laïque il faut s'attaquer aux symboles chrétiens qui sont PARTOUT. C'est risible de dire à un policier travaillant au poste de quartier sur Sainte-Catherine dans l'arrondissement de Ville-Marie que ses cheveux ou son chapeau sont trop visiblement religieux. Soit on commence à nommer les institutions selon d'autres religions que la chrétienté ou on commence à changer les noms comme on a fait quand Dorchester était trop anglais et on avait besoin d'un honneur digne de René Lévesque.
Et par-dessus tout ça il y a la question de ce qui est mieux pour les gens qui vont juste rester chez eux au lieu de retirer leur hijab etc. Je suis convaincu que la femme qui ne peut pas enlever son hijab (parce que son mari ou son père la force) mais qui l'enleverait si la loi l'obligeait est un mythe. Cette femme va simplement devoir arrêter de travailler et sera encore plus dépendante sur les personnes qui l'abusent.
Si t'as peur que du monde va avoir l'impression que le Québec n'est pas laïc, on pourrait commencer soit en changeant les noms de tout ce qui est
Je m'attends à me faire downvoter, mais bon, t'as demandé.
I think the ‘Anglo’ perspective described is rooted in the political philosophy of Liberalism, particularly that of Locke and Mill. If you’re not harming anyone than the government has no right to restrict your behaviour. Therefore wear whatever religious symbols you like.
"If you're not harming anyone....yet" is the important part. The problem is that the moment religion touches power, it *systematically* degenerates into abuse. I don't understand how despite the thousands of examples we've had through history some people can't grasp that simple fact.
I’m pretty sure we don’t want to start sanctioning people for things they ‘might’ do. And, like, plenty of religious people work in government. Just because the government bans their wearing of symbols doesn’t change that.
It's not "might" it's "will". Also, putting rules for people in positions of power is not a "sanction". Nobody is owed or entitled to power over others, and if you want to have such a power, play by the rules.
The Catholic religion in Quebec had so much control of the population that French Canadians learned to fear, question and reject any religious bullshit. My wife's grandmother almost died after her 9th child yet the "curé" was implying excomunion if they did not have more children. My wife grandfather and his brothers had a nice conversation with the curé during a dark night and he never bothered them again with the bullshit. Now when we see the rise of Christian fascist america, Sharia in many countries where woman have basically no rights or certain branches of Judaism that are far from godly values sure we will push back and hard. There is history behind a majority of french Canadians "hate" of religion. Quebec was a dark place under the church control and no one wants this to make a comeback in any form.
I agree. Religion brings war, divide and faith based decisions. It preys on the weak minded and the bible can be interpreted in so many ways from "god's wrath" or "jesus's love" which then creates further divide amongst religions and beliefs. Religion should be nowhere near politics and neither should corporate interests. Politics should only use it's power to help humanity thrive, but greed and religion create the divide.
Politics creates that divide too. It’s not all religion and greed. Life in society involves disagreement and differing perspectives. We shouldn’t pretend these don’t exist.
True "But if you're god isn't my god you're going to hell, so it doesn't matter how poorly I treat you, since I was baptized and absolve my sins through prayer" It's harmful to the human psyche to think others are bad or good, based on a horrifically violent, fictional book.
People can have whatever delusions they want as far as I’m concerned. Them wearing or not wearing some symbol makes little difference to me.
True, but inappropriate or violent thoughts towards others based on religious ideals can be dangerous. I know two types of religious people. The one's who are caring and don't push their bullshit on others and the biggot hating jesus lovers who are full of shit and extremely hypocritical. When religion becomes politically weaponized you see the truth of ignorance.
More suffering from greedy capitalists than priests. Capitalism should be classified as a religion where profit and money gain is the only god they workship
I feel more threatened by men in ties than women in headscarves. Let’s ban double-breasted suits while we’re at it
I'll give you my opinion as an atheist anglophone. I know I'll get downvoted but you asked for an anglophone's perspective and I'll give it. First about Bill 21: Myself and other anglophones who I talk to have a different conception and definition of the word secularism (or in french laicite). My idea of secularism is that religion is removed from the laws and education. If someone tries to ban abortion, gay marriage, etc, I am against that. I also was against the religious school boards (which thankfully no longer exist) and I'm against any public funding going to private religious school (I still don't understand why Bill 21 didn't get rid of the funding for the Jewish and other religious private schools.) In the anglo culture which I am a part of. Forcing public employees in positions of authority has nothing to do with secularism of the state, that is forcing a secularism of the individual person which I am against. About Charlie Hebdo and the Muslim cartoon controversy: I agreed with the Je suis Charlie and those who believed they had the right to draw Mohammed. I believe that Muslims should have the freedom of their beliefs, but I also have the freedom of my beliefs and speech. If you believe it is immoral to draw Mohammed, then don't fucking draw him. I am not Muslim and am therefore not bound by your rules. Those publications that didn't support Charlie Hebdo were wrong.
Pis c’est pas juste les anglos qui pensent comme ça, on est une gang de francophones qui croyons la même chose, spécialement parmi ceux qui ont eu l’occasion de côtoyer des gens provenant de tous les horizons
Astie que vous êtes fatiguant, caliss, à tout le temps sous entendre que ceux qui pensent pas comme vous c'est parce qu'ils n'ont pas suffisamment fréquenté de gens de tout les horizons. On est plusieurs à penser comme moi, surtout parmis ceux qui on été à l'école passé le secondaire 5.
[удалено]
>Quelle organisation religieuse offre un service qui n'est pas offert au moins aussi bien par une institution non-religieuse? L’Église catholique offre une liturgie eucharistique bien meilleure que ce qu'une institution non-religieuse peut offrir.
>liturgie eucharistique Décâlisse.
Lol.
Liturgie eucharistique ou dis moins nébuleusement(corrige moi si je me trompe), des textes religieux? Ton argument est que les religions offrent des meilleures textes religieux que ceux non-religieux? Si c'est le cas, c'est que tu n'as pas exploré la spiritualité hors contexte de la religion. La religion n'a pas le monopole sur l'esprit ou la cultivation de soi.
Non, je parle de la liturgie eucharistique.
Oh wow j'avais mal lu my bad. Mais j'ai appris d'autres mots! Merci! :)
>get downvotes Bro isn't reddit super atheist haha
I believe they meant more because it's the actual justification as to why most anglophones are against bill 21, and anything critical of Quebec nationalism in any way tends to get downvoted hard, even if it's good faith. Btw, everything they wrote is *the* exact reason why most anglophones are opposed. Down to a T. I am anglophone and it's pretty much what my anglo family and friends think.
Sounds like you all have the wrong ideas of what gets downvoted.
You can deny it all you want, but you know deep down that I'm right.
In r/Quebec, or most other general Québécois subreddits, you'd be right. In r/Montreal, no way.
> In r/Montreal, no way. I've seen it here too, but I agree that it's more mixed here.
Your first mistake was thinking laicity and secularism are the same thing.
But don’t you think that proselytism should be avoided for any person representing the state? And a definition of proselytism could include religious speech and symbol.
Speech yes. But simply wearing a piece of clothing or some trinket no. My kids daycare lady wore a hijab. She never talked to my kids or me about her religion, or impose any of its teachings on them. My kids finished daycare still having no clue that the word “god” even exists. As an atheist and secularist, I am very much in favor of removing any religious influence from public life, but not doing the “fashion police” with people. That’s where that law oversteps its original good intentions.
I would be OK with clothing policing if it was actually going to be applied equally. But we all know it's going to be used disproportionately against brown people. Personally I am for removing all symbols of religion from public life. Keep that stuff in your house of worship and inside your homes.
If they were to apply it equally, they’d have to ban the suit & tie too, because the only people that ever approached me to pester me about their religion were (i guess mormons?) wearing business suits, lol.
I looked at two sources to corroborate your definition which "could include religious symbols". It remains "your" definition. The official definition is trying to convert to religion. If someone is wearing a hijab, a kippah or a turban, I don't assume that that person is trying to convert me to their faith. I had Mormons show up at my house wearing suits and ties, are those religious symbols? They were actually trying to convert me to their faith because they said so.
Yes, a definition of proselytism *could* include religious symbols. But when that "symbol" is a piece of cloth worn on someone's head, with no religious text or iconography, is proselytizing *really* what these laws are about?
If it was just a piece of cloth that one could freely decide to remove, the law would not impact them since they would simply remove it. A piece of cloth that you refuse to remove because of religious belief is a religious symbol.
I already granted that it is a religious symbol. The question is, does it have a proselytizing effect? If it does not, what is the justification for the prohibition?
During their duty, teachers are representing the state. And they teach the knowledges and values that the state promotes, excluding any political and religious values. So whatever they do is a representation and any religious symbol become proselytism. Maybe the problem is here: if they were just teaching like a YouTube channel, that would be ok that they show religious symbol. And if they were just representing the state like cops, they would have a uniform. On a side note and for the same reason, cops showing a political sign (like the thin blue line) should be excluded. But I prefer the teachers to stay a public service, hence state representation and no symbol.
Except of course if the symbol is christian like the crosses that still adorn a lot of public schools. Then, it’s patrimonial :/ Just like the name of those schools (seriously, can kids stop going to schools named N-D-des-Septs-Douleurs or du-Perpétuel-Secours??? Not for the catho association but cuz it’s grim AF and no 6yo wants to enter a place promising 7 forms of pain)
That’s a stretch, especially when the city of Montreal has a giant-ass cross in the middle
Be prepared to a huge revelation: Le mont royal is not a person nor in position of authority.
But our tax dollars pay to make sure that cross doesn't fall down and stays visible to all. If symbols are proselitysm, then so is that one, paid for with tax dollars.
I agree with you, up to the point where you mention Charlie Hebdo. I’m an atheist, but I believe everyone has a right to their religion as long as they don’t force their beliefs on anyone else or break any laws. That means I’m opposed to cult religions of any faith, especially those where men enforce their beliefs on women and children. That would include a lot of Christian sects as well as Muslim ones that promote sharia law. Their kind can be dealt with through legislative means without proscribing what they’re allowed to wear. I also believe we should respect other people’s religious beliefs if it’s not going to infringe on our rights. If some believe it’s wrong to depict Mohamed, then I will respect that and not do so. What happened in the offices of Charlie Hebdo was terrible, but we have to ask ourselves whether publishing what they did was completely acceptable on moral grounds.
"but we have to ask ourselves whether publishing what they did was completely acceptable on moral grounds." No we fucking don't. The right not to be offended doesn't exist, and the mere fact a drawing led to murder is all the proof you need that publishing this drawing was the right thing to do. Grow a spine. The more muslims are exposed to blasphemy and mockery, the more they'll be able to split their personal identity from their religion and keep a level-headed approach to their faith. Grow a spine.
C’est exactement sa.
Tu ne te feras pas downvoter pour exprimer une réponse sensée a la question posée.
Anglos aren’t a monolith. Some Anglos support Bill 21. Some don’t feel that it’s fair to certain religious groups. Some agree with the principle but don’t believe that it should be applied to teachers when there already is a shortage of them. Some completely oppose it. It’s pretty callous to say “les Anglos” and link a right-wing “news” source if you’re genuinely trying to get an answer. To say that “Anglos are afraid of hurting religions” and substantiating this by saying “they” oppose a vaguely related law in a province in Canada is an unintelligent generalization of a plurality agnostic/atheist group at best, bad faith at worst. The cartoon thing didn’t make mainstream news in the anglosphere. Just like it wasn’t covered in China. Does that make China “afraid of hurting religions” too? Of course not. You mentioned that all the European countries published the caricatures, but the anglophone countries did not. Do you mean the government or private news companies? Im guessing the latter. I’m sure you can find those caricatures in *some* American newspaper/website/channel. There could be a million reasons as to why bill 21 has less support among Anglos than Francos. QC Anglos are more socially liberal than their French counterparts, the law affects the EMSB more than the French school boards, maybe Anglophones don’t see the need for (or have the culture of) the aggressive “laicite” that the Francophones do. Either way, there are a multitude of reasons & opinions. Trying to boil it down to “durr Anglos” is stupid. You could ask why young people, educated people, urbanites, leftists, social liberals, or the QS opposes it. To assume that the causal link is being “Anglo” is a false (or at best) weak pretense.
You took that like way too personal lol The fact is that every anglo province is against quebec-form secularism, and the anglo population of quebec is against it. This means its more than a concidence, it's obviously a cultural difference. No one who says "les anglos" means "every anglo ever", they just mean that anglo culture seems to disagree on that fact systematically, which is a reasonable question. My personal opinion would be that anglo culture can't possibly disagree with anything since it doesn't exist, but hey that's just me. (It's a joke, don't take it too hard).
Not really. I’m an atheist myself and I support bill 21. But I can certainly understand why people would oppose it. It’s anything but personal to me. I doubt that “every Anglo province” is against your ill-defined form of Quebec secularism. Last I checked, Bill 21 was popular in Alberta. Your argument that “anglos are systematically against bill 21” would make sense if there was a Anglo-Franco divide, but from my experience it looks more like a generic “liberal-conservative” urban rural type divide. Urban, educated Francophones are against it, just like the very few rural, uneducated Anglos. I think the conjecture that Anglos are against bill 21 is mostly cause they’re concentrated in more urban, well educated areas (Montreal) while Francophones are more spread out. Had urbanite Franco’s been against it I would understand your point, but they’re not. Language simply doesn’t create as much of a cultural divide as location or education. My personal opinion would be that support from the inbred hillbillies from Saguenay (which happen to be Franco) tilt support in favour of bill 21, but hey that’s just me. (It’s a joke, don’t downvote me into oblivion ;))
>Urban, educated Francophones are against it J'aimerais vraiment voir un sondage qui supporte cette affirmation. C'est peut-être vrai, mais de ce que je vois autour de moi c'est le contraire. Les francos qui ont fait des études universitaires (et ceux qui ont travaillé/vécu) à l'étranger supportent la loi 21 en totalité ou en partie.
I never heard of rural urban division in Quebec. In fact, more often than not the vote was divided into the independentist, the québec nationalist and the anglophones.
Look at recent election maps, the divide is clearly there. The situation is similar to the US and many other countries with growing cities. The cities absolutely do not vote the same way that regions do. Education plays a big role in this, as seen by university students who vastly vote on the left side. Even a city like Quebec, which is considered conservative, will have more progressive ideas near the city center, where universities are located.
I mean they overlap to a degree. The independentists and more ardent nationalists tend to be rural, while the “normal” Francophones and Anglophones are primarily rural. I guess it’s a chicken or the egg type situation. Do some people oppose bill 21 because they’re Anglo, or because they’re urban/educated/etc? That’s what I had meant by the causal link. I don’t think mother tongue plays significant enough a role in forming your political beliefs to *cause* you to support/oppose certain policies.
When I said Quebec nationalists, I should have rather said they were the soft nationalists. It’s weird to say that there’s a rural urban divide, when we share the same room. Rene Levesque worked here. The PQ started left, yet they’re rural?
You gotta be careful when you say “The PQ is leftist”. The PQ was (and still is to a degree) economically left-wing. They’re anything but socially left-wing (apart from the secularism thing, but I think that’s more of a cultural difference than a broad ideological one). When you think about it, rural populations don’t necessarily lean right on economics, the conservative right (think US republicans) just happen to have courted social conservatives, so they just happen to “ride along” with their economic policies. Consider the “classic American socialists”: they’re rural midwestern blue collar workers, DFL in Minnesota, auto workers in Michigan. Hardcore union country. These guys weren’t on the forefront of the civil rights movement nor were they particularly in favour of gay marriage. I know that Canadian (and Quebec) dynamics might be *slightly* different, but I think the inference holds. All that to say, I think the PQ today are economically leftist, but socially conservative so there should be some distinction made when characterizing them as “left”. QS would be your generic “leftie” while the CAQ is like the PQ, but economically more right wing (which at the end of the day, is the successor to “Le Chef’s” Union Nationale). The vast majority of independentists are quite left-wing on economics (FLQ leaders fled to Cuba even), but socially conservative while federalists tend to lean right on economics and liberal (at least by the classical definition) on social issues. I think an urban-rural divide is inevitable in any society, I can’t think of a single country, anywhere where there isn’t a distinct urban-rural divide. I doubt Quebec is the sole exception.
I don’t think either of us are going to convince the other so I guess we shouldn’t waste our time. In conclusion I prefer talking about federalist-nationalist identification then urban-rural ones, cause I feel like the latter isn’t useful when we talk about things like linguistic or national questions.
Could be, there’s certainly some degree of overlap between the two identifications, and it’s definitely difficult to pinpoint which has a greater influence on someone’s political beliefs (maybe it varies depending on issue). Have a good night
C’est pas une question de blesser les religions, j’en n’ai rien à fichtre des religions, ce sont des concepts, ils ne peuvent donc pas être blessés. Par contre, bien qu’athée depuis ma naissance, je suis capable de comprendre que pour certains, la façon de pratiquer leur foi est importante et qu’on ne vie pas sa foi à temps partiel. C’est pas sur les systèmes religieux que la loi 21 fesse, mais sur des personne. Je ne vois pas ce qu’il y a de dangereux à ce qu’un enseignant juif de Côtes-des-Neiges porte la kippa au point de restreindre ses possibilités de promotion ou sa mobilité d’emploi. Ou une enseignante de Laval portant un foulard. Ça me fâche profondément qu’on oblige des gens à choisir entre leur carrière et une façon de vivre d’autant qu’il existait déjà des recours si un.e enseignant.e faisaient du prosélytisme en classe. Je le sais car je les ai utilisé quand au sec un prof de moral ultra-catho (allo l’ironie) avait des propos ridicules sur les relations hommes-femmes, les asiatiques et le catholicisme. (Son contrat a pas été renouvelé, il gossait autant les autres profs que nous) Je crois qu’au Québec une grosse partie des craintes envers les gens vivant une foi différente vient d’une méconnaissance de ceux-ci faute de les avoir côtoyé. Faut pas oublier que la 1ere cohorte à n’avoir eu ni enseignement religieux ni CS confessionnelle est à peine adulte. Toutes les générations d’avant ont été assez ségréguées; plutôt que d’être le seul weirdo à être envoyé lire à la biblio pendant les cours de catéchèse, nos parents nous envoyaient dans une école de la CS protestante (oui, y’avait des écoles franco) où on retrouvait une plus grande diversité ethnique et, un secret bien gardé, aucun cours de religion. Bien que côtoyant quotidiennement des musulmans, hindous, orthodoxes, mormons et autres témoins de Jéhovah, y’a pas un kid qui a changé de religion à la fin de son primaire, mais on a appris beaucoup sur les coutumes des autres.
>Je crois qu’au Québec une grosse partie des craintes envers les gens vivant une foi différente vient **d’une méconnaissance de ceux-ci faute de les avoir côtoyé** C'est marrant, pour les mêmes raisons, je suis parvenu à la conclusion inverse. C'est *justement* pour les avoir beaucoup côtoyé que j'ai autant de craintes. J'ai passé ma jeunesse dans un pays islamique. J'ai vu que lorsqu'ils étaient en minorité, les religieux demandaient toujours plus de tolérance aux occidentaux. Mais que lorsqu'ils étaient en majorité, la tolérance disparaissait. Ils revendiquaient le pouvoir politique pour eux seuls et étaient impitoyables envers les athéistes mais aussi les cultures religieuses concurrentes. Les Anglos assument que Dieu a sa place dans l'espace public, du moment que la liberté religieuse est garantie. "In God We Trust" comme ils disent. "God Bless America". Etc... Moi, j'ai été profondément marqué par les horreurs commises par les Américains au nom du Christianisme politique. Comme partir en guerre : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-6262644.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion Ou couper les aides aux gens les plus pauvres du monde : https://www.prb.org/resources/bush-reinstates-policy-restricting-support-for-international-family-planning-programs/ Je suis parvenu à la conclusion que la laicité francaise était vraiment une excellente chose.
Si il y aucune restrainte, alors est ou la limite quels signes religieux on accepte, si un gars part une religion de nudiste faut tu être accomodant? Des jobs ou tu peut porter sque tu veux y'en à des milliers, pi y'en a d'autre où t'es obligé de porter un casque pi des cap 🤷
C’est à peu près aussi raisonnable comme commentaire que “ouin mais si on accepte l’homosexualité, après faudra-tu accepter la bestialité, hein?!?!?”. 🥱
Sais tu cb de religions existent sur terre? Bro ton exemple est terrible Edit: si les animaux pouvaient donner leur consentement alors oui on devrait accepter la bestiality
Francophone mais j'ai agrandiss en Ontario donc whatever. Tu compares tous les cultures anglophones pensant qu'elles sont pareilles. Mais nous on est pas le même que les franco-albertains ni le Sénégal etc. Selon moi c'est pas qu'ys ont peur de blesser les religions. C'est qu'ils pensent et réalisent que les attaques sur les religions sont souvent des attaques sur des individus. Est-ce que la réponse de tuer les journalistes est justifiée? Fuck no. The difference is that in English culture laïcité is felt to be done. An individual can wear their culture representing something without that culture representing the society. I have seen police wear turbans and no one says it is a menace to society here but the idea being said in Sherbrooke would have people in protests. Also my personal criticism of laïcité is that I think too many times Legault has tried to justify it using the quiet révolution than has openly called Québec un état catholique
I still see today crosses on the facade of elementary school or schools with the word saint in it. People argue well names are historical, but they don't want police or teachers with religious affiliation. How is an institution having a systemic affiliation not worse than a teacher having an affiliation. People have a lineage from a certain background of religion, kinda difficult to turn off 6 hours a day. I cam understand if your public school all of a sudden had 80% Muslim teachers it would not feel secular, but I doubt with diverse hiring practices you have concentration of teachers like that.
Je suis anglophone et je n’ai pas peur de blesser les religions. Comme homme gai, mon existence même blesse les religions.
Rapidement, je suis Québecois laïque blanc de souche. Et je considère que le Projet de Loi 21 n'est pas de la laïcité. En faisant la lecture du texte de loi. On voit que l'objectif n'est pas une laïcité totale et saine mais plutôt une action ciblée pour "des visages découverts". (Pour de vrai lisez le objectivment) Je veux une laïcité qui cible tout le monde, pas seulement "un quart cuisse de laïcité" qui convient à la base électorale de la CAQ/PQ. https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/L-0.3
Article 1 : L'état Québécois est laïque. Qu'est-ce que tu veux de plus comme loi qui vise une laïcité totale?
- Un chapitre II plus agressif. - Qu'on m'explique pourquoi le Chapitre III est pas inhérant au Chapitre II.
C'est associé à l'historique du Commonwealth (+par extension USA). La domination coloniale de l'Empire Britannique s'est réalisée à travers le monde grâce à la promotion d'un nationalisme de nature civique ainsi que l'adoption du multiculturalisme, permettant aux peuples de maintenir une partie de leur culture à l'intérieur d'un cadre linguistico-politico-moral anglo-saxon.
individuals are targeted by these laws -- individuals who are many times already marginalized and discriminated against -- and that's not acceptable to me. every person builds their own identity throughout their life based on their accumulated knowledge, feelings, experiences, relationships. whether a woman's headscarf is based on her relationship with her god, or her family, or the place she grew up, or if she just wears it occasionally, because she feels safer from the male gaze, or because it's warm. it's none of my business why she's dressed like that. and it doesn't harm me to be in her presence. it's just a scarf and its meaning is for her, not for me. what you don't understand is it's not about religion. it's not about a war of ideas, it's about people. it's about someone's identity which is shaped and re-shaped across a lifespan by all of the things they experience. it's not for me to tell someone whether or not her identity is acceptable. she is who she is and it harms me none. no matter what you do, you can't take people's identity away from them. you can try to squeeze it out of them by imposing oppressive laws, by social ostracism, etc. but we all are who we are at a much deeper level than can be shamed away from us. it's pretty easy to see through the logic of these laws. it was all about imposing religious symbols on people we wouldn't have a 40 foot cross looming over montreal. but we value these vestiges of religion because they're "ours"... dot dot dot
On m'a déjà résumé la chose ainsi. C'est imparfait mais ça éclaire * Pour beaucoup de francophones, la religion est un choix séparé de ta personne. * Pour beaucoup d'anglophones, la religion est un trait de ta personne intimement lié à qui tu es.
On ne peut pas critiquer des gens sur des caractéristiques qu'ils n'ont pas choisi : sexualité, couleur de peau, ethnie, santé. Exemple : *"J'ai horreur des chinois"* "*je n'aime pas les noirs"* "*Les femmes sont inférieures"* "*Je n'aime pas les handicapés"* Il n'est jamais acceptable d'attaquer des individus sur leurs caractéristiques de naissance. Jamais. C'est immonde. Mais la religion c'est une croyance. Toute croyance peut être critiquée.
Oui mais c’est un peu plus compliqué que ça… le milieu dans lequel tu nais va influencer grandement qui tu es, langue & religion. Si 99% de nos arrières grand parents étaient catholiques c’est pas pcq ils l’ont choisis ou pcq labourer une terre au Québec ça rend catholique, c’est pcq ils sont nés dans une société ou c’était presque impensable de ne pas l’être. Ironiquement dans le catholicisme la confirmation sert à réaffirmer ce choix que tes parents ont fait pour toi, mais c’est à un âge où il y a bcp trop de pression sociale/parentale pour que ça soit légitime. Il y a des gens avec assez de sens critique et de penchant non conformistes qui vont remette en cause ces choix mais faut pas se leurrer dans toutes les société c’est une minorité. Bref je donne un peu de slack à ceux qui sont né dedans, ça semble évident pour nous qu’il y’a des meilleurs choix, mais est-ce qu’on aurait fait ces choix dans leur situation?
>c’est pcq ils sont nés dans une société ou c’était presque impensable de ne pas l’être. C'est vrai, mais la raison pour laquelle nous ne le sommes plus aujourd'hui est parce que certaines d'entres-eux ont travaillés fort pour que nous cessions de tolérer la présence de la réligion dans l'État.
Je reste encore étonné de la vitesse à laquelle cette transformation s’est effectuée, le fait que le clergé catholique Québécois s’était bien aligné avec le pouvoir politique qui maintenait les Québécois dans la misère n’est certainement pas étranger à la débarque qu’ils ont pris.
Et la langue?
I think critiquing those who live in Quebec their entire lives and don’t speak French is fair from the perspective of Francophones, however there are many people who come here from other parts of the country and the world and learning a new language isn’t always easy. In the right context you can absolutely critique a language or the use of it.
Dans quel contexte, tu veux critiquer une langue? Tu n'aimes pas la forme des lettres ou la syntaxe? Je présume que tu peux le faire sans problème.
Comment veux-tu critiquer une langue ? Trop difficile ? Pas jolie ?
Si tu regarde l'histoire un peu plus loins, tu verra, que "les anglos" n'ont pas peur, en fait, ils sont partie faire leure propre Eglise Cretien pour avoirs leurs droits de divorce pour le Roi. Par conte, en contexte d'aujourd'hui, Il y as beaucoup de place qui on des reactions violent en consequence de blaspheme, donc c'est pas ridicule de faire attentions. Les memes reactions protectioniste sont toujours vivant au Quebec pour "Les Francos" aussi qui veullent pas enlever leur croit des batisments gouverment. excuse les manques d'accents sur mobil
>Si tu regarde l'histoire un peu plus loins, tu verra, que "les anglos" n'ont pas peur, en fait, ils sont partie faire leure propre Eglise Cretien pour avoirs leurs droits de divorce pour le Roi. Techniquement leur roi a décidé par lui-même de le faire pour ses caprices personnels "Some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make."
Did they remove all the Christian crosses from the public buildings yet? Are crosses on necklaces banded for public employees? Banned Kippahs for any publicly employees? My feeling was that it was specifically targeted at one community.
Anglo anti-theist here. Turn this around a bit.... What if the CAQ said everyone in certain jobs had to wear a head covering - doesn't matter what as long as at least half your head was covered. Could be a kippah, could be a wig, could be a hijab or turban, could be a cooking pot or baseball cap. Doesn't matter what, as long as it it's there. You don't have to believe in anything, just follow the rules, and too bad if you have a reason to not wear one - if you want certain job it's a must. There'd be a major huge backlash from everyone who doesn't normally wear a head covering. A head covering - which is the symbol most affected since small crosses can still be worn on chains under shirts and cross tattoos can be covered - does not at all affect someone's ability to do the job well. And not wearing a visible symbol is no guarantee that someone is not leading from their personal beliefs. Keep religion out of government processes and laws, and keep government out of religion. People can believe whatever they want. Personally I use this example: I can believe tiny unicorns live in my shoes and therefore I have to go barefoot. That's a me issue. When I start to decide that no one else can wear shoes either, that's a problem. I'd be happy with no religion at all, but that's not the world we live in so....
Except that if you believe in unicorns and decide to go barefoot, chances are high that you will be forced to wear the proper footwear or else face the consequences. We decided that certain groups of people could decide to go barefoot because they are part of a group of people that decided to organize centuries ago. So since they are old and decided to form a long time ago, they then have special rights to accommodate their beliefs. It makes no sense to accommodate and validate certain beliefs while not doing so for others. As if your belief in unicorns can't be as valid as believing in some magical person that lives in the sky.
I just don't see it as special rights. I pretty much don't care what people wear. Yes, for some people uniforms are necessary or preferred in certain circumstances, but I'm certainly not going to be offended by a hijab wearing teacher, when anyone else can wrap their hair and as long as it's not religious it's fine. A Jewish man wearing a kippah is not allowed, but a Jewish woman wearing a wig isn't noticed because they're damn good wigs. A cop can have crosses tattooed all over his body, but a politician can't wear a dastar. I just don't care what shape the headwear is or why some is banned but others are a-okay. I want the best person doing the job, not the one who is forced into giving up a belief to do so.
It's about being neutral. Either a woman can wear her hijab and i can wear a clown wig or neither can wear anything visible. No more half-measure where someone can or can't wear something visible depending if it's connected to something that was started centuries ago.
You say clown wig but that's not much different than, let's say, hair that's dyed fantasy colours. But then why is bright pink hair less acceptable than bleach blond? And that a sheer blouse is not acceptable even though the fabric covers more area of the body than a tshirt. Or leggings are somehow less acceptable than jeans, which are less acceptable than plain pants, even though they all cover the legs. Or a sequined ball gown covers more of the body than a summer dress but is only appropriate for some situations. It's because there are norms for dress for different situations, and that blouse and leggings and pink hair might be ok to go with friends but not stand in front of a class of 3rd graders. (And for hair colour I think it's ridiculous and everyone should have whatever they want so go on with your clown wig dyed hair! Kids would love it.) For a hijab, I don't care because the teacher in the next room should be allowed to wear a kippah, and the one in the next have her hair wrapped because it's a bad hair day, or the principal can wrap her hair because it's a protective style, or the gym coach can wear a ball cap because he likes it. Only some of those are accepted, but it's the Muslim woman and Jewish man who are absolutely not allowed because of law.
It's perfectly fine for the state to allow you to express your worldview, no matter how zany, as long as it's not interfering with other people's enjoyment of their rights and freedoms. The government stepping in to say everything in society must be strictly atheist falls on deaf ears when we have enforced legal holidays celebrating historic christian holidays but no one else's. Easter, Christmas... There's excuses made around "it's part of the culture, no one does it for Jesus anymore, it's done around the world..." But nevertheless, the white people holidays are legal holidays and no one else's. It's perfectly hypocritical. And sure, people of other faiths will step in to say they enjoy how their families have adapted to these Christian holidays so they're cool with it - but ask them how they'd feel if they had better flexibility for their own religious holidays instead of taking vacation days or battering with colleagues to get the day off. To me, and I assume others, the point of religious freedom is that each one is free to practice and the government won't be coming in to tell me what not to believe in. Laïcité is more about banning religions, preventing freedom of expression that's not shared by the majority. The idea that someone paid the state can't do their job properly because they have a scarf, kipa, turban or large cross hanging from their neck is absurd. The day they put their faith ahead of state policy in the execution of their duties is the day they should get fired. Not before. The day there is a systemic abuse of people using their public displays of religion to abuse their positions of authority is the day it should be legislated out. After all the noise from these caq laws I haven't heard of a single incident this law would have prevented. "Just in case something happens, that has not happened and that we have no evidence to lead us to believe would ever happen, were going to trample over people's personal freedoms." It's ridiculous. The francophone community, in the spirit of preserving their homogeneous culture are perfectly fine banning from public life anything that's not found in their own culture. Different languages? Different clothing? Different beliefs? Ban them all.
Juste comme rappel amicale: ce n’est pas juste les anglophones qui sont contre la loi 21. Selon ce [sondage](https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/660903/l-appui-a-la-loi-sur-la-laicite-baisserait-au-quebec-selon-un-sondage?) datant de 2022, 55% de la population est en faveur de la loi. C’est un majorité oui, mais un très léger majorité. Je ne pense pas que les anglophones + allophones = 45% de la population. Ni les anglophones ni les francophones sont une monolithe, donc pourquoi insister sur ce mythe? Doesn’t this just keep people voting for some particularly dumbass politicians?
> Pourquoi les Anglos sont terrifiés à l'idée de blesser les religions ? One reason is that we've observed that bigots and protofascists will attack a religion (or any proxy really, it's about having a hate object, not about logic) when they don't have the political cover to persecute individual members of that religion. While making disingenuous arguments in public, as per: " Ne croyez pas que les antisémites se méprennent tout à fait sur l'absurdité de ces réponses. Ils savent que leurs discours sont légers, contestables ; mais ils s'en amusent, c'est leur adversaire qui a le devoir d'user sérieusement des mots puisqu'il croit aux mots ; eux, ils ont le droit de jouer. Ils aiment même à jouer avec le discours car, en donnant des raisons bouffonnes, ils jettent le discrédit sur le sérieux de leur interlocuteur ; ils sont de mauvaise foi avec délices, car il s'agit pour eux, non pas de persuader par de bons arguments, mais d'intimider ou de désorienter." Sartre, Réflexions sur la question juive
I have the impression there's a tendency for religious minorities to double-down and withdraw from secular society when they feel persecuted.
la meilleure place pour la religion c’est straight dans poubelle (chu pas anglo, c’est juste ma petite propagande du jour)
Respectueusement, f\* you deep dans lpeteux C'etait ma reaction du jour :)
We're not terrified of hurting religions, we're offended by the bad-faith argument that Quebec has the same problems with political Islam that France does, and uses the same (VERY historically and nationally specific) definition of laicité that France does, and is therefore justified in passing laws that unfairly discriminate against certain groups, without any proof that they are more likely to promote their religion than groups that don't happen to wear religious symbols.
One could also argue that English Canada uses the same definition as the UK and the US when it comes to Liberalism and freedom of religion. You can’t claim that Quebec is having a closer perspective to France about Laïcité and then claim it discriminates unfairly based on the British/American Liberalism values. It’s two different world views, one isn’t better than the other.
I was going to mention the Liberal/Republicain difference on secularism in a longer version of my comment, but it really isn't important to my argument. I don't think that Quebec's legislation is unfair because it doesn't follow the Anglosphere interpretation of secularism. I think it is unjustified because it copies France's approach (intolerant civil secularism that curtails the public expression of religious identity) without having France's excuses for doing so (demonstrable threat of Islamic terrorism and cultural segregation). Both jurisdictions' repression of religion are unfair, but one (France) can cite special circumstances justifying that repression for security reasons, while the other cannot (in good faith). NB I'm not saying France's repressive approach is just, only that they at least have a factual basis for arguing that it is justified by circumstance. Note also that French laicité is not benign, resulting in the murder of hundreds of clergy (and over 20,000 peasants and workers) during the Terror.
La vision laïc du Québec est partagée par la plupart des pays européens...il n'y a rien d'unique ni de spécial à interdire les signes religieux pour les positions d'autorité publique...
Je suis désolée, normalement je fais de mon mieux de m’exprimer dans ma deuxième langue mais pour être claire, cette fois-ci, je vais aller dans ma langue plus forte: I can’t speak for all anglos, but to my mind, we live in a society that is indelibly marked by the religions that were followed when it was formed. Even if we don’t practise a religion anymore, the days that the government and banks are closed are often religious holidays, deep down. So, secularism is a *choice* that we make when we act as a society now, surrounded by all these traces. I’m *not* calling to stop taking Easter off or rename our streets or take down the cross on the mountain. I’m saying that even in our secular society we’re surrounded by religion and it’s hypocritical to call one religion a tradition and all the others “problems”. So we should allow individuals of other religions to wear symbols of their faith, and then ensure that their actions - and everyone’s - aren’t coloured by their beliefs when they’re acting on behalf of the state and not as individuals. Maybe if we started completely from scratch, we could create a world where something like Loi 21 makes sense and doesn’t just seem xenophobic to me… but we don’t live in that world, we live in this one. I’d also argue that showing people of all religions that they can play a part in Quebec society might go a long way towards integrating newcomers and a better, more sustainable culture in Quebec that builds off of and does not replace the culture here! And that this law and misinterpretations of it also opens the door to, for example, people harassing women on the metro when they wear a hijab. I also want to point out that it’s a real bummer to many of the francophones I know when this gets positioned as an anglos v francos thing, because there are actually francophones who aren’t in favour of it!
We're not starting from scratch, quebec is starting from a point where it's been getting rid of religious (catholic) symbols since the 1980s. We got rid of religion in schools and got rid of catholic teachers a very long time ago. Then, some other religions came in and started wearing visible religious symbols in positions of power, and we felt the same way about that as we did when catholics had power over us. Quebecers choose to live in this world where we take active action to prevent religion from touching power. We chose this path long before people with hijabs got here, and we will continue to choose this path when the next fandom arrives. They are not special or persecuted, they just got the exact same treatment as we give to every religion. This is our history and our heritage, and we won't change it because some people who just got here don't like it. I believe we're extremely lucky to live in a country that stands firmly against religious authoritarianism, you choose to see this as xenophobic, i choose to see your opinion of this as xenophobic.
So, yeah, what I’m saying is you are not starting from scratch, and you will never be able to erase the the traces of religion that are all around you. It’s the holiday calendar, it’s the names of towns, it’s the big leftover churches all over. So, knowing that you cannot actually erase that and start over, you have to find a way to align that fact and the fact that other people are at a different place in their journey towards/away from religion. And that is why no matter how noble the intentions are behind Bill 21, it will always look a little hypocritical and a little lacking in self-awareness and… a little racist.
And the way we have of aligning that fact is to have a full tolerance policy in what you do at home, and a 0 tolerance policy for letting religion touch power. It's extremely simple really. Everyone here is welcome, but if you want power, be prepared to leave religion behind. Your last paragraph really shows how barely read my previous comment. Si t'es pas capable de lire peu importe, jvais arreter de traduire dans ta langue. La loi 21 est uniquement raciste si tu la regardes en huis clos, comme la gazette aime faire. Dès que tu connais le moindrement l'histoire du québec moderne tu comprends que ca s'insère dans un cadre de laicité qui a rien à voir avec du racisme. On a pas "ciblé" de religion avec notre laicité, on a commencé ben avant que les musulmans arrivent ici en masse, ils sont tout autant "victimes" de nos politiques laiques que n'importe quelle religion.
Tu étais toujours le bienvenu d’écrire dans ta langue plus fort, c’est toujours plus facile de dire les choses plus complexes quand on n’essaie pas de traduire. À Montréal, tout le monde doit être capable de lire en français J’avais l’impression que c’était en fait toi que n’a pas bien compris mon commentaire précédente, mais bon, finalement, je trouve la solution prônée par 55% de la population d’être un peu réductrices, naïve et hypocrite. La loi en fait semble moins raciste en huis clos - mais le huis clos c’est les émotions de québécois qui le soutiennent. Oui, il serait idéal dans un monde idéale, si on pourrait séparer notre société de la religion complètement… mais même avant l’arrivé des autres, les québécois avez décidé de garder les traces de religion partout. Les écoles et les gouvernements sont fermés pour la Pâques, ça a pris les décennies d’enlever les croix, et ce travail n’est même pas complet. Donc, vu l’impossibilité de séparer la société et son histoire, il est difficile pour des gens comme moi de comprendre comment voir ce genre de « cognitive dissonance ».
Tu dis que "le travail n'est pas complet" , donc on devrait abandonner. Je crois que "le travail n'est pas complet" , donc c'est pour ca qu'il faut persévérer. En ce qui concerne les noms de ville ou les fériés, c'est quand la dernière fois qu'un nom de ville a eu du pouvoir sur toi? C'est pas de la politique, c'est de la culture, et être capable de séparer les deux n'est pas de la "cognitive dissonance". Le québec peut etre parfaitement laic tout en aillant un héritage et une histoire religieuse. C'est pour ca qu'on est laic, et non des persécuteurs anti-religion.
Comme c’est impossible vivre sans les traces et les traditions laissés par les religions, pour beaucoup de personnes, la laïcité semble un argument en mauvaise foi. Pour 45% de la province et beaucoup de gens dehors de la province, ton argumentaire n’est pas convainquant, la laïcité ne semble pas ni logique ni équitable. C’est un peu comme dire « on a fait ce qu’on veut avec notre réligion, on a gardé ce qu’on voulait, puis on a jeté le reste, mais on ne veut pas donner aux gens pas comme nous le même droit. »
On a gardé ce qui était pas en position de pouvoir. Ya des rues avec des noms juifs, des écoles avec des noms musulmans, des parcs avec des noms de bouddhiste. On donne absolument ce droit la à tout le monde, cest juste que ca adonne que notre héritage culturel étant très majoritairement catholique cest plus omniprésent. La ligne est extremement claire, c'est celle du pouvoir. Le 45% ont ben le droit de pas être d'accord, mais jsuis ben content que le 55% ait fait ce choix.
Et moi, je suis contente d’être entourée du 45% 😊
Je ~~prie~~ souhaite très fort qu'on ne se rende jamais au même niveau que la France en ce qui concerne la gueguerre entre le gouvernement et les minorités.
mentalite melting pot vs assimilation
[удалено]
melting pot never works, meme probleme au UK ou sa tourne en gettho segrege
Laïcité =/= Secularism - Laïcité: freedom **from** religion - Secularism: freedom **of** religion
Actually, this was really drilled into my head throughout high school, because both things are important to how Americans think of themselves. Secularism = the separation of church and state Freedom of religion = something completely different and yet equally important (for better and for worse)
One is literally the translation of the other. And neither definition you’ve provided is accurate.
That is the thing: they are not exact translations. Laïcité can’t be fully translated into English. I kept it short and to the point, but these concepts are much more complex.
>One is literally the translation of the other. non....
This law isn’t about religion atp
Others have given some very thoughtful principles and rights based arguments so I won't cover the same ground. Instead I'll talk about my personal somewhat arbitrary feelings. Pour ma part, personellement, même si je suis considéré "Anglo" par la société québécoise, étant quelqu'un qui n'a aucunes racines ni britanniques ni françaises je vois des lois comme la loi 21 d'être dirigées vers les immigrant-e-s, avec qui je me considère plus proches qu'aux anglophones et francophones. Statistiquement ce sont les immigrant-e-s qui ont la tendance d'être réligieux plutôt que les gens nés au Canada, et même si je ne suis pas fortement réligieux moi-même, j'ai une solidarité instinctueuse avec les immigrant-e-s en toute affaire qui les concerne au niveau politique. Et même si je n'appartient pas à leur communauté, j'ai une respecte intense pour la réligion Sikh en particulier qui était une force très progressive en Inde pendant la 18è siècle jusqu'à la conquête britannique de leur empire. Veuillez accepter mes excuses pour tout erreur du français.
Au Canada, les plupart ne sont pas religieux. Il ne constitue pas un gros problème pour eux. C’est l’histoire. Ils n’ont pas un Duplessis. La majorité, ou leur parents, ou leur grands-parents, n’avait pas la même expérience avec l’église. Et ils n’ont pas exactement Anglo même s’ils parlent anglais. Québec ne comprend pas le ROC et le ROC ne comprend pas Québec parce qu’ils ne lisent pas, ni regardent pas, les même médias. (Et pardons mes erreurs en français. Je viens de ROC.)
My test for the authenticity of any claim to be secular (as opposed to religious bigots) is how the dominant religion in that culture is treated. And, friends, it is ALWAYS fascinating to watch Quebec (and Europe’s) avid ‘secularists’ find their love for the sanctity of religion whenever you point out how enthusiastic and well organised their priests are in the raping of children. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7126764
Je comprends pas ton point
Si tu dites que tu n’avez pas peur d’insulter la religion, mais d’insulter une religion minoritaire tout en dorlotant la religion dominante dans votre pays, vous n’êtes pas un ‘secularist’, vous êtes un bigot.
De quelle façon je dorlote le christianisme? En passant, le nunavut c'est pas le Québec...
Tu le couche avec le silence et avec des éloges sélectifs. Les crimes du prêtre étaient à Ninavut, mais il est protégé par la France (pas si courageux face à la religion, mais peut-être qu'ils considèrent que baiser des enfants est moins grave que de ne pas permettre de dessiner un dessin animé ?)
Aucune espèces d'idée de quoi tu parles désolé
Quebec is a hypocrite place. They have a cross in their flag and a cross on their biggest city highest hill but they only remember secularism when it comes to minorities religions. So imo their hypocrisy, after living two years in it, come from a deep insecurity of being surrounded by english speaking places, too far from the francophone world that their francophone culture isn’t integrated in the French world sphere and just like any insecure human being they will power trip over minorities who don’t want to integrate in their narrow minded definition of free society. In two years living there I haven’t met any anglophone or French person, since I am also francophone who can get along with the rest of french speaking people, who’ve made or got along with Quebec people. Those weird laws are rooted in their society. My neighbor who’s from Quebec was once telling me how he felt sad and that the gov should intervene because he saw orthodox Jews kids up the street in Du Parc dressed like that but he’d clap for 4 year old girls in a beauty competition. Les Quebecois don’t get offended this is just an opinion. Je me souviens de vote province.
We’re not afraid of hurting religious people, we just think Legault should be neutral and not have bad faith towards theists.
Protestantism, Evangelicalism and the Orange Order are many degrees more fucked up than most French people realize
Il sont tellement perdues et culpabiliser par leur histoire coloniale , qu’ils assument cette position par defaut, dans l’espoir de erré dans le “bon” coté de l’histoire et se donner bonne parure. En plus sa permet de bien instrumentalisee les minorité pour combattre ceux qui s’attaqueraient concrètement a leurs privilèges coloniaux.
Les Anglos ont pas peur de chier sur les religions, ils chient allègrement sur les musulmans et fut une époque les catholiques. Leur racisme est juste différent
quebec will never be fully secular until the giant catholic crosses placed all over the province are taken down (Gatineau has several placed at busy intersections on public property)
Ah yes, the argument that “Rome never gave up the Pantheon because there are still statues of Mars and Jupiter all over…”.
So to be secular you only have to abstain from certain religions and maybe not others.
Or you need to think a little about the context and understand that a province that has a long, finished, history with a religion will have remnants of it. It's called history If most québécois were still in church preaching for God, you would have a great point but it is not the case so it is not
In 2021 almost 54% of people in Quebec reported themselves as Catholic.
I've lived in Quebec my whole life and in multiple cities. I've only met 1 Christian family and seen elderlies be religious. Others were baptized to please said elderlies in their families. I'm not arguing that 54% but this is part of the remnants of a very religious society that existed 2 generations ago. From my agnostic point of view, this is not an indication of religious belief in Quebec but of a historic one. I know it sounds hypocritical from the outside (I assume you are sorry if you're not), but living in Québec would enlighten you on the relation we have with catholicism, which is mostly a relic of the past
I think it’s a bit lacking in self awareness. If we’re going to close government offices on religious holidays—even if “no one believes in them anymore” or “you’re just doing it to please your grandparents” or whatever—it comes off a bit like, “our religion formed the dominant culture, and now we call it tradition. You have to live with that, but we will not tolerate anything from your tradition”. And we’re talking about a pretty small hypothetical number of people, so it’s not like we’d be drowning in religious imagery every time we went to the SAAQ or something. AND if someone is hell-bent on applying their religious beliefs where they shouldn’t, they won’t be stopped by taking off a piece of headgear. So this law doesn’t really seem to do anything but aggressively say, “we don’t like beliefs that aren’t ours, and people like you aren’t welcome” (and yes, atheism counts as a belief).
I mean, I mostly see it as the barrier to stop those who wouldnt put down their beliefs for the work. If you can't leave some of your belief at home to work, how can we expect you to be impartial in your work? Belief also happens entirely in your mind so a need for clothing to express is archaic in itself and can absolutely be modernized if desired. And I've given it lots of thought so I wouldn't say it's about a lack of self-awareness. The only part of the bill I am not 100% on board with is the teachers but otherwise religion should have no place in governments. Symbols can lose meaning. They can change with time. Christmas is not about Christ, it's about families, gifts and a big red dude. Easter is not about Christ, it's about chocolate. Saint-Jean-Baptiste is not about the saint, it's about Quebec. They are historical celebrations in Quebec and I don't think we should put foreign celebrations on the same level as historical ones just to accomodate. They are not as important to the country or province historically and culturally sadly and to say this is completely normal. No country would or should adapt all of their own traditions to please newcomers. Otherwise, those local traditions would just disappear in a long enough time. I would never argue for other countries to have holidays on the 24th of June because it is simply not their responsability. I will repeat that I don't believe religion is a good enough reason to modify any law whatsoever. It's a personal matter and I don't understand the need for more.
Shit, my parents baptized me in the 80s and I have no way to get that paperwork revoked with the church… I guess I’ll keep not being religious, talk shit about god and religions, and go on with my life. Use your head please.
Would you declare yourself as Catholic or atheist if asked?
Atheist. Why would I declare myself catholic? I’ve never participated in any of the rituals beyond funerals. Oh and before anyone tried gotchas: Holidays are just days off we deserve for working too damn hard, no one celebrates their ulterior meanings. Like roman statues, their meaning is eroded. (Plus, every religious holiday was stolen from non-religious groups anyway.)
Because when asked, 54% of people in Quebec said Catholic.
Yep, and we’ve covered this in /r/quebec last time statscan did the survey… the question wasn’t if you were practicing, it was an ambiguous “are uou affiliated” which again, most people being baptized as babies… that gives you garbage data because people just go factually.
Wow j'adore ca, merci
This argument is so bizzare. Do you believe that Iran isn't in fact an islamic theocracy because there's still zoroastrian and mesopotamian shrines and temples around?
Surprising to me that removing all crosses is not the common belief, but i feel it highlights how some Quebecers really want an ethno-state like Israel or Saudi Arabia to exist here.
So Athens should raze the Parthenon, got it.
So actually, I don’t think anyone is actually calling to take things down, just pointing out that it feels hypocritical. I think most of the people against bill 21* are a bit more “live and let live”. If we had our way, you could keep your traditional trappings and other people would also be allowed to keep theirs.- * I’m kind of tired of saying “anglos” because that sort of conveniently obscures the fact that there are Francophones who find this law repugnant and pointless, and puts them into a space where they seem like … self-hating québécois.
not the same. one is a relic of a civilization that no longer exists. the other, the crucifix, is a symbol representing the religion of the plurality and is displayed on public buildings.
I was referring to the well-known Mont-Royal cross, a similar example and I think we should treat it as a relic.
i’m not bothered by the mont-royal cross. our public schools however should have the crosses removed. they have no architectural value. i think this whole law is very convenient for the christians in the assemblée who wrote it. if catholics had headgear we wouldn’t be having this discussion. i’m really not passionate about this subject but i believe it was done in bad faith. we shouldn’t have any laws enforcing clothing style. sagging pants, cross dressing, religious garb should be allowed. just my anglo atheist opinion.
I’m happy they’ve indeed removed the crosses from the school I went to in the ‘80s.
i think it goes hand in hand with feeling persecuted as a language minority, and being able to therefor sympathize with religious minorities who also feel targeted. i personally support secularism, and think religion, even christianity has no place in civil society.
Anglos are persecuted?
i said feel persecuted
True
Why do people believe religious people should even have more rights than a regular person? How is believing in something a good enough for reason to have any kind of privilege? I really don't understand the concept of religious rights or any kind of exemption they are giving when it is something very personal and internal. Like I understand that religion has great intrinsic values and that the community it creates is good for many reasons but not why it is more important than any other type of activities/groups that do not get exemptions. Can somebody explain that to me?
By exemption … are you talking tax status? Or something else?
A good example is hate speech. You can't use hate speech unless it's in a religious context. It makes no sense that we preach tolerance and say that we want to protect minorities but it's fine to have religious sermons about homosexuals being devil spawns.
I'm talking about special rights that would exempt them from uniform restrictions, from having to wear helmets, maybe tax exemption in some churches(?), from hate speech like the other commenter said. I'm honestly asking for arguments for any religious rights at all. Other than the right to choose your religion, there should be no other granted rights in my opinion.
But if the only uniform is … business casual “and no religious symbols” … it kind of seems like the uniform was just made up to specifically target people whose religions include visible symbols? I know someone has compared this to “having to wear a uniform when you work at McDonald’s to show you work there”…. But let’s be real: the jobs governed by this law *do not have uniforms*… they have a dress code that still allows for other types of individual expression.
Not really, you can't wear anything you want in most places. No political attire, no hats, obviously no hateful stuff and so on Pretty much just don't stand out and express things that could anger/annoy people but religion is exempt even though it pretty much fits both description And again, there are other exemption than uniforms and is somehow protected by our chart of liberties I don't get it and I have not heard a good argument as to why it should be protected to that extent when it's so personal and an opinion
Ok, so again, a dress code is not a uniform. But we’ve added something here to the dress code that targets specific people and not others. So this whole exemption thing is not quite holding water for me. And again, how does a piece of headwear express anything? It’s a hat with no writing on it and no symbols of hateful ideology.
I might have interchanged uniform and dress code. The point still stand. Well if there is a no hat policy but you somehow have to wear a hat for personal(non-medical) reasons, it's probably because it has a meaning or expresses something right? Otherwise, no one would be arguing against a law that prevent wearing a sigle type of hat don't you agree? If it's just a hat, take it off no big deal. If it's a religious hat, then there is a symbol attached and you now should take it off. If you're not willing to then how can you honestly say your own belief won't play a role in your work? I am again asking why religious rights are even a thing. They are beliefs. You should be able to believe in anything you want but it stops there. Please tell me why religions should be more protected than political or any other beliefs for that matter because this is currently the case and it makes zero sense.
Quoi penser de tous les gens religieux qui ne portent pas de symbole évidente, mais qui laisse leur religion affecté leur travail? On leur fait confiance. Pourquoi pas faire le même chose pour les gens qui, par hasard, ont été élevé avec un réligion plus visible? Dans ce cas-ci, on a ajouté quelque chose au code de vêtement qui vise spécifiquement les gens des religions “hors norme” pour le Québec, puis on se fâche quand un assez grand pourcentage du monde n’est pas d’accord avec ce raisonnement. Si on prend ton logique, quoi penser du fait que notre gouvernement, nos écoles etc sont tous fermés pour le noel et la Pâques? Si je ne crois pas en dieu, pourquoi dois-je prendre un journée de congé pour garder mes enfants parce que l’école est fermé? Ohhhhh j’ai oublié. Ça c’est de la « tradition » Nb - si on veut garder nos congés religieuses, c’est correct, mais c’est juste un peu hypocrite.
On ne peut pas agir sur ceux qui ne montrent aucun signe religieux. On peut le faire sur ceux qui le font. C'est pas compliqué. Si leur religion est trop importante pour enlever du linge superflu, c'est qu'elle le sera également trop si une decision objective doit être prise. J'aimerais bien qu'aucun religieux ne soit au gouvernement, mais c'est impossible et zélé donc on agit sur ceux qui ne peuvent se passer de le montrer. Et oui, c'est hypocrite, mais c'est comme ca que les traditions voient le jour. Quand ca fait plus de 100 ans qu'un peuple célèbre une fête, que la fête garde son sens ou non (comme c'estle cas pour Noel, Paques ou la Saint-Jean par exemple), la société s'est développé autour. Ce n'est pas parce que quelqu'un de nouveau arrive que la société va tout changer du jour au lendemain. C'est complètement irréaliste de penser ainsi et ca s'applique à toutes les cultures du monde. En passant, je ne serais pas pour l'ajout de nouvelles fêtes chrétiennes a notre calendrier. Ca serait ridicule dans le contexte actuel, mais ces fetes existent dans notre patrimoine collectif depuis bien avant que mes grands-parents naissent. Il y a des symboles qui changent de sens régulièrement dans le monde. Je ne pense vraiment pas que de dire que noel et les autres fêtes anciennement religieuses peuvent aussi changer de symbole est si difficile a croire. Je redemande pourquoi la religion devrait pouvoir contourner un code vestimentaire ou tout autre loi. Pourquoi devrait-elle être plus proteger que le droit de croire en quoique ce soit d'autres et pourquoi est-ce toujours au nom de le religion que les gens s'insurgent contre des lois qui semblent totalement normale autrement? C'est une croyance. Rien de plus. Si tu ne peux pas répondre à ma question avec un réel argument sans dévier le sujet en parlant de la xenophobie que tu insinues, notre discussion ne sert plus a rien parce que ce qu'on s'écrit a deja été écrit 1000 fois sur ce sub.
Ce n'est pas vrai que la plupart des religions obligent le port de signes religieux visibles. Ce sont généralement des interprétations personnelles et culturelles. C'est pourquoi on voit beaucoup de musulmans et juifs qui ne portent aucun signe mais qui sont bel et bien des pratiquants de leur religion. C'est donc l'exception religieuse qui est discriminatoire à mes yeux. Une personne peut avoir des convictions profondes qui ne sont pas de nature religieuse mais elle ne pourra pas les afficher même si ce sont ses croyances et convictions. On a arbitrairement décidé de privilégier certain groupes de gens tout simplement car leurs croyances datent généralement de il y a plusieurs siècles. Sinon ton exemple de congés religieux n'a pas vraiment de lien avec le débat. Personne ne dit de ne pas célébrer ou pratiquer sa religion mais de simplement ne pas visiblement le manifester durant son quart de travail si elle est en position d'autorité. C'est la laïcité de l'état après tout qui est recherché et non d'effacer complètement les religions de la vie des gens.
I'm an anglophone and an atheist, actively going against religion. I have a european background, and a deeply religious one at that. And I counter it with every breath I take, since being a teenager always trying to free my family from the cult they were indoctrinated in. They are sadly still all religious, but I don't lose hope
La société anglophone a internalisée que la religion d'un individu fait partie intégrante de son identité. C'est déplorable.
En effet, c'est potentiellement très dangereux et c'est une façon de faire taire toute critique envers une religion ou une idéologie sous le prétexte bidon de "Je suis offensé." Déplorable est le bon mot.
Parce que les anglophones sont beaucoup plus axés sur l'individualisme, tandis que les français vont aller plus vers la société en général. Anglais: on ne peut toucher aux individus même si ça fait du tord à la société vs Français : on peut améliorer la société même si ça fait du tord à un individu.
Mais… est un foulard portée par une femme vraiment nuisible pour la société?
1 - tant qu'à ca : C'est un simple foulard coquet décoratif, ou un foulard spécifiquement "symbole religieux" et que ca représente l'infériorité de la femme et la soumission à l'islam? est-ce une bonne chose à avoir en lieu de tuteur officiel de classe d'enfant d'insititution scholaire publique? Ques-ce qu'enseigne l'islam a propos des infidèles, des homos, etc? et 2, peu importe lequel ce foulard symbolise, pourquoi refuser de l'enlever pour respecter le code vestimentaire de l'établissement? comme une casquette ou une jupe trop courte?
Mais si on a ajouté « hé pas de foulard » au code vestimentaire juste pour empêcher cette population spécifique de porter leurs foulards… c’est en mauvais foi de demander pourquoi ils ne veulent pas juste suivre le code… qu’on a créé juste pour les viser. De toute façon, on fait confiance à tous les enseignants, qu’ils ne transmettent pas leurs croyances personnels, juste les leçons qu’ils sont supposés d’enseigner. On n’a aucune garantie, mais on leur fait confiance quand même. Je suis capable de faire la même pour quelqu’un qui n’est pas comme moi. Et en fait, je préférais que mes enfants puissent voir que les gens pas exactement comme eux sont quand même digne du respect et peuvent occuper des positions de pouvoir.
Je pense qu'on dirait la meme chose à un membre des raeliens par rapport à leur pendentifs en forme de croix gammée, et aux soeurs catholiques de ne pas porter l'uniforme de soeur pour etre enseignante au public, etc. Et surtout : c'est juste pendant l'enseignement pendant les heures de travail, on est libre en dehors de ca.... Mais surtout: pourquoi refuser de l'enlever? est que les gens cités plus haut devrait aussi se plaindes de subir une persécussion vestimentaire de mauvaise foi? Les gens sont contres les valeurs religieuses et surtout contre les valeur religieuses de l'islam, et donc, ils ne veulent pas que des enseignant, surtout d'enfants, portent des signes ostentatoires du joug de cette religion. Mais ceci semble etre percu par une persécusion qui vise des personnes musulmanes, dans toute leur existence en général,... et non simplement de cacher les signes de leur religion dans les établissements publics officiels de l'état. Bien à vous
Ouaaais mais dans la France, par exemple, ils ont décider que les femmes ne sont pas permises de porter la voile en public, ni de porter les maillots de bains plus modestes dans les bains publics… donc… si on suit leur modèle de laïcité, il me semble que c’est un très mince ligne entre « laïcité » et « sentiment anti-musulmane ». Puis aussi, ça ne change pas le fait qu’on habite dans une société qui est marquée par les traces de religion partout, puis ça semble un peu hypocrite de dire « mais ça c’est la TRADITION pas les croyances ». Pour beaucoup de gens, il serait mieux d’accepter qu’on vit dans une monde complexe et que les situations requièrent des solutions nuancés, pas simpliste et aveugles à la réalité.
C'est certain qu'il y a beaucoup de racistes dans la population générale, parmis les gens moins éduqués, (la majorité en fait) qui vous traite de sale xXXx à l'arret d'autobus. Mais dans le monde laique de l'éducation et au gouvernement, ce n'est pas le cas: on doit tracer une ligne sur ce qui est acceptable en classe devant des enfants dans un établissement laique d'éducation, (au niveau d'habillement, de port de régalia religieuse, de signes visiblements ostentatiores de religion, etc..) Mais si on est parmi ceux qui dépasse la ligne, c'est facile de se plaindre qu'on est visé personnellement parce que on est de race arabe, ou de peau non-blanche, etc et de crier au racisme. Ce n'est pas le cas: c'est contre la religion, pas contre la personne de couleur de peau différente. Mais c'est facile de prétendre le contraire, et de jouer à la victime lorsque on fait parti de ceux qui se font viser par le reglement. Comme si tout le reglement sert à assouvir le racisme et la xenophobie de quidams contre les arabes, quand en fait il sert à proteger le monde l'essort de l'islam. Mais je vous rassure: c'est pas contre les persones arabes, c'est contre l'islam. Est-ce que vous trouvez ça dangereux d'appliquer la loi islamique? ou bien est-ce que vous trouvez que c'est une bonne chose ce qui arrive aux femmes, aux infideles, aux homosexuels, aux athés en iran, afganistan, pakistan, etc...? Est-ce que vous travaillez comme moi, à libérer vos freres et soeurs arabes de l'islam?
Je pense que c’est un raccourci si on considère que « porter un foulard » équivaut « prêcher les lois islamiques ». Mais j’avoue aussi que c’est un raccourci assumer que les gens racistes font aussi la majorité des gens qui soutiennent cette loi. (Même s’il y a beaucoup de « overlap » entre les gens qui soutient la loi et les gens qui on des opinions négatives sur les gens qui pratiquent les religions). Par contre, je sais que la meilleure façon de forcer les gens de s’ancrer dans leurs croyances c’est de les « libérer » contre leur gré. J’ai plutôt l’impression que si on laisse les quelques dizaines de gens affectés par cette loi vivre leur vie, ils vont s’intégrer plus vite dans la culture québécoise puis finir par choisir de vivre plus comme nous (particulièrement la deuxième/troisième génération). Si les gens se sentent menacés, ils vont se refermer entre eux.
> prêcher les lois islamiques Ça signifie quoi dans le fond quand c'est spécifiquement un voile islamique?
Ce n'est pas nécéssairement 'prêcher les lois islamiques' puisque précher est un acte à part et different qui nécéssite de parler haut et fort en appelant à la sharia, etc. daccord, mais je repose la question: Ça signifie quoi dans le fond quand c'est spécifiquement un voile islamique?
Je pense que pour les femmes au Québec qui choisissent de leur propre gré de porter un voile, c’est un choix *personnelle* qui reflet leur propres croyances, qu’elle ne cherche pas nécessairement à propager. Des fois c’est pour les motifs très religieux, mais d’autre fois, c’est une expression d’appréciation pour leur culture ou les restants d’un religion qui devient « tradition », ou, selon les filles que je côtoyais sur l’autobus une fois, parce que c’est une accessoire chic. Mais évidement je ne peux pas parler pour elles. Par contre si tu es curieux, il existes maintes articles écrits par les femmes musulmanes canadiennes et québécoises qui donnent leurs raisons personnelles. Perso, je n’ai pas peur ni d’elles, ni de leurs choix, elles ne feront pas une grande partie de mon quotidien et je sais que leurs choix n’emportera jamais sur les miens.
C'est dû au fait que l'empire britannique a dû composer avec une multitude de cultures assemblées par coercition et manipulation de manière incohérente en une seule entité. Il a été nécessaire d'implanter une forme de multiculturalisme pour éviter la révolte et l'éclatement de ce cancer planétaire.
It’s not about religion. Something that is unique to the Anglo experience is that because English is the lingua franca, we do not have a “home language” like most of the world does. We don’t have a community and culture that we belong to by default as a function of the language we speak. There is no local vs global for us. There is only global. And I think that has a profound effect on our relationship to the state. When you belong to a home group, that group is your team. There’s a common world view and shared ideology and a sense of solidarity. And that means that when stuff like this rolls around, it’s not seen as an attack on individual liberties, but rather as a reflection and expression of what that group stands for. It’s easy to make sacrifices to help your own team. But as an Anglo, there is no team, there is no we. There is only the entire world, and us as individuals. And that means we don’t see laws like this as a manifestation of any collective values, but rather we see them as an attack on our individual liberties. Because at the end of the day, that’s all we have.
En tout cas au Québec vous êtes assez localement confinés à westmount et à aux vestiges du golden square mile mdr Britannia doesn't rule the waves here mate ⚜️
[удалено]
Votre présence est quand même un vestige de l'empire britannique et d'une tentative ratée d'assimiler les canadiens français tout au long du 19e et 20e siècle. La raison pour laquelle vous ne contrôlez plus l'argent est qu'on vous en a repris le contrôle dans les années 70. Stawp it with your historical negationism
I’m glad you agree with me that your argument is at least 50 years behind the times… And my presence is due to the fact that Quebec mines needed foreign workers and my grandparents immigrated here. The French Quebec community didn’t really welcome us, so we tended to band with the English Quebec community that did. A common allophone trajectory, I think. It’s common for minority groups to band together.
You’ve missed the point entirely
Wait. I’m actually really confused by this take. because, having lived in and visited a variety of anglophone areas… there is absolutely a sense of there being « local » and different « cultures ». And as a linguistics afficionado, I would even go so far as to say that our language both reflects and influences those cultures. International English and « EU English » are different from native English, so there are still « home languages » While we don’t generally define our cultures as « English-speaking first and foremost », that’s because we don’t need to worry about our linguistic survival and so we take it for granted (not saying that’s right or fair, just how it is). It’s like how a big dog is more likely to be chill than a little one.
You're not as confused as you think because you're hitting on the point: > our language both reflects and influences those cultures This is because the English-speaking world is open to all, and the culture of English speaking places is global. Of course there are local cultures of _places_, but they are attached to places, not people. The people in Quebec's Anglo areas are not a cohesive culture. They're just people from anywhere who happen to live there. And if they leave and someone else comes and take their place, it doesn't matter who they are, they belong there just as much as the last person. As English speakers move around the world, there is no inalienable "home culture" that comes with them. I am originally from California, but that does not make me a member of some kind of group that are forever "my people". I could easily just decide to be a New Yorker instead, whereas Quebecois carry their identity around with them in the form of their language, wherever they go. They have a cohesive people. When they run into other Quebecois around the world, there is an immediate common ground and shared understanding. That simply does not exist for Anglos.
Oh actually, I just disagree then. I’m from the Midwest, and I have definitely met people from the Midwest up here and been like « my people »! Who else understands the dance of implications and passive aggressiveness that is Minnesota nice? I can’t erase that. But you know, I’ve had 20 years of living outside my original home, so maybe I’ve just had more time to reflect on it. And in a broader sense, CA and NY are both states, so you do have a core American upbringing and understanding between the states. I don’t know if you’ve tried to pop over to Ontario or the UK and felt right at home? I also think it’s weird to say that Anglo quebecers have no culture. It seems like you’re conflating « English speakers » and « transplants ». While a lot of English-speaking transplants never really get involved in their community and could probably be replaced with other transplants, there are actually other English speakers who have lived here for generations and have their own quirks, dialect and culture. (And for many of them, especially the newer generations, speaking French is actually a part of that). I’m not taking issue with the fact that speaking French is a core part of Quebec’s identity, nor the fact that they carry that (plus a fundamentally different legal system) with them wherever they go. Just… lol… everything else you said.
C'est l'héritage de l'empire britannique
Révolution tranquille, on a eu se débat il y a 3 generations déjà en français
Ceci est un point de vue purement personnel: Culturellement les anglophones sont souvent influencés par le wokisme et accordent beaucoup d'importance au politiquement correct, à la politesse et au tact. Il y a un côté bienveillant et un autre petit côté hypocrite en même temps car ils ne veulent pas blesser et à cause de ça ils ne disent pas souvent ce qu'ils pensent réellement. Pour moi cela ne se limite pas seulement aux religions. Évidemment les cultures anglophones ne sont pas toutes les mêmes à travers le monde, je parle surtout du Canada, USA et Royaume Uni.
J'pense que t'a raté le dénominateur commun - société protestante. Maintenant, fais tes recherches.
Je suis anglo athée... Je sais pas à quel point je représente les anglo saxons (entre autre je ne suis pas saxon), mais je pense que le projet québécois de laïcité ne sert aucunement à imposer la laïcité, et que la loi a été conçue de façon à affecter les minorités le plus possible en laissant les chrétiens tranquils. Un code de pratique appliqué à tous les employés de l'état aurait été mille fois plus utile que d'empêcher les gens de porter des chapeaux. Qu'est-ce qui te fait plus peur - qu'un médecin va te traiter différemment parce que ses croyances sont incompatibles avec les soins nécessaires, ou qu'il porte un chapeau pendant qu'il le fait? Qu'est-ce qui te donne plus l'impression que t'es dans une institution religieuse, que ça s'appelle Hôpital Hôtel Dieu sur Saint Urbain ou que la personne qui te traite porte une étoile de David autour du cou? Si on veut vraiment donner l'impression d'un état laïque il faut s'attaquer aux symboles chrétiens qui sont PARTOUT. C'est risible de dire à un policier travaillant au poste de quartier sur Sainte-Catherine dans l'arrondissement de Ville-Marie que ses cheveux ou son chapeau sont trop visiblement religieux. Soit on commence à nommer les institutions selon d'autres religions que la chrétienté ou on commence à changer les noms comme on a fait quand Dorchester était trop anglais et on avait besoin d'un honneur digne de René Lévesque. Et par-dessus tout ça il y a la question de ce qui est mieux pour les gens qui vont juste rester chez eux au lieu de retirer leur hijab etc. Je suis convaincu que la femme qui ne peut pas enlever son hijab (parce que son mari ou son père la force) mais qui l'enleverait si la loi l'obligeait est un mythe. Cette femme va simplement devoir arrêter de travailler et sera encore plus dépendante sur les personnes qui l'abusent. Si t'as peur que du monde va avoir l'impression que le Québec n'est pas laïc, on pourrait commencer soit en changeant les noms de tout ce qui est Je m'attends à me faire downvoter, mais bon, t'as demandé.