News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.6K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 448     0 

Will Toronto benefit from the Quebec Charter of values fisaco?

I doubt there's much antisemitism in Northern Ontario. There just aren't enough Jews up there to "justify" it. I'm sure there's a ton of ill will directed at natives and... franco-Ontarians. BTW no place is a paradise as far as acceptance goes. But I do think North America in particular despite it's hand wringing and white-guilt is probably the least racist region on Earth. People in Europe and Asia are, let's face it, 1000x more racist (and openly so) than we are culturally in the Americas. Immigrants are treated as "guests" of the host country in most nations on Earth, save for the anglo-sphere. That's why adopting what amounts to a European model for cultural assimilation just seems like an anathema to (historic) North American values. French Quebeckers were a conquered people and no the English did not say, assimilate or get on the next trade ship back to France. It's just not a Canadian tradition...

And it has very little to do with how strong a particular culture is. Americans probably have the most influential and visibly rich culture today but they're not directing new immigrants to assimilate or perish either. For the most part they're confident enough in their culture not to be threatened by outside cultural symbols.
 
Last edited:
Anger management much? Can you not have a discussion without getting emotional?

There's no anger in my post other then maybe my first line. But that's normal when someone implies that Quebec is more pro-feminist, less racist, more culturally significant then the rest of Canada. The same Quebec that brought us events such as "money and the immigrant vote", "it's because people like you we lost", Yves Michaud, Charter of Values which clearly puts one religion ahead of another, the numerous vandalisms of mosques, synagogues and Greek & Italian based churches, the firing of the only female member of the Bloc Quebecois and many more.

I spend 4 months a year in Montreal. I have a condo on Sherbrooke, steps from Concordia. I bought it in 1992 at a very low price and now it's worth a ton. I often walk my dog along Ste-Catherine or de Maisonneuve or Tupper from Atwater. Yes, a lot of Vietnamese noodle joints, a Mandarin-style buffet, etc. line Ste-Catherine but I see plenty of Arab places. A very nice Arab restaurant with a beautiful patio is on Sherbrooke, SW corner, next to the old Grosvenor Mansions, just opened. There's a new Adonis market opposite the old Forum.

Congrats on making a ton on your condo. What does this have to do with this discussion. All of Canada has seen a huge increase in housing prices since 1992. And yes, there are a few Arabic restos and a grocery shop in the area however, it does not change that the area is mainly Asian.

As for only Christian North Africans being accepted (and that might comes as a surprise to my Jewish Moroccan and Egyptian friends), I must have missed the part where they demand to see a baptism certificate before they accept a person into the Christians-only club.

I never said Christians were the only ones being accepted into Quebec. However, accepted does not always mean you can enter our country. If you think there's no issues in Quebec with regards to northern Africans then maybe you should ditch the Westmount crowd and spend some time in community centres in Park Ex, St-Michel, Montreal Nord and Cote-des-Neiges.

I wonder if, outside of the Toronto area, which is multicultural (as is Montreal), in Northern Ontario or in the sticks elsewhere, there's no racism or antisemitism.

Of course there is.
 
There's no anger in my post other then maybe my first line. But that's normal when someone implies that Quebec is more pro-feminist, less racist, more culturally significant then the rest of Canada. The same Quebec that brought us events such as "money and the immigrant vote", "it's because people like you we lost", Yves Michaud, Charter of Values which clearly puts one religion ahead of another, the numerous vandalisms of mosques, synagogues and Greek & Italian based churches, the firing of the only female member of the Bloc Quebecois and many more.

Enough Thanos. Ex-Montreal Girl may have exaggerated some things but her bigger point stands, clearly!... and you'd be a little sore too if you had to read 10 pages of out and out ignorance labelling Quebecers racist. Let's be honest, there are many here who insist on seeing things as "black and white" because they have their own agenda of reverse intolerance... and as much as you can cite instances of racism in Quebec and all kinds of personal anecdotes of intolerance somebody else can do the same about Ontario, and yes even about our 'beloved' Multicult' Toronto. We have just as many delusions as they do in Quebec, just different ones.
 
I'm perfectly bilingual and have been all my life. I have never heard a racist thing in French that I haven't heard in Ontario in English, whether we're talking about South Asians, Jamaicans or Somalians.

Seems reasonable. On the other hand no Ontario government would ever attempt to legislate against a minority group's expression of its religion. The quebecois have used their cherished and well-nurtured sense of grievance and victimhood to trample over minority language rights, and now - let's be honest - have singled out Muslims for their next bit of repression. Racism plays in Quebec in a way that would simply be unacceptable in any other part of the country. True, you can find racist assholes anywhere in Canada. But only in Quebec do they constitute an electoral majority.
 
So I suppose you're correct in the sense that the Qur'an doesn't say "completely cover women from head to toe" much the same way that the Bible doesn't say "burn the homosexuals".
You'd be surprised. Leviticus describes homosexuality as an abomination and goes on to say that homosexuals must be put to death. Christians will tell you it doesn't apply anymore and the language is symbolic, etc etc, but it's pretty barbaric no matter how it's justified. Thankfully the more extreme parts of the Bible are generally ignored nowadays.

I agree the Quebec charter is flawed on this point because it allows for crosses, otherwise how is it singling out or marginalizing anybody if all religious symbols are treated the same?

Because the traditionally dominant religion in Quebec has already been marginalized and Catholics don't have to wear specific clothing in day to day life. The Charter of Values might officially apply to Christians just like everyone else, but let's be realistic here, that's not who it's targeting.
 
Leviticus describes homosexuality as an abomination and goes on to say that homosexuals must be put to death. Christians will tell you it doesn't apply anymore and the language is symbolic, etc etc, but it's pretty barbaric no matter how it's justified. Thankfully the more extreme parts of the Bible are generally ignored nowadays.

Actually, christians use this excuse for hating gays on a regular basis. Believing in the supernatural is just retarded of course in the first place, but to cherry pick old testament scripture to justify it is quite the stretch. Even more ridiculous to quote levitical laws, which unless you are a jewish priest from the House of Levi, practicing sacrifice in a Tabernacle, doesn't apply to you....and to then cherry pick just one of the 76 things banned in Levitical Law.

The old testament doesn't say anything about homosexuality (as we know it in a modern sense), and Jesus had nothing to say about it. So why do so many christians believe that "God Hates Fags"?

The point I'm making, is that any government legislation that condones any belief in the supernatural should be banned...not just favouring one over the other.
 
Because the traditionally dominant religion in Quebec has already been marginalized and Catholics don't have to wear specific clothing in day to day life.

We are not talking about 'day to day' life, we're talking about at work, and more specifically at work in the public sector... and it's my understanding that veils or head coverings are more about cultural custom related to religion than religious commandment, per se.

Look, compromise and tolerance work both ways. Society must embrace diversity and accommodate different cultural groups where possible, but not to an extent where it has to abandon fundamental values, of which Laïcité is one in Quebec. In instances such as this it is reasonable that individuals must also make some concessions too... and this is not about racism, surely, provided all religious symbols are treated the same in the public sector.

The Charter of Values might officially apply to Christians just like everyone else, but let's be realistic here, that's not who it's targeting.

Who? The Sikhs? The Amish? No, nobody is talking about them because the rhetoric in Ontario is fixated on Islamophobia. It is the cause du jour and let all else be damned. I mean, aren't the French jew haters too?? Why is the discourse not outraged on behalf of the yarmulke?

As much as there are politics at play behind the charter there is an agenda among the charter-outrage groups too.

Seems reasonable. On the other hand no Ontario government would ever attempt to legislate against a minority group's expression of its religion. The quebecois have used their cherished and well-nurtured sense of grievance and victimhood to trample over minority language rights, and now - let's be honest - have singled out Muslims for their next bit of repression. Racism plays in Quebec in a way that would simply be unacceptable in any other part of the country. True, you can find racist assholes anywhere in Canada. But only in Quebec do they constitute an electoral majority.

Last time I checked we do not tolerate the practice of Sharia Law. Doesn't that make us racist too then?
 
True, you can find racist assholes anywhere in Canada. But only in Quebec do they constitute an electoral majority.

But Marois is a minority leader, with only 35% of the vote. I am willing to bet a good chunk of that is the result of the Liberals' treatment of the student protesters. Very tentative support indeed.

Then there's this ... and, while Quebec doesn't look good, the rest of Canada doesn't look much better.

Across Canada, Muslims have reason to feel concerned about how they are perceived when other Canadians identify them by their religion. A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion early last month, the results of which were made available exclusively to Maclean’s, found that attitudes toward Islam have deteriorated markedly across the country over the past four years. “It’s disturbing to see this growing level of mistrust,†said Andrew Grenville, Angus Reid’s chief research officer. The way Canadians see the other major religions—Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism—didn’t change much in the same four-year period.

This snapshot of public opinion comes as the Quebec government’s proposed “charter of values,†which would forbid provincial employees from wearing obvious religious garb and jewellery on the job, sparks heated debate about religious expression. In fact, the poll shows that opinion in Quebec, while markedly less tolerant of religious minorities overall than in other provinces, hasn’t grown less favourable toward Muslims in recent years. In 2009, Angus Reid found that 68 per cent of Quebecers held an unfavourable opinion of Islam. Asked the same question this fall, the Quebec result was pretty much level, at 69 per cent.

But in the rest of Canada, where 46 per cent held an unfavourable view of Islam in 2009, that figure has risen sharply to 54 per cent this year.
By comparison, 39 per cent outside Quebec held an unfavourable opinion of Sikhism, the faith with the biggest public-opinion problem after Islam. All the other religions were regarded unfavourably by less than 30 per cent of Canadians, and those who see Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism in a good light far outnumbered those harbouring suspicions. In Quebec, 48 per cent said they would find it unacceptable for one of their children to marry a Muslim, up slightly from 45 per cent in 2009. In the rest of Canada, those who found the thought of a son or daughter marrying a Muslim unacceptable shot up to 32 per cent from 24 per cent. Rejection of the idea of a child marrying into any of the other religions was considerably lower.

It's a sad reflection on all of us, and a great disappointment to learn that the Canada we imagine as so accepting really isn't.
 
^Well to be fair, someone who has an unfavourable opinion of Islam might still be accepting of it. Hell, I hold an unfavourable opinion of Islam, along with Christianity, Scientology, Nickelback, and brussels sprouts. But that doesn't mean that I'm not accepting of people who like those things.

Actually, christians use this excuse for hating gays on a regular basis. Believing in the supernatural is just retarded of course in the first place, but to cherry pick old testament scripture to justify it is quite the stretch. Even more ridiculous to quote levitical laws, which unless you are a jewish priest from the House of Levi, practicing sacrifice in a Tabernacle, doesn't apply to you....and to then cherry pick just one of the 76 things banned in Levitical Law.

The old testament doesn't say anything about homosexuality (as we know it in a modern sense), and Jesus had nothing to say about it. So why do so many christians believe that "God Hates Fags"?

The point I'm making, is that any government legislation that condones any belief in the supernatural should be banned...not just favouring one over the other.
lol...I was talking about the killing gays part. You don't see a lot of Christians demanding the death penalty for being homosexual even though the Bible demands it. And it's a good thing too, could you imagine if we executed everybody who was guilty of crimes the Bible says are punishable by death? There'd be nobody left.

We are not talking about 'day to day' life, we're talking about at work, and more specifically at work in the public sector... and it's my understanding that veils or head coverings are more about cultural custom related to religion than religious commandment, per se.

Look, compromise and tolerance work both ways. Society must embrace diversity and accommodate different cultural groups where possible, but not to an extent where it has to abandon fundamental values, of which Laïcité is one in Quebec. In instances such as this it is reasonable that individuals must also make some concessions too... and this is not about racism, surely, provided all religious symbols are treated the same in the public sector.
Well I don't know about you, but work sure is part of my day to day life. You talk about compromise, but compromise is only necessary when it accomplishes a goal. Society isn't being compromised by allowing Sikhs working for the government to wear turbans; it doesn't force society to abandon fundamental values and it doesn't affect how the government provides services. Something that hides your face probably does affect working for the government, but this goes well beyond that. The charter of values isn't a compromise at all, it's one sided.

Who? The Sikhs? The Amish? No, nobody is talking about them because the rhetoric in Ontario is fixated on Islamophobia. It is the cause du jour and let all else be damned. I mean, aren't the French jew haters too?? Why is the discourse not outraged on behalf of the yarmulke?

As much as there are politics at play behind the charter there is an agenda among the charter-outrage groups too.



Last time I checked we do not tolerate the practice of Sharia Law. Doesn't that make us racist too then?
Well the topic is Quebec, not France, so no response is needed to that question. But I'll bite on the other one: what exactly is a "charter-outrage group" and what is their supposed agenda? Does Jacques Parizeau belong to a charter-outrage group?

The people being targeted is pretty obvious from the cute little cartoon that the government published illustrating what's okay and what's not. Christians aren't the target here, although in the name of equality they did include a comically giant cross worn by approximatlely zero Christians. How thoughtful, PQ.
 
Last edited:
lol...I was talking about the killing gays part. You don't see a lot of Christians demanding the death penalty for being homosexual even though the Bible demands it.

Only because it would be absurd in this day and age, otherwise plenty would be demanding it The criminal code has been changed to reflect our modern Charter of Rights and no longer reflects christian dogma in that area.

And the "bible" does not demand you kill homosexuals anyway.

Christians would love to have the criminal code reflect their religious beliefs, but they know they have lost that war. Even Harper, as an evangelical, knows he can't push that agenda and get away with it.

Hopefully the day will come when we stop believing in non-existent supernatural beings.
 
Well I don't know about you, but work sure is part of my day to day life.

I don't know about you but there aren't too many jobs I've had where it has been my right to display or otherwise express personal political or religious beliefs... which isn't the same as not being allowed to have said beliefs. What is appropriate at work is often not what is appropriate in personal time and space. Again, it's about compromise.

Society isn't being compromised by allowing Sikhs working for the government to wear turbans; it doesn't force society to abandon fundamental values and it doesn't affect how the government provides services. Something that hides your face probably does affect working for the government, but this goes well beyond that. The charter of values isn't a compromise at all, it's one sided.

It's not about Sikhs or muslims though, it's about the separation of state and religion. This is a fundamental value (as is democracy for example)... and it isn't a value that takes away an individual's right to freedom of religion (in an individual's personal life, i.e. time and space), it protects it. In other words, the compromise affirms the larger ideal.


Well the topic is Quebec, not France, so no response is needed to that question.

You don't see any cultural ties or influences here at all? As with issues of language preservation the perspective in Quebec and France certainly has things in common, a cultural discourse that differs from that of the 'English' world.

But I'll bite on the other one: what exactly is a "charter-outrage group" and what is their supposed agenda?

I think I've discussed this already throughout the thread... In fact, I think I've said pretty much all I have to say on it. I just hope that people will look a little deeper before throwing around hateful and judgemental labels. The Quebec charter is flawed and biased, absolutely, but this doesn't mean it can't be improved to reflect cultural values that make sense in Quebec, even if they don't necessarily make sense in Ontario. Vive la différence!
 
I have yet to see why a kipa is inappropriate in the workplace. It affects noone and in no way affects the separation of church and state. Someone wearing a turban isn't imposing their religion on anyone or infringing on anyone's freedom of (or from) religion.

Again, bringing up France is a red herring. Just because France does something and Quebec follows that doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Vive la différence!
Ironically, I'd use this phrase to defend people's right to wear things that the charter would ban.
 
Would you be allowed to wear, say, a button with the hammer and sickle while working as a public employee?

or show up with Mao or Stalin's face tattooed on our forhead?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top