Will Toronto benefit from the Quebec Charter of values fisaco?

[someMidTowner]

Also, the funny thing with Christmas is that it has evolved into a very secular cultural holiday quite apart from its religious roots. I'm not sure whether Quebec is making a distinction between exceptions for christmas symbols that are secular (tree, santa etc) or religious (nativity scene, the cross etc)? The City of Toronto funds a Santa Claus Parade so i suspect we probably already do this too?

It is funny, because that view is usually stated by those with christian roots. You can call christmas symbols secular all you want but that argument is really just a justification to celebrate the holiday on a public scale - funded even by those like me that chose science over faith. The holiday is called CHRISTmas, not believewhateveryouwantmas. Santa = St. Nicholas, how is that secular?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

sMT:

Well, operationally Christmas might as well be secular for a good chunk of the population (those symbols notwithstanding). That said, if one goes even further back, Christmas is actually a pagan festival (Yule = Jul) co-opted by Christianity.

Lesson: There is absolutely no point in trying to artificially constraint cultural evolution in the name of "purity" - it is the nature of cultures to borrow, beg, steal and co-opt each others' symbols. What Quebec is trying to do is attempting freeze their culture (which itself evolved from historical circumstances) in an arbitrary phase, and that is the most surefire way for it to degenerate into irrelevance - especially in the current age where information know absolutely no bounds.

AoD

 

[Silence&Motion]

OK you nailed me Obviously I'm not a student of the Bible ( I said I was an atheist ). The point is few Christians take these ancient commandments literally. This is the difference.

And therein lies your blatant Islamophobia. Apologizing for Christians while denouncing Muslims. Run of the mill Canadian Muslims shouldn't need to justify themselves to you just because there are some murderous, despicable Muslims out there in the world. Same goes for Christians and atheists.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Run of the mill Canadian Muslims shouldn't need to justify themselves to you just because there are some murderous, despicable Muslims out there in the world. Same goes for Christians and atheists.

Well said and bears repeating - judge by one's action, not one's label.

AoD

 

[Silence&Motion]

I'm loosing a sense of what people's positions are here. It seems like everyone is pretty much in opposition to the specifics of the PQ plan. Beyond the abstract question of secularism vs. religious pluralism, what actual policies are the pro-secular people suggesting we impose that aren't already imposed? As has already been stated, no one in Canada is subject to Sharia law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the legal equality across lines of gender, race, and sexuality.

I wish people who truly believe in feminism would spend more time trying to reinstate the national child care policy that the CPC scrapped, or pressuring political parties to put out more female candidates, rather than imposing laws dictating what women are allowed or not allowed to wear. In my books that's a very anti-feminist position to take.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

S&M:

The problem with throwing the word "Feminism" out without asking what kind of feminism we're talking about. I think we are by and large referring to the 1st wave (political franchise) and equal opportunity second wave Lib Fem in this thread while more or less sidestepped the more recent forms (PoMo Fem, Post Colonial Fem, Radical Fem) which really pokes holes in the western, modern interpretation of what Feminism really is.

AoD

 

[OttoSchloss]

Umm... I never claimed that Quebec is religious place.

Secularism has nothing to do with low church attendance rates and marriage rates anyways.

And this bill is not really about religion, it's about culture.

Well, to be factual on this argument, Quebec has one of the highest rates of identified religion in the nation. Most people identify as Catholic in the province. While they may not attend Church (they have one of the lowest attendance rates in North America) they do identify with a particular faith at rates close to Newfoundlanders.


Surprisingly, Albertans have the lowest rates of identified religion (meaning fewer Albertans than other Canadians identify with a religious group).

You're correct, one can't correlate Religion with social liberalism etc.

 

[OttoSchloss]

It is funny, because that view is usually stated by those with christian roots. You can call christmas symbols secular all you want but that argument is really just a justification to celebrate the holiday on a public scale - funded even by those like me that chose science over faith. The holiday is called CHRISTmas, not believewhateveryouwantmas. Santa = St. Nicholas, how is that secular?

I'm an atheist. But I love Christmas. It's a cultural institution in my household and Christ rarely makes an appearance, except in the music during the season (which I don't find offensive at all considering I'm a non-believer). I know many Jews as well that celebrate Xmas, not for the Christ-symbology but for everything else it has come to mean - togetherness, family, generosity, food and gift giving.

 

[Silence&Motion]

S&M:

The problem with throwing the word "Feminism" out without asking what kind of feminism we're talking about. I think we are by and large referring to the 1st wave (political franchise) and equal opportunity second wave Lib Fem in this thread while more or less sidestepped the more recent forms (PoMo Fem, Post Colonial Fem, Radical Fem) which really pokes holes in the western, modern interpretation of what Feminism really is.

AoD

Good point. I was trying to be as general as possible and equate feminism with the political empowerment of women. My own position is more in line with 2nd/3rd wave feminisms, which recognize that gender inequality is actually built into the basic Western, liberal tradition (particularly the way it separates life into public and private spheres, and traditionally relegates women to the private sphere). Because I accept this position, I see all this talk about Sharia law and headscarves as a smokescreen for people who are currently benefiting from the inequalities inherent in Western, liberal society. It's much easier to turn people against some outside bogeyman (Islam!!) than to confront the basic structures of your own society that result in gender inequality.

 

[someMidTowner]

I'm an atheist. But I love Christmas. It's a cultural institution in my household and Christ rarely makes an appearance, except in the music during the season (which I don't find offensive at all considering I'm a non-believer). I know many Jews as well that celebrate Xmas, not for the Christ-symbology but for everything else it has come to mean - togetherness, family, generosity, food and gift giving.

I certainly understand that point of view, but the question for me comes down to whether these installations should be funded by those that are either apathetic to or offended by their religious symbolism.

When talking about Quebec though, it is a much different argument. It isn't a matter of publicly funding religious headwear here, it is the use of it in the workplace. Nobody is having anything forced upon then by allowing workers to continue wearing head coverings - much different than publicly funding religious symbols and institutions. The use of religious headwear is a basic human right in Canada, and Quebec, as part of Canada, shouldn't be entitled to take that away from anybody. The PQ is tabling this legislation as if the French language's dominance is slipping in Quebec, when in fact it has a very strong foothold. This is very similar to some of the xenophobic bills being proposed by various right wing parties in Europe. Pretty disgusting.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:
Now are you *really* equating intentional flying of the confederate flag in a public setting in a manner sanctioned by the state to the individual choice of religious garment and symbols?

Not quite, the analogy would be allowing a government employee to wear a confederate flag lapel pin while on the job. Does it affect the service? Not necessarily, but is this fair to any tax-paying citizen who would be sensitive to the symbol?? Why not side-step the issue all together, in a way fair to all?

Are you suggesting wearing of the hijab or turban is the symbol of "oppression and ignorance"? There is something really quite oppressive and ignorant about that particular view - and unfortunately, it isn't symbolized by anything that would allow one to flag it.

... but we are talking about symbols, not people... symbols that stand for faiths and belief-systems that condemn others that don't conform to them. This may not bother you but it might bother someone who is sensitive to the ideology being symbolized. Again, why not side-step the issue all together?

More to the point - does another's personal expression affect your access to tax-funded government services? No.

This isn't the issue. Nobody is arguing that the presence of religious symbols will affect the level of service. A confederate flag flying over a state capitol doesn't affect what happens within either. It's about appropriateness and inclusivity. The absence of personal expressions of religious belief (or any personal beliefs) allows all to participate regardless of such beliefs.

Besides, there is something fundamentally more similar between your scenario of the Confederate flag flying to what Quebec is doing - which is elevating one's symbols above others in the name of "heritage".

They feel there is justification. They also feel they have a justification to favour the French language (legally). Why judge them according to your values? Isn't that rather oppressive? Look, it's easy for people in Ontario to sit on a high horse regarding Quebec because collectively we value absolutely nothing about our history or cultural traditions, to the point of denying them completely. This is fine, but let's at least have some perspective to understand that this is a delusion relatively unique to us. Most jurisdictions have some policies in place to preserve, celebrate - which is to say give preferential treatment to - some aspects of 'traditional' culture there, and this doesn't make them all xenophobic Nazis. The key to all of this is context, of course.

Let me reverse this a little - as a gay man, I certainly would like the ability to self-identify where I stand. Should I be prohibited from having visible jewelry with rainbow colours, however subtle, because that would offend the sensibilities of those of religious faith?".

AoD, I just don't think these little personal expressions have a place in the context we are discussing. To wear a symbol is to make a statement or take a position and I don't think this is appropriate in the public sector. Besides, it would be hypocritical of me to say the rainbow flag is fine (because I believe in it and think everybody else should) but a religious symbol isn't. Again, I think I just prefer to side-step the issue and create a space that is friendly to all by being empty of any symbolism beyond that of 'peace, order and good government'.

The use of religious headwear is a basic human right in Canada, and Quebec, as part of Canada, shouldn't be entitled to take that away from anybody. The PQ is tabling this legislation as if the French language's dominance is slipping in Quebec, when in fact it has a very strong foothold. This is very similar to some of the xenophobic bills being proposed by various right wing parties in Europe. Pretty disgusting.

Be careful of judging and stereotyping others. In Ontario we discriminate based on religion by preferentially funding a separate catholic school board. Some might consider this 'disgusting' too. We have our justifications though too, right?

Again, i'm hesitant to label Quebec a racist xenophobic place merely because it promotes some collective values in some contexts. I think there are a few more lines i'd need to see crossed before I would make this call.

 

[someMidTowner]

In Ontario we discriminate based on religion by preferentially funding a separate catholic school board. Some might consider this 'disgusting' too. We have our justifications though too, right?

It is disgusting. They actually teach impressionable young kids creationism alongside evolution (which is presented as unproven theory), on the dollars of people that know better.

 

[doug]

Nobody is having anything forced upon then by allowing workers to continue wearing head coverings - much different than publicly funding religious symbols and institutions.

other than the Xmas tree in Nathan Phillips square, which, as mentioned, is a pagan symbol. What publicly funded religious symbols are there in Toronto?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Be careful of judging and stereotyping others. In Ontario we discriminate based on religion by preferentially funding a separate catholic school board. Some might consider this 'disgusting' too. We have our justifications though too, right?=.

What exactly is the government's position on this. I would love to hear how they justify it.

 

[BurlOak]

What exactly is the government's position on this. I would love to hear how they justify it.

I recall back in 2007 during the John Tory election loss, the whisper from the Liberals campaign was that Catholics are civilized enough to be trusted with there own publicly funded system, but if it were given to other religions such as Islam, then terrorist would be created from the public purse.