• @dlpkl
    link
    English
    -711 months ago

    The most egregious example would be Bill 21. Absolutely horrendous legislation that does nothing but marginalize those who are already marginalized. Despite what the Quebecois would like you to believe, it’s a piece of proxy legislation that aims to exclude religious and ethnic minorities from Quebec society, plain as day.

    • Quokka
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 months ago

      Just a quick look, that’s just the same as France’s law on religious iconography except only for government employees?

      Trying to limit the danger of religion sounds like a good thing to me.

      • @dlpkl
        link
        English
        011 months ago

        Firstly, this isn’t France. We have a charter of rights and freedoms that Quebec used a BS notwithstanding clause to get around so that they could pass the bill. Secondly, there’s practical and effective ways to curb the danger of religion without taking a) taking away people’s livelihoods b) making them choose between their faith and their job and c) forcing them to move out of the province to find a workplace that doesn’t go against Canadian ideals.

      • @dlpkl
        link
        English
        011 months ago

        Yes, I did.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Who’s concerned then? A minority of government jobs, plenty of opportunities for people who want to display a religious sign and worst case there’s the private sector if they truly don’t agree.

          Is it any different from asking the people who have the exact same jobs from not displaying their political allegiance? Both religion and freedom of expression are protected by the Canadian Charter, don’t forget that.

          • @dlpkl
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            So there’s an imaginary line in the sand that you’ve drawn regarding how many jobs are allowed to be denied to minorities? Ever heard of the slippery slope argument?

            I thank you for the kind reminder of the existence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if the Quebec legislators have ever read it. Have you? Maybe your rights are only protected when you’re off the clock eh?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              011 months ago

              Again, what about political signs? No one complains about that… Weird right?

              Quebec made the decision 60 years ago to get religion out of its institutions, only the Catholic Church was concerned at the time but today is a different reality and the Révolution Tranquille is a big part of what makes Quebec what it is today. I don’t know why someone that’s religious to the point that they wouldn’t accept to separate their private religious life from their job would want to represent a laïc government just like I don’t understand why an atheist would want to go work for the government in a theocracy.

              • @dlpkl
                link
                English
                -111 months ago

                So your argument is basically that since someone’s rights aren’t respected at a workplace, they shouldn’t work there. Is this a mask off moment or are you starting to realize what the CAQ had intended with Bill 21 all along?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  311 months ago

                  We put limits to people’s rights at work all the time and for multiple reasons, wearing a uniform being one of them.

                  If your religion is so important to you that you can’t make the difference between your willingness to display it and your professional obligations when you represent a laïc State and you’re in a position of authority (because that’s the only people affected by Bill 21), then maybe you should reconsider your willingness to work for said government in that position because clearly you’re not in the right place.

                  It’s also very funny that you’re basically saying it’s ok for a religion/community to force people to wear certain clothes but it’s not ok for the State to tell the same people not to wear them. If they were so free to do what they want then removing a religious sign for 8h a day shouldn’t be an issue, shouldn’t it?

                  • @dlpkl
                    link
                    English
                    111 months ago

                    Please point out which rights you’re being denied. I dare you. I promise you that there is not a SINGLE right that is infringed upon. A dress code is not protected in the Canadian constitution, however a religion that proscribes religious garb IS protected.

                    These people you are taking about were born in Canada, and expect to be protected by Canadian law. It’s not fair to them that they are now being told to whip into line for a white protectionist government or get out when they were literally exercising their Canadian rights. You can go and argue the rhetoric with the individuals that took those jobs, I really don’t care. But you cannot strip away the livelihood of an entire group of Canadians and then go, “Well, what did you expect?!” The rest of the world sees through that bullshit.

    • Pasta Dental
      link
      fedilink
      English
      011 months ago

      Oh the double standards. The religious minorities should be protected at all costs, but the québécois don’t deserve that same protection. It’s always the ““inclusivity/minority activists”” that are the most against Québec when Québec itself fits inside this very definition. For the common good, please just fuck off.

      • @dlpkl
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        It’s really funny how triggered you are. Believe it or not but French speakers aren’t a minority in Quebec. Wild, I know!