Pretty clear case of separation of church and state to me. The religion of someone in the Public Service should or further ought not be the first thing a citizen see's be it a cross or hijab. This shit should be common sense.
Printable View
Pretty clear case of separation of church and state to me. The religion of someone in the Public Service should or further ought not be the first thing a citizen see's be it a cross or hijab. This shit should be common sense.
Where are all you Canadian Saddo veterans? give the man a break. @CFH and @Nameless are you both still having a Terence & Philip like farting argument over Jamie Oliver, can't you just both ignore him and share some poutine ?:-\ ;D and @Youngblood, quit dreaming of covering Missy in Maple syrup and get with the program:pQuote:
Originally Posted by IamInuit
I am not familiar with this particular charter but I think the (excuse the pun) crux of it is pretty universal and something that many countries legislators are trying to wrestle with.
Both the cross and the hijab are cultural and not religious phenomena anyway so if a person decides to become a public servant then they should be aware that entails adapting their own behaviour in the service of others. Quite how Christians can venerate the supposed instrument of Jesus death in such a clearly Bible defying Idolatrous way is beyond me. Also the hijab in a Western country seems like the most immodest thing one could possibly choose to wear. It's like saying look at me and how not content with wearing a modest neutral head covering like a scarf or hat I choose to be more modest than anybody else and cover everything that God created except my beautiful eyes ? Are all men considered so one dimensional and perverted that they can only think one thing when looking at a Women or is it more to do with subjugation and the imposition of power ?
I agree with IamInuit it's basic common sense.
I might be the most veteran Canadian poster on this forum come to think?:D I don't have much to add to this though, it really is common sense but Quebec always like to be exclusionary and the rest of Canada doesn't have much to do with it whether they want to or not. Last I was in Montreal they were seriously flexing their muscles to make it illegal for businesses to advertise in English, it's all pathetic imo.
I had no Idea that your were from Canada :oQuote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
It's because of my stupid name, I get no respect;D I was 17 when I signed up here and have just never changed it. Never lived anywhere else.
Pretty cool name, considering you got there first and didn't have to add 553 on the end. I am not sure there were forums when I was 17 . It all makes sense now and probably half explains why Lyle is such a huge fan of yours. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Hah. I never had a single problem with Lyle until I made a vaguely critical post of Wladimir couple days ago and he started menstruating, but I've always thought he was a douche anyways so whatever. Mind you I did tell him I was Canadian in a PM a while back so you could well be right:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Yeah usually I shrug a little with Quebec. They try a little to hard to be distinct at times but I think they are a little ahead of the curve on this one. I must admit that I did consider history and how some of the greatest fascists began but then things like geography dismissed such thoughts.
As long as it doesn't actually affect the ability to perform a job or be taken seriously by reasonable people, then I don't see any reason it's an issue, but it's not that cut and dry I suppose. Makes me think of this story I read a while back;D
Austrian Wins Right To Wear Pasta Strainer In Driver’s License � Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Frankly, I think it's bullshit and discriminatory.
If we want to consider ourselves a multicultural society (as I believe Quebecers are largely in favour of :p), then we can't discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs.
Making people choose between their religion and their jobs, or effectively barring certain religions from entering the public service in the name of 'equality' inherently discriminatory and it amounts to little more than thinly veiled racism. Funny how this only started after we started receiving large numbers of immigrants from non-European countries; no one gave a shit about religious symbolism 30 years ago when almost everyone was some variation of the same belief system.
And for what it's worth, I have very few good things to say about religion.
It does depend on the job though. You can't exactly have police officers veiling their face, just as one obvious example. On the other hand I'm sure droves of female attorneys and politicians would love to convert to Islam tomorrow for the chance to;D
I would wager you could count the number of female police officers who feel they need to wear a veil at work in the entire goddamn country on one hand. Even so, there are plenty of other ways to visibly identify a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
I don't give a fuck if the guy driving a bus or processing my driver's license is wearing a goddamn turban and neither does anyone else who isn't a fuckbag racist.
On the contrary. Its precisely why we are a multicultural society that we dont need religious symbols in the public service. Nobody is saying you cant wear whatever outside of the work place. We are talking about the workplace and Government representatives. That workplace needs to be seen as totally neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
That's fine to say when you are looking at things through the lens of Euro-Christian religion, but there are other belief systems that state certain symbols must be worn. Forcing people to choose between their religion and money, and pursuing an assimilationist social policy is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitOn the contrary. Its precisely why we are a multicultural society that we dont need religious symbols in the public service. Nobody is saying you cant wear whatever outside of the work place. We are talking about the workplace and Government representatives. That workplace needs to be seen as totally neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Like I said, I don't give a flying fuck how a public servant dresses as long as they do their job competently. However, I do care a lot about legislative, institutionalized racism, something that is a long-standing and historical blight on the country I happen to live in.
And how does being religious violate the neutrality of service in any way? And why does a workplace, even a public one, need to present the entirely false facade of being perfectly neutral? If someone was found to be acting outside the rules of their job because of their beliefs (which I cannot imagine is an issue anywhere outside the minds of the PQ), then I have no doubt they will face discipline. It's not a big enough issue to warrant violating the basic rights of a large group of people just because their skin is a different colour. Furthermore, if some cracker asshole feels like they can't receive fair service from a Muslim (or whoever), then maybe they should take a hard look at their own xenophobic beliefs before trying to blame a fucking piece of cloth wrapped around someone's head.
I can understand about the Christian/Euro belief hold over and it is part of history and the symbols are everywhere in the country but they are even canceling those in Quebec so its not xenophobia.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFHThat's fine to say when you are looking at things through the lens of Euro-Christian religion, but there are other belief systems that state certain symbols must be worn. Forcing people to choose between their religion and money, and pursuing an assimilationist social policy is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by IamInuitOn the contrary. Its precisely why we are a multicultural society that we dont need religious symbols in the public service. Nobody is saying you cant wear whatever outside of the work place. We are talking about the workplace and Government representatives. That workplace needs to be seen as totally neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by CFH
Like I said, I don't give a flying fuck how a public servant dresses as long as they do their job competently. However, I do care a lot about legislative, institutionalized racism, something that is a long-standing and historical blight on the country I happen to live in.
And how does being religious violate the neutrality of service in any way? And why does a workplace, even a public one, need to present the entirely false facade of being perfectly neutral? If someone was found to be acting outside the rules of their job because of their beliefs (which I cannot imagine is an issue anywhere outside the minds of the PQ), then I have no doubt they will face discipline. It's not a big enough issue to warrant violating the basic rights of a large group of people just because their skin is a different colour. Furthermore, if some cracker asshole feels like they can't receive fair service from a Muslim (or whoever), then maybe they should take a hard look at their own xenophobic beliefs before trying to blame a fucking piece of cloth wrapped around someone's head.
Imagine a Hasidic Jew trying to get services from a Palestinian or a Tutsi trying from a Hutu who's wearing his tribal garb. It has nothing to do with ones skin colour. It has to do with religious symbols and giant crosses and the like are included. I hope they go all the way and cancel Christmas.
;DQuote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
Actually, that's pretty much incorrect; What the Gov here always wanted (and which the law says) is that you can advertise in both language if you want but French must be there and must be more clear than the English advertisement. Pretty much different to forbid from advertising in English. There is always a handful of fanatics that want more but that's true from everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pking
As for the "Charte", the idea in general isn't bad; you work for the State in an important position? You must look neutral as you're not working for your religion neither representing it. That is not bad at all if you ask me. So no obvious religious symbols, whatever they might be.
There are a few things which I disagree in their "Charte des valeurs québécoises" but the overall idea is simply: Let's not let religion take over the Laicity ground. I hardly see how it can be a bad thing.
There would be a lot to discuss about it, there are some aspects I am not happy with but the general idea is pretty good if you ask me.