Jump to content

Those Kooky Canadians and Their Religious Intolerance

Rate this topic


RiverRaider

Recommended Posts

No question...  just interested in seeing how the mob reacts to this thread 

 

 

Quebec bans crosses, religious dress for gov’t workers

 

 

QUEBEC CITY, Canada, June 19, 2019 (LifeSiteNews)

 

― The government of Quebec has passed a bill requiring civil servants to maintain a religiously neutral appearance when they are on the job.

Public school teachers, police officers, government lawyers, and wildlife officials are among the government workers affected. However, thanks to an amendment to the bill, those who have been wearing religious symbols in their current jobs will be permitted to continue wearing them until they take up a new position or post in their tax-funded professions.

 

State subsidized daycare workers, originally counted among the civil servants affected, have been dropped from the list.  

The new law, formerly known as Bill 21, also requires people to show their faces when receiving government services to reveal their identity or for security reasons. It was passed on Sunday, June 16, 2019.

 

Critics of the new law believe it unfairly targets Muslims and Sikhs. According to Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, both the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have already filed a motion with Quebec’s Higher Court seeking to have the law overturned.  

 

An introduction to Bill 21 explained that the ban was meant to “affirm the laicity of the State.”

“To that end, the bill provides that the laicity of the State is based on four principles: the separation of State and religions, the religious neutrality of the State, the equality of all citizens, and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion,” it stated.

“The bill proposes to prohibit certain persons from wearing religious symbols while exercising their functions. However, the prohibition does not apply to certain persons holding positions at the time the bill is introduced, subject to the conditions specified by the bill,” it continued.

 

“Under the bill, personnel members of a body must exercise their functions with their face uncovered, and persons who present themselves to receive a service from such a personnel member must have their face uncovered when doing so is necessary to allow their identity to be verified or for security reasons. Persons who fail to comply with that obligation may not receive the service. However, those obligations do not apply to persons whose face is covered for reasons of health or a handicap, or because of the requirements tied to their functions or to the performance of certain tasks.”

The bill also proposed to amend the Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms “to specify that persons must maintain proper regard for State laicity in exercising their fundamental freedoms and rights.”

 

Bill 21 originally did not define “religious symbols.” Canada’s Global News reported that an amendment was made to its Article 6 stating that “any object, including a garment, a symbol, a jewel, an adornment, an accessory or a headdress” would count as a religious symbol, if worn “in connection with religious belief“ or “reasonably considered to refer to religious affiliation.”

 

Global News also indicated that there was initially some confusion over whether or not wedding rings counted as a “religious symbol.” However, when the bill was tabled, Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said that wedding rings would not be included in the ban.  

 

Citing its commitment to “diversity, acceptance, tolerance and respect for individual rights and religious freedoms,” the Montreal English School Board has indicated that it will not comply with the new law.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cabo2005 said:

So if you don't like a law in Quebec you just don't comply?

Cabo 

 

Heard an interview last evening with that gentleman (the head of the English School Board) 

 

In a nutshell yeah that seems to be the plan at least as far as the Board is concerned 

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems like a complex and far reaching law,

I agree with some of it,

I question other aspects of it.

 

I think there should be some differentiation between ornamental wear, and clothing that is actually mandated by the religion,

 

and I agree with the requirement for faces to be revealed.

Eggy 10-13

LAA 7-14

50-50 2-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew, I am glad they withdrew this part of the bill..The Jewlers would take a real hit.

 

Global News also indicated that there was initially some confusion over whether or not wedding rings counted as a “religious symbol.” However, when the bill was tabled, Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion Minister* Simon Jolin-Barrette said that wedding rings would not be included in the ban.  

 

* Do we have one of these yet?

Should Trump be pushing to include one in his cabinet?

Or, don't steal the Democrat's thunder, and let them start it?

 

I say Trump should include a cabinet member to that newly created position, and name a Jew to the slot/

Is it really diversity if Blacks always get that job?

 

Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.
-Thomas Jefferson
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.
-Soren Kierkegaard

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, fish'nmagician said:

think there should be some differentiation between ornamental wear, and clothing that is actually mandated by the religion,

Can you flesh this idea out for us 

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. – William James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, dena said:

Whew, I am glad they withdrew this part of the bill..The Jewlers would take a real hit.

 

Global News also indicated that there was initially some confusion over whether or not wedding rings counted as a “religious symbol.” However, when the bill was tabled, Immigration, Diversity and Inclusion Minister* Simon Jolin-Barrette said that wedding rings would not be included in the ban.  

 

* Do we have one of these yet?

Should Trump be pushing to include one in his cabinet?

Or, don't steal the Democrat's thunder, and let them start it?

 

I say Trump should include a cabinet member to that newly created position, and name a Jew to the slot/

Is it really diversity if Blacks always get that job?

 

You're really a racist!!!  That position must be chaired by a physically challenged, LVMGOQABCC Jewess who speaks with a lisp!!!  When will you intolerables ever learn??!!

Edited by Knight771
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadians didn't have the balls to ban the Burka, so they blanket ban everything.

 

 

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares it's Canada and on top of it all Quebec.  Niagara Falls now looks like a refugee resettlement area, so can only imagine what Montreal looks like.  Maybe Trudeau will play dress up again and shed a tear to "help" these people he's brought in.  Enjoy your hijabs and burkas. 

 

Though I do feel bad for the Sikhs, they always seem to genuinely be nice people that get caught up in this.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 mins ago, Buckscorider said:

Theres no clothes mandated by a religion that i know of.

If there is, I'd like to see the mandate.

Not mandated, but burqas, niqabs etc are dictated to ensure the patriarchal subjugation of Islamic women.

Politicians and diapers should be changed often and regularly,  invariably for the same reason.

______________________________________________________________

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...