Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Benz

Elizabeth May wants to fight against Québec

Recommended Posts

On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 11:34 PM, Army Guy said:

I think I agree with Westcanman as well, This subject of religious items / clothing if I'm not mistaken is already law, and covered under the Canadian Human Rights act. as stated below . I'm not a lawyer and I am not an expert, but I pretty sure that one can not fire/ dismiss  a person because they refuse to not to wear religious clothing, at work...such as the turban or Kirpan, or even a burka. This is not about Quebec's decision to create their own law, but rather upholding a federal laws and human rights already in place...

Not smoking at work was done for health reasons, and it is not the same thing, Smoking is not a right, or is it covered in our constitution, as far as I know. In some religions they don't have a chioce of wearing certain articles, Such as the Sikh's wearing turbans, or Kirpans (knifes) or head scarfs for instance, you don't care because for you , you have nothing in the game, so who cares right, but to others where religion guides most of, if  not all their lives your asking a lot for them to choose religion or moving to find work outside of Quebec.. Would you think it would be ok if New Brunswick banned speaking French and moved out all the Acadians because they refused to only speak English...Im mean if you refused to speak only English then the problem is you and not bill 21.

Most Canadians are not that religious,  ya we may go to church on Sundays, get married in a church, but we are not going to go to some holy war over it....nor are we going to let it run our entire lives....for the most part I think a majority of Canadians are over religion...but that is not the case in all religions, or races….Hence why we have made some accommodations

The matter of royalty and all that goes with that is not just an English thing, I believe the French have a long history of it as well. "Let them all eat cake" ring a bell. any ways France did away with all that we have not caught up, not that we like Royalty , but as a nation it would be to expensive to change our entire system or dependence on our for of government plus we are not that motivated to change  ,we are  lazy .

I don't think your going to hear anything on this topic until after the federal election, no one wants to be make waves in Quebec before the election....Well except for May but she has nothing really to lose does she...Justin on the other hand.... 

 

You did not address the explanation I am exploring regarding the different point of view between Quebec and the ROC regardling religion. Regarding the place of spirituality, we all the same page. The difference lies in the politics of the religions. You guys extend the power of the religions way beyond the spirituality. When a religion tells the people what to were and what to do, they are litterally establishing policies on your conduct and behavior. This is where we do not draw the line at the same place. Such thing in Quebec is considered personal and cannot be applied in a public role context. The religions are doing that to enforce the indoctrination and the feeling to belong to their religious communaity. So in the mind of the Quebec society, those rules are not absolute and should not overpass our laws and rules.

It is irrelevent to say smoking is not a right. Because wearing a symbol is not a righ either, something not forbidden does not translate into a right. Not wearing a symbol meanwhile you work, does not alter your faith. You cannot compare our rule with the banning of french language. It's not comparable. Bill 21 does not forbid people to practive their religion, or even the right to beleive in their religion. That example rather shows your misunderstanding of the law and its spirit. 

By the way, bill 21 does not force someone to lose its job. There is a grand father clause that allows people hired before the day of the bill adoption to keep their symbol. No one will lose its job.

In justice, the appearance of a conflict of interest is as much damageable as a real conflict of interest. If someone is ready to refuse a job because it cannot wear a religious symbol, it means that person passes its religious beleif before the our law. It means in a position of authority, most likely, if that person faces a conflict between what its religion says and what the law says, there are greater chances the person will choose what its religion says. But if the person accepts to respect the rule of bill 21, it then prooves it is capable to draw the line at the right place when it comes to decide what must be applied. That is why this bill exists and why it is applied only on authority position.

The immunity and power you give to the religions place their political agenda on a high stand that we (in Quebec) think can be dangerous for the society. I do not agree with you but, I respect that decision of your's as long as it applies only on you. I expect the very same for us as well. You may not agree but, you should let it go and observe. Just as well as we do observe from distance your multiculturalism and its impact.

What do you think of my explanation of the place of religion and its role. Still think you should force your rules upon us regarding the religion?

@WestCanMan although I answered to him, I think it also answers your message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to google to see who she is. So, she is from the Greens. This of course is part of the election-campaign. Apparently the Greens don't have a chance in Quebec so they can as well insult Quebec. I guess there is some element in the rest of Canada which enjoys Quebec being insulted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 8:00 PM, Argus said:

Mulroney beat a pair of Anglos - Turner and Broadbent. Not sure what you're referring to with Jean Charest. He was never a federal party leader and is a Francophone.

Hate is too strong a word. Disdain is more the general consensus. I've said before that if Quebec ever discovered oil they'd separate from Canada the next year. Only economics, not love of country or loyalty holds them here.

Hate is too strong a word. Disdain is more accurate.

At some point of my life, I hated the anglos. I did not understand why they do what they do and I concluded that only a bad person can think like that. But I knew it was too simplist and I really wanted to understand. It turns out that sometimes 2 persons can take the same decision based on total different reasons depending on their experiences or where they stand. Understanding does not mean agreeing, but it opens the door to constructive discussions that can't occur if you limit your vision on hatred. Now I know that despite all the french bashing the medias generously spread over their consumers, the anglos do not hate the french and the french do not hate the anglos. Despite they are different, they have more in common than they like to admit.

The french do not have disdain of anglos. The french consumes so many anglos cultural products, it would just be masoshism. The french are rather frustrated and offended that the anglos have absolutly no consideration of the french opinion and position. If an anglo takes a decision that regards the french, it will be based on his own opinion of what is good for the french, not in agreement with the french. Then the anglos will think the french is just whining because he/she beleives the decision was right and fair. This is the dynamic of the 2 solitudes.

The reasons that push the people here to stay in Canada is diverse. For some of them, it's economical ss you said. But for many others, it's a loyalty to an idealism of what Canada should be. Quebec people have their pride and they do not swallow the equalization b.s. Although it is now a reality that Quebec gets more than it contributes, it is not as much as the anglos loved to think and it is not a reason to stay in. We aspire to more than that we would prefer to be a lucrative state than a poor one.  That said, it is true that once in a while, I hear someone using that reason to stay in Canada. But it is not the majority of people. Even the Quebec federalists that would like to stay in Canada know that we would do good if indepedant and the equalization is not a stopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 7:34 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

Je suis suprisé que tu pense cela. Le grande majorité des canadiens anglais ne le pense pas. Même les canadiens qui soutiennent le monarchie donnent une autre justification comme "c'est la tradition" où "c'est un bonne institution." Par exemple, en Australie il'y avait beaucoup de référendums proche de la monarchie et aussi beaucoup de premiers ministres républicains.

Il est parfois difficile de savoir ce que les gens pensent uniquement en les voyant agir. J'appuie mon opinion davantage sur la façon que le système fédéral est conçu plutôt que ce que les gens en pensent. Le sujet ne préoccupe pas les canadiens anglais, alors j'ai plutôt assumé qu'ils en pensent tel qu'il est conçu.

La dernière fois que j'ai entendu un canadien anglais contester la monarchie, c'était John Manley lorsqu'il convoitait le direction du PLC (LPC). Ça fait très longtemps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 2:55 PM, Dougie93 said:

Quebec will go first, but once they do and the sky does not fall, the whole ball of yarn will unravel.

What it will unravel to however, will be far more healthy wealthy and wise than this dysfunctional Confederation which has no national interest other than entrenched interests of the Eastern Elites in the Toronto - Montreal - Ottawa Iron Triangle.

Kweebec will be down on their knees begging the rest of Canada to keep them around. Where are they going to go to get their money from if they cannot suck any more transfer payments out of the West, especially Alberta? Alberta could be one of the most wealthiest provinces in Canada if it were not for the french in Kweebec stealing most of their hard earned money from Albertans. Canada is corrupt as hell thanks to having Kweebec as a part of Canada. Kweebec has always been a corrupt province since time began. It must be a Kweebec thing, eh? And everything they do is anti-Canada.

This present day prime mistake of Canada and his commie old man sure has done a number on the rest of Canada.The french are lucky and keep doing what they are doing to the rest of Canada because of the Anglophones in the rest of Canada who appear to not seem to give much of a crap as to what Kweebec does to them every day. The west will do great when Kweebec decides to get the hell out of Canada or Canada gets the hell out of Kweebec. If they can go it alone and can do well without the rest of Canada they would have left decades ago.  

The ball of yarn will not unravel for the West. The West will get bigger and better when Kweebec does leave Confederation. Wake up from your own slumber yourself, fella.  ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, taxme said:

Wake up from your own slumber yourself, fella.  ^_^

Work is bullshit jobs are jails, I defend my laziness, to include naps at my leisure of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 4:55 PM, Dougie93 said:

Quebec is 8 million plus people with a GDP over $400 billion USD.

That's Austria.   Austria is its own county.  No problemo.   Austria has a better military than Canada too.

In terms of the EU, that path is open to Quebec too.

If Austria can an independent republic within the European Union, so could Quebec  EUFOR.

In fact, Europe would love to have a foothold in North America so the Republic of Quebec would be welcomed with open arms.

 

The only reason that Quebec can do so well is because of da Attawa that keeps propping up Quebec with billions of the rest of the Canadian taxpayer's tax dollars that are given to Quebec every year to help keep the french economy alive and kicking. Most of the jobs and contracts that are handed out by french controlled Attawa goes to Quebec. Quebec is the darling of da Attawa and Ontario also. The Anglophones in Quebec have been asking da Attawa for help in their quest to be treated as equals in Quebec. They get silence. Deny a frenchman's rights in the rest of Canada and the Anglophone elite establishment and the Anglo media will go ballistic and will go fight for their french rights. It's dam the Anglos though. The Anglophone politicians in da Attawa and the Anglo media could careless about the Anglophones rights in Quebec. E. May is a joke. She is just as globalist as Trudeau is. 

Only foolish leaders of any country will join the EU. The EU is an undemocratic globalist government outfit that is there to serve the interests of the international globalists who want to see no more country with borders anymore. Those international globalists are fighting for a new world order and a one world government. Quebec would be stupid to join the EU. E. May would be stupid enough to want to join the EU if she could. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Work is bullshit jobs are jails, I defend my laziness, to include naps at my leisure of course.

When I grew up in Quebec, I did find that most french people that I worked with were quite lazy and wanted to get paid for doing nothing. All they did enjoy and want to do was to go drink and party. You just proved that. It was the Anglophones that built up Quebec. Now, all their hard work in the building up of Quebec has been taken away from them and they are now being treated as second class citizen's in their own built up Anglo province. Quebec today would be nothing without the rest of Canada propping Quebec up. Quebec is bull shit. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Benz said:

You did not address the explanation I am exploring regarding the different point of view between Quebec and the ROC regardling religion. Regarding the place of spirituality, we all the same page. The difference lies in the politics of the religions. You guys extend the power of the religions way beyond the spirituality. When a religion tells the people what to were and what to do, they are litterally establishing policies on your conduct and behavior. This is where we do not draw the line at the same place. Such thing in Quebec is considered personal and cannot be applied in a public role context. The religions are doing that to enforce the indoctrination and the feeling to belong to their religious communaity. So in the mind of the Quebec society, those rules are not absolute and should not overpass our laws and rules.

It is irrelevent to say smoking is not a right. Because wearing a symbol is not a righ either, something not forbidden does not translate into a right. Not wearing a symbol meanwhile you work, does not alter your faith. You cannot compare our rule with the banning of french language. It's not comparable. Bill 21 does not forbid people to practive their religion, or even the right to beleive in their religion. That example rather shows your misunderstanding of the law and its spirit. 

By the way, bill 21 does not force someone to lose its job. There is a grand father clause that allows people hired before the day of the bill adoption to keep their symbol. No one will lose its job.

In justice, the appearance of a conflict of interest is as much damageable as a real conflict of interest. If someone is ready to refuse a job because it cannot wear a religious symbol, it means that person passes its religious beleif before the our law. It means in a position of authority, most likely, if that person faces a conflict between what its religion says and what the law says, there are greater chances the person will choose what its religion says. But if the person accepts to respect the rule of bill 21, it then prooves it is capable to draw the line at the right place when it comes to decide what must be applied. That is why this bill exists and why it is applied only on authority position.

The immunity and power you give to the religions place their political agenda on a high stand that we (in Quebec) think can be dangerous for the society. I do not agree with you but, I respect that decision of your's as long as it applies only on you. I expect the very same for us as well. You may not agree but, you should let it go and observe. Just as well as we do observe from distance your multiculturalism and its impact.

What do you think of my explanation of the place of religion and its role. Still think you should force your rules upon us regarding the religion?

@WestCanMan although I answered to him, I think it also answers your message.

I actually like your answer a lot, but I would have a hard time making the point that Sikhs can’t wear a turban for two reasons:

1) they wear them because they were originally subjected to actual laws/oppression/religious bigotry that basically said “our guys can wear this stuff but if you do it then we will kill you” and I would hate to in any way reinforce that original act of religious bigotry against them. (Although I guess you could make the point that it’s not bigotry if everyone was subjected to the same law).

2) they fought on our side in the WWs, and forsook the helmet and it’s protection because of their religious convictions. I’m a person who appreciates their incredible sacrifice and I also believe that all of our soldiers all fought for freedoms of one sort or other, and I think the Sikhs fully paid for the right to wear their turbans in this country with their own blood. 

I also think that this is a Christian country and wearing crosses should be allowed, and Sikhs fought for the right to wear their turbans, and first nations people should always be able to wear whatever items of religious significance they want, so how can we ban other items without being religious bigots?

I think people should be allowed to wear what religious articles they feel they need to at work, but I could easily be convinced of banning them at schools. 

I dunno, tough call. I’m all over the place on this one lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, taxme said:

When I grew up in Quebec, I did find that most french people that I worked with were quite lazy and wanted to get paid for doing nothing. All they did enjoy and want to do was to go drink and party. You just proved that. It was the Anglophones that built up Quebec. Now, all their hard work in the building up of Quebec has been taken away from them and they are now being treated as second class citizen's in their own built up Anglo province. Quebec today would be nothing without the rest of Canada propping Quebec up. Quebec is bull shit. ;)

 I'm here smoking a joint and having a cold one in the sunshine on my deck none the less.

I remember.

Long live the free Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 I'm here smoking a joint and having a cold one in the sunshine on my deck none the less.

I remember.

Long live the free Quebec.

You remember alright. "Je me souviens" is on all Quebec licence plates and has been on Quebec licence plates for decades now and is a reminder to the Anglophones in Quebec and Canada that they will never forget what you did to us. The Anglos only built up Quebec which has no been stolen from them with the help of Ottawa. Je me souviens has been sweet revenge for the french in Quebec as we now see as to what is being applied against the English speaking Anglo people of Quebec. I hope that May does kick Quebec's butt. Not over religious things but with other things. Long overdue. :D

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, taxme said:

 I hope that May does kick Quebec's butt. Not over religious things but with other things. Long overdue. :D

Come at us, Bruv.

f54.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Benz said:

You did not address the explanation I am exploring regarding the different point of view between Quebec and the ROC regardling religion. Regarding the place of spirituality, we all the same page. The difference lies in the politics of the religions. You guys extend the power of the religions way beyond the spirituality. When a religion tells the people what to were and what to do, they are litterally establishing policies on your conduct and behavior. This is where we do not draw the line at the same place. Such thing in Quebec is considered personal and cannot be applied in a public role context. The religions are doing that to enforce the indoctrination and the feeling to belong to their religious communaity. So in the mind of the Quebec society, those rules are not absolute and should not overpass our laws and rules.

It is irrelevent to say smoking is not a right. Because wearing a symbol is not a righ either, something not forbidden does not translate into a right. Not wearing a symbol meanwhile you work, does not alter your faith. You cannot compare our rule with the banning of french language. It's not comparable. Bill 21 does not forbid people to practive their religion, or even the right to beleive in their religion. That example rather shows your misunderstanding of the law and its spirit. 

By the way, bill 21 does not force someone to lose its job. There is a grand father clause that allows people hired before the day of the bill adoption to keep their symbol. No one will lose its job.

In justice, the appearance of a conflict of interest is as much damageable as a real conflict of interest. If someone is ready to refuse a job because it cannot wear a religious symbol, it means that person passes its religious beleif before the our law. It means in a position of authority, most likely, if that person faces a conflict between what its religion says and what the law says, there are greater chances the person will choose what its religion says. But if the person accepts to respect the rule of bill 21, it then prooves it is capable to draw the line at the right place when it comes to decide what must be applied. That is why this bill exists and why it is applied only on authority position.

The immunity and power you give to the religions place their political agenda on a high stand that we (in Quebec) think can be dangerous for the society. I do not agree with you but, I respect that decision of your's as long as it applies only on you. I expect the very same for us as well. You may not agree but, you should let it go and observe. Just as well as we do observe from distance your multiculturalism and its impact.

What do you think of my explanation of the place of religion and its role. Still think you should force your rules upon us regarding the religion?

@WestCanMan although I answered to him, I think it also answers your message.

I'm not sure that taking religion to serious is a English only problem, I know lots of Quebecers and Acadians that take their religion very serious...but i'm sure those people are the minority. I think western culture is moving away from religion altogether , "my opinion".

Banning smoking was done for health reasons, most of Canada is on board, banning religious clothing or articles, is covered under basic human rights, and bill 21 discriminates only a few religions, like already mentioned Sikhs for instance and the wearing of a turban, they can not go outside of their home without a turban on it is required by their religion, as is wearing the kipan….same with head scarf, for Muslim women.....the actual wearing of these items is mandated by their religion, it is not an option for them , by banning them in public service your preventing future generations from working , and your forbidding them from fully practicing their religion. … As I said I not a lawyer, but from what I have read bill 21 goes against the grain of human rights and basic Canadian rights as well.. I'm not sure how this relates to Quebec as they are not a signee on the constitution. But Quebecor's must be protected under Canada's constitution are they not? 

I think most Canadians have shrugged their shoulders at many of Quebec laws, such as the language laws, where they are not applied the same way as in the ROC. and when everyone is not treated the same it causes friction...I think the main reason it has not become an political  issue as it would be a major election issue with lots of French votes held in the balance....right now it is to close to an election to make any enemies.

Religions provide a basis for some of our morals and values, even some of our policies and laws, such as the old abortion laws...etc etc...those are slowly being reset to become more neutral.

You explain your position well, and it is not that I do not respect Quebec's rights to make laws and rules on their own, I think however I think all provinces should abide by the federal laws that we all have to follow...and I think this bill 21 erodes some of those rights...or out right breaks them...Like I said I am not a lawyer, or expert in political policy and I may be full of shit...this is my opinion thats all. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

But Quebecor's must be protected under Canada's constitution are they not?

Nope.  

Quebec is not signatory to the Canada Act.

Where Canada attempts to impose the Canada Act, Quebec can invoke the Notwithstanding Clause.

Against Section 2, and from Section 7 up to, in the case of religious expression at work discrimination; Section 15

In the case of Bill 21 that is exactly what Quebec did, invoking Section 33 against Sections 2 and 15 in this case.

Which received royal assent on 16 June 2019.  

Special deal for Quebec by order of the Queen in the name of God.

Dieu sauve la reine.  Dieu et mon droit.  Dieu notre vindicateur.

canada.jpg

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, taxme said:

When I grew up in Quebec, I did find that most french people that I worked with were quite lazy and wanted to get paid for doing nothing. All they did enjoy and want to do was to go drink and party. You just proved that. It was the Anglophones that built up Quebec. Now, all their hard work in the building up of Quebec has been taken away from them and they are now being treated as second class citizen's in their own built up Anglo province. Quebec today would be nothing without the rest of Canada propping Quebec up. Quebec is bull shit. ;)

Cut off all transfer payments to Ottawa . . . . . Quebec is the Canadian tapeworm.  Take the medicine and shit out the parasite.  Encourage Quebec to vote on separation . . . again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Many Canadian Black bears died to make those toques . . .  those Mounties must have cold ears.

Not Mounties.   

Governor General's Foot Guards.  (GGFG)

Raised at Ottawa on 7 June 1872 as 1st Battalion Governor General's Foot Guards.

Regimental Motto; Civitas et princeps cura nostra. 'Our country and ruler are our concern'

Regimental Quick March; Milanollo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 4:43 PM, WestCanMan said:

I actually like your answer a lot, but I would have a hard time making the point that Sikhs can’t wear a turban for two reasons:

1) they wear them because they were originally subjected to actual laws/oppression/religious bigotry that basically said “our guys can wear this stuff but if you do it then we will kill you” and I would hate to in any way reinforce that original act of religious bigotry against them. (Although I guess you could make the point that it’s not bigotry if everyone was subjected to the same law).

2) they fought on our side in the WWs, and forsook the helmet and it’s protection because of their religious convictions. I’m a person who appreciates their incredible sacrifice and I also believe that all of our soldiers all fought for freedoms of one sort or other, and I think the Sikhs fully paid for the right to wear their turbans in this country with their own blood. 

I also think that this is a Christian country and wearing crosses should be allowed, and Sikhs fought for the right to wear their turbans, and first nations people should always be able to wear whatever items of religious significance they want, so how can we ban other items without being religious bigots?

I think people should be allowed to wear what religious articles they feel they need to at work, but I could easily be convinced of banning them at schools. 

I dunno, tough call. I’m all over the place on this one lol. 

1) I don't think I understand your message. What is bigotery and why? Remember that we are only talking about position of authority. Sikh are not banned to wear their symbolsm unless they fill such position or where security prevails. Also, there is a grand-father clause to respect their original conditions of employement. Yes it is a point if everyone must comply but, it's a small one. The main one is that a religion's policy DOES NOT get any consideration when facing our laws. Religion's spirituality should be totally free, not the religion's rules. Well, at least, this is how we see it in Québec. Up to you to give the religions such power that they can override your rules with theirs.

2) To me, it is totally irrelevant. They do not need to do such sacrifice to gain the right to wear it. However, despite all the respect they deserve to fight alongside with us, it does not grant them the right to put down our secularism laws. We did not make a pact with the devil by accepting their help to fight the ennemy.

Wearing crosses... first, it must be reminded that were are only talking about ostentatious symbols. So if you wear a big cross while you are a judge at the court for a case between a christian and a muslim. How much partial the judge will look like in its eyes? Howe can I trust someone in a position of authority to take de right decision, if the person would rather not do that job if can't wear its symbol? We are talking about someone that would sacrifice a career for a symbole. No way this person will choose our rules if they are in contradiction to their religious ones. That, I cannot accept. Even if your grandpa's blood lies on the battleground.

I listened to a sikh woman last week-end explaining that she wears a turban because not only man can do it and she beleives in equality. ok for me, I do not mind. But she still has to comply to bill 21. Yet, she says the rule is unfair because, it means she cannot work on a position of authority. That is absolutetly NOT TRUE. She can work, but without the symbol. Just that is enough to justify the existence of the rule. But then she adds, we (the sikh) feel very shy about our hair and it is the same as if you (non sikh) were naked. Oh really? If what you sy is true, ti means you should be shy to see my hair, right? Otherwise, it's a problem you personnaly have and it could be solved with a psy. But it is far worst than that. Not only we did nothing to make you shy, but the blame goes 100% on your religion. They are the one banning you from doing a job without a symbol, they are the one making you feel ashame of your hair psychologically uncapable to go bare head. We are not the problem, your religion is. Then you want us to comply to your religion and override our rules? It's a big NO right there. Solve the issue with your religion. 

I need to insist on the facets of the religion. In Québec, both facets are different and do not have the same considerations. But on your side of the country, I think that vision of the facets of a religion is something you might never heard or read before this week. You guys always considered a religion as a whole where the priviledges are absolutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 9:42 PM, Army Guy said:

I'm not sure that taking religion to serious is a English only problem, I know lots of Quebecers and Acadians that take their religion very serious...but i'm sure those people are the minority. I think western culture is moving away from religion altogether , "my opinion".

Banning smoking was done for health reasons, most of Canada is on board, banning religious clothing or articles, is covered under basic human rights, and bill 21 discriminates only a few religions, like already mentioned Sikhs for instance and the wearing of a turban, they can not go outside of their home without a turban on it is required by their religion, as is wearing the kipan….same with head scarf, for Muslim women.....the actual wearing of these items is mandated by their religion, it is not an option for them , by banning them in public service your preventing future generations from working , and your forbidding them from fully practicing their religion. … As I said I not a lawyer, but from what I have read bill 21 goes against the grain of human rights and basic Canadian rights as well.. I'm not sure how this relates to Quebec as they are not a signee on the constitution. But Quebecor's must be protected under Canada's constitution are they not? 

I think most Canadians have shrugged their shoulders at many of Quebec laws, such as the language laws, where they are not applied the same way as in the ROC. and when everyone is not treated the same it causes friction...I think the main reason it has not become an political  issue as it would be a major election issue with lots of French votes held in the balance....right now it is to close to an election to make any enemies.

Religions provide a basis for some of our morals and values, even some of our policies and laws, such as the old abortion laws...etc etc...those are slowly being reset to become more neutral.

You explain your position well, and it is not that I do not respect Quebec's rights to make laws and rules on their own, I think however I think all provinces should abide by the federal laws that we all have to follow...and I think this bill 21 erodes some of those rights...or out right breaks them...Like I said I am not a lawyer, or expert in political policy and I may be full of shit...this is my opinion thats all. 

I think in the future, the english canada will realize that something is wrong by giving such power to religions. Quebec is just few steps in advance but, eventually you guys will catch up. You are starting to debate about it and this debate has been done before I was in age of voting here. But maybe I am wrong and it will always stay like this on your side. It is not a matter of taking the religion seriously or not. It's a matter of understand what is the role of the religion and where are the limits.

You keep bringing the point that your side is giving full rights to religion to force people to wear this or that, ban this or that. I repeat, Quebec gives the people full rights to choose their religions, practice them in their privacy and cult locations, as long as it covers spirituality. But when it becomes politic, like "do this, do that", it's not forbbidden but, it's not out of immunity. Their rules must NOT get into contradiction to our rules. Thise is where Quebec and the ROC are very different.  I do not think your totally understand the concept. I think it is the first time you read someone exposing those facets of the religion like that. 

I agree with you regarding the non existing place this goes into the political agenda. Even fanatics like Trudeau understand they have too much to lose to oppose to Quebec on this matter right now. I am sure his internal surveys are blinking red right now.

I have no problem to recognize that our basic values and morale roots are coming from the religion but, to me it is just a history. Religions do not set the rules anymore, we do with the Justice institution and political institutions. 

Now regarding the constititon and its conflict with our position, we are back to square one on why Quebec consideres leaving Canada. Those rules are set without us and therefore, are not legitimzed to us. There is the non withstanding clause that I think can make the exception possible but, I am not an expert on the matter either. I have a feeling that after the election it will become a new battleground. Unless maybe the conservatives win. But I think you know better than me what they would do on that matter if they win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how any of the parties are going to handle it...It is not going to go well the liberals , because that is what they do is whine and dribble over the slightest social issue.., the cons are going to poll the shit out of it, and if the majority likes it they will back it, if not then they will fight it...Miss MAY well really cares...

Edited by Army Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2019 at 6:06 PM, Army Guy said:

I'm not sure how any of the parties are going to handle it...It is not going to go well the liberals , because that is what they do is whine and dribble over the slightest social issue.., the cons are going to poll the shit out of it, and if the majority likes it they will back it, if not then they will fight it...Miss MAY well really cares...

There has been some strong suggestions that once the election is done with Trudeau will either overrule Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause, or direct it to the Supreme Court with an eye to having them 'reinterpret' the notwithstanding clause. They do have a habit of re-writing laws they don't like to meet with their own left wing ideological bias, and some on the Left believe if given a chance they will find an excuse to say Quebec can't use the notwithstanding clause for this. I suspect if Trudeau forces Quebec to do away with this law we'll be looking at a renewed separatist movement. But to a virtue signalling progressive like Trudeau that might not matter.

Trudeau should be strongly questioned about this in the French language debate - but won't be - unless it's from the BQ. Neither Tories nor NDP want anything to do with this.

If Trudeau really thinks the ban is "unthinkable," and I'm sure he does, he must tell voters exactly what he plans to do about it if re-elected.
Three options are available to him. The most extreme, let's call it the nuclear option, is to use the old disallowance clause of the Constitution to simply squash the legislation. This option, promoted by pundits such as columnist Andrew Coyne, was last used in 1943 against an Alberta law that restricted the property rights of Hutterite colonies.

The mid-range option is to refer the question of whether or not the law is constitutional directly to the Supreme Court. Constitutional scholars meeting in Toronto last April concluded that recent jurisprudence would lead the court to declare the law invalid — on its merits and despite the use of the notwithstanding clause. They said the court could also severely curtail the use of the notwithstanding clause itself and declare that Quebec really had no right to use it pre-emptively. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/secularism-law-opinion-jean-francis-lisee-1.5274015

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Argus said:

There has been some strong suggestions that once the election is done with Trudeau will either overrule Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause, or direct it to the Supreme Court with an eye to having them 'reinterpret' the notwithstanding clause.

The legal challenges will peter out, trying to say it violates Section 28 will fail. 

Disallowance is the only way to overturn it, once again, British Crown override.

No chance the Liberals invoke it.  First of all it's an archaic law and an overreach

Second,  it would destroy them in Quebec.

The Liberals rule by way of Quebec, less than zero chance they will blow themselves up there by invoking Disallowance.

The Liberals will simply run against Legault to the rest of Canada, same way they run against Doug Ford and Jason Kenny.

The CAQ is good for the Liberals, they need opponents to hold up as menaces to get people to rally around the Liberals.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...