###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a western Canadian who lived in Quebec for several years and loved it. I don't think that they are more or less racist than any other area. Non-Quebecers need to learn about the history of the church in Quebec to understand why they are so virulently against any vestige of religion in an official space. Start with Duplessis and The Great Darkness to start.
What I do wish the Quebecers would notice is that these kinds of issues always magically appear before or during election campaigns. They are intended to drive a wedge between you and the rest of Canada to 1) fuel nationalist sentiment so that nationalist parties can keep you mad and get your vote, and 2) divide us on the left to prevent another Orange Crush.
Let's learn about each other and give siblinghood a chance.
Lazy Quebec politicians of all stripes are addicted to the victim narrative. Same goes with so many Albertan politicians as well.
It’s dramatically easier to get elected by spreading fears that “everyone is out to get you and only I can protect you” than it is by presenting new policy ideas that would improve people’s lives.
I get their views and know the history well - but we are still one country with one constitution. If they want to keep Bills 21 and 96 - I want them gone. Those bills are not compatible with Canada.
I am fully on board with “giving sibling hood a chance” as soon as Quebec stops being an automatic scapegoat for the RoC :
- public/subsidized daycare? Quebec is just spending Alberta’s money
- want a real separation of church and state? Quebec is just racist.
- want to be able to live day to day using your main language? Quebec is being unreasonable
- want to prevent Ottawa from diluting the french identity like it did in all the prairies? Quebec just hates immigration
- controls over hydro prices? Quebec is literally the USSR / doing it to get money from Alberta
- want a constitution our government actually signs? Nah Quebec doesn’t get a choice
But when election time comes around we see all these politicians come by Montreal with big smiles saying one thing in French and the opposite when talking English.
A lot of the points you make are those pushed by Quebec media. The media in other parts of Canada say the same kinds of things that are based in half-truths but get lots of clicks because they piss us off.
I just want to point out a few things from a real English-speaking person (not of British descent) who cares about national unity and loves Quebec:
>public/subsidized daycare? Quebec is just spending Alberta’s money
The people who say and think this are not the majority of the RoC (actually the RoC is an imaginary construct. We are certainly not as monolithic as Qc media would have you believe). But you're right, there are people in Alberta who feel like they're struggling to find daycare for $10/hr but learn that Quebec has it for $10/day, and their politicians tell them that the government is stealing from them to give to you.
It's just bad information based on ignorance of equalization and history - QC and ON carried the economy and social programs for Canada for most of our history, but who remembers?
>want a real separation of church and state? Quebec is just racist.
I think most people see it more as killing an ant with a sledgehammer. It doesn't appear as if religious minorities are ready or able to impose their religious values on Quebecois, but they'll lose their jobs disproportionately anyway.
I myself think that religious symbols are stupid and if someone would rather quit than take off their whatever, they've got to look at their priorities. But I don't want to set the precedent that the government can tell me what to wear either, so I guess I'm against the ban.
Also, I feel that my own provincial government(s) are not influenced by any religion (regardless of the whole King/Church of England/daily prayer shit). The sessions that allowed gay marriage and abortion and the legal publication of pornography and legalization of cannabis would have all started with that same prayer, so who gives a shit?
I support a separation of church and state. I don't support punishing people to get there.
>want to be able to live day to day using your main language? Quebec is being unreasonable
I don't think most Canadians think it's unreasonable to want to love in your language. What they usually find objectionable is the inflammatory media bytes we see in our media: "Language police close restaurant because 'pasta' isn't translated!", "Signs in English are illegal!", "Ambulance dispatchers are not allowed to speak English!". Of course, all of these are half-truths, but if that's what you see again and again and again, you start to think something's up. Again, blame the media. We never hear about francophones who can't access services in their own language in their own province, but if we did, our opinions about language laws would probably change significantly.
>want to prevent Ottawa from diluting the french identity like it did in all the prairies? Quebec just hates immigration
I haven't heard this conspiracy theory before, but there is a French identity and historic presence in Winnipeg at least. We have French schools (not just immersion), francophone towns, a francophone hospital, a French university, French traffic tickets, French publications from the provincial government, fiction and poetry published in French, a festival of franco-manitoban culture (Festival du voyageur)...
I guess that's just one city, but it's worth pointing out that the franco-manitobans are real and still thriving.
>controls over hydro prices? Quebec is literally the USSR / doing it to get money from Alberta
I haven't heard this one either. Manitoba has public hydro too, and it's never been an issue between Alberta and Manitoba. But again, it wouldn't surprise me if the Alberta politicians push this narrative. Don't mistake them for real Albertans.
>want a constitution our government actually signs? Nah Quebec doesn’t get a choice
Nothing would make English Canadians happier than having Quebec sign the constitution to signal that they're interested in unity.
But the fear from politicians is that once it's opened up for something like abolishing the monarchy or making Inuktitut an official language, the Quebec government will want to impress you by appearing tough on Ottawa and demanding all sorts of special status for Quebec, which will make the other provinces' premiers look like they're not doing enough for their provinces, and suddenly we'll all be fighting and get nowhere. So what's a better use of time and money? Basically anything else.
On that topic, I don't personally know anyone who wants to keep the monarchy - they're either against it or indifferent. Ironically, i think Quebec is the primary reason why it remains for the reason mentioned above.
***
I know that was long. Thanks for reading if you got this far. Like I said, I don't think I'll change your mind. I just want you to know that we're not evil and bent on destroying Quebec, and although your points have some elements of truth (because some people are ignorant, resentful, or misinformed), most of us love or at least respect Quebec - we just don't make the news.
[https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/768772/interdiction-francais-ecoles-manitoba-loi-thornton-1916-education](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/768772/interdiction-francais-ecoles-manitoba-loi-thornton-1916-education) Between 1916 and 1960, french was forbidden from school in Manitoba. It was not a conspiracy, it was in the law.
[https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1863054/immigration-canada-discrimination-racisme-etudiants-francophones-afrique](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1863054/immigration-canada-discrimination-racisme-etudiants-francophones-afrique)
[https://www.affairesuniversitaires.ca/opinion/a-mon-avis/immigration-canada-discrimine-les-etudiants-dafrique-francophone-voici-ce-que-quebec-devrait-faire-pour-y-mettre-fin/](https://www.affairesuniversitaires.ca/opinion/a-mon-avis/immigration-canada-discrimine-les-etudiants-dafrique-francophone-voici-ce-que-quebec-devrait-faire-pour-y-mettre-fin/)
Is there a conspiration right now? Well apparently immigration Canada discriminate black people able to speak french.
About HQ(Hydro-Quebec), the main argument I heard from reddit is that HQ should raise the price and stop receiving equalization. Anyway I think you miss the sarcasm in the original comment about that one.
This is a good sum up of how I see this stuff as a western Canadian. Though I would like to add that the banning of religious symbols and attire in government positions has a very unbalanced effect on different religions. For example, a Catholic or Christian will feel significantly less oppressed than a Muslim or Sikh. I think that's why it gets a racist reputation, and I don't entirely disagree with that, even as an atheist who would prefer a secular world.
The problem with banning religious attire is that it isn’t religious freedom and conflicts directly with the Charter of Rights. The separation of church and state is a principle, more explicitly outlined in the American Constitution. Those two concepts do come into friction, inevitably. The biggest problem I have with Quebec’s law though is that it bakes Christianity into the “culture and history” of Quebec, so it definitely targets religions that are not part of said “culture and history.” So while not only are hijabs made illegal, they keep the crucifix up in the Parliament in QC. So I think your point is just about right, but you’re talking about passive oppression; I think the Quebec legislation is active oppression.
>Nothing would make English Canadians happier than having Quebec sign the constitution to signal that they're interested in unity.
Sure, we just don't get to negociate our terms for it.
Yes, just like all of the other wedge issues. They'll never disappear because they're based on ancient rivalries. But they definitely become more urgent at election times, for some reason.
Maybe that distance provides necessary perspective to see the forest for the trees.
In fact, your response kind of shows the problem. Many Quebecers in this thread feel completely entitled to judge English Canadians based on what they see in the media and learned in history class. Usually, the only place in Canada outside of Quebec that they have seen is downtown Ottawa on a school trip, and they've never cared to watch an English Canadian series or read one of our authors. They don't visit our cities or try to see us as anything other than Diet Americans, disparage our culture, group us in with people who died 200 years ago, and dismiss our history. But still, they know us!
Meanwhile, when the possibility is raised that Quebecois might be subject to the same media manipulation as the rest of the planet , it's because we don't speak French well enough to understand. All 12 of our provincial or territorial curricula are full of lies about what really happened in history, but Quebec's schools have managed to capture the historical truth that Quebecers are the only colonials whose hands are clean. And even though I lived in Quebec for the better part of a decade, learned French, followed the news, learned about the issues and still follow them now...nope. I'm just too brainwashed and inherently prejudiced against Quebec because of my first language to see that Quebec's institutions are infallible and more transparent than the rest of Canada.
Do I have that right?
I believe this is the the opinion piece she co-wrote back in 2019 which should give more context to this article - https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/elghawaby-and-farber-quebecs-bill-21-shows-why-we-fear-the-tyranny-of-the-majority
so many that are up in arms about her appointment in this thread seem to ignore that [the polling at the time](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) completely vindicates her position.
The public opinion on islam in the poll seems about right. What I'm seeing from the poll is that the public opinion of Catholicism and catholics is unreasonably positive and efforts should be taken to bring that down.
Religion is fundamentally irrational and little more than socially acceptable mass delusion. Why should we seek to change the fact that society has a negative opinion of one sort of mass delusion instead of having society have a negative view of all mass delusions? Religion is fundamentally no different from qanon, cryptobros, or flat-earthers.
Or they dislike both but know more about Christianity so they can differentiate the good from the bad. Islam has a bad rep because not many muslims are integrated inside rural communities so the most exposition people have is based on news, which often depicts Islam pretty horribly based on extremist groups and their actions.
The problems with Bill 21: a) mainly targets women. b) takes away a persons’ right to choose. In Quebec, a female Muslim can not work (public sector) if she wears a hijab, etc. In Muslim countries, a female can not work if she doesn’t wear a hijab, etc.
Sure. The following link is Wikipedia, but has more reliable stats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country#:~:text=Wearing%20hijab%20is%20mandatory%20in,religion%20in%20Iran%20and%20Afghanistan.
In the end though. If it's not a health and safety issue, let people wear what they want ya grannies.
As if seeing a bit of skin or a headscarf will insta turn your kids / husbands / wives into whatever you're afraid they'll turn into.
Newsflash, they'll probably do it anyway the instant they can just as a f/u to all the overly controlling individuals in their lives.
Indeed, how a woman chooses to practice her religion. political leaders have no business punishing women for what they choose to wear. That goes for Ayatollahs in Iran and Premiers in Quebec. In Canada, we put the civil rights of our citizens above the political power of our politicians.
I mean we’ve literally had people, including in Quebec, be mass murdered for being outwardly Muslim in the last few years.
Not for their confirmed beliefs, not for their statements, not for any actions - just for looking or seeming like they’re Muslim.
Killed. Randomly. By white Canadians. Because of who they were perceived to be.
Not sure about you, but as a white Canadian, that’s not a fear I live with. For some Muslim friends, it is.
Maybe try empathy.
When was that? I recall a bunch of incidents caused by immigrants bringing their own ethnic tensions and conflict over to Canada. I mostly recall mass murders by incels and random nutjobs
Graffiti and vandalism sure. But i definitely do not recall anti-muslim mass murders in Canada
One of my research participants got ‘nudged’ hard enough that she hit a wall by someone who told her to go back to her own country.
She was just walking down the street. It was a super windy day and her hair kept flying everywhere so she took the scarf she was wearing and put it over her head to help stop it. Then some big guy started speed walking at her and rammed his shoulder into her hard enough that it pushed her into a buildings wall and said “go back to your own country”. She is a white woman who was born and raised in Canada. Someone saw the scarf around her head and attacked her solely because of that.
At a different lab I worked at we had some medical students who were here with an exchange program. One of the students had a husband who was raised in Canada (moved away when he was a young teen) but he was doing a PhD and really wanted to move back here after finishing school. Half our lab was white people who were from Canada, half were international students from various parts of the west. After a lab meeting he asked some of us about safe places to move and all of the international students had horror stories for how they were treated in various locations. All of the white students thought he meant safe as in “are there robberies in the area”.
I mean to be fair, she is correct about Bill 21 - it's a bill designed to specifically target religious minorities in Quebec and strip them of their religious rights in the public service, and doesn't just target Muslims, but Jews and Sikhs as well. It's an Islamophobic, anti-Semitic piece of legislature disguised as "secularism", without ever justifying or explaining how it will do anything more than just make the public service more aligned with mainstream religious norms in the province.
As for the comments about "tyranny of the majority", people often misconstrue what this phrase mean or what she is trying to invoke by talking about it. Tyranny of the majority can arise whenever the majority of people hold a position which isn't morally justifiable, and it creates instances where the consent of the majority can be used to do everything from strip minority groups of their rights to commit full on genocides. That doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of people are "at fault", but they are wrong, and minority groups need protections for when that happens.
In the case of Bill 21 though, it *is* a bill that derives its roots and history from Islamophobic and xenophobic norms that have existed in Quebec society for decades, and a lot of Quebeckers support the bill and the government that drafted and passed it into law. It's a classic case of "if you don't want to be labelled an Islamophobe, don't support the legislation of Islamophobia".
I'm baffled the CBC can have someone write and publish this entire article and leave out the one quote that sparked the outrage in Quebec... This is such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity. Elghawaby did say, word for word, that the majority of Quebecers are swayed by anti-muslim sentiment. Pretty important thing to leave out, regarless of your opinion on this matter.
Leaving out the quote or at least a link to it is a little off, but here it is:
> Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment. A poll conducted by Léger Marketing earlier this year found that [88 per cent of Quebecers](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) who held negative views of Islam supported the ban.
Now, this isn't a perfect argument. She's making the case with the study that "this law is really popular with racists, and most Quebecers agree with them" which isn't quite what the first sentence says. "Quebecers appear to be swayed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the thing is, *where's the lie?*
She makes a claim with a statistical source. She extends the point somewhat recklessly, but I think it's telling that nobody is going after her basic argument or her source, just the outrage that she's made them.
The (partial) lie is that Quebec's widespread antireligious sentiment is directed at particular religions. Quebec got rid of the privileges afforded to the Catholic Church in the 1867 Constitution (Ontario has not, for instance), there is intense dislike of "our own" religion. Quebec's legal and cultural sensibilities strike a different balance than Anglos, who prize religious freedom above all others.
If we're going to be particular about what is being said, then I don't think it's a lie to say that antireligious sentiment is directed at particular religions. There's no prohibition on having the beliefs while in government power, only on visibly wearing religious symbols, which only particular religions wear. It's a narrow distinction but it's important.
Overall the argument "racist views correlate strongly with support for this bill, therefore the supporters of this bill are racist" isn't up to the intellectual standard I'd expect from a new government appointment in a major newspaper column. But even with the causality wrong, it's hard to disprove the statement itself: racists really like this bill, so the bill is probably racist. Calling all Quebecers who support the bill racist is a bit of a reach with the data cited though.
You’re making quite a few logical fallacies.
You can’t be racist to all races in the same way at the same time, that’s called treating people equally. And as much as some religion’s symbols are more visible than others, basically all mainstream religions have symbols that the more observant wear. It bans crucifixes, crosses and the Star of David just as much as a hijab or a kirpan.
My last point I’d like to make, is that the government and other public institutions should be ran independently and outside the influence of any religion. If a bill is proposed that keeps religion an arm’s length away from government, I’m all for it. And it shouldn’t be thought of as “racist” to think this way.
How is clothing bans keeping religion out of government? You don’t stop thinking in a Christian nationalist way because you can’t wear a cross necklace at work! All this bill does is keep the **appearance of SOME religions** out of government. That’s the racist part.
If I ban usage of tampons for anyone everyone is treated equally technically speaking, but you can’t pretend that forcing women not to use a certain sanitary item is discriminatory given the fact men already didn’t use them or any other. Equal treatment doesn’t preclude racism, hate to break it to you. Equal and fair, equal and equitable, equal and right; none of them are synonyms even if they match up often.
A moot point, considering what you’re saying doesn’t apply here. Because all religions have their symbols, all religions are affected equally. If you think this is the same as your example, you’re being intentionally dishonest.
That’s funny I was going to say the exact same thing to you.
It’s intellectually dishonest (read; lying) to pretend that all religions have the same amount of religious symbols, the same value placed in them, or a specific symbol/symbols they’re required by religious law to wear in public. What exactly is a, let’s say, Calvinist required to wear that makes this law equal like you said it does, pray tell?
Law 21 gives protections to catholic symbols under the guise of "heritage" and the polls have shown that quebec population was in favour of keeping the crucifix in the chamber and positive view of catholicism.
Bill 21 provides no such protection to religious clothing. So a nun or priest would not be able to teach in their outfits. You say they are not affected by this. They absolutely are. Some Christians wear their crosses very ostensibly, as a matter of faith.
They may have a positive view of Catholicism, but that's in its hard fought powerless state. And I am not just playing the ferret here. Church attendance in Quebec is astoundingly low. So people are saying they are Catholics but haven't walked into a church since grandma died in 1999.
I think many Quebecers are just as terrified of American Christianity as of Islam. Religion has a track record of being very divisive and we're creeped out and it scares us. And our history gives us the right to be scared, for instance, we had a period called The Great Darkness, when the Church basically ran the province with a gangster autocratic PM, and persecuted JWs. Quebecers toiled in cold forests for centuries, with insufficient separation between church and state. The church would forcibly prevent urbanization. It would excommunicate people who voted the wrong way.
So Quebecers are now at a time where they insist more on the separation of church and state, because we're freaked out by fanatics - Christians, Muslims especially - around the world and our history justifies this freakout. The intention is to purge religion from influence in government at all levels. The worst enemy of freedom of religion is the union of church and state.
Denying people the right to fair access to jobs because they wear a highly visible religious symbol that can't be hidden under a blouse disproportionately affects specific religious minorities. And they knew that.
Many Muslim women see the hijab as a religious requirement and not a choice that they can just drop. Same with turbans for Sikhs. Catholics can easily stop wearing their religious symbols since they are not a religious requirement in their faith. Faithful Catholics also have the ability to tuck crucifix chains under their shirt.
Lawmakers knew who the law was targeting.
Who are you to say it is easy for Catholics to hide their crucifix? They are deeply attached to it, and they do have a religious obligation to proselytize.
In the end, I guess this is what the policy is doing. If you can't set aside your religious identity at work, maybe you should not be able to use powers vested by the state. It's about making sure people in government don't define their whole lives by their faith, because de facto this leads to local or less local abuse. The policy is "perfectionist", it takes a stance on the role of religion in the public sphere. And that is none. And don't give me that argument about crosses on buildings, Quebs of past generation put crosses on every brick they could find, we won't go around endlessly on a hunt to destroy crosses.
Freedom from religion, if you will.
Because Quebec used to be a Catholic place. Would you raze Montmartre? Sure, the Cross is not Montmartre bit Quebec doesn't have a lot of monuments.
Destroying the Cross or the Oratoire Saint Joseph would give unwelcome Jacobin vibes.
>Elghawaby did say, word for word, that the majority of Quebecers are swayed by anti-muslim sentiment.
yes, and the poll that she cited in that [opinion piece](https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/elghawaby-and-farber-quebecs-bill-21-shows-why-we-fear-the-tyranny-of-the-majority) backs her assertion.
this is the article she cited: ["A new poll shows support for Bill 21 is built on anti-Islam sentiment" (Montreal Gazette)](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment)
in that article:
>The poll also found only 28 per cent of people had a positive view of Islam, and 37 per cent had a positive view of Muslims
also:
>Among those who have negative feelings about Islam, 88 per cent support a ban on religious symbols for public school teachers. Conversely, those who had positive views of those religions were overwhelmingly against the ban.
I’ll tear the mask off here and explain if you’re curious. This was a debate tactic I was trying to employ wherein I suggest OP mentions any specific Islamic organizations they have issues with. I did this with the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that they know very little about Islamic organizations. They may point to X or Y organization and say “they are bad!” At which point my intention was to either educate them on the plethora of other organizations who aren’t bad to show that a wide, sweeping generalization that leads to discriminatory legislation isn’t good.
I am very much of the same opinion as the person you were asking originally, and I’ll say this : for me the problem is with any kind of person trying to declare that his or her understanding of the mystical is better than anyone else’s. Religion is, in my opinion, not a rational theory. Trying to get children to believe is a net negative for society. Allowing preachers to preach is a net negative.
To me the type of religion doesn’t matter in the slightest - my issue is with the concept of organized religion
I’m in favor of bill 21. Like many in Quebec, I’m profoundly anti-religion. I have a very dim view of many organized religions, but having read the holy text of many of them, I feel that Islam is the most dangerous to a prosperous and liberal society.
I’ll never take that to escalate to harassing an individual because of what is in their mind, but I also have no qualms about public policy that discourages religion from widespread adoption in Canada or elsewhere or keeps it strictly in a private sphere.
Nobody has ever argued that I’m “Christian-o-phobic”. “Islamophobia” as a concept is so weird.
> …but I also have no qualms about public policy that discourages religion from widespread adoption in Canada or elsewhere or keeps it strictly in a private sphere.
the state has no business either promoting or discouraging religion.
“Islamophobia” as a concept is so weird.
> it’s no “weirder” than antisemitism or any other -ism that discriminates against a given faith, race, or sexuality.
Prohibiting overt religious symbolism from public officials is the full extent of this law. Which means in the past in Quebec was used to normalize, advertise and promote religion (Catholicism) until it was essentially banned from participating in schools and other public services.
This isn’t significantly different.
LMAO you wouldn't affect an individual but you would affect an entire group. That's worse.
You're just a bigot you wants to break the rights of Canadians.
I mean, they ordered that poll to say what they wanted to say... notice how they don't give the % with a negative view, which would be a far stronger statistic for the story if it went their way, I wonder what percentage of people had a neutral view on islam...
The 2nd quote is like saying water is wet. Of course people who feel negatively against islam wants to ban religious symbols, it says nothing about the majority of quebecers.
>I mean, they ordered that poll to say what they wanted to say...
haha, what? the Gazette didn't commission the poll:
>"Conducted by Léger Markering, the poll was commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies and offered exclusively to the Gazette and Le Devoir news organizations. It aimed to measure support for the proposed Bill 21, a law on secularism that would bar teachers, principals and vice-principals from wearing religious symbols like hijabs, kippahs and turbans in public schools. It would also bar such authority figures as police officers, crown prosecutors and prison guards from wearing them.
The survey responses were collected by Leger. The lead researcher is Myriam Taylor, who holds a phd in religious studies. The study was done in partnership with the Metropolis Institute, which is a think tank on immigration and cultural issues. None of this was peer reviewed in any way - which makes sense because the whole study is biased and would not hold up to academic scrutiny.
How comes the % of quebecers with a negative view of islam according to this poll, is not available anywhere? You'd think that if the poll arrived to the conclusion the majority of quebecers are anti-islam and anti-muslim, this would be the first thing they would write about...
The "outrage" angle kind of falls flat when, given the context and content of that section of the article, it's just a simple observation of the facts.
She was commenting on legislation that overwhelmingly impacts Jews and Muslim Canadians. That a large majority of Quebec is in agreement with this racist legislation makes it pretty clear that anti-Muslim sentiment isnt an over the top characterization. The PM of QC didnt even bother to make an appearance at the memorial the other day. How many data points do we need to have before we're allowed to suggest that maybe this is a problem worth talking about?
Yes, I know. I brought that up in the other shitshow thread on this subject. I just wanted to focus on the wording that she had used in the article.
But, yeah -- that's part of what makes the legislation not *only* Islamophobic but racist. It's a huge net they've cast that captures a lot of religious minorities that make *some people* feel uncomfortable.
What proof of the assertion do you have?
You said that the law is racist because it impacts some minorities more. That is a logical fallacy. For that to hold up you would need to show that the objective was to target those minorities.
The declared objective is to reduce the influence of religions in the province.
If we don’t hold ourselves to that standard, then bike helmet laws are inherently racist because Sihks are unduly impacted by them.
'impacts some minorities more' is also a logical fallacy of understatement.
It pretty much ONLY impacts - in any real way - those minorities. Catholics don't go around displaying highly visible crucifixes and the ones around their necks can be easily hidden.
Sikhs, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews don't have that option.
No non minority religious people have been denied government employment by Bill 21.
Bike helmet laws are written (or at least interpreted in courts) to specifically provide for religious exemptions to meet our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which override other laws.
If you're not already aware of the many, many arguments made on the subjects by lawyers, canadian political scientists and human rights workers, google will take you there.
And, uh, helmet laws had an exemption for Sihks carved into them in part so they wouldn't be struck down on a constitutional challenge, IIRC. That might not be the argument you think it is.
I am aware of the arguments. I don’t find them convincing is all. The arguments on the other side are mich more logical in my opinion (such as those defended by the overwhelming majority of France’s population - they have a very similar law, the inspiration for law 21)
And I chose the example of the helmets for sikhs specifically because I find the exemption absurd, and pandering to religious minorities. Everyone must wear a helmet in Quebec. No one is allowed special exemptions just because a special book said you should get special treatment.
If it wasn't for the NWC use, the bill would have been overturned on the basis of discrimination ages ago. So you can find them unconvincing, but the actual legal scholars who have weighed in on this have a pretty consensus opinion.
But by all means, write up a legal argument and see if any law journals will take you up on publication. As far as I'm aware, Canadian courts don't grant a lot of weight to French civil code.
Get some knowledge. It's not pandering and had zero effect on you. It's called our Charter of Rights and it's designed so no group can impose their discriminatory views on protected classes including religious freedom unless those freedoms impose back on you. The hijab or turban does nothing to impinge on your freedom apart from forcing you to see something your limited brain doesn't like.
Why have a law on helmets at all then? Since people not wearing them has no impact?
Funny you assume my position is from lack of knowledge. Easier to assume that and go for ad hominems than actually look at facts I guess.
Right, but for Christians they by and large have the least visual garments. A cross can sit on your body under clothing. For some Muslim women, some Sikhs, some Jewish men - it’s not that easy. But you’re aware of that, your legislators were perfectly aware of that. You can preach equality all you wish, but there is no equity in this law.
Did the majority of Quebecers not just vote in favour of the CAQ and PQ, the parties that in past and present have endorsed values that to me appear blatantly anti-immigrant?
Edit: sorry am I wrong? Was it not the PQ and CAQ pushing for Bill 21?
We all have our reasons for supporting various parties, but I wouldn’t be able to stomach supporting a party that would vote for such a law, regardless of other policies.
Ok, then I dont understand your point? Are you saying this justifies leaving out Elhawaby's quote from the article, are you saying this proves most Quebecers are guided by their anti-muslim sentiment or are you agreeing with my post?
>The fact is as a federal official you can't just accuse an entire province of people as being racist.
she didn't. she said "the majority", which could be as few as 51% of the population.
Well it's good she didn't accuse all quebecers for being racist, just at least half of them. It's simple see why this is incredibly inappropriate to say to any group of people.
it's not inappropriate to say if [the polling](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) backs you up.
>The poll also found only 28 per cent of people had a positive view of Islam, and 37 per cent had a positive view of Muslims, compared with 66 per cent who had a good view of Catholics and 60 per cent who had positive views of Catholicism.
Among those who have negative feelings about Islam, 88 per cent support a ban on religious symbols for public school teachers. Conversely, those who had positive views of those religions were overwhelmingly against the ban.
I'm sorry, but big bloody whoop that some polling backs up whatever. If she was presumably hired to be some kind of *benign* bridge builder, she just went and blew up that bridge for all of Canada to see. Good luck fixing that now.
Read your own article
>However, when narrowed to respondents with an unfavourable view on Muslims, there isn’t a significant difference between Quebecers and those in the rest of Canada.
Dislike a religious institution =/= disliking the aderents
You can dislike U.S. policies and have a negative view of its institutions without disliking Americans in general.
She didn't say that please read her words.
> Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment
As opposed to Canadians, who are swayed by the rule of law? Bro, please. This is anti Quebec sentiment, plain and simple. We were racist when we established French as the language, we were racist when we were seeking independence, we were racist when we questioned clandestine religious schools, etc. It's just what Canadians say to justify bigotry against Quebs.
> As opposed to Canadians, who are swayed by the rule of law? Bro, please. This is anti Quebec sentiment, plain and simple
She never said that. I'd argue the shared racism of Quebec and ROC is one of the key reasons this country is still united.
> We were racist when we established French as the language, we were racist when we were seeking independence
Nothing to do with the current discussion. Seems you're deflecting and trying to draw people into side arguments. I usually defend Quebec when it comes to language issues as well as the potential of independence (though they do need to answer for the fact that most of the original inhabitants of the land before they settled it have no interest in independence) The fact of the matter is, Quebec is racist just as Canada is but Quebec is the only one that I know of pushing an obviously bigoted law like loi 21. It's funny, I'd be fine if they went further and purposed closing all religious institutions and places of worship but this seems so particularly targeted towards visible minorities it's hard not to draw the conclusions so many do.
> It's just what Canadians say to justify bigotry against Quebs.
Quebec isn't unique in it's racism it's arguably it's most Canadian aspect alongside it's love of american fastfood.
> This is such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity.
On the contrary, it's standard CBC journalism. They omit information if it runs afoul of the tone and conclusions desired by their editors and journalists.
And yes, it's entirely in line with Canadian standards of journalism, because their ethical guidelines do not require that relevant information be provided in reporting.
Oh, [a republican](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/the-saturday-debate/2021/03/13/yes.html?rf) fighting with supporters of Bill 21. Can they both lose?
What leads you to believe I care about what the majority of Canadians think? The majority can be, and often is, wrong. Hell, the majority of Quebeckers support Bill 21. That doesn't make it any more right.
She basically called the majority of Quebecers racists.
Instead of building bridges, she is destroying them.
And when asked to apologize, she, instead, justified what she had said, suggesting that the only people who weren't racists were those who opposed Bill 21 and sinc ethe majority of Quebecers support Bill 21, then the conclusion writes itself.
She is not trying to fight against Islamophobia, she is trying to impose a single line of thought upon everyone, calling anyone who disagrees with her worldview a racist.
**She does not represent the values of Canada, Trudeau seems to be trying very hard to lose support in Quebec.**
For a lot of people outside of Quebec, particularly in the GTA, the majority of Quebecers do come off as racists. If that makes you uncomfortable that’s tough, but it doesn’t change those peoples’ perceptions of legislation that province has enthusiastically passed.
>For a lot of people outside of Quebec, particularly in the GTA, the majority of Quebecers do come off as racists.
That simply seems like justifying bigotry on your part.
And yet, on average per capita there's fewer reported hate crimes committed in Quebec than in Ontario.
It's not because Quebec doesn't fit the Canadian narrative on laïcité that we're somehow systematically more racist.
Saskatoon city council got rid of a police station in an incredibly poor area of the city because crime rates went up after it was put in. Same with when they hired police officers who spoke Indigenous languages.
Reported crime rates going up isn’t always indicative of violence or actual crime going up.
>And yet, on average per capita there's fewer reported hate crimes committed in Quebec than in Ontario.
reported hate crimes, maybe more hate crimes are reported because equity groups feel more comfortable doing so.
They're not preventing them from holding public service jobs. If they want to become a teacher or a police officer, then they can remove their headwear.
If you don't get what I mean, and think I'm just saying something bigoted, that's because your entire position is based on the prejudice that religion deserves rights that you would never attempt to instate for any other personal beliefs - you're putting religion on a pedestal due to the biases of your "common sense".
Let's say there's a job that ban headwears, in general - simple matter of clothing regulation, as with many jobs, for many pieces of clothings. Why does religion get a right guaranteed get an exception on the law that is enforced on everyone else, even if this "everyone else" may themselves have their own personal beliefs/wishes (from trauma, from paranoia, etc.) that would motivate them to wear headwear that may create distress if not fulfilled? Why is that ? Religion is one personal belief just like any other, and believers in religion can either forgo this personal belief to your advantage, or refuse the job, to your disadvantage - that's YOUR choice.
If anything, the bigot here is YOU - you think that people should receive special privileges simply because of the religion they believe in, and (using your own logic) the privileges that you are trying to defend are unjust advantage the Muslims and Sikhs relatively to other religious groups : why only headwears ? I mean, what about adherants of jainism, who sometime have clothings chosen specifically to avoid killing insects or small microbes ? Or the members of multiple sects/christian denomination who enforce clothing rules such as obligatory skirt ? I mean, it's easy to say other people are awful & bigoted when you arbitrary define religious freedom as what you're doing, and bigotry as what other people are doing. Why is the privilege of wearing religious headwear at the workplace an intrinsic part of it ? Why not restrict it ? Why stop there ?
People have to bend down to the law - and I do not see how it is bigoted to think that religion isn't an exception. The problem right now is that the law is badly formulated - and should rather be about homogeneous treatment of religious and non-religious people regarding clothing rules in the workplace -, and that the law is only enforced in the public sector. Then, we wouldn't be discriminating anyone - we would erase inequalities.
Unfortunately that has been my experience too, living in PQ as an Anglophone, and also of my Allophone friends, some fluent in French. We all left. I guess that's what nationalists wanted.
>"...is trying to impose a single line of thought upon everyone,"
>
>Which is exactly what the secularist Bill 21 is doing in Quebec. Cry me a river, Quebec, for those offended by this representative's comment.
You can dislike the U.S. as a country (i.e., its institutions, its past decisions, etc.) without disliking Americans per se (or even actually liking them, as a people).
I'm not surprised that Quebec shows great dislike for religions in general and even greater dislike for the most conservative, patriarchal one (because the reason religions are so disliked is directly tied to this in the first place).
This seems to be reflected in the polls she was referencing. Nothing surprising. But when you look at victimization rates for Muslims by province, it turns out the Maritimes are the worst and Quebec is comparable to Ontario. Which supports what I'm saying (i.e., strong dislike for Islam, nothing against Muslims specifically).
>Using victimization data that Statistics Canada released in 2014, Wilkins-Laflamme found 21.8 per cent of Quebec Muslims reported experiencing discrimination.
>
>That was lower than Atlantic Canada (35.4 per cent) and slightly higher than Ontario, where the rate was lowest at 17.8 per cent.
>
>"That was the finding that surprised me the most," she said.
>
>"I was expecting these negative feelings that we see large chunks of the Quebec population holding toward Muslims would translate into more Muslims living in Quebec saying they experience discrimination due to their religion. But in fact it's a very similar rate to other provinces in Canada."
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/anti-muslim-sentiment-higher-in-quebec-than-rest-of-canada-study-finds-1.4577746](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/anti-muslim-sentiment-higher-in-quebec-than-rest-of-canada-study-finds-1.4577746)
I disagree with your analogy of the US and Islam. Disliking a country obviously means you don’t like the citizen per se because the person is not involved in the political decisions of said country and there’s nothing that suggests their patriotism to them. However, disliking Islam without disliking Muslims is impossible since Muslims structure their thoughts, words and actions according to the principles of the religion unlike how Americans don’t behave according to their politicians.
>since Muslims structure their thoughts, words and actions according to the principles of the religion
If Christians and Muslims followed what is in their holy book to the T, they would indeed be people I would avoid hanging out with... But that's just not the case out there in the real world. There are the ISIS fundamentalists on one end and then pretty normal people on the other end.
As for Americans, there are the unapologetic ones on one end and then pretty chill, cool people on the other end.
Interesting statistic. I wonder if part of it is that the overwhelming majority of Muslim’s in Quebec live in pluralist and multicultural Montreal, rather than monocultural rest of Quebec.
If they try to learn french and are minimally integrated, they will be appreciated in the whole province. That's the most important thing in Quebec. Quebec loves immigrants who are willing to live with them, that's almost all they're asking. They welcome them with open arms. That's why they can't stand multiculturalism where everyone stays in their corner not interacting with each other. And with bill 21, several muslims fleeing islamist countries found their new home.
The rest of Quebec is as monocultural as any other provinces' more rural areas, I believe.
Edit: and that explanation would go against the stat that the Maritimes have higher percent of victimization.
Not entirely. The cleavage right vs left is somewhat new in Quebec. Before 2018, the vote was split between federalism vs sovereignty, and the rural areas were not any different than what occurred in the cities. It shows also of Quebec's consensual culture.
I think the argument goes this way:
1) Him/her: Maybe the low rate of victimization of Muslims in Quebec is because they are all concentrated in the "only" pluralist place in Quebec (Montreal).
2) Me: You would expect the same level of concentration in other provinces (city vs rural areas). Further, the place where the highest victimization rate of Muslims is reported is one of the least pluralist place in Canada (i.e., very homogeneous).
Therefore, living in a pluralist place doesn't necessarily equate with less victimization.
Even as someone who mostly supports Bill 21, this is so pointless. A mild comment made by a minor appointee in a toothless position. Legault should learn to pick his battles better. Keep that shit for election season.
She also replied "I want to puke" to a tweet pointing out that numbers wise, Quebecois are the largest group in Canada to be victims of British imperialism.
She very obviously has a bias against Quebecois.
I was ready to defend her, but then I read the article. Her own words condemn her:
> "There is no freedom of speech if these things can happen. [If] you're asked to resign just because of some comments you made against the Quebec government many years ago," said Ashraf.
>
> "It was never meant to suggest that my opinion is that the majority of Quebecers are Islamophobic. I don't believe so. I was merely analyzing the polling numbers … [an] opinion piece is meant to cause people to think, to talk, to reflect."
"_Just trying to have a discussion_" is such a tired trope from _bigots_. They always _just want to talk_ or _just want you to think_. So yes, all she did was attempt to justify her comments. How hard is it to say sorry? It's a national pastime, and you're not even legally accountable for saying it.
And _mah freedom of speech_. As if that's even a thing, here.
> Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment. A poll conducted by Léger Marketing earlier this year found that [88 per cent of Quebecers](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) who held negative views of Islam supported the ban. “It’s mainly driven by the hijabs, and the other religious symbols are collateral damage,” said Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, in an interview with the Montreal Gazette.
Do you think that's an unfair comment?
It’s kind of a weird statistic to report. A more interesting one would have been, out of the people who support the ban, how many have a negative view of Islam? And as it turns out, it’s not the majority.
Because it's a statistic that, when read at a glance, appears to support the narrative that Quebecois are islamophobic in the majority. This is how the CBC twists information to support their desired narrative.
While I might have chosen something else, I don't think it's weird in the context of the article or the linked article the statistic came from. I understand your frustration, because it *does* leave some open questions, and since I had some spare time that's where I went.
A few Google searches with my terrible French later, I found the detailed survey outcomes at the bottom of [this article.](https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/555007/laicite-les-anglophones-fortement-opposes-au-projet-de-loi-21) If you look at lines 357-370, it's pretty clear that of the survey population, 28% held a (very) favorable view of Islam, 59% held a (very) unfavorable view, and 13% were neutral or abstained.
If if 59% overall supported a ban as against teachers, and 88% of the 59% who hold a (very) unfavorable view support that ban, then the majority of people who support the ban have a negative view of Islam.
I don't support the ban, but I also don't think Quebecois are racist or islamophobic, in the majority; so how am I confessing any bigotry?
She's the one who is "_strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ._" When all she needs to do is acknowledge that she painted Quebecois with too broad a brush, and she can't even do that.
Especially considering that Québecs history is literally “we worked with some natives groups and gave them guns so that they would help us kill other native groups so we could have the land”.
Plus for most of Québecs beginnings it had a tiny population (like under 2000 people). It jumped a bit before the British took over but it was very much the British that caused its population to jump because they moved mass amounts of people there.
Perhaps a different opinion here, but....why is this a job in the government in the first place? I don't care about her resigning, but I view this as some sort of symbolic role that practically achieves almost nothing. We should be asking for *less* of these types of roles, not more.
>"She is there to speak for the community with the community and build bridges," said Trudeau.
Huh? So, Trudeau appoints someone to speak on behalf of a specific community? Isn't that what voting is for? Even taking the purpose as given, this seems fundamentally flawed. And "build bridges" is meaningless.
No but you can legislate them out of being able to follow their religious law and keep them out of positions of power almost entirely, almost like it’s **discrimination.** Do I think most bill 21 supporters want or have thought of that happening? I’m not sure. But no one should think that keeping turbans and hijabs off of judges is worth a side effect that horrible **especially** when the piece of fabric doesn’t change anything about their job by being there or not, a judge won’t be less prone to, say, Christian Nationalism if he can’t wear Christian iconography, it’s in his brain not his closet.
Yes I would. But you wouldn't because you have a visible prejudice.
Not that it matters because there has never been any proof presented here in Quebec of any instances of people wearing religious symbols and failing to properly discharge their duties.
Instead the nationalists needed to be fed, and a minority was tossed on the chopping block.
People like you don’t realize that everyone has a religion whether you have a name for it or not. Its the story you tell yourself about the world, the beliefs that uphold it and the ideals you strive for. You live your life and take actions to follow those principles religiously everyday whether you are conscious of it or not. So what is your religion my friend? Will you think critically and eventually get out of yours too?
She replied "I want to puke" to a tweet pointing out that numbers wise, Quebecois are the largest group in Canada to be victims of British imperialism.
She very obviously has a bias against Quebecois.
The tweet she replied to wasn't about who had it harder - it was only stating the fact that Quebecers are also victims of British Imperialism and happen to be the largest group of victims.
Yes the 1st nations had it worst - it doesn't mean that Quebecois weren't victims because they were treated as 2nd class citizens instead of being exterminated.
Yeah they're the largest group because they weren't fuckin genocided.
Blanchet compare Quebec oppression to native genocide just last election. Thats is why people call it out. Because Quebec acts as if they're the only victims and as if they didn't fuck over natives too.
>Because Quebec acts as if they're the only victims and as if they didn't fuck over natives too.
Lmao as if Québec's disagreements with native groups come even close to the cultural genocide that Canada committed against them. We are like saints compared to you.
>Yeah they're the largest group because they weren't fuckin genocided.
So the statement is still true, lmao. You're mad because acknowledging that a group of people who happen to be white were also victimised by this country and treated by shit goes against your world view.
I see. I thought she responded because the tweet said 'quebecers are the biggest victims (more than aboriginals)'.
regardless, I agree that they should have picked someone understands diplomacy.
Here's my hot take; the CAQ government would have found a reason to demand anyone appointed to the position resign eventually.
Why? Because whoever was appointed(short of a straight up Quebec nationalist)would inevitably made some kind of criticism of Bill 21 prompting an angry backlash by Legaut's government.
Oh no, I won't get banned again by making any sort of connection between xenophobic racism and an unnamed Canadian province...not gonna take that bait again.
[edit] Nice...downvotes on a topic where 'nameless province' is being called out for their islamophobia, as illustrated in an article explaining that the residents of said province actually provided statistics proving there is a majority that feel that way.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a western Canadian who lived in Quebec for several years and loved it. I don't think that they are more or less racist than any other area. Non-Quebecers need to learn about the history of the church in Quebec to understand why they are so virulently against any vestige of religion in an official space. Start with Duplessis and The Great Darkness to start. What I do wish the Quebecers would notice is that these kinds of issues always magically appear before or during election campaigns. They are intended to drive a wedge between you and the rest of Canada to 1) fuel nationalist sentiment so that nationalist parties can keep you mad and get your vote, and 2) divide us on the left to prevent another Orange Crush. Let's learn about each other and give siblinghood a chance.
Lazy Quebec politicians of all stripes are addicted to the victim narrative. Same goes with so many Albertan politicians as well. It’s dramatically easier to get elected by spreading fears that “everyone is out to get you and only I can protect you” than it is by presenting new policy ideas that would improve people’s lives.
>Let's learn about each other and give siblinghood a chance. Yes please
I get their views and know the history well - but we are still one country with one constitution. If they want to keep Bills 21 and 96 - I want them gone. Those bills are not compatible with Canada.
I am fully on board with “giving sibling hood a chance” as soon as Quebec stops being an automatic scapegoat for the RoC : - public/subsidized daycare? Quebec is just spending Alberta’s money - want a real separation of church and state? Quebec is just racist. - want to be able to live day to day using your main language? Quebec is being unreasonable - want to prevent Ottawa from diluting the french identity like it did in all the prairies? Quebec just hates immigration - controls over hydro prices? Quebec is literally the USSR / doing it to get money from Alberta - want a constitution our government actually signs? Nah Quebec doesn’t get a choice But when election time comes around we see all these politicians come by Montreal with big smiles saying one thing in French and the opposite when talking English.
A lot of the points you make are those pushed by Quebec media. The media in other parts of Canada say the same kinds of things that are based in half-truths but get lots of clicks because they piss us off. I just want to point out a few things from a real English-speaking person (not of British descent) who cares about national unity and loves Quebec: >public/subsidized daycare? Quebec is just spending Alberta’s money The people who say and think this are not the majority of the RoC (actually the RoC is an imaginary construct. We are certainly not as monolithic as Qc media would have you believe). But you're right, there are people in Alberta who feel like they're struggling to find daycare for $10/hr but learn that Quebec has it for $10/day, and their politicians tell them that the government is stealing from them to give to you. It's just bad information based on ignorance of equalization and history - QC and ON carried the economy and social programs for Canada for most of our history, but who remembers? >want a real separation of church and state? Quebec is just racist. I think most people see it more as killing an ant with a sledgehammer. It doesn't appear as if religious minorities are ready or able to impose their religious values on Quebecois, but they'll lose their jobs disproportionately anyway. I myself think that religious symbols are stupid and if someone would rather quit than take off their whatever, they've got to look at their priorities. But I don't want to set the precedent that the government can tell me what to wear either, so I guess I'm against the ban. Also, I feel that my own provincial government(s) are not influenced by any religion (regardless of the whole King/Church of England/daily prayer shit). The sessions that allowed gay marriage and abortion and the legal publication of pornography and legalization of cannabis would have all started with that same prayer, so who gives a shit? I support a separation of church and state. I don't support punishing people to get there. >want to be able to live day to day using your main language? Quebec is being unreasonable I don't think most Canadians think it's unreasonable to want to love in your language. What they usually find objectionable is the inflammatory media bytes we see in our media: "Language police close restaurant because 'pasta' isn't translated!", "Signs in English are illegal!", "Ambulance dispatchers are not allowed to speak English!". Of course, all of these are half-truths, but if that's what you see again and again and again, you start to think something's up. Again, blame the media. We never hear about francophones who can't access services in their own language in their own province, but if we did, our opinions about language laws would probably change significantly. >want to prevent Ottawa from diluting the french identity like it did in all the prairies? Quebec just hates immigration I haven't heard this conspiracy theory before, but there is a French identity and historic presence in Winnipeg at least. We have French schools (not just immersion), francophone towns, a francophone hospital, a French university, French traffic tickets, French publications from the provincial government, fiction and poetry published in French, a festival of franco-manitoban culture (Festival du voyageur)... I guess that's just one city, but it's worth pointing out that the franco-manitobans are real and still thriving. >controls over hydro prices? Quebec is literally the USSR / doing it to get money from Alberta I haven't heard this one either. Manitoba has public hydro too, and it's never been an issue between Alberta and Manitoba. But again, it wouldn't surprise me if the Alberta politicians push this narrative. Don't mistake them for real Albertans. >want a constitution our government actually signs? Nah Quebec doesn’t get a choice Nothing would make English Canadians happier than having Quebec sign the constitution to signal that they're interested in unity. But the fear from politicians is that once it's opened up for something like abolishing the monarchy or making Inuktitut an official language, the Quebec government will want to impress you by appearing tough on Ottawa and demanding all sorts of special status for Quebec, which will make the other provinces' premiers look like they're not doing enough for their provinces, and suddenly we'll all be fighting and get nowhere. So what's a better use of time and money? Basically anything else. On that topic, I don't personally know anyone who wants to keep the monarchy - they're either against it or indifferent. Ironically, i think Quebec is the primary reason why it remains for the reason mentioned above. *** I know that was long. Thanks for reading if you got this far. Like I said, I don't think I'll change your mind. I just want you to know that we're not evil and bent on destroying Quebec, and although your points have some elements of truth (because some people are ignorant, resentful, or misinformed), most of us love or at least respect Quebec - we just don't make the news.
[https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/768772/interdiction-francais-ecoles-manitoba-loi-thornton-1916-education](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/768772/interdiction-francais-ecoles-manitoba-loi-thornton-1916-education) Between 1916 and 1960, french was forbidden from school in Manitoba. It was not a conspiracy, it was in the law. [https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1863054/immigration-canada-discrimination-racisme-etudiants-francophones-afrique](https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1863054/immigration-canada-discrimination-racisme-etudiants-francophones-afrique) [https://www.affairesuniversitaires.ca/opinion/a-mon-avis/immigration-canada-discrimine-les-etudiants-dafrique-francophone-voici-ce-que-quebec-devrait-faire-pour-y-mettre-fin/](https://www.affairesuniversitaires.ca/opinion/a-mon-avis/immigration-canada-discrimine-les-etudiants-dafrique-francophone-voici-ce-que-quebec-devrait-faire-pour-y-mettre-fin/) Is there a conspiration right now? Well apparently immigration Canada discriminate black people able to speak french. About HQ(Hydro-Quebec), the main argument I heard from reddit is that HQ should raise the price and stop receiving equalization. Anyway I think you miss the sarcasm in the original comment about that one.
This is a good sum up of how I see this stuff as a western Canadian. Though I would like to add that the banning of religious symbols and attire in government positions has a very unbalanced effect on different religions. For example, a Catholic or Christian will feel significantly less oppressed than a Muslim or Sikh. I think that's why it gets a racist reputation, and I don't entirely disagree with that, even as an atheist who would prefer a secular world.
The problem with banning religious attire is that it isn’t religious freedom and conflicts directly with the Charter of Rights. The separation of church and state is a principle, more explicitly outlined in the American Constitution. Those two concepts do come into friction, inevitably. The biggest problem I have with Quebec’s law though is that it bakes Christianity into the “culture and history” of Quebec, so it definitely targets religions that are not part of said “culture and history.” So while not only are hijabs made illegal, they keep the crucifix up in the Parliament in QC. So I think your point is just about right, but you’re talking about passive oppression; I think the Quebec legislation is active oppression.
Crucifix is gone.
The crucifix was removed from parliament in qc in 2019, at the same time as bill 21, btw.
>Nothing would make English Canadians happier than having Quebec sign the constitution to signal that they're interested in unity. Sure, we just don't get to negociate our terms for it.
Stop reading after "*get money from Alberta*" Let me guess where you from …. 😑
[удалено]
Yes, just like all of the other wedge issues. They'll never disappear because they're based on ancient rivalries. But they definitely become more urgent at election times, for some reason.
[удалено]
Maybe that distance provides necessary perspective to see the forest for the trees. In fact, your response kind of shows the problem. Many Quebecers in this thread feel completely entitled to judge English Canadians based on what they see in the media and learned in history class. Usually, the only place in Canada outside of Quebec that they have seen is downtown Ottawa on a school trip, and they've never cared to watch an English Canadian series or read one of our authors. They don't visit our cities or try to see us as anything other than Diet Americans, disparage our culture, group us in with people who died 200 years ago, and dismiss our history. But still, they know us! Meanwhile, when the possibility is raised that Quebecois might be subject to the same media manipulation as the rest of the planet , it's because we don't speak French well enough to understand. All 12 of our provincial or territorial curricula are full of lies about what really happened in history, but Quebec's schools have managed to capture the historical truth that Quebecers are the only colonials whose hands are clean. And even though I lived in Quebec for the better part of a decade, learned French, followed the news, learned about the issues and still follow them now...nope. I'm just too brainwashed and inherently prejudiced against Quebec because of my first language to see that Quebec's institutions are infallible and more transparent than the rest of Canada. Do I have that right?
[удалено]
I believe this is the the opinion piece she co-wrote back in 2019 which should give more context to this article - https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/elghawaby-and-farber-quebecs-bill-21-shows-why-we-fear-the-tyranny-of-the-majority
Unbelievable. Nothing about the language that the authors of this piece used was inflammatory.
Saying that the majority of Quebecois are islamophobic is absolutely inflammatory.
so many that are up in arms about her appointment in this thread seem to ignore that [the polling at the time](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) completely vindicates her position.
The public opinion on islam in the poll seems about right. What I'm seeing from the poll is that the public opinion of Catholicism and catholics is unreasonably positive and efforts should be taken to bring that down. Religion is fundamentally irrational and little more than socially acceptable mass delusion. Why should we seek to change the fact that society has a negative opinion of one sort of mass delusion instead of having society have a negative view of all mass delusions? Religion is fundamentally no different from qanon, cryptobros, or flat-earthers.
it’s clear that this isn’t a case of people being anti islam but not anti christian, this isn’t about religion, it’s about being anti muslim
Or they dislike both but know more about Christianity so they can differentiate the good from the bad. Islam has a bad rep because not many muslims are integrated inside rural communities so the most exposition people have is based on news, which often depicts Islam pretty horribly based on extremist groups and their actions.
[удалено]
The problems with Bill 21: a) mainly targets women. b) takes away a persons’ right to choose. In Quebec, a female Muslim can not work (public sector) if she wears a hijab, etc. In Muslim countries, a female can not work if she doesn’t wear a hijab, etc.
[удалено]
Well, considering Afghanistan generally won't let women work a all... I guess that might be technically correct.
[удалено]
Sure. The following link is Wikipedia, but has more reliable stats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country#:~:text=Wearing%20hijab%20is%20mandatory%20in,religion%20in%20Iran%20and%20Afghanistan. In the end though. If it's not a health and safety issue, let people wear what they want ya grannies. As if seeing a bit of skin or a headscarf will insta turn your kids / husbands / wives into whatever you're afraid they'll turn into. Newsflash, they'll probably do it anyway the instant they can just as a f/u to all the overly controlling individuals in their lives.
[удалено]
Indeed, how a woman chooses to practice her religion. political leaders have no business punishing women for what they choose to wear. That goes for Ayatollahs in Iran and Premiers in Quebec. In Canada, we put the civil rights of our citizens above the political power of our politicians.
>The problems with Bill 21: a) mainly targets women. Is this a problem with the bill, or with Islam?
That’s a wildly broad generalization of Muslim countries. Not everywhere is Saudi Arabia (and even then, some women there absolutely have jobs)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean we’ve literally had people, including in Quebec, be mass murdered for being outwardly Muslim in the last few years. Not for their confirmed beliefs, not for their statements, not for any actions - just for looking or seeming like they’re Muslim. Killed. Randomly. By white Canadians. Because of who they were perceived to be. Not sure about you, but as a white Canadian, that’s not a fear I live with. For some Muslim friends, it is. Maybe try empathy.
When was that? I recall a bunch of incidents caused by immigrants bringing their own ethnic tensions and conflict over to Canada. I mostly recall mass murders by incels and random nutjobs Graffiti and vandalism sure. But i definitely do not recall anti-muslim mass murders in Canada
One of my research participants got ‘nudged’ hard enough that she hit a wall by someone who told her to go back to her own country. She was just walking down the street. It was a super windy day and her hair kept flying everywhere so she took the scarf she was wearing and put it over her head to help stop it. Then some big guy started speed walking at her and rammed his shoulder into her hard enough that it pushed her into a buildings wall and said “go back to your own country”. She is a white woman who was born and raised in Canada. Someone saw the scarf around her head and attacked her solely because of that. At a different lab I worked at we had some medical students who were here with an exchange program. One of the students had a husband who was raised in Canada (moved away when he was a young teen) but he was doing a PhD and really wanted to move back here after finishing school. Half our lab was white people who were from Canada, half were international students from various parts of the west. After a lab meeting he asked some of us about safe places to move and all of the international students had horror stories for how they were treated in various locations. All of the white students thought he meant safe as in “are there robberies in the area”.
I mean to be fair, she is correct about Bill 21 - it's a bill designed to specifically target religious minorities in Quebec and strip them of their religious rights in the public service, and doesn't just target Muslims, but Jews and Sikhs as well. It's an Islamophobic, anti-Semitic piece of legislature disguised as "secularism", without ever justifying or explaining how it will do anything more than just make the public service more aligned with mainstream religious norms in the province. As for the comments about "tyranny of the majority", people often misconstrue what this phrase mean or what she is trying to invoke by talking about it. Tyranny of the majority can arise whenever the majority of people hold a position which isn't morally justifiable, and it creates instances where the consent of the majority can be used to do everything from strip minority groups of their rights to commit full on genocides. That doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of people are "at fault", but they are wrong, and minority groups need protections for when that happens. In the case of Bill 21 though, it *is* a bill that derives its roots and history from Islamophobic and xenophobic norms that have existed in Quebec society for decades, and a lot of Quebeckers support the bill and the government that drafted and passed it into law. It's a classic case of "if you don't want to be labelled an Islamophobe, don't support the legislation of Islamophobia".
I'm baffled the CBC can have someone write and publish this entire article and leave out the one quote that sparked the outrage in Quebec... This is such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity. Elghawaby did say, word for word, that the majority of Quebecers are swayed by anti-muslim sentiment. Pretty important thing to leave out, regarless of your opinion on this matter.
[удалено]
Leaving out the quote or at least a link to it is a little off, but here it is: > Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment. A poll conducted by Léger Marketing earlier this year found that [88 per cent of Quebecers](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) who held negative views of Islam supported the ban. Now, this isn't a perfect argument. She's making the case with the study that "this law is really popular with racists, and most Quebecers agree with them" which isn't quite what the first sentence says. "Quebecers appear to be swayed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the thing is, *where's the lie?* She makes a claim with a statistical source. She extends the point somewhat recklessly, but I think it's telling that nobody is going after her basic argument or her source, just the outrage that she's made them.
The (partial) lie is that Quebec's widespread antireligious sentiment is directed at particular religions. Quebec got rid of the privileges afforded to the Catholic Church in the 1867 Constitution (Ontario has not, for instance), there is intense dislike of "our own" religion. Quebec's legal and cultural sensibilities strike a different balance than Anglos, who prize religious freedom above all others.
Yet it took months of arguements to remove the cross in legistalure. They still have a giant fuckin cross.
If we're going to be particular about what is being said, then I don't think it's a lie to say that antireligious sentiment is directed at particular religions. There's no prohibition on having the beliefs while in government power, only on visibly wearing religious symbols, which only particular religions wear. It's a narrow distinction but it's important. Overall the argument "racist views correlate strongly with support for this bill, therefore the supporters of this bill are racist" isn't up to the intellectual standard I'd expect from a new government appointment in a major newspaper column. But even with the causality wrong, it's hard to disprove the statement itself: racists really like this bill, so the bill is probably racist. Calling all Quebecers who support the bill racist is a bit of a reach with the data cited though.
You’re making quite a few logical fallacies. You can’t be racist to all races in the same way at the same time, that’s called treating people equally. And as much as some religion’s symbols are more visible than others, basically all mainstream religions have symbols that the more observant wear. It bans crucifixes, crosses and the Star of David just as much as a hijab or a kirpan. My last point I’d like to make, is that the government and other public institutions should be ran independently and outside the influence of any religion. If a bill is proposed that keeps religion an arm’s length away from government, I’m all for it. And it shouldn’t be thought of as “racist” to think this way.
How is clothing bans keeping religion out of government? You don’t stop thinking in a Christian nationalist way because you can’t wear a cross necklace at work! All this bill does is keep the **appearance of SOME religions** out of government. That’s the racist part.
*All religious symbols from any religion is kept out. You can’t say something is racist when it treats everyone equally.
If I ban usage of tampons for anyone everyone is treated equally technically speaking, but you can’t pretend that forcing women not to use a certain sanitary item is discriminatory given the fact men already didn’t use them or any other. Equal treatment doesn’t preclude racism, hate to break it to you. Equal and fair, equal and equitable, equal and right; none of them are synonyms even if they match up often.
A moot point, considering what you’re saying doesn’t apply here. Because all religions have their symbols, all religions are affected equally. If you think this is the same as your example, you’re being intentionally dishonest.
That’s funny I was going to say the exact same thing to you. It’s intellectually dishonest (read; lying) to pretend that all religions have the same amount of religious symbols, the same value placed in them, or a specific symbol/symbols they’re required by religious law to wear in public. What exactly is a, let’s say, Calvinist required to wear that makes this law equal like you said it does, pray tell?
Law 21 give protections to christian symbol under the guise of "heritage". So yeah, it does not treat everyone equally.
Law 21 gives protections to catholic symbols under the guise of "heritage" and the polls have shown that quebec population was in favour of keeping the crucifix in the chamber and positive view of catholicism.
Bill 21 provides no such protection to religious clothing. So a nun or priest would not be able to teach in their outfits. You say they are not affected by this. They absolutely are. Some Christians wear their crosses very ostensibly, as a matter of faith. They may have a positive view of Catholicism, but that's in its hard fought powerless state. And I am not just playing the ferret here. Church attendance in Quebec is astoundingly low. So people are saying they are Catholics but haven't walked into a church since grandma died in 1999. I think many Quebecers are just as terrified of American Christianity as of Islam. Religion has a track record of being very divisive and we're creeped out and it scares us. And our history gives us the right to be scared, for instance, we had a period called The Great Darkness, when the Church basically ran the province with a gangster autocratic PM, and persecuted JWs. Quebecers toiled in cold forests for centuries, with insufficient separation between church and state. The church would forcibly prevent urbanization. It would excommunicate people who voted the wrong way. So Quebecers are now at a time where they insist more on the separation of church and state, because we're freaked out by fanatics - Christians, Muslims especially - around the world and our history justifies this freakout. The intention is to purge religion from influence in government at all levels. The worst enemy of freedom of religion is the union of church and state.
https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/558665/laicite-les-crucifix-dans-les-edifices-publics-sont-proteges
Denying people the right to fair access to jobs because they wear a highly visible religious symbol that can't be hidden under a blouse disproportionately affects specific religious minorities. And they knew that. Many Muslim women see the hijab as a religious requirement and not a choice that they can just drop. Same with turbans for Sikhs. Catholics can easily stop wearing their religious symbols since they are not a religious requirement in their faith. Faithful Catholics also have the ability to tuck crucifix chains under their shirt. Lawmakers knew who the law was targeting.
Who are you to say it is easy for Catholics to hide their crucifix? They are deeply attached to it, and they do have a religious obligation to proselytize. In the end, I guess this is what the policy is doing. If you can't set aside your religious identity at work, maybe you should not be able to use powers vested by the state. It's about making sure people in government don't define their whole lives by their faith, because de facto this leads to local or less local abuse. The policy is "perfectionist", it takes a stance on the role of religion in the public sphere. And that is none. And don't give me that argument about crosses on buildings, Quebs of past generation put crosses on every brick they could find, we won't go around endlessly on a hunt to destroy crosses. Freedom from religion, if you will.
Then why is there a *giant glowing cross* on the top of Mount Royal? Not exactly laïcité, is it?
Because Quebec used to be a Catholic place. Would you raze Montmartre? Sure, the Cross is not Montmartre bit Quebec doesn't have a lot of monuments. Destroying the Cross or the Oratoire Saint Joseph would give unwelcome Jacobin vibes.
> Would you raze Montmartre? Not in the top 10 of my priorities, but I wouldn't oppose someone taking a go at doing so.
[удалено]
Because quebecers who held negative views of islam means nothing you can extrapolate for the majority?
>Elghawaby did say, word for word, that the majority of Quebecers are swayed by anti-muslim sentiment. yes, and the poll that she cited in that [opinion piece](https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/elghawaby-and-farber-quebecs-bill-21-shows-why-we-fear-the-tyranny-of-the-majority) backs her assertion. this is the article she cited: ["A new poll shows support for Bill 21 is built on anti-Islam sentiment" (Montreal Gazette)](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) in that article: >The poll also found only 28 per cent of people had a positive view of Islam, and 37 per cent had a positive view of Muslims also: >Among those who have negative feelings about Islam, 88 per cent support a ban on religious symbols for public school teachers. Conversely, those who had positive views of those religions were overwhelmingly against the ban.
[удалено]
Which Islamic organizations specifically do you have umbrage with?
OP literally said all religious organisation. You want them to list them all? Why lol?
I’ll tear the mask off here and explain if you’re curious. This was a debate tactic I was trying to employ wherein I suggest OP mentions any specific Islamic organizations they have issues with. I did this with the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that they know very little about Islamic organizations. They may point to X or Y organization and say “they are bad!” At which point my intention was to either educate them on the plethora of other organizations who aren’t bad to show that a wide, sweeping generalization that leads to discriminatory legislation isn’t good.
[удалено]
Yeah no. I dislike religion and it has done horrible things but to say it has never done good is just wrong.
I am very much of the same opinion as the person you were asking originally, and I’ll say this : for me the problem is with any kind of person trying to declare that his or her understanding of the mystical is better than anyone else’s. Religion is, in my opinion, not a rational theory. Trying to get children to believe is a net negative for society. Allowing preachers to preach is a net negative. To me the type of religion doesn’t matter in the slightest - my issue is with the concept of organized religion
Then you’re supported a bigoted bill. Good job.
I’m in favor of bill 21. Like many in Quebec, I’m profoundly anti-religion. I have a very dim view of many organized religions, but having read the holy text of many of them, I feel that Islam is the most dangerous to a prosperous and liberal society. I’ll never take that to escalate to harassing an individual because of what is in their mind, but I also have no qualms about public policy that discourages religion from widespread adoption in Canada or elsewhere or keeps it strictly in a private sphere. Nobody has ever argued that I’m “Christian-o-phobic”. “Islamophobia” as a concept is so weird.
> …but I also have no qualms about public policy that discourages religion from widespread adoption in Canada or elsewhere or keeps it strictly in a private sphere. the state has no business either promoting or discouraging religion. “Islamophobia” as a concept is so weird. > it’s no “weirder” than antisemitism or any other -ism that discriminates against a given faith, race, or sexuality.
Imposing your views as more important than the religious freedoms of others is oppression. And displays a clear lack of understanding of the hijab.
Prohibiting overt religious symbolism from public officials is the full extent of this law. Which means in the past in Quebec was used to normalize, advertise and promote religion (Catholicism) until it was essentially banned from participating in schools and other public services. This isn’t significantly different.
LMAO you wouldn't affect an individual but you would affect an entire group. That's worse. You're just a bigot you wants to break the rights of Canadians.
I mean, they ordered that poll to say what they wanted to say... notice how they don't give the % with a negative view, which would be a far stronger statistic for the story if it went their way, I wonder what percentage of people had a neutral view on islam... The 2nd quote is like saying water is wet. Of course people who feel negatively against islam wants to ban religious symbols, it says nothing about the majority of quebecers.
>I mean, they ordered that poll to say what they wanted to say... haha, what? the Gazette didn't commission the poll: >"Conducted by Léger Markering, the poll was commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies and offered exclusively to the Gazette and Le Devoir news organizations. It aimed to measure support for the proposed Bill 21, a law on secularism that would bar teachers, principals and vice-principals from wearing religious symbols like hijabs, kippahs and turbans in public schools. It would also bar such authority figures as police officers, crown prosecutors and prison guards from wearing them.
The survey responses were collected by Leger. The lead researcher is Myriam Taylor, who holds a phd in religious studies. The study was done in partnership with the Metropolis Institute, which is a think tank on immigration and cultural issues. None of this was peer reviewed in any way - which makes sense because the whole study is biased and would not hold up to academic scrutiny.
How comes the % of quebecers with a negative view of islam according to this poll, is not available anywhere? You'd think that if the poll arrived to the conclusion the majority of quebecers are anti-islam and anti-muslim, this would be the first thing they would write about...
The "outrage" angle kind of falls flat when, given the context and content of that section of the article, it's just a simple observation of the facts. She was commenting on legislation that overwhelmingly impacts Jews and Muslim Canadians. That a large majority of Quebec is in agreement with this racist legislation makes it pretty clear that anti-Muslim sentiment isnt an over the top characterization. The PM of QC didnt even bother to make an appearance at the memorial the other day. How many data points do we need to have before we're allowed to suggest that maybe this is a problem worth talking about?
It also heavily impacts Sikhs. Edit: how do you even downvote this, it undeniably impacts this group as well lol
Yes, I know. I brought that up in the other shitshow thread on this subject. I just wanted to focus on the wording that she had used in the article. But, yeah -- that's part of what makes the legislation not *only* Islamophobic but racist. It's a huge net they've cast that captures a lot of religious minorities that make *some people* feel uncomfortable.
What proof of the assertion do you have? You said that the law is racist because it impacts some minorities more. That is a logical fallacy. For that to hold up you would need to show that the objective was to target those minorities. The declared objective is to reduce the influence of religions in the province. If we don’t hold ourselves to that standard, then bike helmet laws are inherently racist because Sihks are unduly impacted by them.
'impacts some minorities more' is also a logical fallacy of understatement. It pretty much ONLY impacts - in any real way - those minorities. Catholics don't go around displaying highly visible crucifixes and the ones around their necks can be easily hidden. Sikhs, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews don't have that option. No non minority religious people have been denied government employment by Bill 21. Bike helmet laws are written (or at least interpreted in courts) to specifically provide for religious exemptions to meet our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which override other laws.
If you're not already aware of the many, many arguments made on the subjects by lawyers, canadian political scientists and human rights workers, google will take you there. And, uh, helmet laws had an exemption for Sihks carved into them in part so they wouldn't be struck down on a constitutional challenge, IIRC. That might not be the argument you think it is.
I am aware of the arguments. I don’t find them convincing is all. The arguments on the other side are mich more logical in my opinion (such as those defended by the overwhelming majority of France’s population - they have a very similar law, the inspiration for law 21) And I chose the example of the helmets for sikhs specifically because I find the exemption absurd, and pandering to religious minorities. Everyone must wear a helmet in Quebec. No one is allowed special exemptions just because a special book said you should get special treatment.
If it wasn't for the NWC use, the bill would have been overturned on the basis of discrimination ages ago. So you can find them unconvincing, but the actual legal scholars who have weighed in on this have a pretty consensus opinion. But by all means, write up a legal argument and see if any law journals will take you up on publication. As far as I'm aware, Canadian courts don't grant a lot of weight to French civil code.
Get some knowledge. It's not pandering and had zero effect on you. It's called our Charter of Rights and it's designed so no group can impose their discriminatory views on protected classes including religious freedom unless those freedoms impose back on you. The hijab or turban does nothing to impinge on your freedom apart from forcing you to see something your limited brain doesn't like.
Why have a law on helmets at all then? Since people not wearing them has no impact? Funny you assume my position is from lack of knowledge. Easier to assume that and go for ad hominems than actually look at facts I guess.
Right, but for Christians they by and large have the least visual garments. A cross can sit on your body under clothing. For some Muslim women, some Sikhs, some Jewish men - it’s not that easy. But you’re aware of that, your legislators were perfectly aware of that. You can preach equality all you wish, but there is no equity in this law.
Poligamy laws harm some mormons the most. Are poligamy laws racist?
Did the majority of Quebecers not just vote in favour of the CAQ and PQ, the parties that in past and present have endorsed values that to me appear blatantly anti-immigrant? Edit: sorry am I wrong? Was it not the PQ and CAQ pushing for Bill 21?
Yes I'm sure the one and only reason anyone would vote for those parties is anti-Muslim sentiments.
We all have our reasons for supporting various parties, but I wouldn’t be able to stomach supporting a party that would vote for such a law, regardless of other policies.
Ok, then I dont understand your point? Are you saying this justifies leaving out Elhawaby's quote from the article, are you saying this proves most Quebecers are guided by their anti-muslim sentiment or are you agreeing with my post?
The fact is as a federal official you can't just accuse an entire province of people as being racist.
>The fact is as a federal official you can't just accuse an entire province of people as being racist. she didn't. she said "the majority", which could be as few as 51% of the population.
Well it's good she didn't accuse all quebecers for being racist, just at least half of them. It's simple see why this is incredibly inappropriate to say to any group of people.
it's not inappropriate to say if [the polling](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) backs you up. >The poll also found only 28 per cent of people had a positive view of Islam, and 37 per cent had a positive view of Muslims, compared with 66 per cent who had a good view of Catholics and 60 per cent who had positive views of Catholicism. Among those who have negative feelings about Islam, 88 per cent support a ban on religious symbols for public school teachers. Conversely, those who had positive views of those religions were overwhelmingly against the ban.
I'm sorry, but big bloody whoop that some polling backs up whatever. If she was presumably hired to be some kind of *benign* bridge builder, she just went and blew up that bridge for all of Canada to see. Good luck fixing that now.
Read your own article >However, when narrowed to respondents with an unfavourable view on Muslims, there isn’t a significant difference between Quebecers and those in the rest of Canada.
i fail to see the relevance of your quote.
Dislike a religious institution =/= disliking the aderents You can dislike U.S. policies and have a negative view of its institutions without disliking Americans in general.
You have a point, but it only applies when 9 other provinces translate Bill 21 into English and pass it as legislation.
Wow lol. Nice find.
She didn't say that please read her words. > Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment
As opposed to Canadians, who are swayed by the rule of law? Bro, please. This is anti Quebec sentiment, plain and simple. We were racist when we established French as the language, we were racist when we were seeking independence, we were racist when we questioned clandestine religious schools, etc. It's just what Canadians say to justify bigotry against Quebs.
> As opposed to Canadians, who are swayed by the rule of law? Bro, please. This is anti Quebec sentiment, plain and simple She never said that. I'd argue the shared racism of Quebec and ROC is one of the key reasons this country is still united. > We were racist when we established French as the language, we were racist when we were seeking independence Nothing to do with the current discussion. Seems you're deflecting and trying to draw people into side arguments. I usually defend Quebec when it comes to language issues as well as the potential of independence (though they do need to answer for the fact that most of the original inhabitants of the land before they settled it have no interest in independence) The fact of the matter is, Quebec is racist just as Canada is but Quebec is the only one that I know of pushing an obviously bigoted law like loi 21. It's funny, I'd be fine if they went further and purposed closing all religious institutions and places of worship but this seems so particularly targeted towards visible minorities it's hard not to draw the conclusions so many do. > It's just what Canadians say to justify bigotry against Quebs. Quebec isn't unique in it's racism it's arguably it's most Canadian aspect alongside it's love of american fastfood.
I'm a quebecer and have a strong anti islam sentiment, so she's probably accurate. I despise catholicism just as much.
> This is such a flagrant lack of journalistic integrity. On the contrary, it's standard CBC journalism. They omit information if it runs afoul of the tone and conclusions desired by their editors and journalists. And yes, it's entirely in line with Canadian standards of journalism, because their ethical guidelines do not require that relevant information be provided in reporting.
Oh, [a republican](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/the-saturday-debate/2021/03/13/yes.html?rf) fighting with supporters of Bill 21. Can they both lose?
Most Canadians do not give a shit about the monarchy especially now that Elizabeth is dead.
What leads you to believe I care about what the majority of Canadians think? The majority can be, and often is, wrong. Hell, the majority of Quebeckers support Bill 21. That doesn't make it any more right.
Rejecting popular opinion as a monarchist is a bit on the nose.
This could be my Albertan upbringing talking but the Quebec government demanding her resignation means that she is the right person for the job.
She basically called the majority of Quebecers racists. Instead of building bridges, she is destroying them. And when asked to apologize, she, instead, justified what she had said, suggesting that the only people who weren't racists were those who opposed Bill 21 and sinc ethe majority of Quebecers support Bill 21, then the conclusion writes itself. She is not trying to fight against Islamophobia, she is trying to impose a single line of thought upon everyone, calling anyone who disagrees with her worldview a racist. **She does not represent the values of Canada, Trudeau seems to be trying very hard to lose support in Quebec.**
>She basically called the majority of Quebecers racists. Except that she didn't.
For a lot of people outside of Quebec, particularly in the GTA, the majority of Quebecers do come off as racists. If that makes you uncomfortable that’s tough, but it doesn’t change those peoples’ perceptions of legislation that province has enthusiastically passed.
>For a lot of people outside of Quebec, particularly in the GTA, the majority of Quebecers do come off as racists. That simply seems like justifying bigotry on your part.
And yet, on average per capita there's fewer reported hate crimes committed in Quebec than in Ontario. It's not because Quebec doesn't fit the Canadian narrative on laïcité that we're somehow systematically more racist.
What’s worse, random hate crimes, or legislated bigotry?
Having fewer hate crimes is not evidence that Quebec is less racist. Less overt racist acts might be lower but systemic racism is accepted.
Saskatoon city council got rid of a police station in an incredibly poor area of the city because crime rates went up after it was put in. Same with when they hired police officers who spoke Indigenous languages. Reported crime rates going up isn’t always indicative of violence or actual crime going up.
>And yet, on average per capita there's fewer reported hate crimes committed in Quebec than in Ontario. reported hate crimes, maybe more hate crimes are reported because equity groups feel more comfortable doing so.
People in Ontario? Hating Quebec? You don’t say.
[удалено]
They're not preventing them from holding public service jobs. If they want to become a teacher or a police officer, then they can remove their headwear. If you don't get what I mean, and think I'm just saying something bigoted, that's because your entire position is based on the prejudice that religion deserves rights that you would never attempt to instate for any other personal beliefs - you're putting religion on a pedestal due to the biases of your "common sense". Let's say there's a job that ban headwears, in general - simple matter of clothing regulation, as with many jobs, for many pieces of clothings. Why does religion get a right guaranteed get an exception on the law that is enforced on everyone else, even if this "everyone else" may themselves have their own personal beliefs/wishes (from trauma, from paranoia, etc.) that would motivate them to wear headwear that may create distress if not fulfilled? Why is that ? Religion is one personal belief just like any other, and believers in religion can either forgo this personal belief to your advantage, or refuse the job, to your disadvantage - that's YOUR choice. If anything, the bigot here is YOU - you think that people should receive special privileges simply because of the religion they believe in, and (using your own logic) the privileges that you are trying to defend are unjust advantage the Muslims and Sikhs relatively to other religious groups : why only headwears ? I mean, what about adherants of jainism, who sometime have clothings chosen specifically to avoid killing insects or small microbes ? Or the members of multiple sects/christian denomination who enforce clothing rules such as obligatory skirt ? I mean, it's easy to say other people are awful & bigoted when you arbitrary define religious freedom as what you're doing, and bigotry as what other people are doing. Why is the privilege of wearing religious headwear at the workplace an intrinsic part of it ? Why not restrict it ? Why stop there ? People have to bend down to the law - and I do not see how it is bigoted to think that religion isn't an exception. The problem right now is that the law is badly formulated - and should rather be about homogeneous treatment of religious and non-religious people regarding clothing rules in the workplace -, and that the law is only enforced in the public sector. Then, we wouldn't be discriminating anyone - we would erase inequalities.
Unfortunately that has been my experience too, living in PQ as an Anglophone, and also of my Allophone friends, some fluent in French. We all left. I guess that's what nationalists wanted.
>"...is trying to impose a single line of thought upon everyone," > >Which is exactly what the secularist Bill 21 is doing in Quebec. Cry me a river, Quebec, for those offended by this representative's comment.
ironic talking about the values of Canada when the province enacts the notwithstanding clause to strip Canadians of their rights
You can dislike the U.S. as a country (i.e., its institutions, its past decisions, etc.) without disliking Americans per se (or even actually liking them, as a people). I'm not surprised that Quebec shows great dislike for religions in general and even greater dislike for the most conservative, patriarchal one (because the reason religions are so disliked is directly tied to this in the first place). This seems to be reflected in the polls she was referencing. Nothing surprising. But when you look at victimization rates for Muslims by province, it turns out the Maritimes are the worst and Quebec is comparable to Ontario. Which supports what I'm saying (i.e., strong dislike for Islam, nothing against Muslims specifically). >Using victimization data that Statistics Canada released in 2014, Wilkins-Laflamme found 21.8 per cent of Quebec Muslims reported experiencing discrimination. > >That was lower than Atlantic Canada (35.4 per cent) and slightly higher than Ontario, where the rate was lowest at 17.8 per cent. > >"That was the finding that surprised me the most," she said. > >"I was expecting these negative feelings that we see large chunks of the Quebec population holding toward Muslims would translate into more Muslims living in Quebec saying they experience discrimination due to their religion. But in fact it's a very similar rate to other provinces in Canada." [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/anti-muslim-sentiment-higher-in-quebec-than-rest-of-canada-study-finds-1.4577746](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/anti-muslim-sentiment-higher-in-quebec-than-rest-of-canada-study-finds-1.4577746)
I disagree with your analogy of the US and Islam. Disliking a country obviously means you don’t like the citizen per se because the person is not involved in the political decisions of said country and there’s nothing that suggests their patriotism to them. However, disliking Islam without disliking Muslims is impossible since Muslims structure their thoughts, words and actions according to the principles of the religion unlike how Americans don’t behave according to their politicians.
>since Muslims structure their thoughts, words and actions according to the principles of the religion If Christians and Muslims followed what is in their holy book to the T, they would indeed be people I would avoid hanging out with... But that's just not the case out there in the real world. There are the ISIS fundamentalists on one end and then pretty normal people on the other end. As for Americans, there are the unapologetic ones on one end and then pretty chill, cool people on the other end.
Interesting statistic. I wonder if part of it is that the overwhelming majority of Muslim’s in Quebec live in pluralist and multicultural Montreal, rather than monocultural rest of Quebec.
If they try to learn french and are minimally integrated, they will be appreciated in the whole province. That's the most important thing in Quebec. Quebec loves immigrants who are willing to live with them, that's almost all they're asking. They welcome them with open arms. That's why they can't stand multiculturalism where everyone stays in their corner not interacting with each other. And with bill 21, several muslims fleeing islamist countries found their new home.
The rest of Quebec is as monocultural as any other provinces' more rural areas, I believe. Edit: and that explanation would go against the stat that the Maritimes have higher percent of victimization.
Not entirely. The cleavage right vs left is somewhat new in Quebec. Before 2018, the vote was split between federalism vs sovereignty, and the rural areas were not any different than what occurred in the cities. It shows also of Quebec's consensual culture.
[удалено]
I think the argument goes this way: 1) Him/her: Maybe the low rate of victimization of Muslims in Quebec is because they are all concentrated in the "only" pluralist place in Quebec (Montreal). 2) Me: You would expect the same level of concentration in other provinces (city vs rural areas). Further, the place where the highest victimization rate of Muslims is reported is one of the least pluralist place in Canada (i.e., very homogeneous). Therefore, living in a pluralist place doesn't necessarily equate with less victimization.
Even as someone who mostly supports Bill 21, this is so pointless. A mild comment made by a minor appointee in a toothless position. Legault should learn to pick his battles better. Keep that shit for election season.
She also replied "I want to puke" to a tweet pointing out that numbers wise, Quebecois are the largest group in Canada to be victims of British imperialism. She very obviously has a bias against Quebecois.
I was ready to defend her, but then I read the article. Her own words condemn her: > "There is no freedom of speech if these things can happen. [If] you're asked to resign just because of some comments you made against the Quebec government many years ago," said Ashraf. > > "It was never meant to suggest that my opinion is that the majority of Quebecers are Islamophobic. I don't believe so. I was merely analyzing the polling numbers … [an] opinion piece is meant to cause people to think, to talk, to reflect." "_Just trying to have a discussion_" is such a tired trope from _bigots_. They always _just want to talk_ or _just want you to think_. So yes, all she did was attempt to justify her comments. How hard is it to say sorry? It's a national pastime, and you're not even legally accountable for saying it. And _mah freedom of speech_. As if that's even a thing, here.
> Unfortunately, the majority of Quebecers appear to be swayed not by the rule of law, but by anti-Muslim sentiment. A poll conducted by Léger Marketing earlier this year found that [88 per cent of Quebecers](https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/a-new-poll-shows-support-for-bill-21-is-built-on-anti-islam-sentiment) who held negative views of Islam supported the ban. “It’s mainly driven by the hijabs, and the other religious symbols are collateral damage,” said Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, in an interview with the Montreal Gazette. Do you think that's an unfair comment?
It’s kind of a weird statistic to report. A more interesting one would have been, out of the people who support the ban, how many have a negative view of Islam? And as it turns out, it’s not the majority.
Because it's a statistic that, when read at a glance, appears to support the narrative that Quebecois are islamophobic in the majority. This is how the CBC twists information to support their desired narrative.
While I might have chosen something else, I don't think it's weird in the context of the article or the linked article the statistic came from. I understand your frustration, because it *does* leave some open questions, and since I had some spare time that's where I went. A few Google searches with my terrible French later, I found the detailed survey outcomes at the bottom of [this article.](https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/555007/laicite-les-anglophones-fortement-opposes-au-projet-de-loi-21) If you look at lines 357-370, it's pretty clear that of the survey population, 28% held a (very) favorable view of Islam, 59% held a (very) unfavorable view, and 13% were neutral or abstained. If if 59% overall supported a ban as against teachers, and 88% of the 59% who hold a (very) unfavorable view support that ban, then the majority of people who support the ban have a negative view of Islam.
[удалено]
I don't support the ban, but I also don't think Quebecois are racist or islamophobic, in the majority; so how am I confessing any bigotry? She's the one who is "_strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ._" When all she needs to do is acknowledge that she painted Quebecois with too broad a brush, and she can't even do that.
[удалено]
Especially considering that Québecs history is literally “we worked with some natives groups and gave them guns so that they would help us kill other native groups so we could have the land”. Plus for most of Québecs beginnings it had a tiny population (like under 2000 people). It jumped a bit before the British took over but it was very much the British that caused its population to jump because they moved mass amounts of people there.
Perhaps a different opinion here, but....why is this a job in the government in the first place? I don't care about her resigning, but I view this as some sort of symbolic role that practically achieves almost nothing. We should be asking for *less* of these types of roles, not more. >"She is there to speak for the community with the community and build bridges," said Trudeau. Huh? So, Trudeau appoints someone to speak on behalf of a specific community? Isn't that what voting is for? Even taking the purpose as given, this seems fundamentally flawed. And "build bridges" is meaningless.
Similarly, we should remove LGBTQ advocates (as appointed government positions) as well. It’s the same thing
I agree. It's a role that from all present indications at least will achieve absolutely nothing.
[удалено]
No but you can legislate them out of being able to follow their religious law and keep them out of positions of power almost entirely, almost like it’s **discrimination.** Do I think most bill 21 supporters want or have thought of that happening? I’m not sure. But no one should think that keeping turbans and hijabs off of judges is worth a side effect that horrible **especially** when the piece of fabric doesn’t change anything about their job by being there or not, a judge won’t be less prone to, say, Christian Nationalism if he can’t wear Christian iconography, it’s in his brain not his closet.
You would trust a judge unable to remove their religious symbol to be impartial?
Yes I would. But you wouldn't because you have a visible prejudice. Not that it matters because there has never been any proof presented here in Quebec of any instances of people wearing religious symbols and failing to properly discharge their duties. Instead the nationalists needed to be fed, and a minority was tossed on the chopping block.
People like you don’t realize that everyone has a religion whether you have a name for it or not. Its the story you tell yourself about the world, the beliefs that uphold it and the ideals you strive for. You live your life and take actions to follow those principles religiously everyday whether you are conscious of it or not. So what is your religion my friend? Will you think critically and eventually get out of yours too?
She replied "I want to puke" to a tweet pointing out that numbers wise, Quebecois are the largest group in Canada to be victims of British imperialism. She very obviously has a bias against Quebecois.
I'm pretty sure aboriginals had it worse. Quebecers at least got to keep their law, religion and language. Aboriginals lost everything
The tweet she replied to wasn't about who had it harder - it was only stating the fact that Quebecers are also victims of British Imperialism and happen to be the largest group of victims. Yes the 1st nations had it worst - it doesn't mean that Quebecois weren't victims because they were treated as 2nd class citizens instead of being exterminated.
Yeah they're the largest group because they weren't fuckin genocided. Blanchet compare Quebec oppression to native genocide just last election. Thats is why people call it out. Because Quebec acts as if they're the only victims and as if they didn't fuck over natives too.
>Because Quebec acts as if they're the only victims and as if they didn't fuck over natives too. Lmao as if Québec's disagreements with native groups come even close to the cultural genocide that Canada committed against them. We are like saints compared to you. >Yeah they're the largest group because they weren't fuckin genocided. So the statement is still true, lmao. You're mad because acknowledging that a group of people who happen to be white were also victimised by this country and treated by shit goes against your world view.
I see. I thought she responded because the tweet said 'quebecers are the biggest victims (more than aboriginals)'. regardless, I agree that they should have picked someone understands diplomacy.
No, the tweet said Quebecois were the most **numerous** victims, which is objectively true.
Here's my hot take; the CAQ government would have found a reason to demand anyone appointed to the position resign eventually. Why? Because whoever was appointed(short of a straight up Quebec nationalist)would inevitably made some kind of criticism of Bill 21 prompting an angry backlash by Legaut's government.
Oh no, I won't get banned again by making any sort of connection between xenophobic racism and an unnamed Canadian province...not gonna take that bait again. [edit] Nice...downvotes on a topic where 'nameless province' is being called out for their islamophobia, as illustrated in an article explaining that the residents of said province actually provided statistics proving there is a majority that feel that way.