Charter of Quebec Values

http://wpmedia.fullcomment.nationalp...igns.jpg?w=620


September 11, 2013

QUEBEC — Highlights of Parti Québécois government’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values:


* Amend the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to entrench the religious neutrality of the state and secular nature of public institutions.


* Add to Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms a framework of conditions defining acceptable religious accommodations.


* Establish a duty of neutrality and reserve for all state personnel. Public employees should abstain from promoting their religious beliefs in the workplace.


* Limit the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by public employees, judges, prosecutors, police and prison officers, daycare staff, school, CÉGEP and university personnel, health workers, municipal employees.


* Possible five-year exemption from this ban for CÉGEPs, universities, health care and municipal employees.


* Mandatory to have face uncovered when providing or receiving state services.


* Establish and implement a religious neutrality policy for state organizations.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...781/story.html

Charter of Quebec values website

http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/en#minister

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com...ois3.jpg?w=620

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois receives the tables Charter of Quebec values from Minister Responsible for Democratic Institutions and Active Citizenship Bernard Drainville Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at the legislature in Quebec City.

Quebec will also try to shield its new Charter of Quebec Values from legal challenges by entrenching the concept of religious neutrality in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The whole package will be included in a bill to be tabled this fall in the National Assembly, Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville said Tuesday, tabling the Parti Québécois government’s long-awaited proposal to create Quebec’s first-ever Charter of Values.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09...ace-uncovered/

Seems like they want 'the ethnic' to leave the province.

Well they were stupid about it. If they had just left it at taking religious symbols out of the public sector(schools, courts, hospitals etc) that is fine but they had to include the part about public servants wearing ostentatious religious garb.

They are idiots. They want a secular state but have no clue how to go about it and furthermore they STILL won't take the cross out of the national assembly. You can't have it both ways.


This is playing out extremely well outside the Greater Montreal area though. Their popularity has grown actually in the regions.

IMO, Quebec is the least tolerant province/state in north america. Do not mean to offend people who live there, it's the leaders of this place who hold these intolerant values the most.

You'd never pass language laws in Tennessee, and you'd never pass intolerant anti religious laws in Texas, and there is no chance you'd order children with religious head-ware to remove it for soccer in Montana.

People who are offended by others faith are as ignorant and intolerant as those who are offended by people are different race or culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vesper

IMO, Quebec is the least tolerant province/state in north america. Do not mean to offend people who live there, it's the leaders of this place who hold these intolerant values the most.

You'd never pass language laws in Tennessee, and you'd never pass intolerant anti religious laws in Texas, and there is no chance you'd order children with religious head-ware to remove it for soccer in Montana.

People who are offended by others faith are as ignorant and intolerant as those who are offended by people are different race or culture.

---

You have to understand the history of religion in Quebec. It's very complicated. I completely know why and understand what they are trying to do but it's the WRONG way.

There is no reason to ask public servants to remove their religious garb. They are still religious with or without their symbols. Its the institutional religion that has to go. This is where the problem is. The french are catholic but they are targeting the other religions who are foreign top them. Patriarchal religions who are trying to impose their values in Quebec schools and society. We don't want to go back to the 6th century as far as woman's rights go.

They fought for 400 years to rid their bond to the church and they finally broke free from it. It was literally slavery . Now they don't want any other religion particularly islam to come in and dictate what is and isn't appropriate. They view the hijab/niqab as signs of oppression of women. It's a step backwards as far as they are concerned. They believe they are aiding in "freeing" woman from religion although they are not saying don't practice it. They just want it to be in the privacy of their own home/mosques.

Why should a school or university(a public place) have to have a prayer room for one particular religion or get pork removed from the school cafeteria? Why should islamists ask for the right to go and pray 5 times a day when other employees have to work. It's this type of thing that they are trying to stop.


That being said, it probably won't pass and will trigger an election and then we can get rid of the PQ again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vesper

IMO, Quebec is the least tolerant province/state in north america. Do not mean to offend people who live there, it's the leaders of this place who hold these intolerant values the most.

You'd never pass language laws in Tennessee, and you'd never pass intolerant anti religious laws in Texas, and there is no chance you'd order children with religious head-ware to remove it for soccer in Montana.

People who are offended by others faith are as ignorant and intolerant as those who are offended by people are different race or culture.

---

Texas and Tennesee tolerant. You must be joking.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...public-office/

Atheists banned from holding public office in Texas and Tennesee among other states.

Read up on your state laws. If this isn't intolerance then what is?

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2 (PDF):

No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

…
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Personally, I just can't believe that this is being given any credence at all. It's the height of intolerance! I do agree with Patty that catering to food demands, prayer rooms are taking religious requests too far, but not wearing religious symbols? Ridiculous. JMHO, of course...

While I do not agree with forcing people to remove their symbols of religion (hijab, kippah etc) I can understand where Quebec is coming from. I don't understand why they allow one religion (muslim) to have so many privileges (removal of pork, private prayer rooms, employees leaving to pray). I understand that those things might be considered a religious right and freedom, but I often wonder how far we need to go to accommodate them.
I think religion just needs to be removed from everywhere, I respect people's right to follow their religion, but at what point does that impede the rights of other people? It's hard for me to put into words how I feel about this, because I don't want to be seen as racist or discriminatory but I often wonder why they allow one group of people to change things so drastically.

Radio One had a few people call in today to speak about their opinions regarding this law. Everyone opposed the actual law, but some said that the idea of multiculturalism has failed in Canada. It was an interesting discussion.

I wonder if it's not really multiculturalism that's failing, but rather the demands of those varied cultures demanding that Canada make provisions for them that affect everyone in general. What I mean is....multiculturalism as far as individuals coming together to celebrate their culture, perhaps living in neighbourhoods that reflect their culture is one thing, but when those same people demand that a country change its policies to make it more comfortable for them to practice their beliefs, then that affects us personally. Just because some people feel uncomfortable with others wearing religious garb, they feel that needs to be "outlawed", so therefore even what was acceptable before (wearing the crucifix) must become outlawed by extension. That's where the problem lies wrt multiculturalism. Believe what you want to believe, but don't come into this country and demand that we be more like the country you fled!!! jmho....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xox2010

While I do not agree with forcing people to remove their symbols of religion (hijab, kippah etc) I can understand where Quebec is coming from. I don't understand why they allow one religion (muslim) to have so many privileges (removal of pork, private prayer rooms, employees leaving to pray). I understand that those things might be considered a religious right and freedom, but I often wonder how far we need to go to accommodate them.
I think religion just needs to be removed from everywhere, I respect people's right to follow their religion, but at what point does that impede the rights of other people? It's hard for me to put into words how I feel about this, because I don't want to be seen as racist or discriminatory but I often wonder why they allow one group of people to change things so drastically.

---

The muslim immigrants in Quebec are very different than the ones in the rest of Canada.

The provinces are in charge of their own immigration and can choose to let in whomever they want or NOT want. This being Quebec people from french speaking countries get priority. Actually they hardly let anyone in from English countries. Problem is no one who has a higher education and "desirable" work skills is coming here. So they are letting people in from North African 3rd world muslim countries. These people may as well have landed on Mars. Our culture and beliefs are so far removed from theirs it's not even funny. 30% are unemployable, period. So what does that mean? Means they are on welfare. They have very large families, 5 + children. They make demands on the school systems, public offices , health care systems etc. to accommodate their religious beliefs. Yes they want pork removed from school cafeterias, and it has been done in some cases. When a minority group imposes their beliefs and changes policies and laws something has to be done. It's not about race , it never was, it's about religion and it's power over people. They don't want to revert back to the 7th century. :(

Yes they are asking for unreasonable things to be done. I am not afraid to say it because being an atheist this charter means something different to me than to the french catholics who wrote it. As I said before the charter is trying to protect the province from sliding back into a time when the church ruled. They see the muslims as a threat to women, the hijab a symbol of oppression. There have been groups actually pushing for Sharia law to be incorporated into Quebec law. If this wasn't so laughable it would be scary.

So in a nutshell it's not really the jews, or Sikhs or other religions that prompted this it is their own stupid immigration policies that have backfired on them.

This story is just beginning. It will probably prompt an election in the province. Just what our crappy economy needs. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xox2010

Radio One had a few people call in today to speak about their opinions regarding this law. Everyone opposed the actual law, but some said that the idea of multiculturalism has failed in Canada. It was an interesting discussion.

---

With Rex, yes? It was interesting to hear some folks tiptoe around the isuue because they didn't want to appear racist/intolerant. I listened to that while making supper last night. Love Rex.

Touche, Patty. What I don't understand, however, is this: implementing the charter would also mean that those who have always professed to be Catholic and who have always worn a crucifix or other Catholic religious symbols, are mandating that their very own Catholics can no longer do that. Is that the sacrifice they're willing to make? Or...that they're willingly imposing on their own people? Tip of the ice-berg, I think, to be sure...and if Sharia law is ever given even the remotest consideration...hell has frozen over....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lynn49

Touche, Patty. What I don't understand, however, is this: implementing the charter would also mean that those who have always professed to be Catholic and who have always worn a crucifix or other Catholic religious symbols, are mandating that their very own Catholics can no longer do that. Is that the sacrifice they're willing to make? Or...that they're willingly imposing on their own people? Tip of the ice-berg, I think, to be sure...and if Sharia law is ever given even the remotest consideration...hell has frozen over....

---

Well, yes the cross must go also, but they are claiming that many of the crosses on buildings etc are considered part of the heritage so they will be exempt. This is why I say they can't have it both ways . Either you get rid of all symbols and make it equal or you forget about it.

The french catholic church here in desperation, has done some funky things that I think if the vatican found out they would be pretty astonished. Not only are 30+% of people no longer getting married but the children of those couples are actually allowed to be christened in the church. lol I am telling you they make up the rules to suit themselves.

Also a few years ago Premiere Charest actually had to have a news conference saying that Sharia law will never become a part of Quebec society. Imagine he had to actually address it because there was pressure from some radicals.