edit: RC just announced that Fatima Houda-Pepin has proof Coullaird was willing to compromise on the charter and take exactly the same position as QS, banning religious icons for police officiers and judges, but decided not to do it because his communication staff told him it would look like he was flip-flopping:
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/sujet/el...a-plq-charte-policiers-gardiens-prisons.shtml
Can you prove their existence or are you just going to make up scenarios that will never happen?
I'm not going to say anything about hypotheticals because I believe laws should be made for practical and real reasons.
Except you are defending the grant of privileges to those who hold beliefs about supernatural forces which cannot be proven to exist, so how is that making laws for practical and real reasons when those laws defend something which is not in any way shape or form even slightly close to be proven to exist? Why is it that those who hold beliefs which are not religious don't get such privilege? Supernatural beliefs = real reasons? Sounds more like hypocrisy.
A religion is one which is recognized by Canada as per religious tax exemptions, ability to solemnize marriages, recognized religious holidays, recognized religious symbols etc.
Wrong, anyone can claim to belong to a religion that gets or does or has none of that. I can claim to be catholic but at the same time say I do not agree with the catholic institutions that get such tax exemptions or that perform those services. I can claim to be catholic and be excommunicated, does that mean I lose my religious privileges? You're inventing arbitrary and discriminatory parameters.
We already have a system for this. I'm okay/indifferent with paganism and Satanism, not sure what makes you think that I think that they're not real. If there's something about those religions that requires them to wear religious clothing, then I'm cool with that as long as it doesn't hinder job performance.
So wearing a turban instead of a hard-hat is wrong because it puts the worker and his colleges at physical and mental risk (having a colleague die in an accident is not easy for construction workers to deal with), or is it still ok? Strange that you start to add conditions now that pagans and satanists are thrown in the mix.
You say that your law is not discriminatory because it is equal, but you know you are being facetious. Were the Jim Crow laws where you had to pass a literacy test to vote non-discriminatory?
Of course it is discriminatory considering that many cannot even
make the CHOICE to learn to read because they live in poverty or for other reasons of social injustice. Everyone has the choice to remove their religious icons when at work.
A religious doctrine is no more or less "worthy" than a non-religious doctrine. What I am concerned about is people being denied employment based on their religious beliefs. Non-religious doctrine are not serious about their beliefs, thus denying them to wear their Habs hats is not necessarily denying them employment. They can drop their ransoms, but no one can drop their religion as easily.
This is a false argument, since many Muslim women don't wear a hijab, many Jews don't wear a kippah, etc. So obviously it is a choice which is made, those people are not to be considered any lesser for not adhering to religious beliefs in a different way than those who claim to have to follow more specific constraints. It is the same rules than for everyone else in society, so for some to claim it is more difficult for them to follow the same rules as everyone else because of their
particular beliefs, not merely beliefs but a particular set of beliefs relating to the same religion as others, does not mean they should get privileges.
It is nothing more than a choice they make. It could only be more difficult to make that choice as a result of fear of repercussions, either by peers or by supernatural beings, since obviously those who make the choice not to ascribe to those
particular sets of beliefs are not suffering any consequence, and if anyone suffered consequences from refusing to adhere to such tenants it can only be from peers, not supernatural beings who aren't known to exist, and those people can be brought to court, which is much more beneficial to all than submission.
Young girls do not wear hijab. Living in Kuwait for 10 years, my school did not allow girls under 12 to wear hijab unless they were praying.
Why use personal anecdotes as proofs when you can look at the facts?
And I didn't have to go on the net to know this, I've seen them myself. Maybe you don't agree it's ok, but it doesn't matter.
In nearly all Muslim cultures, young girls are not required to wear a ħijāb. There is not a single agreed age when a woman should begin wearing a ħijāb—but in many Muslim cultures, puberty is the dividing line.
Sounds young to me.
Maybe there are a few exceptions in some other Islamic cultures, but the vast majority do not have kids wearing hijabs.With that in mind, no one is saying showing your hair makes you naked. I believe it is on the onus of society to -help- people integrate into society. Not force them, like the French/European/PQ model. It is a failed theory.
It doesn't have to "make you naked"; enforcing gender roles makes it more difficult, especially for women in our current society, for them to not only participate in society to their full extent and desire but also makes it more likely that men will discriminate against them. Being told to cover your hair/body or even face is certainly going to make it even more difficult. There's no reason to grant privileges, first, and certainly not on the basis that someone holds beliefs that make their integration in society more difficult, only to then claim that this is why they need privileges in the first place. It would be the equivalent of admitting that those who hold such beliefs have been psychologically affected by their beliefs, or as if they were drug addicts. There is no need to insult people based on their beliefs nor try to change their minds, we can simply say; same rules for all.
What is the approval rating of Amir Khadir again? Exactly. Most Quebeckers do not like him and are not ready to listen to his ramblings. The QS will drop him if he gets in the way. If David is such a feminist why isn't she allowing Muslim women to become police or judges? If she were a staunch feminist, she would support the Norwegian model of having the police force be 50% men/50% women, to help the police force create a more community-focused image as opposed to authoritative. But in her Quebec, Muslim women are not part of this community. I have yet to see her address her own contradictions. The president of the party is a complete unknown, which is why you didn't even name him.
Hilarious. #1, Khadir is obviously popular enough where he is presenting himself because he keeps winning. #2, how is Francoise David not allowing Muslim women to become police officers or judges? Not all Muslim women wear religious icons or clothing, so it is already obviously false, and she is for anyone being allowed to be a Police officer or Judge, they just have to follow the same rules as everyone and not be granted some religious-based privileged. #3, questioning David's feminism is just ridiculous, I don't even know what to say. The party has many feminists candidates, such as Manon Massé who is likely to win,
she wears a mustache (a real one!), she even had it on her campaign photo in the last election!
And the president of the party is an unknown to you, not to those who vote QS or actually know what they are talking about. To say the president of QS, who is Chilean, and their second-most popular member who is an Iranian, and the party, are secretly racist reeks of ignorance.
Right now the QS can argue from its idealist perspective because it has no chance of forming government. Call us back when they actually have a shot. That's when their true colours will show. Just look at their economic plan, they are going to find this magic pot of gold and they are going to use this to pay for flying cars and maglev trains in the boonies. This won't be their policy if they were actually going to form government.
Yeah ok and I bet Obama is a secret communist muslim, just wait a little, he hasn't shown his true colors yet!
