• dlpkl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’ve got an issue with people calling out racists and nationalists?

    • Cyborganism
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you explain what racism you are talking about?

      • dlpkl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        The most egregious example would be Bill 21. Absolutely horrendous legislation that does nothing but marginalize those who are already marginalized. Despite what the Quebecois would like you to believe, it’s a piece of proxy legislation that aims to exclude religious and ethnic minorities from Quebec society, plain as day.

        • Quokka@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just a quick look, that’s just the same as France’s law on religious iconography except only for government employees?

          Trying to limit the danger of religion sounds like a good thing to me.

          • dlpkl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Firstly, this isn’t France. We have a charter of rights and freedoms that Quebec used a BS notwithstanding clause to get around so that they could pass the bill. Secondly, there’s practical and effective ways to curb the danger of religion without taking a) taking away people’s livelihoods b) making them choose between their faith and their job and c) forcing them to move out of the province to find a workplace that doesn’t go against Canadian ideals.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who’s concerned then? A minority of government jobs, plenty of opportunities for people who want to display a religious sign and worst case there’s the private sector if they truly don’t agree.

              Is it any different from asking the people who have the exact same jobs from not displaying their political allegiance? Both religion and freedom of expression are protected by the Canadian Charter, don’t forget that.

              • dlpkl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So there’s an imaginary line in the sand that you’ve drawn regarding how many jobs are allowed to be denied to minorities? Ever heard of the slippery slope argument?

                I thank you for the kind reminder of the existence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if the Quebec legislators have ever read it. Have you? Maybe your rights are only protected when you’re off the clock eh?

                • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Again, what about political signs? No one complains about that… Weird right?

                  Quebec made the decision 60 years ago to get religion out of its institutions, only the Catholic Church was concerned at the time but today is a different reality and the Révolution Tranquille is a big part of what makes Quebec what it is today. I don’t know why someone that’s religious to the point that they wouldn’t accept to separate their private religious life from their job would want to represent a laïc government just like I don’t understand why an atheist would want to go work for the government in a theocracy.

                  • dlpkl@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So your argument is basically that since someone’s rights aren’t respected at a workplace, they shouldn’t work there. Is this a mask off moment or are you starting to realize what the CAQ had intended with Bill 21 all along?

        • Cyborganism
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But that has nothing to do with race. It’s a continuation of the process of separating church from state that started during the quiet revolution. The goal is to minimize religious influence within the system.

          As far as I know, the more progressive religious people have absolutely no problem with this law. Some people coming from countries with different religions expressed their support for this law because of how religious influence got so out of hands in their community.

          People are still free to believe whatever they want and exercise their faith. Just not while they are exercising a state funding or working in a public school.

          French schools in Quebec used to be managed by the Catholic Church who decided on the curriculum. Nuns and preachers were the ones teaching classes and directing schools all the way up to university level. They used to wear their religious garb while working.

          When the quiet revolution happened, it was forbidden for then to wear they religious garb. They were required to dress in regular civil clothing. And over time, religion was entirely taken out of the school system.

          And if you know anything about Québec’s history, you should know that the francophone populations was heavily manipulated by the Catholic Church prior to that and forced people to vote against their best interests and kept the population in a constant state of fear. Bishops were always present at possible l practically all political events and had huge control. After the quiet revolution, the québécois decided this would never happen again.

        • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh the double standards. The religious minorities should be protected at all costs, but the québécois don’t deserve that same protection. It’s always the ““inclusivity/minority activists”” that are the most against Québec when Québec itself fits inside this very definition. For the common good, please just fuck off.

          • dlpkl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s really funny how triggered you are. Believe it or not but French speakers aren’t a minority in Quebec. Wild, I know!

      • dlpkl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great, then you shouldn’t have an issue calling out the CAQ and the nationalists that support them 👍🏼

        • Cyborganism
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The CAQ doesn’t represent the québécois. They’re the most unpopular provincial party at the moment throughout all of Canada. People are realizing that electing them was a mistake.

          Don’t associate everything the CAQ does with what the Quebecois want.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          So it’s wrong to be proud of your culture and to expect people that make the choice to live in it to actually want to become part of it?

          • dlpkl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely not. When a person receives their Canadian citizenship they agree to uphold the values of the Canadian constitution and they are also afforded the rights that it lays out. Remind me, is the right to freedom of religion included in those documents?

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Is the right to force a person to wear specific clothing in there too or is it just ok if it’s a religious group or a person’s family that choose their clothings?

              • dlpkl@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are you asking me if the right to enforce a dress code is in the Canadian constitution? Is this a joke or have you lost the plot?

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              See, a judge and a teacher wouldn’t be allowed to wear a pin that says “white pride” because in their professional life they represent a State that has specific values and their image must reflect that. One such value of that State is the separation of religion and State.