The more things change....
Hey all
So I wanted to see what the minions out there thought about the recent new policies in Quebec regarding religious garb in dealings with government agencies.
A quick briefing on the topic, but basically any persons providing or accessing services from the government are now required to have their faces in "plain view". Also, I believe I heard on CBC radio that essentially any and all religious symbols will be disallowed for any persons working for the government - crucifixes, star of david, traditional face coverings, etc.
As mentioned in the article, there was also a hockey team consisting of predominantly jewish youth who were denied a request to reschedule a tournament that too place on their sabbath.
Finally, there's Ann Coulter, who's making the University circuit right now, and has been espousing that people of the muslim faith should not be allowed to access air travel. When asked by a muslim student how she expecter her to travel, Mrs. Coulter responded by saying if she "didn't have a magic carpet, try a camel".
Thoughts?
Mark
So I wanted to see what the minions out there thought about the recent new policies in Quebec regarding religious garb in dealings with government agencies.
A quick briefing on the topic, but basically any persons providing or accessing services from the government are now required to have their faces in "plain view". Also, I believe I heard on CBC radio that essentially any and all religious symbols will be disallowed for any persons working for the government - crucifixes, star of david, traditional face coverings, etc.
As mentioned in the article, there was also a hockey team consisting of predominantly jewish youth who were denied a request to reschedule a tournament that too place on their sabbath.
Finally, there's Ann Coulter, who's making the University circuit right now, and has been espousing that people of the muslim faith should not be allowed to access air travel. When asked by a muslim student how she expecter her to travel, Mrs. Coulter responded by saying if she "didn't have a magic carpet, try a camel".
Thoughts?
Mark
Comments
I am all for separation of church and state in regards to any religion although I wonder if this is a bit of an excessive stretch that will end up costing us much more headaches than the problems it solves.
Hockey tourneys are generally scheduled well in advance, so why is the Sabbath issue being brought up now? It's a little late, no? Maybe that is the answer? Who knows . . .
Ann Coulter is low hanging fruit, Mark. She uses hyperbole, and absurdism to demonstrate the silliness of the positions she takes issue against. The various people getting their knickers in a twist over her speechifying are playing right into her hands (or should I say wallet). If nobody said a peep, she would have made her speeches, cashed her cheques, and continued to drift quietly out of our conciousness. Now she has a ton of press, and will no doubt be doubling her speaking fees as a result.
Back to the Quebec issue for a moment. Much as I loathe the Separatists in Quebec, their Provincial government is far ahead of the rest of the country in certain ways. Legislation like this is merely one aspect of that. While other provinces are too timid to even discuss the subject, Quebec moves boldy forward . . .
Oh, and Mole? Separation of Church and State is more about protecting Religions from the Government, rather than vice versa . . .
YouTube - Letter to Ann Coulter
But, to the topic. I think it's pretty ridiculous if they make it so you can't wear any religious symbols. Everyone has gone way too PC and worries far too much about offending people. The world needs to understand that not everyone believes in the same things.
Henry Rollins ROCKS . . .
I do not see this as a PC move . . . quite the opposite, in fact. I see it as trying to avoid a lot of the PC crap that goes on. No religious symbols means no more BS about "Holiday Trees", or "Seasonal Lights", or the "War on Christmas". Stuff that takes up time and tax money when idiots start to chirp about it.
So including all religious symbols will cause less chirping? Forgive my scepticism.
Example: I place a giant manger on my lawn at Christmas time. You, a devout Pastafarian object. The government says, "Not our problem, sort it out yourselves."
This is true. I've seen him a few times on his spoken word tours. Unfortunately missing him tomorrow night due to a lack of funds.
No religious symbols though isn't going to change anything when it comes to specific holidays. Whether they allow it or not, there's still going to be a huge fuss around Christmas time. Plus, this is apparently only in Quebec so far, and well, no one pays attention to the french.
And in this instance?
How did you know I worship the god of tortellini?
LOL
Heretic . . . He is referred to as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace and Marinara sauce be upon Him) with good reason.
Just wait. If this plays big, and the Libs come out too strong agin it, Harper and his backroom boys may latch on tighter than a Reality TV star to a cameraman.
That Ann Coulter is funny shit!
That is good spin.
Liberals coming out strong. Again LOL. This country is a mirror of the states in the respect of it being fractured among party lines. The difference is the number of factions.....ergo no majority again for a looooong time.
How is it spin? If the gov't follows through (ie no Christmas trees, Menorahs, etc.) with this in their demesnes, then no one faith has precedence. No spinning necessary.
As for no majority gov't, I am good with that. Less opportunity for them to screw with us commoners . . . I do no tnecessarily agree that we are mirroring the States, though. If anything, I think they may become more like us (at least in terms of a 3rd party being born down there).
Because as I said before I see this as throwing a blanket over all religions as a way of them not having to rule against minority religions (in Canada that is) and risking the appearance of racism.
Protecting Government from religion imo. Also semantics imo.
The whole genesis (sorry) of Human Rights Commisions and the like was primarily sponsored by Jewish groups trying to fight anti-Semitism. Now those very same groups are finding themselves the targets of HRC complaints. Poetic justice, imo.
I look at this legislation as Government trying to divorce itself from activities it has no business being involved in. I have no problem with South Asians wanting to celebrate Dhiwali. I just do not want my government wasting my $$$ stringing lights everywhere. And the same thing goes for Christmas trees, too. You want to celebrate your Faith? Great, but do it on your own dime.
As for the portion dealing with facial coverings, I think that should go national, too.
Meanwhile, it was her own people who canceled the Ottawa speech because they felt it was too dangerous. Not to mention that it was Coulter herself who leaked a memo that brought all the protesters down to the campus. All for publicity.
IE..she's a clown. For entertainment purposes only.
To answer your questions . . .
Yes, if not an earth shattering one.
Massive voter turnout? No, but there have been several cases across the country that have made the news.
The legal issues were addressed in an earlier post.
Are portions of the legislation xenophobic? A case can be made, but the better response is to state that it is about encouraging all citizens to assimilate into their new surroundings and culture, rather than remain cloistered in the one that they left behind.
I see it as tearing down another part of what makes me fiercely proud to be Canadian and pushing us closer to the American melting pot that I abhor.
I am comfortable enough in my skin to allow others their comfort.
Reading more about this Bill 94 last night (I had plenty of time, unfortunately), I am less sanguine about it's wording. It speaks about "general practices", which usually means that some sort of leeway/discretion is going to be put into the actual application of this law. That probably means Christmas trees "good", Dhiwali lights "bad". I am more dubious about this thing as time moves on.
To be clear, I am in favour of making the following mandatory through out the country:
For purposes of identification (Passports, Driver's license, police/border/court scrutiny) a person's face needs to be uncovered in order to prove they are who they claim to be.
Government institutions/buildings are not the place to sanction displays of a religious nature. In other words, no Christmas trees, Dhiwali lights, etc.
I will stipulate to banning the open wearing of crosses, or other religious iconography IF it is combined with a ban on the burkha/hijab. I think it a small sacrifice to make to get rid of those abominations to personal freedom.
I do not support the banning of religious themed greetings (Happy Hannukah, Joyous Eid, etc.). If that is not your particular religious belief, too bad, take the good wishes in the manner they were offered, and move on.
Controversial U.S. political commentator Ann Coulter said she's determined to "save the good Canadians" in Calgary and regions west from "crazy liberals," a day after she was met by protests in Ottawa.
Coulter spoke at the University of Calgary on Thursday night, the last stop of a three-city Canadian tour. She is famous for inflammatory comments against Muslims, liberals and gay people.
Her speech at the University of Ottawa was cancelled after safety concerns amid protests on Tuesday night.
"It's quite a country you have here," Coulter told Evan Solomon, host of Power & Politics, on CBC News Network on Thursday. "I'm more determined than ever to turn pretty much from Calgary through the west into the 51st state now. We got to save the good Canadians."
"Save us from what, Ann?" Solomon asked.
"From the crazy liberals. From the crybabies," Coulter answered, sporting sunglasses. "How did Canada go from being the country that sends us all our best comedians to a bunch of whining, crying babies that can't take a joke?"
Coulter said she intends to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over an email sent to her by University of Ottawa provost François Houle, reminding her about Canada's hate laws.
In an online column, Coulter claims Houle is guilty of hate speech because his missive sparked the demonstration that led to her speech being cancelled.
"I have discovered that Canada's approach to free speech, and that is speech they like," Coulter said Thursday. "It's not free speech if they are going to say, 'Yes, you can have free speech as long as you don't say X, Y, Z.'"
When asked what her message to Canadians was, Coulter answered: "It's a lovely little country. I do recommend that you get free speech. It's a lot of fun."
About 200 people lined up outside the Red and White Club on the U of C campus on Thursday evening where Coulter's speech had been moved for security reasons. About two dozen protesters stood quietly with hand-drawn signs.
Many people said they were fans of Coulter, while others said they were there to ask tough questions and hear what she had to say.
Organizers said the event — free for students, $10 for non-students — was sold out.
The 'good' Canadians my ass. She can die in a fire.
The whole point of her "tour" was not to promote free speech, or even conservatism. It was to promote Ann Coulter, and mission accomplished on that front.
Disagree. Stewart is a comedian. The Daily Show is about satire, and he does hit the left wing pretty hard sometimes.
I'd say Coutler's opposite is someone like Michael Moore, when he's not making movies.
In actuality, she is nothing more than a wildly egotistical propaganda machine with verbal diarhea and her dial stuck on hate mode.
To be honest, I hadn't heard much about her in the last couple years and was quite content with that. I didn't realize what a relief it was to not have my ears and eyes polluted with here idiocy until she resurfaced. Damn, I took it for granted. I want those happy happy days back when she was a nobody. Okay, I should be more specific, a nobody that nobody had heard of.
I would dearly love for a some sort of Borat type interview scenario where, in the middle of it, the interviewer asks her about her Adam's apple . . . and then just let things wander.
This law goes beyond that.
Hello I'm here for my Daughter's graduation/parent teacher interview/surgery....can you show me where to go?
I'm here to get a library card....
I'd like to sign up to pay my taxes online....
I'd like to buy a bus pass....
Can I get my child signed up for school....
Sorry you'll have to remove your veil...
And? There are privacy issues attendant on all of these examples, although not so much (maybe) with the library card. Therefore a positive ID would be required.
NEXT . . .