Hi Globo,

I don't know about it reflecting "our" limits.  I do think if accurately reflects the limits that the current leadership of the Partis Quebecois want all of Quebecers to embrace.

It is small comfort that other Quebec Sovereigntists and Nationalists have rejected this particular initiative in public.

It would appear that this alleged charter is nothing more than a crass political tool designed to accomplish the task that Sovereigntists and Nationalists have been labouring after for quite some time.

How such a poorly crafted too is expected to accomplish that purpose is something of a mystery.  Unless Marois and the Parti Quebecois hope that the charter will chase out of the Province those within the Province who are also happily Canadian.

Outside of Quebec there are more than a few Canadians who disparage multiculturalism few who do recognize that their particular ways of being may no longer be normative.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think that really it has more to do with the PQ coming up with a policy that they hope will be overturned by (or at least challenged in front of) the Supreme Court of Canada, which they then hope they'll be able to work into a nationalist frenzy and will revive their hopes for sovereignty - a movement that doesn't seem to have much traction right now from what I've been able to discern.

The PQ has not been very successful at picking fights with Ottawa since coming to power.

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Thanks for this.

I thought it was a crass political tool I just was uncertain about how it would be used.  You provide a very plausible explanation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

oops!

When you say "our" limits, I am assuming you are referring to all Canadians.

It would seem to me that there is a special case to be made for those of us in Quebec who, in living memory, were part of a society in which both the church and state were repressive. Apparently, women covering their heads in public, for example, is a reminder of that repression and seen as a step backwards. (I am referencing an excerpt on CBC's "As it Happens", aired in September 11, 2013.)

What if Muslim women working in the Quebec civil service were to wear bright blue and white scarves, colours strongly associated with the province? Would this not be a feminine and elegant compromise? It would certainly take some of the wind out of Premier Marois' sails!

I was wondering when this would get brought up!  I don't understand Quebec's culture at times.

I did think the 'neutral' comment by someone recently (sorry, I don't even know who, hopefully someone here knows what I'm talking about!) was ridiculous.

How do you make everyone appear 'neutral'? No masculinity or femininity better only hire androgenous people.  No black or white skin tones, only those somewhere in between.  Bett to just cover everyone up head to toe in one colour!

We are all unique individuals, I don't think anyone is completely neutral.

According to Pauline Marois (premier) and Bernard Drainville (Minister responsible for Democratic Institutions and Active Citizenship), this bill is about religious neutrality, not about sexual or racial neutrality.  Religious neutrality means no ostentatious show of one’s religion so that adults are not offended and children are not proselytized.  

According to Marois and her minister, there is a problem and people want clarity.  Maybe she has stirred the issue enough to create the problem or maybe she has picked up on what people have been feeling but not openly been talking about.  A Léger poll suggests that about 2/3 of Francophones are in favour of the charter while about 1/4 of Anglophones support it and Allophones are somewhere between.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/04/quebec-values-charter-pq-poll_n_3862546.html

Nearly everyone in a leadership role says there is no problem and the bill is not only not needed but is hurtful.  Montreal mayoralty candidates are all against it.  So is Montreal Board of Trade and current city councils.  Also newspaper editors.  MPs are against it, even a Bloc Québecois MP who, for her stand, has been expelled from the Bloc caucus.

I did hear the quote out of context, just a quick sound clip I caught the end of.  Even with just the religious part of it, it sounds ridiculous.  Someone wearing a turban, hijab, etc. is not the same as proseltyzing.  Glad to hear many leaders in Quebec are against it!

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebec+doctors+already+being+recruit...

Seems that the uninintended result of all this might mean more Health Care practitioners  in other provinces. Quebec's loss = our gain.

I also read some comments from Montrealers mainly. It seems support for the "values" Charter is concentrated in rural Quebec, and Marois is exploiting that fact. 

Montrealers are seemingly much more accepting. 

I really think she hopes this will show the rest of Canada that Quebec is culturally too different from the rest of Canada to be a part of it. 

Interesting that they didn't specify priests and ministers wearing their religious clothing or collars

Or the flag

When you look up the flag it is described as a white cross, blue representing heaven and the Virgin Mary, and the fleur representing monachary.

Not too "equal"
.

I agree with others that they are trying to drive a wedge issue. As a minority government it won't pass. Could they try to make it a non confidence vote? Last night the news pundits said Marois would rather the government fall over this wedge issue, pitting rural against urban voters , than fall in the spring over the budget
.

They look, sad, petty and foolish over this proposal. What astounds me is interviews with people who support it.
.

I heard a woman say she is offended when assisted by someone wearing a turban or head covering. She thought she has a right not to be offended.

In our society, not being offended is not a right. Ridiculous to think a persons pettiness should infringe on another's right to dress as they desire or as their religion dictates

My doctor wears a hijab.  She is kind, caring, friendly, and COMPETENT!   THAT'S WHAT MATTERS.

As I understand it, the policy will apply only to public servants. 

The really interesting part: Is the number of people - mostly on internet, and not in mainstream media - that suggest that this kind of thing might fly in many other parts of the country as well.  Not having read the actual bill, and only knowing what has been shared media-wise, it feels a bit like the actions of France and - is it the Dutch? who are invoking similar kinds of restrictions on certain types of garb?  There are political groups in European countries gaining traction by calling for such things, though most are labelled 'fringe' at the moment.

it leaves one wondering if this is the tip of an ice-berg of pushback against the idea of multi-culturalism.  People in society are scared, though many are not precisely sure or can name, of what it is that frightens them.  Tapping into that fear, will bring support to many causes - its been done before. 

If they are competent and providing the service that I, as a taxpayer, am paying them to provide, then I really don't care what public servants are wearing (okay, I'd probably look askance if they came to work in a bikini or lingerie but I don't really see that happening). Turbaned Sikhs and Muslims in hijab or whatever else have done a lot of good things in this country and provide some vital services (e.g. seeler's doc) so it's clear that the turbans and hijab and crosses and so on are irrelevant regardless of what the PQ and a segment of their supporters think.

Now, if they were letting their beliefs influence the service they were providing (e.g. a Muslim refusing to provide service to a Jew or something), then I would have a problem. But that has nothing to do with clothing or wearing religious symbols. Let's remember the case where a Christian civil marriage commissioner didn't want to provide services to same sex couples. I doubt he was wearing any screamingly obvious symbols. It's the attitude that matters, not the symbols/clothing.

By the way, I have received much of my hospital care over the years in a Catholic hospital. My family's doctor in Kitchener had admitting privileges at St. Mary's Hospital because it was just down the street from his office. I was born in that hospital, had my tonsils out there, and spent part of a summer there after a bout of appendicitis. There were crucifixes in many public areas, I had visits from nuns in full habit wearling rosaries, and so on. They did have chaplains from multiple denominations on site and there was no prosyletizing going on, but the symbolism was very much present. Did this bother me (still a Protestant Christian at that time)? No. As long as the doctors and nurses (thank God for nurses) did their jobs, I was happy. Didn't even notice a lot of the time.

Mendalla

Personally, I quite like to see religious symbols around, and being worn. It indicates some measure of spiritual sensitiviity. I have no problems with full burkas, if that's the choice. I almost envy Skhs their turbans… they dignify their wearers. And I find something quite romantic about a keffiyeh. I'd wear one in summer if I had one, at the risk of being culturally appropriative.

In settings where my life is being moderated by someone like a civil servant or lawyer, I find myself most un-nerved by the distance that "smart" clothing communicates: to me it suggests self-entitlement, vanity, materialism and egoism, and hints at cultural deprivation.. 

The decisive thing, as Mendalla says, is what people in power harbor within. Symbols and dress have very little to do with it unless to to express a little self awareness, which is "good" in my book. 

Besides… do we REALLY want to deal with people who have no human sensitivities, failings and values? Do we really want to interact with implacable, unfeeling, unthinking cyborgs irather than risk affront to our personal little predilections? 

My former (wonderful) family doctor wore a hijab. She used to joke that I had top-notch care since she'd been to med school twice. Once in Egypt and again here. I wish I could still see her, but I moved.

Anyway, at her clinic, she worked alongside Jewish doctors in the practice.

It is my belief that it has nothing to do with sovereinty. Marois is only concerned with her own needs and is in the process of destroy any hope that the sovereinty movement has. 

What are her needs abd how does this "charter" help he achieve them?

Simply put it she is interested in being the PM in Quebec. So that she can confirm to herself what an important person person she is. Howevr she is stuck now leading a minority gvt and only a few seats ahead of the Liberals, and another election is bound to happen within a few months.  So she has set her sites on seats held by CAQ that use to be ADQ seats. The ADQ were right wing soft  nationalists who were more concerned by First Nations and Immigrants attacking them, than anglophones.  The ADQ were absorbed by CAQ. Howevr CAQ is more Mtl focused and so is at risk of loosing the rural areas where the ADQ had their support.

It is working, she is picking up support among former ADQ supporters. Howevr at the same time she is destroying any chance of the Independence movement of achieving it's goals for the next 50 years. Becasue the battle for indepence requires the support of 10% or more of immigrants populations. Marois knows this and does not care. Other pro indendepance people know this, and it explains why a MP  of the BQ was kicked out, why Josee Legault and most jouranalists opposes the charter, and why Solidarite Quebec and academics oppose  it.  The know it will be the final nail in the coffin of the independence movement.

 Montrealers know that independant or not, immigration is needed. The only viable path to indepence is fear of the anglo (Quebec being an island in the sea of North America) than fear of the immigrant.

Agreed. But if you were a hospital chaplain called to officiate at a death or birth in a hospital , would you wear some sort of Christian garb? Likely you would. But then you would not be allowed as a hospital in a public space

Or are they just deeming non Christian garb forbidden

.
It s realy a crapy law, no matter how you look at it. I was served by a Bosnian teller today in my bank in Toronto. Wearing a head covering. She told me hw proud she was to live in Canada " the best country in the world". She said this as my married surname is Croatian. Sadly, she would not be welcome in Quebec

I agree with Alex that Marois is more concerned with herself, her image and being the head of government in her own country.  It strikes me that her focus is the promotion of that which is French and Québecois while suppressing that which is not French and Québecois, and generally ignoring issues of the day such as health, the economy, R&D and even the students who helped get her elected. 

But perhaps if I were a true Québecoise, I would see her as someone preserving my right to feel comfortable and secure in my own identity and that might trump other issues for a while.

My workplace is rich in diversity of race, colour and creed.  Everyone is friendly, helpful and kind.  In my work group of five people, everyone gets along fine.  But since the charter has been introduced, it has become patently clear that a couple of people feel “aggressed” by face coverings, angry when not served in French, resent being crowded out of their own space and ways by newcomers who do not look, talk or act like them.  I think a lot of people suppress their prejudices when it is not acceptable to give them voice but start showing their true thoughts when there is no social pressure to “be nice”. 

The foregoing comment is not restricted to Quebeckers.  I was flabbergasted when I learned as an adult of strong prejudices held by my father (anti-French), a best friend (anti-turban for RCMP officers) and my home community in Ontario (anti inter-racial marriages).

According to an article I read today (which I can't find again, dang it), the whole mess is even splitting the sovereigntists. Apparently Parizeau's wife, also a sovereigntist politician, has come out both in support of the Bloc MP who was kicked out of caucus for criticizing the charter and as a critic of at least the religious symbols part of the charter and indicated that Parizeau himself is of a similar mind. Another big name sovereigntist has supported the charter but decried the tactics of the PQ and BQ, esp. the eviction of the MP.

Also, love him or hate him, Conrad Black is a heckuva good writer and has a good commentary on the issue in the Post today. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/14/conrad-black-spurning-que...

Mendalla

This has been on the local news since yesterday afternoon.  

Also, it has been pointed out that the PQ Justice Department is very silent on the issue and that this is because the minister and his staff recognize that there is no solid legal position for the charter - unless they invoke the notwithstanding clause as has been done in the past in order to pass language legislation.

I skimmed Conrad Black's article.   Will go back and read it properly when I have a bit more time.  Yeah for his comments! 

marois is saying that the notwithstanding clause is not needed. She must have the same lawyer Harper consulted who said the nothwithstanding clause was not needed to make same sex weddings illegal.

One of the problems is that the law applies to all governement employees. the labouror, the day care worker, the liquor store clerk. I beleive we should dissallow certain symbols (like the cross, but not non Christan clothing and symbols.i a limited number of professions. As it is only rightwing Christians that have a history and an agenda to impose there religion on others and thus people who wear crosses are feared, not trusted, and create a lot of anxiety in various people, like hospital patients, thus in court of dealing with police. ) Plus with the specific history of the church in Quebec the cross is a symbol of hate,  prejeduce, and abuse of power  against all but in particular  women, LGBT, orphans, the disabled,  

 Crucifex's should be removed from gvt offices, hospitals, court houses and the National Assembly walls  there are many crosses in a lot of hospitals, even giant 4 story high ones.  The fact that crosses will be allowed in the National assembly, hospitals and elsewhere is a clue to the real intentions of the law

Yet this laws allows them to remain, because they are covered under an exception for heritage. the only non Christan symbols that are covered under this exception are a feRw Jewish symbols, in the Montreal Jewish Hospital.

. Allowing giant crosses on  public institutions wall shows us the true purpose of the law. To createa wedge issue in some rural ridings against the CAQ, in favor of electing PQs. . .

However the CAQ may end up supporting the law in order to prevent loosing these seats. Thus the law has a good chance of passing with a few admendments. Either way the PQ is dead in Mtl

MTL is the base of Mr Peladeau, owner of Quebecor (and other corps, like Sun News) he resigned from Quebecor (he and his siblings still have a majority of shares) to run Hydro Quebec. what is general believed is that he is doing this to aquire the public sector experience needed in order to become leader of the PQ, and than become PM, and than to win independance from Canada. .

Thus this law may also be aimed at Peladeau in order enable Marois to stay on as leader or ensure that one of her people takes over. maroismwould hate to she her Premereship overshadows by her her successor in history. she constantly refers to her historic win, where she became the firs women elected as PM in Quebcec.. marois also hates Peladeau as he knowns how she became a multmillionaire and has used that information to get her to support a quebcor hockey arean in Quebec city. And in turn her support for quebecor caused a rebellion in the PQ two years ago which almost drove her out. instaed thousnads left the PQ to form a new Party or to Solidarity. ( including Parizeau wife who was a Pq MnA, who helped form a new party, )

The PQ was already is dissapearing in Mtl, and it looks like Solidarite Quebec will continue pick up the Pq seats in the east end. The charter is not causing the collapse of the PQ in Mtl, but it will cause it to happen faster. . .it may even mean Peladeau will not run for the leadership as the math may allow him to become PQ leader but not for him to become PM. Yes the PQ may be supported by Solidarite quebec, in some areas in the future, but Solidarity, which is a coalition of all the different communist groups, and some other leftist group, would nevr support a pq gvt headed by Peladeau. he and his family is detested by the left. His economic philosphy is the same as the conservative probusiness philosophy supported by his Sun Newspapers and TV seen in English Canada. And his many Tv stations, and newspapers are full of right wing journalist and commentators, that the left hates.

I just read that parts of the law will affect the private and volunteer sector. What the law does is that it changes the Quebec Charter of Rights to allow discrimination. The Quebec charter unlike the Canadian charter applies to not just governement to citizen relations but also relations between citizens.

The new law will change the charter to allow compagnies to refuse to provide religious accomation. Like the can refuse leave for religious holidays. Except Christian holidays, which are now also called heritage holidays.

It would also allow them to ban turbans and other head gear being worn at work.

For example, earlier this year the Quebec Soccar federation barred the turban (and the equilvant head gear for kids) They said it was for safty reason, even if every other soccar federation in the world allowed it, and there had nevr been anyone in Quebec injured at a soccar game by a turban. In fact docotrs said it made the game safer. The new law would allo the Soccar federation to tell the truth and say they are banning it because it a differenat relion that uses them, and it will be legal to say so.

Now the Quebec charter iis not clear on relgious accmadation so Marois wants to change it to specificall allow the banning of any religous dress(unless it is alos heritage ) .or allowing other relgious accomadtion, like allowing a room to be used for prayers, or days off work with or without pay,  or to provide things like kosher food in cafaterias/

The parts of the lw/charter that requires an admendment to the Quebec Charter are unlikely to pass. Admendmants require a vote in the assemby much greater than 50%. I think it may be 100% for the sections the PQ want to change.  

Also people are talking about an election for Dec 9, if the polls remain high for the PQ..

So obvious the whole thing is about posturing and using it as a wedge issues against CAQ.

BTW the Quebec charter is much better and stricter than the Canadian one. And one of the reasons the PQ can not use a Canadian Charter ruling to inflame the population is that if the Canadian charter barrs it, than the Quebec chrter does as well.  So it means the PQ can not claim that the charter is  responsible alone/

Fighting fire with fire, so to speak?  

Pictures from Saturday's protest rally of the charter provisions : 

http://www.cjad.com/CJADLocalNews/entry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10588528

Asking wrote, "Fighting fire with fire, so to speak?"

No, not exactly. In the pictures from Saturday's protest rally of the charter provisions, the girls are wearing Quebec flags as scarves. I will not take it upon myself to comment on what this would mean to a devout Muslim. They are showing some disrespect to the Quebec flag, though. That is not what the flag is for at all, and reminds me of those embarrassing pictures that came out of the Nagano Olympics where both Quebec and Canadian flags were used as curtains, hung off rails and banisters like so much laundry, etc.

What I meant was more along the lines of 'You show some respect for our freedom of religion and we will show some loyalty to the Province of Quebec'.

"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists

for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

                     ..

---Hermann Goring.

It reflects a common view in Quebec among both French and English. in this case, it is aimed particularly against Moslems The most recent polls English more oppposed to it than French. but the number of anglos who support it is still suprisingly high.

In the experience, sometimes, very painful, bigotry has always been popular in Quebec We, all of us, had an infinite number of derogatary words for any group different from ours.

On a recent visit, I  was surprised to find linguistic conflict much reduced. But the other. fundamental myths and hatreds are still.

It's come to a very dangerous point when people get the notion that they have a unique and unchanging set of values which must be enforced by law.

At the minimum, Quebeckers should have a more complete set of values expressed in law.

1. Quebeckers of both French and English stock value bigotry, and are required to show it on all occasions.

2. The above also have a long tradition of anti-semitism and racism which is also required of all immigrants.

3. Quebec has a long tradition of Catholic power in all aspects of society.. Thus we shall preserve the cross on Mount Royal and the crucifix in the legislature. Thus we shall continue with the various holidays for religious festivals - and shall not permit those of other faiths.

4. French quebec  (which is the only real Quebec) has always maintained a large, French working class by reserving a separate, private school system for the rich and well-connected French, while encouraging ignorance in the French, public schools.

5. In connection with the above, all children's schooling must teach a history of how all he French are poor and all teh English rich. It is forbidden to mention the existence of a French upper class.

6. Similarly, English schools will continue to teach working class English children that they are all rich because of their intellectual superiority.

A Untied Church in Montreal is being dragged into provincial politics as a indirect result of the CAQ lossing support to the PQ as a result of the accomadation debate.

After a friend of former PQ leader and cabinet minister ANdre Boisclair testified at the corruption inquiry, Jacques Duchesneau a CAQ MNA and Montreal former chief of  police and the head of the corruption Unit of the SQ that triggered the corruption inguiry said the St James United Church in MTL recieved a 2.5 million dollar renovation gvt grant becasue Boislcair ( a cocaine addict)  needed to pay  a cocaine dept to the Hells ANgels, and that becasue St James United hired a construction firm, parlty owned by the Hell's Angel, he repaid it when Bosilciar gave the highly ireegular grant to St James, in the dieing days of the last PQ gvt.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+backing+down+despite+threats+legal+action+from+leader/8963820/story.html

Does the CAQ really know something about the people Boislair brought cocaine from.

Did St James United knew they were hring a firm conected to drug dealing and the Hell's Angels?( which would confim certain ideas people have about the Protestant church in QUebec)

Are the CAQ  just panicking because they are afraid of an election being held before the Commission on Corruption gets to provincial party corruption, (and the source of Pauline Marois personall fortuen accumilated since she entered politics?), and over shadaow the Charter of Values debate which has boosted the PQs fortune?

 By dropping this bomb of an accusation they hurt the chance of the PQ calling an election in Novemebr or December.