h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought you were about to burst into a George Michael song there Icy

I thought the Quebecois were more anti-English than anti-religious ... although to be fair certain forms of socialism are also anti-religious (assuming that forms of French socialism are important articles of faith for the Quebecois). Apologies for the mis-informed stereotypes.

>> Listen to the thought leaders of our age. Can we have forgotten so soon how we gotta have faith? <<

You mean we gotta have faith in our politicians?

I've more faith in the politicians than I do in the media. I just wish they'd both stop chasing each other trying to be liked.

I don't want to *like* politicians, I want them to do their job.

I'm trying to understand the practicality of the debate you're asking for, Nick. In post one, you say that the legislation is about to be [or has already been] tabled. That means that, unless someone later untables it, it's dead in the water. If your provincial government is no longer in a position to debate the bill, then what use will be served by having us debate it?

It has been "in the air" form quite some months. As Pastey has been extensively plain in pointing out, it is only leaked, political and obviously very pointed by media with axes to grind. Not to be discussed or worried about until it is actually out there and on a table.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/09/09/montreal-catholic-archbishop-opposes-secular-charter-quebec.html

Just one of many national (this little one owned by Canada as a whole) ...

Current lies, fabrications and innuendos of the media now have it that instead of one massive hit, there will be perhaps a 5-year roll out. So tomorrow you can wear a yarmulke, but come 2014, that Ankh may have to be covered if you are a doctor, a teacher, a first-responder with any part of the fire, police or ambulance team

I will leave it to you folks to actually look at reports. As the basic premise of 'religious accomodation' isn't really worth discussing so long as it is only 'rumours by the media' ....

My apologies for not being back sooner, I leave for my work-day early and the networks of our military do not allow me to chat during that ten or so hours that I am away from the home PC. I can look, but answers are precluded.

Oh, and I have an extremely smart phone. It does what a phone should do, make or receive voice calls. And is otherwise totally silent and calm.

Thanks for the link Nick

I have actually heard about this before from a few reputable sources. The problem is, it's *never* leaked to the main stream media, they just like you to think that. I'd bet your phone that the politicians worked *with* the media to get them to stir up a load of trouble from people with knee jerk reactions and anti-islamic hatred, so that when the bill was actually put forward, and was a lot tamer than the population was geared up to fight, it'd go through anyway.

The old "Ask for a ice cream sundae settle for a cookie" routine. It's kinda pathetic in a way how people still do this, and still fall for it.

I can only hope that you and your countrymen and women Nick don't fall for it. Show your politicians and the rest of the world that you're not so stupid as to allow the media to manipulate you with an unjustified fear and hatred of difference.

"Show your politicians and the rest of the world that you're not so stupid as to allow the media to manipulate you with an unjustified fear and hatred of difference." [Pastey]

Well put!

Should we always blame 'the media' for these things? The fault surely lies with individuals within it.

In the same way "politicians" are just people too?

Aw, shucks! Sam Ervin, the southern senator who presided over an investigation of the Watergate Scandal, pooh-poohed the media attention that came his way. He said he was just a "country lawyer."

>In the same way "politicians" are just people too?

After seeing Tony Abbot being interviewed where he doesn't say anything, I'm not sure they all are people. He looked like a nodding dog.

So it is no longer just rumour and speculation created by evil media empires:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/09/09/montreal-quebec-parti-quebecois-charter-of-quebec-values.html

Interestingly enough, none of these laws or changes affect elected members of their 'National Assembly'. (Some elected members of the PQ are Sikh and Muslim)

Back to post #1:

In your opinion, is this necessary or a step too far? A doctor wearing a yarmulke is no more or less a doctor. Exhibiting articles of his life choice and beliefs is not proselytizing. Where is the harm? I have no qualms about requiring faces be fully exposed for purposes of identification as required, but I do not see a need to demand that everyone hide their beliefs as some hide their sexuality.

Your opinion?

Again, it's been blown out of proportion.

When you actually read the charter that's put forward ( http://www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca/ ), the only potentially major contentious issue is that the face must be displayed. This in itself may seem like a massive issue for those that don't understand the reason and rules behind things like veils. But it doesn't actually cause any problems.

So, my opinion? Read the charter itself first, understand how this would affect each of the religions involved second, form an opinion based of media hysteria third, if you still wish to.

I have read it, public servants will have a simple choice: Live by the traditions and ways of their religion or have any public employment.

Yes. I think maybe some more study of traditions of other religions might be in order

For instance, Muslim women don't have to *always* wear a veil. You might have noticed that your country has had a similar rule in place for the last six years regarding facial display for driving licences, and as far as I'm aware society hasn't broken down into hoards roaming the streets after each other's blood

I think I am with Nick on this one. The rules being proposed are superficially accommodating but they grandfather what appears to be specifically Roman Catholic items while banning others. That is, it does appear to be intentionally racist (is a Sikh wearing a turban a cultural matter or religious?). It also appears to be unnecessary as I have not yet been religiously offended when I go into a branch and am served by a gentleman in a turban (or on the street, helped by the wearing helmets).

The current law prevents faces being covered during interactions for government services. So maybe it is a mere extension to say "no hats" either, in a way that plays well to the peanut gallery.

The French law upon which this appears to be modeled is currently tied up in three cases before the European Court of Human Rights (I can't quote them as the person who knows this stuff isn't with me right now). So it doesn't appear to be uncontentious in Europe.

If a government minister in the country in which I lived were to overtly issue such a blatant promotion of racism and religious aggression, I would be very unhappy indeed. I don't think I would care if it made little new change: the idea of enshrining the Charter of Human Rights (as is being proposed) the right to be prosecuted for religious expression seems mighty wrong to me.

On another level, it possibly won't survive the constitutional review.

Bad - text editing above.... first paragraph should end:

It also appears to be unnecessary as I have not yet been religiously offended when I go into a *bank* branch and am served by a gentleman in a turban (or on the street, helped by the *police* wearing helmets).

It's very similar to the laws in France that are very likely to get repealed or amended.

When it comes to religious symbols, there's nothing in any form of Catholicism or Christianity that I'm aware of that says believers *must* wear a crucifix. In other religions outward facing attire is required, which does denote the religion to others. However, there's nothing to say that those wearing these items follow the religion.
For example, there are many people that wear crosses because they like the design, yet won't wear crucifixes because they don't believe in the religion.

Yes, there already is a law in place to make sure that the face is displayed, yes this law doesn't need to come in to do that. But this is something that we've got problems with in the UK at the moment, knee jerk laws to show that the politicians are doing something, rather than actually enforcing the laws that already exist.