You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Great White North
‘Fascist and tyrannical' or cultural preservation? Quebec passes controversial religious ban
2019-06-20
[RT] Lawmakers in the Canadian province of Quebec have adopted a law banning public service employees from wearing religious symbols. Critics and advocates both see it as an attempt of the Francophone region to preserve its identity.

Bill 21 (Loi 21) was passed by a vote of 73-35 in the National Assembly on Sunday. It bars civil servants “in positions of authority” – such as teachers, police, and government lawyers – from wearing religious symbols. This includes Christian crucifixes, Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes, for instance.
Yarmulke wearers can easily move to baseball caps, as some community leaders have recommended in Germany and France — possibly elsewhere as well. It’s about covering, not the cover. The hijab could easily be replaced by a kerchief tied over the hair, if wearing it were not exactly the political statement it is accused of being.
Muslim women wearing the full face veil (burqa) will be directly affected by the provision requiring people giving or receiving government services to uncover their faces, for purposes of security or confirming identity.

Lawmakers also approved Bill 9, which imposes new French language and values tests for prospective immigrants intended to “protect Quebec identity.”

“Look, we can talk semantics all day long. You know and I know what this is all about,” legal and media analyst Lionel told RT, suggesting that the seemingly secular statute stood as a proxy for anti-immigrant sentiment.

“I do believe there is a mixture of this attempt to preserve the uniqueness of that province… and trying to ‘dress’ a certain immigration situation,” Antonio Rossini, professor at the University of Windsor in neighboring Ontario, agreed. “I doubt that this would have popped up in a different historical context.”

Rossini told RT that many Canadians tend to wear religious symbols not as a show of their faith, but as a statement about their identity and origin.
Posted by:Skidmark

#11  Restating the obvious is not necessarily a bad thing. Not everybody knows what everybody else knows. I am forever being startled to discover yet another area of ignorance, especially here. I had not, for instance, despite knowing about the soft sharia of the law, really thought through what the process looks like on the ground. Nor had I thought in terms of the efficient cultural jihad rather than the poetic/rhetoric soft jihad of the law. So I have my learning for today, with thanks.
Posted by: trailing wife   2019-06-20 15:42  

#10  I was going to comment on the irony of "cultural preservation" that forbids wearing rosaries in Catholic Quebec, but when I went to look up the numbers it turns out not to be so ironic. Not many practicing Catholics left...
Posted by: james   2019-06-20 15:28  

#9  Yes, yes, there will be no crucifixes or yarmulkes. After a kabuki delay an "exception" will be made for muzz veils. In the mean time all third grade students will be memorizing the hadiths (spit) no opt-outs allowed.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2019-06-20 14:38  

#8  I know you know. I'm just... venting.☻
Posted by: Dron66046   2019-06-20 12:10  

#7  Rhetorical question. Everyone on the Burg knows the process of cultural jihad. Referring to fundamentalist sharia by any other terms...
Posted by: Woodrow   2019-06-20 11:57  

#6  taquiya includes the concept of legal islamism.

The soft jihad of the law, in contrast to the hard jihad of the sword that comes later. Then there’s the fun jihad of love and rape, which isn’t officially listed anywhere, but in certain precincts is avidly practiced
Posted by: trailing wife   2019-06-20 09:34  

#5  The government can be the only accepted religion. All others must be dispatched with extreme prejudice.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2019-06-20 09:30  

#4  They call them 'personal laws' and gradually insinuate them into daily life. They are the necessary step towardsSharia. Muslim personal laws are fluid enough to flex and deform, appear as only moral precepts or mere clan rituals, allowing for their enactment into local laws and gradually into legislation, because ultimately democracy's a vote-based enterprise for the legislator. Unknown to most people, taquiya includes the concept of legal islamism. Islamists plod for decades lobbying with a liberal or symp with foresight defunct enough to accommodate their shit. And before you know it, you have sharia zones.

It starts with stuff like " It is a valued custom within our particular community for girls to be engaged at 15. Don't worry it's not marriage yet..." Before you know it you have child rape.

Or, " We always gather at such and such spot at this time of day for whatever..." Soon, there's a 'holy zone' where even your citizens can't walk around uncovered.

Or, "we believe girls should not wear scent and go out with open hair, Djinns..." next comes a stoning or honour killing explained as exorcism.
Posted by: Dron66046   2019-06-20 07:53  

#3  'personal and mob laws'

Referring to sharia?
Posted by: Woodrow   2019-06-20 06:23  

#2  What thy need is stricter law enforcement in immigrant settlements, zero tolerance of 'personal and mob laws' , and police protection of women in case of voluntary conversion to atheism, christianity, buddhism, satanism, whatever.
Posted by: Dron66046   2019-06-20 02:21  

#1  "Rossini told RT that many Canadians tend to wear religious symbols not as a show of their faith, but as a statement about their identity and origin."

I've been to Canada. I've never seen a policeman wear any such things. I doubt Rossini has either.
Posted by: lord garth   2019-06-20 00:33  

00:00