Friday, August 17, 2012
Strange concept of tolerance in Quebec
Maybe it doesn't translate well from the French!
Canadians have had it drilled into their heads for decades that they are the most tolerant people on the planet and that multiculturalism is the holy grail of a tolerant society.
Small wonder, then, that so many claim to be shocked and appalled at Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois’s plan for a Charter for Secularism that would, among other matters, ban public sector employees from wearing “conspicuous religious signs.” The charter would be among her party’s first acts if it wins power in Quebec’s Sept. 4 election.
Is Marois being intolerant? She claims not: “We don’t have to apologize for who we are,” she said. “We are one of the most tolerant and open people on this planet, but we want our values, such as equality between the sexes, respected by everyone.”
Maybe so, but if Marois has anything to apologize for it is her intellectual cowardice (never mind the incoherence). She didn’t specify what “signs” she had in mind, but, as various observers have noted, the party has in the past expressed an aversion to the Muslim head scarf, or hijab, and the full-body chador, the Sikh ceremonial dagger, or kirpan, and the Jewish skullcap, or yarmulke. (The Christian crucifix is apparently acceptable if worn discreetly.)
Unfortunately, Marois lacks the courage of her convictions. Like many Canadians — and Quebecers — she’s imbued with the ethos of tolerance even if she doesn’t understand the concept.
Source
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
liberalism always ends up in hypocrisy
Perhaps the US should send all it's radical gay activists to Canada to learn about
tolerance, mostly that it's a two-way street. Of course, they would see that as being anti-gay.
What a clever plan to entirely ban traditional religious folk from public life!
Yesterday, 2 posts below on this blog I yapped
extensively about Political Religions, about how Socialism is, in effect, an extremely intolerant Political Religion. What a delicious example this is of that reality and of the profound intolerance of the Left.
Modern Leftism, as practiced by many today, fills the psychological void in many who have abandoned traditional theistic religions. As with other rising religions, the zealots within the ranks demand that all opposing religions, along with their moral codes, be stamped out.
In the Parti Québécois power grab we see an attempt to actively exclude the devout from public service. For Sikhs, orthodox Jews, many Moslems and some religions, covering the hair is a religious and cultural requirement. Rather than deny their faith, they will abstain from public service.
For the Parti Québécois this would be a huge victory. In one quick act of profound religious intolerance they immediately exclude from government much of their opposition.
We should all keep in mind these words about not resisting a different profoundly intolerant Socialist Political Religion:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Tidford, I think you're right. Well said.
It's fascinating how your explanation lines up with Obama's recent take (distortion) on the First Amendment. For many month, Obama has been talking about "freedom of worship", which is not the same thing as the "free exercise of religion". ("Think what you want, but don't you dare try to act on it in public!") He's marginalizing "traditional religious folk" by attempting to banish religion to church buildings and closets.
It's also fascinating to contrast how homosexuality is "coming out of the closet" while religion is being shoved into the closet.
Why should anyone in a public sector job, any more than in a private sector job, think they should have a right to wear clothing or accessories that the employer or employers' dress-code is opposed to. Their personal or religious freedom still allows them to decide which is more important - the job or their attire.
Surely if material attire is just as important as any spiritual aspect to the religious person, there would be openings made by employers who are members of the same religious sect or at least sympathetic to it.
Everyone has a world view. Religious beliefs are a major part of that world view. It's an essential part of who we are as human beings. Requiring someone to suppress something so vital to who we are just because you don't like religion is discrimination! Do you hear yourself? "Submit or go hungry."
Firstly, PQ has had a racial issue for awhile now, although it is cloaked in metaphorical language.
PQ has blamed non-Quebecers for the narrow loss at the referendum for ages and this is, apparently, code for foreigners.
It is a tough lines for anyone to walk - how do you support, encourage and promote your own regional/ethnic identity without appearing to denigrate others?
Private employers get to set their own rules and standards Anon 4:31
Public employers have to abide by community standards.
Surely you do not genuinely believe there should be no difference between the two?
Yeah, I guess it's in the interest of religious freedom that all employees (even public service ones) should be able to add whatever accessories they like to their bodily appearance even when representing their employers rather than themselves. So how about muslim extremists wearing imitation bomb-vests - you surely couldn't object according to the above arguments as the bombs aren't real but martyrdom is part of their extreme religious views!
Where will it end? - as some of the anti-gayites here often say!
And speaking of the above remarks about gay activists - they wouldn't have any reason to be intolerant of anything if the "anything" wasn't FIRST intolerant of them. It's equivalent to Newton's Laws - to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
"Tolerance? Here's what radical gays mean by tolerance."
I bet the NRA is proud.
When you're limp wristed it is no wonder he only hit the guard in the arm.
Anonymous 5:18 said...
"Tolerance? Here's what radical gays mean by tolerance."
"I bet the NRA is proud"
No, they rejected him, but he is a full member of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU.
It is a well-known fact that "the most" intolerant people can always be found on the Left. The Left is also the origin of 98% of all the hate and violence seen todays politics.
"Do as we say, not as we do" is the motto they live by.
“We don’t have to apologize for who we are,” she said. “We are one of the most tolerant and open people on this planet, but we want our values, such as equality between the sexes, respected by everyone.”
That's right. And we'll kill/fine/arrest/imprison anyone who thinks different!
Isn't that the textbook definition of intolerance?
Post a Comment