Quebec Passes Bill-62 - Bans Face Coverings For Government Services

[Warhippy]

27 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

Don't kid yourself that this will improve security. None of those guys driving trucks through crowds were wearing niqab's. Its an unnecessary bill that won't do anything but create more hate imo, but such is the world we are in.

pretty hard to refute this logic

[-AJ-]

Quebec’s two main opposition parties opposed the bill because they argued it didn’t go far enough in restricting the presence of conspicuous religious symbols in the public sphere.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the purpose of the bill for security? What do other symbols have to do with anything? The face coverings are specifically a security issue, not a religious one in this case.

[Green Building]

I just want to say that the way this bill is being framed right now looks pretty $&!#ty. Quebec Premier Couillard comes across as an ass, and perhaps I need to revisit my hardline since while I agree with how I feel this bill should be implemented in principle, it is in actuality not looking like it will do that at all.

 

@Fateless

@Jimmy McGill

 

I really don't care too much about what other people are doing providing they mostly keep it to themselves.

 

Also, I don't really remember that election kerfuffle too much Jimmy. This bill highlights public service, and here I was defending it as protecting government services like an ignorant dink.

[Fateless]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Harper was a master at this stuff, he knew precisely how to draft a law that pulled at people's emotions, that he knew would fail in the supreme court. In fact even better for his narrative if it did, he could then point to the "activist courts" going against the "will of the people." This new Quebec law is Steve's playbook, 100%

 

 

In that sense, Trudeau and Harper are polar opposites. Trudeau has gone so far as to do the right thing, bearing in mind how the Supreme Court will treat something, despite knowing he'll receive an immense amount of public backlash (read: Khadr). 

 

Trudeau has some significant downfalls. I'm not a fan of his economic policies whatsoever, but on things like Khadr, I am proud that he does the right thing.

[Fateless]

3 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

 

 

 

Isn't the purpose of the bill for security? 

Oh @-AJ-, you're so adorably naive. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Green Building said:

I just want to say that the way this bill is being framed right now looks pretty $&!#ty. Quebec Premier Couillard comes across as an ass, and perhaps I need to revisit my hardline since while I agree with how I feel this bill should be implemented in principle, it is in actuality not looking like it will do that at all.

 

@Fateless

@Jimmy McGill

 

I really don't care too much about what other people are doing providing they mostly keep it to themselves.

 

Also, I don't really remember that election kerfuffle too much Jimmy. This bill highlights public service, and here I was defending it as protecting government services like an ignorant dink.

I think we've all worn that hat at one time or another.

 

This kind of politicking is a hot button for me so I tend to make note of it. 

[Green Building]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

I think we've all worn that hat at one time or another.

 

This kind of politicking is a hot button for me so I tend to make note of it. 

Bud, I've been mastering the recipe and now have ignorant dink on tap. I'm ok with me.

[RRypien37]

37 minutes ago, Fateless said:

Then why is it now illegal in Quebec to ride a bus or subway with a face covering on?

 

See my point? The law is ultra vires or outside the scope of the authority of the Quebec government to legislate because the only reason they've made it illegal to wear a face-covering on a bus is because they're racist.

Because its CANADA...not Baghdad. Come to a new country, respect the laws and assimilate. 

[189lb enforcers?]

56 minutes ago, chon derry said:

i'm going to agree with you this time 189 givin the threat of terrorism these days and women that martyr themselves.

It's civility. I know religion has its place and rights, but sometimes, it does not trump the rights of the greater good. 

[Warhippy]

17 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

Because its CANADA...not Baghdad. Come to a new country, respect the laws and assimilate. 

Right!

 

Oh...wait, or do we only mean some people should assimilate?

[48MPHSlapShot]

Good. Extra security precautions certainly aren't a bad thing.

 

But of course you'll have your regular strawmanners who try and push the narrative that everybody in favor of this bill is a secret racist. Best to just ignore them.

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Right!

 

 

 

 

Oh...wait, or do we only mean some people should assimilate?

Actually, I wish to $&!# that everyone would assimilate.

 

 

 

[Kragar]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Right!

 

 

Those have been illegal in Quebec for years now

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Those have been illegal in Quebec for years now

Just pointing out the obvious.

 

Some people use the word assimilate but in reality only mean "some people" should assimilate because of this or that and turn a blind eye to others who refuse the same.

 

I for one am ok asking people to remove religious garb in government agencies.  ALL garb.  Crosses, cricifexes, hijabs, Niqabs, yarmakahs and stars of david.

 

But I think you'd have to be pretty ignorant to believe that demanding women who wear these head to toe outfits willingly in our country, a country in which they are absolutely free not to but do so of their own volition; take them off to use a bus is only for security purposes.

 

But then that's just me

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I respect different cultures and I love our multi-cultural society.  I have no problem with people's religious beliefs...Until! Until they become fundamentalism.  In my opinion, the niqab is a fundamentalist symbol.  Some say a symbol of faith, others say oppression.  I say oppression, here's why.  In Saudia Arabia women are still mandated by their religious based law to cover their faces.  If it was a choice that they all made, I'd say perhaps it is faith, but it's law, and that to me is oppression.  They just allowed women to legally drive in SA, that's how behind they are on the whole human rights front.  I know SA idoesn't act or speak for Islam, but they are a relogioud theocracy based on Islam do I feel it's a relevant comparison.  So what's my point?  My point is, I was initially happy to see a ban on what I believe to be a symbol of oppression.  But then it happened.  I read through the comments and I realized this law is seemingly motivated by political support, and has nothing to do with security.  It seems like a law based from an ideal instead of a desired outcome.  I'm still feeling a little split on this.  One thing is certain, It totally won't affect me.

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Actually, I wish to $&!# that everyone would assimilate.

 

 

 

Ha!  I just used that exact Gif last night in a less than...mature manner

[Toews]

59 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

Good. Needs to be completely eliminated.

 

If you come to this country, abide by the laws and integrate into its way of life. If not, you are free to leave.

 

Its funny because if we pushed our beliefs, customs in some of the countries these people are coming from, we would get slaughtered. 

In what way is someone wearing a facial covering "pushing their beliefs, customs"? It's not like they are forcing you to do the same. 

 

One of our fundamental "beliefs and customs" is the right to freedom of religion. Are you advocating that we follow in the footsteps of the likes of North Korea and Saudi Arabia? 

 

Also I keep hearing this mythical concept of "integration". How does someone integrate into our "way of life"? While you are at it maybe you can tell us what this country's "way of life" is? 

[Hypocritical Cranium]

Does this mean when they pick up their cheque or anytime while on gov't ass?

[DonLever]

33 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Harper was a master at this stuff, he knew precisely how to draft a law that pulled at people's emotions, that he knew would fail in the supreme court. In fact even better for his narrative if it did, he could then point to the "activist courts" going against the "will of the people." This new Quebec law is Steve's playbook, 100%

 

 

Harper tried it and it sure did not work.  Lost to Trudeau and only got 11 seats in Quebec.   Only difference between what happen in Quebec is the ban is supported by the left wing in Quebec and the right wing elsewhere.   Everywhere outside of Quebec,  the proposed ban by the Conservatives was severely criticised by the Liberals and the NDP relentlessly.  The left was almost setting their hair on fire over the ban on head coverings proposed by Harper.  Some political pundits suggested Harper lost a lot of ethnic votes, especially in large urban areas like Toronto and Vancouver.   Which cost the Conservatives a lot of seats.

 

In short, what works in Quebec will not work elsewhere in Canada.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

9 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Right!

 

 

 

Oh...wait, or do we only mean some people should assimilate?

I think Canada transcends assimilation.  Chinese culture has been in BC for hundreds of years, In fact I'd argue that Chinese culture is a part of Canadian culture.  When I'm traveling abroad and see a Chinese corner market in some small Central American country I feel nostalgic...almost homesick.  No one needs to assimilate, but fundamentalists need to integrate at the least.  We don't need more segregated fundamentalist communities like Bountiful.