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

[48MPHSlapShot]

6 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats one hell of a CCTV camera to pick out that dimple  and eye witness testimony isn't used for a reason, its highly subjective and police can't actually rely on it. And the dude goes home, shaves (or takes off a fake beard) and puts in a new hair colour (or back to his original). You get next to nothing of value from either person. 

 

You didn't notice that the Quebec charter just happened to want to eliminate more things the browner the person and more covered your head was? come on man. Luckily that ridiculous charter didn't get passed. 

 

Also, what specific damage or impediment to public service is being produced by those things the Quebec charter wanted banned? Its the same goofy logic that people used when Sikh's wanted to enter the RCMP, there were all kinds of ridiculous statements and opposition to that but in the 20 years or so since that whole thing its been just fine. 

You're stretching. You can't possibly believe that a person who shaves their beard is more indistinguishable than a person literally covering up their entire face? 

 

And you still haven't shown my any real proof that specific people were being targeted by that charter. Seems to me that your entire issue with it is something that could easily be explained by coincidence. 

 

And incidentally, Sikh's and people of any other religion should always have to conform to uniform standards. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

You're stretching. You can't possibly believe that a person who shaves their beard is more indistinguishable than a person literally covering up their entire face? 

 

And you still haven't shown my any real proof that specific people were being targeted by that charter. Seems to me that your entire issue with it is something that could easily be explained by coincidence. 

 

And incidentally, Sikh's and people of any other religion should always have to conform to uniform standards. 

look at the images. If you don't see a problem there I'm not sure we can really have an honest conversation about it. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

look at the images. If you don't see a problem there I'm not sure we can really have an honest conversation about it. 

I see various religious garments, including a large cross and a yarmulke. Now I don't claim to be all that knowledgeable when it comes to the various religions, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it occurs to me that the turban, the hood, and the face covering could all be from separate religions, and that you're the one lumping them together because of skin colour.  Again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

 

And again, as far as I know, Christianity doesn't require its followers to wear religious garb in public, hence the lack of significant representation in your image.

[JM_]

Just now, 48MPHSlapShot said:

 

And again, as far as I know, Christianity doesn't require its followers to wear religious garb in public, hence the lack of significant representation in your image.

well isn't that convenient? 

[48MPHSlapShot]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well isn't that convenient? 

Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. It's convenient. It's coincidental. And until someone shows me unequivocal proof otherwise, that's what I'll continue to believe. What I'm not going to do is assume racism or prejudice based on nothing.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. It's convenient. It's coincidental. And until someone shows me unequivocal proof otherwise, that's what I'll continue to believe. What I'm not going to do is assume racism or prejudice based on nothing.

nothing eh? sure they ban huge Guido crosses, but not ALL crosses,  and then head gear from all other religions. I guess you are waiting for someone with a placard around their neck saying "the racist is in"?

[JM_]

hmm... in Quebec these things are equal... 

[48MPHSlapShot]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

nothing eh? sure they ban huge Guido crosses, but not ALL crosses,  and then head gear from all other religions. I guess you are waiting for someone with a placard around their neck saying "the racist is in"?

They allow for small crosses, as well as various other "small" emblems". Show me a "small" piece of headgear and we'll talk.

[riffraff]

8 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you can't. So if there was an indication that fraud was an issue then they might have the legal basis to turn them away from service but I think you'd have to have more than the potential for fraud as a justification. We don't penalize people for crimes they haven't committed. Or if this really was a concern they could install a turnstile with a fingerprint reader or retina scan. They're actually quite cheap now. 

That'll speed up the commute.

[riffraff]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

hmm... in Quebec these things are equal... 

 Ban bling?

 

now we're talking.

[JM_]

12 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

They allow for small crosses, as well as various other "small" emblems". Show me a "small" piece of headgear and we'll talk.

give me a break  its clearly designed not to offend most Christians and everyone else is supposed to suck it up. And you're defending something that didn't pass btw.

 

If it was truly fair it would ban ALL religious symbols. 

[JM_]

10 hours ago, riffraff said:

That'll speed up the commute.

It could be part of the special needs entrance. My point is there are things that you can do besides goofy laws. 

[Tortorella's Rant]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

give me a break  its clearly designed not to offend most Christians and everyone else is supposed to suck it up. And you're defending something that didn't pass btw.

 

If it was truly fair it would ban ALL religious symbols. 

Wasn't that in the bill, omitting other religious symbols and such, but that portion didn't pass, hence some critics saying that it didn't go far enough. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

7 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

give me a break  its clearly designed not to offend most Christians and everyone else is supposed to suck it up. And you're defending something that didn't pass btw.

 

If it was truly fair it would ban ALL religious symbols. 

It's funny how all of these arguments about how racist or prejudiced something if usually end with either "Give me break" Or "C'mon, man!", like I'm automatically just supposed to accept that something is prejudiced despite there not being any tangible evidence just cuz.

 

As long as everybody is held to the same standard, I don't see the problem. Should the dude that first came up with this proposed law have been like "You know, this isn't really affecting Christians enough....I guess I should hold Christian garments to a different standard so everything comes out equal." Then it really would be discrimination. At the end of the day, not everything can come out equal. We don't bitch about the legal system being sexist because 90% of the prison population is male, because everyone is held to the same standard.

 

Let me create a hypothetical scenario. I won't use any specific religions or known laws in this scenario...

 

A man walks into a public place with a sword, and due to some legal loophole or whatever, it's found that the dude is actually legally entitled to carry a sword around with him due to religious freedom. Now me, being a lawmaker, look at this and think "Well this isn't right", so I come up with a bill closing that loophole and making it illegal to carry any large scythes or swords. However, the law doesn't go so far as to disallow pocketknives. 

 

Am I being discriminatory?

 

I actually agree with you on your second point (that it should have banned all religious symbols), not because I'm being effected by the groupthink mentality that immediately jumps to racism/discrimination if things don't come out equal, but because I legitimately take issue with promoting a religion in any way while on the clock.