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

[Warhippy]

Just now, Raymond Luxury Yacht said:

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.

100% agreed.  This goes for any religion

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

8 minutes ago, Toews said:

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? 

It's not a difficult concept.  Integration means equal opportunity for all, to welcome other cultures and beliefs openly and connect on a human level.  I find it happens in a very high percentage of people I meet from all races, cultures and walks of life.  It is lost on fundamentalists.  

[Toews]

4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

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; take them off to use a bus is only for security purposes.

 

But then that's just me

Assimilate and integrate both words used by the government in the past to destroy the culture and heritage of First Nations such as residential schools. Its a complete farce.

 

Nobody is telling @RRypien37 how to live his life so why is he trying to tell people how to live theirs. Why do we have to live our lives based on his rules? Sometimes I have a drink in the morning, is @RRypien37 going to tell me that's not ok because it goes against his "way of life"?

[Alflives]

Is Quebec the CANADIAN province where signage is only en francais?  Why are we (as Canadians) at all shocked, surprised, or upset by Quebec's legislators? 

[48MPHSlapShot]

I really do wish Canada would take a more US-like approach in terms of how we accommodate religion. Freedom of religion, yes, but with a clear separation of church and state (Obviously ignoring the hypocrisy of the fact that The US has allowed Christianity to bleed into the state to a hilarious extent.) 

 

From the First Amendment:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

 

I can get behind that. The more secular we are as a society, the better 

 

On a completely unrelated note, no religion or culture is above criticism. While undoubtedly tied together, culture and race are two distinct entities. One is fair game. One isn't.

[Toews]

3 minutes ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said:

It's not a difficult concept.  Integration means equal opportunity for all, to welcome other cultures and beliefs openly and connect on a human level.  I find it happens in a very high percentage of people I meet from all races, cultures and walks of life.  It is lost on fundamentalists.  

By that definition most of the people that talk of "integration" have failed to "integrate" themselves.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Just now, Toews said:

By that definition most of the people that talk of "integration" have failed to "integrate" themselves.

Fair enough, but it's still a valid definition that I promote and strive for. Desegregation, unity and acceptance is the only way to overcome fundamentalism.  It's easy to ignore new cultures that are closed off, but it leads to fear and animosity.  Acknowledging this should be a prerequisite to immigration.  I will add that comparing this law to being like Saudi Arabia is not a valid comparison.  In SA face coverings are mandated by law.  If it is indeed a symbol of faith, it shouldn't be mandated, or it's a symbol of oppression.  Not letting someone wear a face covering in some situations is not oppression, it is exceptional in this case though, I'll agree with that.

[Toews]

6 minutes ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said:

Fair enough, but it's still a valid definition that I promote and strive for. Desegregation, unity and acceptance is the only way to overcome fundamentalism.  It's easy to ignore new cultures that are closed off, but it leads to fear and animosity.  Acknowledging this should be a prerequisite to immigration.  I will add that comparing this law to being like Saudi Arabia is not a valid comparison.  In SA face coverings are mandated by law.  If it is indeed a symbol of faith, it shouldn't be mandated, or it's a symbol of oppression.  Not letting someone wear a face covering in some situations is not oppression, it is exceptional in this case though, I'll agree with that.

I agree. The person I was responding to thinks it should be "completely eliminated". He is as much as a fundamentalist as the fundamentalists he complains about.

 

Edit: Actually from what I remember facial coverings are not mandated in Saudi Arabia either. Head coverings are though.

[RRypien37]

48 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Right!

 

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

Everyone. The picture you posted is 100% in the wrong too I am not referring to only certain people and you know that. 

[Whaleroad Train]

Can someone please tell me how this is going to work.  Does a woman wearing a burka have to strip off all her clothes to enter a government building?  Maybe she has to be naked to leave her house to go to an appointment with a government department?  

[otherwise]

I hope there is a real cold spell in Que. and everyone who has put a scarf over their face isn't forced to show their face before getting on the bus. Then it will really show this law for what it is.

 

I know a woman who wears a niqab, she's a friend of a friend. She has been in Canada for about 4 years. She has worked hard to learn English and has a job. She also has a really great fashion sense under her niqab. I don't know how anyone can condemn someone for following their beliefs, when they aren't demanding others to follow their beliefs. (unlike the que. gov.'t)

[Kragar]

Just now, Warhippy said:

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; take them off to use a bus is only for security purposes.

 

But then that's just me

Yep, I know.  Wasn't jabbing at you there, but I think you knew that too.  I was just poking the PQ bear.  The PQ sign laws always kinda bugged me... as much as they could for me not living there.  Dumb idea, IMO. 

 

I'm a little torn though on the "whatever minority" language only signs.  Bad business, for one, and two, it does show some of the flaws in the concept of multiculturalism (as opposed to the melting pot concept).

 

Anyhoo, to the OP, IMO the law should be updated so that it refers to face covering only.  Bringing religion into it just makes it more likely to be challenged and even likely to be overturned. Long hooded hoodies, medical-type masks worn (predominantly) by many Asians, etc., should all be included.  Doesn't mean you can't put it back on once you have paid your bus fare or dealt with the government employee.  Keeping any religious component out of the bill would help to show its impartiality and practicality.

 

Contrary to some opinion, Muslim women are not required to cover their face.  The amount of modesty that is required is taken to extremes by a minority of their followers.

 

Gotta say though, it did freak the crap outta me back in the 80's when a couple old (presumably) Sikh dudes walked into the bowling alley wearing swords (2-3' long, so not kirpans) on their belts.  Never saw anybody draw one in public, but that didn't seem right to me.  I agree with you about the real "why" here.  Still, security makes for the only good reason to pursue the law.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fateless said:

Yeah, definitely need to show your face to get on the bus or subway. 

 

This wasn't done for fraud prevention. It wasn't done because people are afraid of being robbed without being able to see their attacker's face. It was done because of Quebec's white catholic superiority complex and the false belief that every other religion is the problem in the world but their own. It was done out of an unfounded and irrational fear that people who wear face-coverings are monsters out to get us. 

 

This will be challenged and will be struck down for being contrary to the Charter. As it should be.

I mean some may be afraid of the muslims, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to show their face when they are working for the government.  

 

If I belong to a nudist colony, it doesn't give me the right to walk around naked and especially not to show up naked to work.  

 

Keep personal religious beliefs out of government and public affairs.  

 

I have just as much of a right to expect to see someone's face when they work for the government.  

 

Sorry Fateless, I'm generally left-leaning but one has to use at least an ounce of common sense from time to time.

[Toews]

16 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Yep, I know.  Wasn't jabbing at you there, but I think you knew that too.  I was just poking the PQ bear.  The PQ sign laws always kinda bugged me... as much as they could for me not living there.  Dumb idea, IMO. 

 

I'm a little torn though on the "whatever minority" language only signs.  Bad business, for one, and two, it does show some of the flaws in the concept of multiculturalism (as opposed to the melting pot concept).

 

Anyhoo, to the OP, IMO the law should be updated so that it refers to face covering only.  Bringing religion into it just makes it more likely to be challenged and even likely to be overturned. Long hooded hoodies, medical-type masks worn (predominantly) by many Asians, etc., should all be included.  Doesn't mean you can't put it back on once you have paid your bus fare or dealt with the government employee.  Keeping any religious component out of the bill would help to show its impartiality and practicality.

 

Contrary to some opinion, Muslim women are not required to cover their face.  The amount of modesty that is required is taken to extremes by a minority of their followers.

 

Gotta say though, it did freak the crap outta me back in the 80's when a couple old (presumably) Sikh dudes walked into the bowling alley wearing swords (2-3' long, so not kirpans) on their belts.  Never saw anybody draw one in public, but that didn't seem right to me.  I agree with you about the real "why" here.  Still, security makes for the only good reason to pursue the law.  

Yeah this one is a difficult one. I wonder if you can compel people to include a translation. Research shows these signs are in the minority though as (you mentioned it) its obviously terrible for business. 

[Green Building]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Right!

 

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

Only everybody here after the year 1534 when boats sailed over to continuously appropriate land from those here prior to that point, then eventually them too. White people, right?

 

Boy, have I done an about face in this thread.

 

@DonLever Why did you choose to post this particular article? Who in Canada commonly refers to things "services of the state"? 

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

41 minutes ago, Toews said:

I agree. The person I was responding to thinks it should be "completely eliminated". He is as much as a fundamentalist as the fundamentalists he complains about.

 

Edit: Actually from what I remember facial coverings are not mandated in Saudi Arabia either. Head coverings are though.

You are right, I had that wrong.  It's not mandated in public by law, but it is mandated in some areas, and certain places like shopping malls (not sure the specifics on teh regulation or enforcement).  I know this from a family member who worked in the embassy in Riyadh for many years.  Some institutions and shopping areas have "women only" areas where they are allowed to uncover completely and men are forbidden.  It annoys me how cozy Canada is with a country with so many rules contrary to my beliefs.  

[kingofsurrey]

Keep religion out of government

Keep religion out of public  education.

 

I say well done Quebec.   

[Warhippy]

56 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Yep, I know.  Wasn't jabbing at you there, but I think you knew that too.  I was just poking the PQ bear.  The PQ sign laws always kinda bugged me... as much as they could for me not living there.  Dumb idea, IMO. 

 

I'm a little torn though on the "whatever minority" language only signs.  Bad business, for one, and two, it does show some of the flaws in the concept of multiculturalism (as opposed to the melting pot concept).

 

Anyhoo, to the OP, IMO the law should be updated so that it refers to face covering only.  Bringing religion into it just makes it more likely to be challenged and even likely to be overturned. Long hooded hoodies, medical-type masks worn (predominantly) by many Asians, etc., should all be included.  Doesn't mean you can't put it back on once you have paid your bus fare or dealt with the government employee.  Keeping any religious component out of the bill would help to show its impartiality and practicality.

 

Contrary to some opinion, Muslim women are not required to cover their face.  The amount of modesty that is required is taken to extremes by a minority of their followers.

 

Gotta say though, it did freak the crap outta me back in the 80's when a couple old (presumably) Sikh dudes walked into the bowling alley wearing swords (2-3' long, so not kirpans) on their belts.  Never saw anybody draw one in public, but that didn't seem right to me.  I agree with you about the real "why" here.  Still, security makes for the only good reason to pursue the law.  

I hated the Quebecois language laws and such when I went to Carleton.

 

I hate the refusal to assimilate in Vancouver as well.  people can claim that "chinese culture" has been in canada for 150+ years, but after 150+ years I think you owe it to your country to show us the respect of posting the same langauge laws are as in Quebec, no matter how much I hate them.

 

 

[elvis15]

2 hours 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.

That's what I was thinking, that it's a feel good bill that's basically already in place. For instance, the argument around citizenship and niqabs a couple years ago was moot because they had to remove the niqab during a private part of the ceremony to verify their identity, yet people were getting bent out of shape they were allowed to have it on during the public ceremony.

 

But whatever, maybe there was a loophole somewhere that makes this necessary, because surely the government wouldn't waste time and taxpayers money with a useless bill, right?

[cripplereh]

me I do not like that people use religious beliefs to get around laws and saying that has happened here many times

 

our laws are laws for a reason and me I think people should wear helmets on motorcycles and people with turbins should make one they feel work and so on

 

plus a religious knife given to a thirteen year old should not be allowed in public and again so on

 

I just want people who come to this country to know what are laws are and stick with them or go to another country

 

BTW the first ever work "god" meant alien way before there were religions

 

oh and satan or devil the first ever word meant "savior of man" which meant he was good not evil as some how go turned into