Canada's election, in which Justin Trudeau's chickens come home to roost

boing
43

Having spent 20 years in both countries, I think Americans put way too much stock into “two parties” as the problem here. The problem isn’t the number of of parties in the system, the problem is corruption. If your politicians are all lobbied in the billions and your regulators are all captured by their industries, the number of political parties you have is irrelevant. The US two party system worked fine for a long long time until corruption crept in.

If the US falls, historians will mark Citizens United as the beginning of the end.

7 Likes
45

As an aside, I’d suggest that anti religious symbol laws are not racist. Religion itself is divisive, and imaginary. Would you rather have someone dressed like a bishop, or a judge when you’re being tried in a court of law? I’d rather have someone with no obvious biases, thanks.

When I bring my kids to school, do I want someone dressed like a nun teaching my kids science, or someone who could pass for a scientist? It has nothing to do with race at all. Religion has always been an imaginary construct to control people and inspire divisiveness. Time to stop.

Edit: Just to clarify, I think people should be able to wear whatever they want in their own time, but I agree that in positions of authority or influence, it’s not right to broadcast what kind of bias based on imaginary fantasy stories you have.

workers in positions of authority in public schools, courtrooms, law enforcement agencies and other places can no longer wear such symbols.

1 Like
46

But that suggests that everyone is the same race. But to a large extent, the people wearing religious synbols are not “white”, indeed are often more recent immigrants. So is that concern about religion in certain places, or a reaction available against “others”. Keep in mind that there is still lots of religion here in Quebec, so long as it’s Catholic.

Here’s another way to look at it. A while back I saw some current photos of my distant Syilx cousins. Incredibly thick and long braids, I just missed out on hair like that. But lots of people were made to go to residential schools, and their hair cut off. That was to “kill the indian” in them. Isn’t that racist?

Meanwhile, until I lost most of it this year, I’ve had long hair since 1971, when I was 11. As long as it got, which meant down to my waist for 30 years. I got some flack in the beginning, but nobody told me I had to cut it off. The privilege of being white. Except it turns out I can be Metis, my family described as a “prominent Metis family in Red River”. I get how long hair honours the ancestors, my Syilx great, great, great grandmother Sarah spent most of her long life in White/Metis society, away from her family and culture.

While I was in the hospital this year for three months, it was an endless stream of people different from me. Doctors and nurses wearing those “religious symbols”, hijabs, yarmulkes, whatever. They were fully capable, and were hardly keeping away from society. I couid even joke with one nurse wearing a hijab, which shouldn’t be a surprise, but we expect people with such symbols to be fussy. But they keep their religion, but it doesn’t mean they are strict.

I like the idea of native Mounties with braids, I think it’s great to read about young people who are challenging the status quo so they can keep their hijabs or turbans when they become cops or whatever. I would feel safer to see diversity, it’s only white cops, I think all men, who used to stop me for no good reason.

We have to see things “from the other side”. We can reject religious symbols because it doesn’t affect us. But it matters to those affected. Often they do suffer in other ways from “being different”. Jagmeet Singh understands that.

4 Likes
47

That situation is terrible. I think it’s similar in some ways and different in others. The law is for newly hired government workers in specific state-sponsored positions. Anyone is free to chose to apply for a different job if they must wear religious symbols, or, even better, choose to leave religion out of our classrooms and justice system.

It’s similar in that Residential schools were state sponsored religious schools. Clearly that was wrong, but some people can’t see that many more of use don’t want any kind of religion in the classroom. Religion has been used throughout history control people, cloud facts, and pervert justice. That’s why it doesn’t belong in public schools, or courthouses. It’s obviously not as bad as residential schools, but I don’t want my kids learning from outwardly religious authority figures (I don’t care what religion it is).

You might see a cross around someone’s neck, I see puppet strings. They have been brainwashed, and don’t realize it. If displaying their imaginary fantasies is a priority over appearing unbiased, maybe they are entering the wrong line of work as a public school teacher, judge, or police officer.

I agree with this, but racial diversity is different from allowing outwardly religious authority figures in public positions.

1 Like
48

The genocidal aspect of Residential Schools wasn’t because they were religious, it was because it was an explicitly colonial project.

The problem was belief, but it was belief in white supremacy above all.

9 Likes
49

What is it about someone dressed as a nun that would make them not pass as a scientist? Lots of science has been and continues to be done by religious people, e.g.

And similarly with other religions.

8 Likes
50

You’re right, I should have said, dress as someone who could pass as unaffiliated/secularist. If you’re teaching impressionable kids, don’t wear a t-shirt for your favourite political party, or attire to indicate you agree with groups that believe a magical man lives in the sky and the earth is 6000 years old… or other equally unscientific things.

1 Like
51

Or maybe you could try the tolerance that you claim religious people don’t have.

As long as they aren’t explicitly teaching it, where the fuck is the problem?

Seriously, I have met evangelical Christian preachers with more tolerance than you are displaying. The same as this law you’re defending: it’s not about treating people equally, it’s about favouring those who can tuck the symbols of their religion under a shirt. Funny which ones those are, and who tends to practice them.

I would much rather see a turban-wearing Sikh teaching to a basic curriculum in a classroom than someone who thinks their religious choice makes them superior to everyone else, and spouts that loudly. And yes, atheism is a religious choice.

7 Likes
52

I think the world would be a better place without religion, but I don’t think atheism makes me a superior person. It’s just one of my better qualities :wink:

How would you feel about teachers wearing political party attire in the classroom?

Edit: I should add, if I had to pick only one religion to be openly represented in the classroom, it would be Sikhism. If the teacher wore a Green Party t-shirt, I agree with their choice of party, but not their choice of clothing.

53

“What if they dressed in an oversize Hamburglar mascot uniform? What about then?”

This is just what-about-ism.

You want to forbid people from wearing indications of their religion, but these type of clothing guidelines almost always end up being enacted in a discriminatory and arbitrary way.

Should wedding rings be included? Kippah? Cross necklaces?

Are you preparing in your head justifications that, say, wedding rings aren’t religious? Would that kind of logic apply to people who wear other people’s religious symbols non-religiously?

I get that it’s just your “preference”, but it’s historically been one that is not policed neutrally, and to meander slightly back in the direction of the topic, the one in Quebec is based on specific prejudice, not theoretical neutrality.

5 Likes
54

My partner and I are not religious and we wear wedding bands. In fact, she takes hers off at work, because she’s an electrician and it contains conductive material. That doesn’t change how she feels about me, or our commitment.

The political attire problem is a real issue. Teachers have been banned from wearing political attire for very similar reasons. They are teaching kids who look up to them for wisdom. I don’t want the teacher wearing a MAGA hat, or a cross, but you can’t specify those things, so instead we say, “keep religion and politics out of pubic classrooms”.

1 Like
55

Thanks for illustrating my point.

The codes are enforced in an arbitrary way. That’s not a theory.

The legislative situation in Quebec is based on bigotry.

Do you really think they’ll go after someone with a cross on their ring as strongly as a person with a Turban?

These laws aren’t based on keeping people from “broadcasting their bias”. They’re more often used to single out and police minorities out of positions of influence.

5 Likes
56

She takes her ring off for her job. If I were a teacher and it were a requirement that I take my ring off while teaching, I would. Or, I would choose a different profession.

So is the religious situation. Along with misogyny, ignorance, delusional thinking… Of course there are racist people out there, but a lot of that is rooted in religion. It’s bad, and I think there are people who will see it from one side, but when a teacher wearing a cross goes to court, they’ll lose. Hallelujah.

1 Like
57

I brought up the ring example, because it is sometimes a religious symbol. You seem to have ignored the point and are now just telling me what your wife does, which has nothing to do with it.

And if Quebec was basing this law on creating a level playing field without favoring religious symbols, they would have found a way to remove the requirement to always display a cross at work. They didn’t. They could have, but instead we have a situation of mandatory crosses and no other religions allowed.

Every single government employee is required to display a cross, explicitly from the Catholic tradition, at work.

5 Likes
58

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to ignore your comment about the ring. It’s a valid point; some symbols are ambiguous. To me, if there is a dress code for your job, that is what you should wear. Rings are fairly common across several religions (including Sikhs) and the non-religious, but if it were considered to be a religious symbol than, no, people shouldn’t wear them at jobs where it is important they not appear to have religious bias.

I might have missed this. Are crosses present in public schools, courthouses and police stations? If so, that should also be outlawed. Are you referring to the fluer de lis? Do you have a link to this policy? It sounds to me like all religious symbols are targeted, including Christian:

The government has said it is working toward a motion to remove the crucifix that hangs above the speaker’s chair in the National Assembly.

…This is, imho, a step in the right direction.

1 Like
59

Quebec has a flag explicitly based in Catholic heraldry, modified and approved by clergy, and enacted by the same guy that first put that kind of Cross up in the National Assembly. (They did take that one down). If they didn’t want to give the impression that one religion is favored, and that symbols are important in public life, they could have changed it.

The general point is that when there are exceptions (and there are many), they have only favored a single religion, and if you see a religious symbol in a government building, it’s still going to be a cross.

The law recognizes many Catholic exceptions as “heritage not religion”, unless they’re from “non-standard religions” at which point they’re not recognized as heritage or culture, and only framed as religious.

That’s why people find it bigoted, in definition and practice. Selective and systemic enforcement.

6 Likes
60

Secularism isn’t an ideology in-and-of itself, but rather is a core value of liberal democracy. If the latter is the true priority, then the former should only be interpreted in this context as “the state will not grant any religion preferred status, nor will it prevent a public servant from wearing a religious symbol or garb (unless it creates an occupational safety hazard or impedes his work tasks).”

Quebec’s version of laïcité basically flies in the face of that, as does modern France’s. Liberal democracy takes a backseat to ethno-nationalism and xenophobia, which both hide behind atheism as a progressive signifier.

tl;dr: if you want to be a liberal or progressive, then act like a liberal or progressive. That goes for atheists, too.

8 Likes
61

This is an example of antidisestablishmentarianism if I’ve ever seen it. Secularism is an ideology in-and-of itself. It’s defined in wikipedia and the dictionary as:

Secularism , as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[1] is the “indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations”.

Wearing a cross (or whatever else) isn’t indifference.

According to who should it be interpreted that way?

Part of personal freedom is not having the imaginary fantasy based value systems of an authority figure presented to you while they are in a position of power over you. This isn’t about their personal lives, it’s about their time as authority representing the state to serve as mentors, police officers and judges, where they need to be impartial (read: secular).

62

Only from the point of view of atheism per se, which is why the only definition mentioned in the Wikipedia article you cite that characterises it as such is from an atheist dictionary. Otherwise, it is described alternately as a position, a philosophy and – in the political terms under discussion – a principle (or, as I put it, a value).

Correct, but we’re ralking about the liberal-democratic state’s indifference to the cross, and not the state employee’s indifference to it. Putting aside Quebec’s specific long-standing hypocrisy in its version of secularism, the liberal-democratic state’s embrace of the principle of secularism ideally means that it should be indifferent to a citizen wearing the cross or any other religious symbol – its preferably diverse group of employees included.

According to anyone who’s familiar with the history and philosophical underpinnings and political development of liberal democracy, going back to the 18th century to the present day. Hypocrisies like Quebec’s and France’s don’t define the principle.

That isn’t a problem in a pluralist liberal democracy where the authority figure may adhere to any one of a number of fairy-tale-based personal value systems, or none at all. It is a problem only when, as in Quebec for many decades, the authority figures were in large part drawn from one sect of a larger fantasy-based values system.

But let’s assume that the authority figure is biased on the basis of personal religious beliefs. Prohibiting wearing the religion’s outward trappings doesn’t make that bias vanish – if anything it hides it.

In the end this law is the product of yet another Quebec nationalist party pandering to a bunch of bigoted and xenophobic rural white Catholics who haven’t given a moment’s genuine thought to the relationship between secularism and the liberal-democratic state.

So again: if you want to be seen as a liberal or progressive, act like one. Being an atheist isn’t enough to achieve that by itself.

[And to be clear, I say this all as an atheist myself, one who loathes fundamentalist religions and who approaches all organised religions with a healthy and well-warranted distrust.]

5 Likes
63

Almost any law ever created has been used in unjust ways. If gun control laws are used for racial profiling, should we abandon gun control, or just the unjust parts?
When I read they’re taking a cross down out of the national assembly, even if just as a token, something has gone right. We shouldn’t see any signs of religion in places like that, and if the problem is that it’s being unfairly implemented, that’s what should be protested, not the law itself.

1 Like