Even the Globe and Mail has to call out english media hypocrisy about Bill 62

Maybe the PQ will feel forced to double down, then take it too far and make themselves look like actual xenophobes this time. Would be funny.
 
ThePapi said:
But is it really xenophobia when 7 out of 10 Canadians (not just Quebecers) agree with bill 62? And what about all the other countries in Europe (who have a lot more experience than us on the subject of muslim immigration) who have taken the same stance, and some of them since the mid 90s?

Have you read the article? It's not about Quebec only.
Click to expand...
First, i would like to address a point: the 7 out of 10 figure is not a fact. It's a number provided by a poll. And polls as we have learned over the years are wildly inaccurate and easy to manipulate. The only way to be sure of what Canadians really think is to ask every single one of the 34 million inhabitants if they agree with bill 62.

Now here comes the complicated part:
Personally, i don't like the islamic veil. I have to mention that because there are a lot of people here who love to jump to the wrong conclusion.

But here's the thing: i value our individual freedoms more than i dislike the islamic veil. Bill 62 is an unconstitutional law aimed at removing individual freedoms. If we let that one pass, it creates a precedent that sends us on a slippery slope. Once the government starts banning something that is important to you, it will be already too late because you agreed to bending the law because you were afraid of something.

Democracy should never be the tyranny of the majority.
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
First, i would like to address a point: the 7 out of 10 figure is not a fact. It's a number provided by a poll. And polls as we have learned over the years are wildly inaccurate and easy to manipulate. The only way to be sure of what Canadians really think is to ask every single one of the 34 million inhabitants if they agree with bill 62.

Now here comes the complicated part:
Personally, i don't like the islamic veil. I have to mention that because there are a lot of people here who love to jump to the wrong conclusion.

But here's the thing: i value our individual freedoms more than i dislike the islamic veil. Bill 62 is an unconstitutional law aimed at removing individual freedoms. If we let that one pass, it creates a precedent that sends us on a slippery slope. Once the government starts banning something that is important to you, it will be already too late because you agreed to bending the law because you were afraid of something.

Democracy should never be the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...

Devils advocate.

What about things like child brides and polygamy, things included in many religions?

I do feel it's a matter of respect. I would not deal with a client wearing a ski mask.
 
Everyone across the political spectrum agrees female genital mutilation is unacceptable but circumcision seems to be a perfectly acceptable practice.
 
PsychoBandito said:
Devils advocate.

What about things like child brides and polygamy, things included in many religions?

I do feel it's a matter of respect. I would not deal with a client wearing a ski mask.
Click to expand...

Age of consent is already a law, so it would rule out child brides.

The government should get out of the business marriage. Take away all the legal and fiscal privileges of marriages and allow people to have as many partners as they want.
 
bigcortex said:
Age of consent is already a law, so it would rule out child brides.

The government should get out of the business marriage. Take away all the legal and fiscal privileges of marriages and allow people to have as many partners as they want.
Click to expand...

And it had to become a law at some point.
 
Mon seul commentaire sur le sujet : ça va pas assez loin.

Ça aurait du être ce que le rapport Bouchard-Taylor proposait, mais non, on veut pas faire trop de peine aux religieux
 
bigcortex said:
C'est pas vraiment la meme chose...
Click to expand...

It can be, a lot of people assume FGM is straight up surgical butchery where they lump off the clitoris when in reality it's a spectrum it can be anywhere from a ceremonial knick to the skin all the way to removing the clitoris.
 
PsychoBandito said:
Devils advocate.

What about things like child brides and polygamy, things included in many religions?
Click to expand...
They're illegal in Canada. Individual freedoms aren't absolutes. It means you can't break the law or hurt other people.

I do feel it's a matter of respect. I would not deal with a client wearing a ski mask.
Click to expand...
That's why you're a terrible ski instructor ;)
 
Spaceman Spiff said:
First, i would like to address a point: the 7 out of 10 figure is not a fact. It's a number provided by a poll. And polls as we have learned over the years are wildly inaccurate and easy to manipulate. The only way to be sure of what Canadians really think is to ask every single one of the 34 million inhabitants if they agree with bill 62.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the whole article IS about how out of touch with the people and other European countries the english media is on this issue. Sample sizes will often be a problem, but this article calls out disingenous and lazy media who doesn't do basic research and comes up with virtue points to get clicks. You might be able to make up anything using stats or flawed reach protocols for who is being polled, but the decisions that have been made in Europe following public inquiries were unilateral, and almost none of them were overturned, except for the burkini in France.

You can think that bill 62 is unconstitutional, but everywhere there has been similar appeals in Europe, they were dismissed because it's not unreasonable to require citizens to show their faces.
 
bigcortex said:
C'est pas vraiment la meme chose...
Click to expand...

Effectivement, parce que la circoncision PEUT avoir des bienfaits médicaux.

Dans tout les autres cas, c'est exactement la même chose. Une culture passée date ou une pratique religieuse.

Cavemen didn't chop off their foreskin, so you don't need to either. Those are purely fantastical human fabrications and need to end unless there is medical benefits to doing it.

No, lasting longer in bed is not a medical benefit.
 
ThePapi said:
You can think that bill 62 is unconstitutional, but everywhere there has been similar appeals in Europe, they were dismissed because it's not unreasonable to require citizens to show their faces.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with european constitutions so i can't comment but i would like to point out that Quebec's Superior Court stroke down Montreal's bylaw P-6 that tried to declare wearing a mask during a protest illegal. And that didn't even involve religious freedoms.
 
"O Asma', when a woman reaches the age of puberty, nothing should be seen of her except for this and this; the hands and the face."

— Prophet Muhammad
 
N'importe quelle mesure pour mettre des bâtons dans les roues à la religion et à la soumission est une bonne chose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top