Quebec, after two failed attempts, have successfully passed a religious neutrality law under Premier François Legault. This law bans civil servants, including police officers, bus drivers, and...
Exemplary
Quebec, after two failed attempts, have successfully passed a religious neutrality law under Premier François Legault. This law bans civil servants, including police officers, bus drivers, and teachers, from displaying any "ostentatious" religious symbols or clothing. Turbans, niqabs and burkas are included in this ban. It also bans people wearing these items from accessing public services, which may include accessing health care and taking the bus.
Crosses and crucifixes have been discussed as well, since though many believe they are not the target of this ban, they are included as well.
They haven't passed the law yet AFAIK. Just like the last time Quebec politicians tried this crap (in 2013) it's simply being proposed again and widely condemned, (rightly so, IMO) even by our PM....
They haven't passed the law yet AFAIK. Just like the last time Quebec politicians tried this crap (in 2013) it's simply being proposed again and widely condemned, (rightly so, IMO) even by our PM. However even if they do pass it, it will likely get shot down by our Supreme Court on the grounds of violating the Charter of Rights & Freedoms for being discriminatory. It's pure virtue signaling by the CAQ... or in this case, whatever the opposite of virtue is since it's absolutely blatant bigotry and discrimination. :/
Had to double check :P Looks like it (Bill 62) was passed by Quebec's National Assembly (66-51 vote). However, as you predicted, it is currently suspended (Quebec religious neutrality bill...
Oh, fun. Looks like Legault and Doug Ford are cut from the same disgusting piece of filthy political cloth. Fuck both of them and their bullshit, unethical political maneuvers driving us directly...
However, Legault did mention he will use the notwithstanding clause to push it through
Does anyone else really hate when news orgs use such intentionally unspecific identifiers in their headlines? IMO they often do that as a mild form of clickbait to make the issue seem far more...
Does anyone else really hate when news orgs use such intentionally unspecific identifiers in their headlines? IMO they often do that as a mild form of clickbait to make the issue seem far more important/controversial than it really is, since by not identifying the specific role of the person making the statement, people who read it will assume the person is more important/influential than they might actually be. And while in this case it's the Premier of Quebec making the idiotic claim, who actually does hold a fair amount of authority in the Province, in a lot of cases it's usually just some minor and practically irrelevant politician, police spokesman or whatever being an idiot, so largely irrelevant news.
p.s. Does anyone object to changing the topic title to:
Premier of Quebec, François Legault, says crucifix 'not religious symbol'
Yeah please go ahead and change it if you can. I debated changing it, but wasn't sure how Tildes feels about that still. (Was actually in the process of writing a comment for more context...)
Yeah please go ahead and change it if you can. I debated changing it, but wasn't sure how Tildes feels about that still. (Was actually in the process of writing a comment for more context...)
Another pet peeve of mine is actually the opposite of this: where the news site names a person but doesn't give them any context. That's why I added "Prime Minister" and "President" in the title...
Another pet peeve of mine is actually the opposite of this: where the news site names a person but doesn't give them any context. That's why I added "Prime Minister" and "President" in the title of this post of mine: I added "Prime Minister" because I figure most people reading Tildes won't know who Scott Morrison is without some hint, and then I added "President" for consistency.
There should be some consistent middle ground for headlines!
Quebec, after two failed attempts, have successfully passed a religious neutrality law under Premier François Legault. This law bans civil servants, including police officers, bus drivers, and teachers, from displaying any "ostentatious" religious symbols or clothing. Turbans, niqabs and burkas are included in this ban. It also bans people wearing these items from accessing public services, which may include accessing health care and taking the bus.
Crosses and crucifixes have been discussed as well, since though many believe they are not the target of this ban, they are included as well.
They haven't passed the law yet AFAIK. Just like the last time Quebec politicians tried this crap (in 2013) it's simply being proposed again and widely condemned, (rightly so, IMO) even by our PM. However even if they do pass it, it will likely get shot down by our Supreme Court on the grounds of violating the Charter of Rights & Freedoms for being discriminatory. It's pure virtue signaling by the CAQ... or in this case, whatever the opposite of virtue is since it's absolutely blatant bigotry and discrimination. :/
Had to double check :P
Looks like it (Bill 62) was passed by Quebec's National Assembly (66-51 vote). However, as you predicted, it is currently suspended (Quebec religious neutrality bill suspended by Superior Court judge).
However, Legault did mention he will use the notwithstanding clause to push it through (Legault to use notwithstanding clause to ban religious symbols for civil servants).
Oh, fun. Looks like Legault and Doug Ford are cut from the same disgusting piece of filthy political cloth. Fuck both of them and their bullshit, unethical political maneuvers driving us directly towards a Constitutional crisis.
My thoughts exactly.
Does anyone else really hate when news orgs use such intentionally unspecific identifiers in their headlines? IMO they often do that as a mild form of clickbait to make the issue seem far more important/controversial than it really is, since by not identifying the specific role of the person making the statement, people who read it will assume the person is more important/influential than they might actually be. And while in this case it's the Premier of Quebec making the idiotic claim, who actually does hold a fair amount of authority in the Province, in a lot of cases it's usually just some minor and practically irrelevant politician, police spokesman or whatever being an idiot, so largely irrelevant news.
p.s. Does anyone object to changing the topic title to:
Premier of Quebec, François Legault, says crucifix 'not religious symbol'
Yeah please go ahead and change it if you can. I debated changing it, but wasn't sure how Tildes feels about that still. (Was actually in the process of writing a comment for more context...)
Another pet peeve of mine is actually the opposite of this: where the news site names a person but doesn't give them any context. That's why I added "Prime Minister" and "President" in the title of this post of mine: I added "Prime Minister" because I figure most people reading Tildes won't know who Scott Morrison is without some hint, and then I added "President" for consistency.
There should be some consistent middle ground for headlines!