Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Canada > The Maple Leaf
Reload this Page >

The Bill 62 debate is back

The Bill 62 debate is back

Thread Tools
 
Old Oct 16th 2017, 5:27 pm
  #1  
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Thread Starter
 
magnumpi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
magnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond repute
Default The Bill 62 debate is back

Quebec wants to ban face coverings for duration of any public service, including bus rides - Montreal - CBC News

Sh1t storm is coming, Baton down ya keyboards !!

Quebec wants to ban face coverings for duration of any public service, including bus rides

The legislation, she said, is necessary for "communication reasons, identification reasons and security reasons."

The bill has been subject to criticism from activists who contend it unfairly targets Muslim women, while political opponents including the Coalition Avenir Québec and the Parti Québécois have argued it doesn't go far enough.
magnumpi is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2017, 5:30 pm
  #2  
Assimilated Pauper
 
dbd33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,018
dbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond reputedbd33 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Inevitably, this is the first I’ve heard of the bill and attendant debate. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
dbd33 is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2017, 5:46 pm
  #3  
limey party pooper
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
bats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond reputebats has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

I hope they ban all the scary Halloween masks. They give me the willies
bats is offline  
Old Oct 16th 2017, 5:54 pm
  #4  
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Thread Starter
 
magnumpi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
magnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by bats
I hope they ban all the scary Halloween masks. They give me the willies
What is scary is that the Gov in Quebec actually think this is a good idea and determined to push this ruling thru to be a law!!
magnumpi is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 1:22 am
  #5  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Feb 2014
Location: Done with condescending old hags
Posts: 1,194
Vulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

You see, this is the problem with Quebec. Having been cut off from France for a few hundred years, they lost the art of subtlety. They still do so many of the same or similar things, but the elegance is gone.

'Demonstrating the neutrality of the state' is a laughable phrase, when there's exactly one religion this is going to affect. At least on the mainland, they have the smarts to ban all religious symbols in state-funded issues, which makes it a little less obvious that one specific group are being targeted.
Vulcanoid is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 1:14 pm
  #6  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Vulcanoid
You see, this is the problem with Quebec. Having been cut off from France for a few hundred years, they lost the art of subtlety. They still do so many of the same or similar things, but the elegance is gone.

'Demonstrating the neutrality of the state' is a laughable phrase, when there's exactly one religion this is going to affect. At least on the mainland, they have the smarts to ban all religious symbols in state-funded issues, which makes it a little less obvious that one specific group are being targeted.
Which religion requires its followers to wear face coverings?
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 1:18 pm
  #7  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Feb 2014
Location: Done with condescending old hags
Posts: 1,194
Vulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond reputeVulcanoid has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
Which religion requires its followers to wear face coverings?
Who said any required that?
Vulcanoid is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 1:28 pm
  #8  
Nuther day in paradise.ca
Thread Starter
 
magnumpi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
magnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
Which religion requires its followers to wear face coverings?
KKK
magnumpi is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 2:35 pm
  #9  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Almost Canadian's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: South of Calgary
Posts: 13,375
Almost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond reputeAlmost Canadian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Vulcanoid
Who said any required that?
Well, if none do, how can this be aimed at a single religion, as your post implied?
Almost Canadian is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 5:42 pm
  #10  
Magnificently Withering
 
Oakvillian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
Well, if none do, how can this be aimed at a single religion, as your post implied?
Because, although no religion requires its followers to cover their faces, there is one religion in particular for some of whose followers such a face-covering is an outward expression of their faith. A freedom of expression that they will be denied while riding a city bus, if this Bill is enacted. That's not terribly Canadian, IMO.
Oakvillian is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 6:06 pm
  #11  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: May 2012
Location: Qc, Canada
Posts: 3,787
Shirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond reputeShirtback has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Ugh. I’ve been arguing (not here) about this particular QC fixation & variants for years (since before the “religious accommodation” debacle raised its head) .

It’s going to get ugly. Or even uglier than it already is.

.
Shirtback is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 6:15 pm
  #12  
Lowering the tone
 
Jingsamichty's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 7,351
Jingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond reputeJingsamichty has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Oakvillian
Because, although no religion requires its followers to cover their faces, there is one religion in particular for some of whose followers such a face-covering is an outward expression of their faith. A freedom of expression that they will be denied while riding a city bus, if this Bill is enacted. That's not terribly Canadian, IMO.
It may be an outward expression of their faith, but it is theologically misguided. More to the point, though, is that face-covering is anathema to everything we in the West profess to believe in... equality, respect, personal freedom. It's not just about respect for the individual wearing the covering, it's about respect for the people they interact with. The notion that it is done to avoid inflaming uncontrollable lust amongst the male populace is frankly just insulting.
Jingsamichty is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 6:26 pm
  #13  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Vive le Quebec. Ban hideous veils please and discourage medievalism.
Shard is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 6:51 pm
  #14  
Magnificently Withering
 
Oakvillian's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Oakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond reputeOakvillian has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
It may be an outward expression of their faith, but it is theologically misguided. More to the point, though, is that face-covering is anathema to everything we in the West profess to believe in... equality, respect, personal freedom. It's not just about respect for the individual wearing the covering, it's about respect for the people they interact with. The notion that it is done to avoid inflaming uncontrollable lust amongst the male populace is frankly just insulting.
Originally Posted by Shard
Vive le Quebec. Ban hideous veils please and discourage medievalism.
So, let me get this straight... you see no irony in two men pontificating on an online forum over what women may or may not wear while "receiving a public service" (which may include riding a bus, or sitting in a library reading a reference book, just so that we're clear how far-reaching this suggestion is)?

Dictating, from your comfortable privileged positions, that wearing a niqab is "theologically misguided," "hideous," and so on doesn't strike you as just a teensy bit hypocritical?

I appreciate that hijab can be interpreted in many different ways, and that niqab (or, in some cases, burka) is one interpretation of the strictures of modest dress. I may not agree that it is necessary, but that doesn't mean I want to see it banned.

Mind=boggled.
Oakvillian is offline  
Old Oct 17th 2017, 6:59 pm
  #15  
Yo
 
Shard's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Shard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond reputeShard has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Bill 62 debate is back

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
It may be an outward expression of their faith, but it is theologically misguided. More to the point, though, is that face-covering is anathema to everything we in the West profess to believe in... equality, respect, personal freedom. It's not just about respect for the individual wearing the covering, it's about respect for the people they interact with. The notion that it is done to avoid inflaming uncontrollable lust amongst the male populace is frankly just insulting.
Totally agree.

Women do not need veiling in the 21st century.

Pleased Austria has recently upheld European and feminist ideals.

Oak, totally disagree. As you know.
Shard is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.