|
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. |
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.
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
I hope they ban all the scary Halloween masks. They give me the willies
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 12362311)
I hope they ban all the scary Halloween masks. They give me the willies
|
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. |
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Vulcanoid
(Post 12362616)
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. |
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12362929)
Which religion requires its followers to wear face coverings?
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12362929)
Which religion requires its followers to wear face coverings?
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Vulcanoid
(Post 12362932)
Who said any required that?
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12363012)
Well, if none do, how can this be aimed at a single religion, as your post implied?
|
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. :(. |
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12363195)
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.
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Vive le Quebec. Ban hideous veils please and discourage medievalism.
|
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 12363218)
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
(Post 12363233)
Vive le Quebec. Ban hideous veils please and discourage medievalism.
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. |
Re: The Bill 62 debate is back
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 12363218)
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.
Women do not need veiling in the 21st century. Pleased Austria has recently upheld European and feminist ideals. Oak, totally disagree. As you know. ;) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 1:09 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.