Who’s concerned then? A very very small minority of government jobs, plenty of opportunities for people who want to display a religious sign.
Is it any different from asking the people who have the exact same jobs from not displaying their political allegiance? Both religion and freedom of expression are protected by the Canadian Charter, don’t forget that.
So there’s an imaginary line in the sand that you’ve drawn regarding how many jobs are allowed to be denied to minorities? Ever heard of the slippery slope argument?
I thank you for the kind reminder of the existence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if the Quebec legislators have ever read it. Have you? Maybe your rights are only protected when you’re off the clock eh?
Again, what about political signs? No one complains about that… Weird right?
Quebec made the decision 60 years ago to get religion out of its institutions, only the Catholic Church was concerned at the time but today is a different reality and the Révolution Tranquille is a big part of what makes Quebec what it is today. I don’t know why someone that’s religious to the point that they wouldn’t accept to separate their private religious life from their job would want to represent a laïc government just like I don’t understand why an atheist would want to go work for the government in a theocracy.
So your argument is basically that since someone’s rights aren’t respected at a workplace, they shouldn’t work there. Is this a mask off moment or are you starting to realize what the CAQ had intended with Bill 21 all along?
We put limits to people’s rights at work all the time and for multiple reasons, wearing a uniform being one of them.
If your religion is so important to you that you can’t make the difference between your willingness to display it and your professional obligations when you represent a laïc State and you’re in a position of authority (because that’s the only people affected by Bill 21), then maybe you should reconsider your willingness to work for said government in that position because clearly you’re not in the right place.
It’s also very funny that you’re basically saying it’s ok for a religion/community to force people to wear certain clothes but it’s not ok for the State to tell the same people not to wear them. If they were so free to do what they want then removing a religious sign for 8h a day shouldn’t be an issue, shouldn’t it?
Please point out which rights you’re being denied. I dare you. I promise you that there is not a SINGLE right that is infringed upon. A dress code is not protected in the Canadian constitution, however a religion that proscribes religious garb IS protected.
These people you are taking about were born in Canada, and expect to be protected by Canadian law. It’s not fair to them that they are now being told to whip into line for a white protectionist government or get out when they were literally exercising their Canadian rights. You can go and argue the rhetoric with the individuals that took those jobs, I really don’t care. But you cannot strip away the livelihood of an entire group of Canadians and then go, “Well, what did you expect?!” The rest of the world sees through that bullshit.
Did you read the bill?
Yes, I did.
Who’s concerned then? A very very small minority of government jobs, plenty of opportunities for people who want to display a religious sign.
Is it any different from asking the people who have the exact same jobs from not displaying their political allegiance? Both religion and freedom of expression are protected by the Canadian Charter, don’t forget that.
So there’s an imaginary line in the sand that you’ve drawn regarding how many jobs are allowed to be denied to minorities? Ever heard of the slippery slope argument?
I thank you for the kind reminder of the existence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if the Quebec legislators have ever read it. Have you? Maybe your rights are only protected when you’re off the clock eh?
Again, what about political signs? No one complains about that… Weird right?
Quebec made the decision 60 years ago to get religion out of its institutions, only the Catholic Church was concerned at the time but today is a different reality and the Révolution Tranquille is a big part of what makes Quebec what it is today. I don’t know why someone that’s religious to the point that they wouldn’t accept to separate their private religious life from their job would want to represent a laïc government just like I don’t understand why an atheist would want to go work for the government in a theocracy.
So your argument is basically that since someone’s rights aren’t respected at a workplace, they shouldn’t work there. Is this a mask off moment or are you starting to realize what the CAQ had intended with Bill 21 all along?
We put limits to people’s rights at work all the time and for multiple reasons, wearing a uniform being one of them.
If your religion is so important to you that you can’t make the difference between your willingness to display it and your professional obligations when you represent a laïc State and you’re in a position of authority (because that’s the only people affected by Bill 21), then maybe you should reconsider your willingness to work for said government in that position because clearly you’re not in the right place.
It’s also very funny that you’re basically saying it’s ok for a religion/community to force people to wear certain clothes but it’s not ok for the State to tell the same people not to wear them. If they were so free to do what they want then removing a religious sign for 8h a day shouldn’t be an issue, shouldn’t it?
Please point out which rights you’re being denied. I dare you. I promise you that there is not a SINGLE right that is infringed upon. A dress code is not protected in the Canadian constitution, however a religion that proscribes religious garb IS protected.
These people you are taking about were born in Canada, and expect to be protected by Canadian law. It’s not fair to them that they are now being told to whip into line for a white protectionist government or get out when they were literally exercising their Canadian rights. You can go and argue the rhetoric with the individuals that took those jobs, I really don’t care. But you cannot strip away the livelihood of an entire group of Canadians and then go, “Well, what did you expect?!” The rest of the world sees through that bullshit.