- Placing renewable energy projects on their own land (Alberta)
Not on public land. On private land. But only when it would block the pristine views of the wildfires that are getting worse every year for some reason.
And views of pump jacks!
This is a very factual article. I’m not sure where the satire is.
The satire is that some citizens of Canada think these are good things.
And some Canadians held pro-Trump marches during the last American elections…we also have idiots, no country is immune from having dumb people.
deleted by creator
Sadly, the real story’s in the comments.
- Wearing a visible religious symbol while working for the public sector
This one seems reasonable, I’m sure it applies universally and fairly to all religions right?..right?
If it’s referencing Bill 21 then yes and it only applies to public servants with power over other people.
They are asking whether the prohibition affects Christians wearing cross and fish symbols, or only less popular religions’ symbols and styles
Then yes, it does affect them as well, I don’t understand how people are so dumbfounded by that fact.
The only way Stats Can manages to make it seem like Quebec is more Christian than most provinces is by asking a biased question.
In the census:
`What is this person’s religion?
Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group.`
Well, considering our Catholic history and the fact that children were pretty much all getting baptized until the 90s, what do you think is the answer to that?
The Australian census has a similar question. “None” is not an option, though I don’t think it’s a mandatory question (though it’s hard to get meaningful data out of blank versus a stated “none”)
For this law specifically, it didn’t when it was first proposed. I was living in Montreal at the time and there were protests. The provincial government said the cross is “not a religious symbol” or something similar.
So that’s a lie…
“I was living in Montreal at the time”
Buddy, I’ve been living in Quebec longer than the average user on here has been alive and politics is one of my main interests in life.
They didn’t want to remove the cross in the national assembly at first but they never considered the cross to not be a religious sign for the public servants mentioned in the law’s text.
How about wearing a wedding ring on the left hand 3rd finger? Since the 9th century, that’s primarily been a strongly Christian tradition, therefore arguably a symbol of Christianity?
I think it’s only arguably Christian. Loads of atheists follow that tradition and I would consider it culture not religion
I…don’t get it, are you guys sure (Not from Canada lol) a conservative wrote it? What’s the catch?
The catch is that the separation of state and religion is seen differently in Quebec compared to the rest of Canada. In Quebec everyone is made equal by getting religion out of public institutions (ex.: a judge can’t wear a religious sign), in Canada everyone is made equal by being allowed to ask for religious exemptions (ex.: turban wearers don’t have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle in Alberta).
Quebec passed a law to prevent certain public servants from wearing religious signs (teachers, judges, police officers…) and the rest of Canada didn’t agree with them.
Removed by mod
Not everyone in Québec is a French Canadian. There are also French Canadians in the rest of Canada.
But I’m guessing laïcité is a concept you would like to learn more about before making sweeping judgements? Laïcité isn’t perfect, but neither is exemptionism. Laïcité fails people who want to completely freely express their religion, where exemptionism fails those who want to be free from the religion of others.
Have spend time in religious-conflict zones, I’m personally biased towards laïcité. You can imagine Muslims and Jews might want some freedom from seeing symbols of the other’s religion in public institutions right now with the ongoing conflict. Similar feeling for Christians, Orthodox, and Muslims after the Yugoslavian wars; or Christians and Muslims in sub-saharan African; or Sunnis and Shias on Yemen; or anyone who’s not Deobandian Sunni in Afghanistan.
Exemptionism is great for people who haven’t experienced religious persecution. Québécois.e.s feel, real or precived, that they were persecuted by their own religion. This led to the silent revolution, and has a lasting effect of voting in favour of more restrictive, over open, religious freedom laws.
I hope this helps, and of you have examples of which darker skin religions do not get to keep their culture, I would be interested to hear. My own burrough has large Haitian, Jamaican, and Côté d’ivoirian communities; and a fledgling laosian one.
As an immigrant that came to the West Coast I appreciate what you say here as it helps me (us) understand better the reasoning behind the banning of religious symbols in Quebec.
I think you’d have to discuss that with France first.
No catch, but some people don’t like that it affects women who wear hijabs.
Frankly, I’m not even Quebecois and I agree with the law. If you’re going for your driver’s test and you’re obviously gay, you’re going to feel pretty nervous if your tester is wearing some fundie garb, whether it’s a hijab or a cross around their neck. Worse still if you’re going to apply for welfare.
You used examples where the law doesn’t apply, but imagine the same situation in front of a judge and they rule against you…
Yeah like I said, I’m not from QC, so I don’t know the letter of the law. But that’s a great example too.
Don’t talk on behalf of gay people you know nothing.
Hijabs are not “fundie garb”. I am not treated badly by hijabi women and have never heard anyone complain of such.
What a vile attempt to insinuate amnosity between groups you have no involvement in.
Yes the nudists finally won a victory. All that garden of eden shame stuff is finally gone. Judges, teachers and cops no longer wear any garment whose purpose is modesty.
Shame and modesty are of course punishment from God because of Eve having eaten the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
This is fantastic, another great Beaverton article.
- Learning about ways to prevent being sexually assaulted (Saskatchewan)
Parents can still arrange for their children to take these sexual education courses privately, so it’s only the vulnerable, less protected children who will be left without the knowledge!
Do people really need a paid, formal education to protect themselves from sexual assault?
In my experience, the victims of sexual assault tend to put their trust in the wrong people. It would be better to raise children to pick their friends more wisely.
You have a lot of experience with victims of sexual assault?
Seems like there might be a common denominator here…
Yes. And they’re almost always people who have poor character judgement because their parents never taught them.
“It’s the victim’s fault for putting themselves in the wrong situations, and dressing like that”
Your words, not mine.
What on earth do you think those lessons are for? It almost certainly covers spotting signs from people you trust that might lead to abuse, and protecting yourself by removing yourself from the situation if you can.
So… it’s only for a specific group of people who don’t have parents to teach them right from wrong?
In my experience, the victims of sexual assault tend to put their trust in the wrong people.
This sentence is more horrifying the longer I look at it.
Yeah, reality isn’t pretty.
So when a 5 year old girl is raped by her father, when should we have taught her to look out for that?
WTF? Clearly I wasn’t referring to those cases. Did you honestly think I was? Or are you pretending to misunderstand an argument because you don’t like it? Fess up.
It would be better to raise children to pick their friends more wisely.
Just cherrypicking what you want to hear, eh? It’s okay. I see it all the time and don’t expect more from you people at this point.
Goodbye.
and don’t expect more from you people at this point.
Who are ‘you people’ in this scenario? People saying don’t victim blame people who were sexually assault?
1. Using a name and pronouns that reflects their gender identity in school (Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick) 2. Wearing a keffiyeh in the legislature, even if they are just visiting (Ontario) 3. Learning about ways to prevent being sexually assaulted (Saskatchewan) 4. Playing sports while Trans (Alberta) 5. Helping drug addicts by giving them tools they need to avoid infection (Saskatchewan) 6. Placing renewable energy projects on their own land (Alberta) 7. Taking puberty blockers before puberty occurs (Alberta) 8. Wearing a visible religious symbol while working for the public sector (Quebec)Since the day satire died November 6, 2016 The Beaverton has become a trusted news site.
[
laughscries in Floridian]Wearing a visible religious symbol while working for the public sector
This has nothing to do with conservatism, it’s about secularism, go to Turkey you’ll see the same thing, France too, it does not come from conservatives.
Secularism isn’t about hiding religion, it’s about making it not matter.
And you’ll recall that the laws in Quebec around this carved out exemptions for certain religious and cultural signifiers.
That isn’t secularism.
In my country we allow everyone to wear whatever religious symbols, clothes, knives in public service workplaces since those things don’t affect how they do their work, though telling them they may not have those things will push them out of the jobs, or make them upset and less productive if they don’t leave
I see bans on religious symbols in the workplace as an attempt to reduce the number of people who value those symbols in those workplaces
No, you see, it either comes from a liberal or a conservative.
There is no in-between, outliers, or overlap.
The Beaverton isn’t satire, it’s propaganda, and not even subtle bout it.
