Religious minorities face fight-or-flight choice as Quebec values charter released

[Khayr]

You know if the majority people agree on something and you believe in democracy, then what is wrong with all this - right?

By the way, when surveyed as anonymous participants to a survey - the majority are for this.

The majority of people are anti-religion and especially Islam. Islam being the pest that is always confronting and opposing

the liberal and secular world view.

 

In the court of law, laws are always changing based on societal norms. After all, the law makers are always politically influenced.

Case in point - Gay couples being granted marriage licences or Pot being decriminalized.

20 years ago, those two subjects would be a sure loss for any lawyer to argue and defend.

 

Muslims need to have a strong sense of identity. You can't be an American Muslim or a French Muslim. They are oxymorons.

It is like saying Israeli Muslim. Tell that to a Palestinian and see what they say to you.

[Oiler]

One thing to note is that Quebec did not sign The Canadian Charter of Rights back in 1982.

[Alpha Blondy]

Haatu;978000 wrote:

As for this law, I'm not surprised. It is their country after all and they are free to do what they want. As the Brute seems to be using a lot of sayings, I throw one of my own:

Heybad waxaad ku leedahay dhulkaaga hooyo.

;)

 

uu sheeg abti.

 

in London for you.....somaha?

 

 

where .....this niqabi who stole more than £20,000 of taxpayer’s money was last night unmasked to the public - after she tried to protect her identity by arriving at court wearing a Muslim veil.

 

Shaheda Lorgat, 49, arrived for hearings at Preston Crown Court in Lancashire wearing a niqab after being charged with stealing the money from a college where she worked as a purchasing officer. But after she was jailed for a year yesterday, police officers issued Lorgat’s mugshot without her face covering - and insisted that frauds like the crimes she committed would ‘not be tolerated.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424317/Muslim-woman-Shaheda-Lorgat-unmasked-court-stealing-college.html

[Khayr]

Alpha, what was the point of your link? If they post a picture, then

they should also post the pictures of all those other white collar office thieves that work in the world of banking and finance in London.

Her crime was wearing the niqab not the £20,000. Prosecution and sentencing is all influence by money and race.

I bet she could have walked free if she had a good lawyer and claimed to be a gambling addict. Justice is very subjective and relative.

[Alpha Blondy]

Khayr;978100 wrote:

Alpha, what was the point of your link?

no reason at all.

 

but the Hijab is no longer a garment of piety. it's being worn by all sorts of criminals and bad people, ma garatay? ku xisabtan taa, abti.

[Safferz]

Oiler;978074 wrote:

One thing to note is that Quebec did not sign The Canadian Charter of Rights back in 1982.

It doesn't matter whether they've signed it or not, Quebec is a province of Canada and therefore subject to the Canadian constitution.

[Oiler]

Safferz;978181 wrote:

It doesn't matter whether they've signed it or not, Quebec is a province of Canada and therefore subject to the Canadian constitution.

What about the notwithstanding clause?

 

The notwithstanding clause will rule out any weight given to a court ruling. Quebec will simply do what they want. You have cases in the past where the supreme course of Canada ruled against Quebec, and then Quebec used the notwithstanding clause to override.

 

The only way to fight this battle is through the public. A minority government is charge of Quebec and lets hope the other parties do not allow this bill to pass.

[Haatu]

Safferz;978051 wrote:

^ It's not "their country," and no one is free to do whatever they want if it infringes on the rights of others (in this instance, freedom of religion). That's the law of the land.

Nonsense. What about France? As long as they can get it through parliament, they can do whatever they like using their Human Rights BS.

[Oiler]

Haatu;978239 wrote:

Nonsense. What about France? As long as they can get it through parliament, they can do whatever they like using their Human Rights BS.

He/She always seems to type with authority - Self-righteousness is not cool trait bredrens.

[Safferz]

Oiler;978251 wrote:

He/She always seems to type with authority - Self-righteousness is not cool trait bredrens.

Why thank you.

 

Re: notwithstanding clause, the Parti Quebecois has already said they don't plan to invoke it, and it's unlikely considering they are a minority government and more interested in provocation and polarizing public opinion, which they've already done. Textbook PQ.

 

Haatu;978239 wrote:

Nonsense. What about France? As long as they can get it through parliament, they can do whatever they like using their Human Rights BS.

What about France? These are two completely different countries with very different legal systems and histories of immigration/settlement. That said, it's always surprising to me to see Somalis spewing positions more in common with neo-Nazis than anyone else.

[Khayr]

Safferz;978275 wrote:

Why thank you.

 

Re: notwithstanding clause, the Parti Quebecois has already said they don't plan to invoke it, and it's unlikely considering they are a minority government and more interested in provocation and polarizing public opinion, which they've already done. Textbook PQ.

 

 

 

What about France? These are two completely different countries with very different legal systems and histories of immigration/settlement. That said, it's always surprising to me to see Somalis spewing positions more in common with neo-Nazis than anyone else.

It is because they have mentally distanced themselves from Islam. Little do they know that when the Serbs were committing genocide against the Bosnians that they could spot Bosnian blood miles away - even if they did not dress or look muslim.

Meaning that unless you change your DNA completely, you will still be considered a muslim when a mob sees you in the street because you still look it. That goes to those muslim women that dye their hair blonde and have tats on their backs and those muslim men that are clean shaven and wear skinny jeans and shirts with ties.

[Safferz]

Khayr;978288 wrote:

It is because they have mentally distanced themselves from Islam

. Little do they know that when the Serbs were committing genocide against the Bosnians that they could spot Bosnian blood miles away - even if they did not dress or look muslim.

Meaning that unless you change your DNA completely, you will still be considered a muslim when a mob sees you in the street because you still look it. That goes to those muslim women that dye their hair blonde and have tats on their backs and those muslim men that are clean shaven and wear skinny jeans and shirts with ties.

Well I don't completely agree with that, you don't even need to be Muslim to understand what's at stake here, or to support someone's right to practice their religion. I don't wear a hijab, but I don't have to to see the implications of banning the hijab (along with other religious symbols) for freedom of religion and expression in a democratic society.

[Alpha Blondy]

[Khadafi]

Sound secularism means religious freedom. In other words no state should force religion upon it's citizens. But what Quebec today is doing is the opposite, it's forcing it's citizens upon atheism (non-religionism). Everyone should be free to wear the garments they went. The muslin women the hijab and the jews there kippa and the Sikhs and their turban.

 

A second point is what is the definition of a religious symbol?. What would exactly happen if hijab-garment or the sikh turban becomes the norm of fashion in society? Should it then be allowed because of it's fashion status.

 

Johnny B, would you not count the aggressive french secularism as counter productive? The swedish norm of "religions-frihet" should be a norm to be followed.

[Haatu]

Oiler;978251 wrote:

He/She always seems to type with authority - Self-righteousness is not cool trait bredrens.

Are you talking about me?

 

Safferz, yes they have all those little niceties known as "religious freedom" and whatnot, but at the end of the day they can do anything as long as they can get it through parliament.

 

Khayr, no is distancing themselves. I'm just saying it was a matter of time.