Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Mask laws and anti-religious bigotry [View all]guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)34. And from the law:
First, it is not intended to be universally and unexceptionally applied.
The bill establishes the conditions under which accommodations on religious grounds may be granted as well as the specific elements that must be considered when dealing with certain accommodation requests.
Second:
4. In the exercise of their functions, personnel members of public bodies must demonstrate religious neutrality.
They must be careful to neither favour nor hinder a person because of the persons religious affiliation or non-affiliation.
They must be careful to neither favour nor hinder a person because of the persons religious affiliation or non-affiliation.
This complies with the Charter of Freedoms and Rights, which guarantees the freedom to believe and to exercise that belief.
And this section is the most problematic if the intent it truly what the authors claim:
CHAPTER IV INTERPRETATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
13. The measures introduced in this Act must not be interpreted as affecting the emblematic and toponymic elements of Québecs cultural heritage, in particular its religious cultural heritage, that testify to its history.
Meaning that the many crucifixes and other RCC religious symbols will be allowed to remain in place. THAT gives the lie to the idea that this law is neutral in respect to religion.
Thank you for the link.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
129 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I just like seeing him further drag his own reputation and credibility down into the shitpile.
trotsky
Oct 2017
#60
None of our anti-mask laws mention any group; and 14-12.7 is written in great generality
struggle4progress
Oct 2017
#25
Yes, you must have been obviously confused since you didn't distinguish between them.
trotsky
Oct 2017
#55
wait, so rather than admit you were wrong about anti-mask laws in the other thread you started this
Voltaire2
Oct 2017
#6
The law provides an exception for religious symbols that are part of the heritage
guillaumeb
Oct 2017
#46
And should we also be intolerant if a group of athists demonstrates intolerance?
guillaumeb
Oct 2017
#78