all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The province will also limit the offering of kosher and halal meals in public institutions. “We think that when the state is neutral, Quebecers are free,” said Roberge, rejecting allegations the law disproportionately affects minorities. “We have the same rules applying to everyone,” he said.

If I make a law that forbids something that only one group does even if it "applys to all" it still disproportionately effects minorities. I'm an anti theist but this is so clearly targeted.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    What's the difference between public prayer and public speaking other than intent?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    What’s the difference between Nazis marching around, throwing their arms up and other protests? Intent is very important, it can completely undermine your society. And there is no way to let religion in without it getting its tentacles into all aspects of your society, just like authoritarianism. Thats why other cultures banned missionaries back in the day.

    Because, before you know it, they’re telling you how to run your government, telling you what laws to enact, and stripping away your culture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Also who is "they" and "you" in this scenario? Religious people already live here. They are citizens. They get a say in their government. They're supposed to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Yeah ive heard their say, and it involves me being killed. Not a fan of this law, but you cannot pretend it's not exploiting the presence of a very real problem.

    When you believe in unfalsifiable cosmic moral absolutes, especially those untethered from material reality, and use that to justify your worst impulses, you're gonna do some fucked up shit, and can't really be talked down.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    The in group that wants to place their will on the out group. Thats how it typically goes. While I say that nobody has a right to place their beliefs on others. Thats a not a right in any sense, not human right, nor government appointed right. Evangelism aka witnessing your faith isn’t a right. Your ability to hold your beliefs and practice them in your place of worship and home is. There’s a difference

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Sounds an awful lot like you don't like what someone has to say and don't want to hear it. 

    But I really meant more from a legal standpoint. How exactly is it we're planning to "ban public prayer"?

    Is it still public prayer if I pray to Jebus instead of Jesus? Is it public prayer if I sing hallelujah out loud?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    Based on just the article linked, it sounds more like they're prohibiting the use of publicly owned property or public funding to enable religious expression. In the context of a French legal tradition I don't really see how prohibiting the use of public property in religious expression is the same as banning expression generally except in private. I think conflating the two is a bit of a tortured analogy grounded in American legal thought, although I do agree that it seems motivated, at least in large part, by Islamophobia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    It probably pertains to public (government) places. Like public schools and such. At least thats how it’s been viewed in America.

    And don’t be silly, you know there is a difference between different kinds of speech. Thats how we also know the difference between hate speech, threats, verbal abuse, and profane speech and normal speech. Sure, a really dense lawyer can argue all day about the nuances of it, but a jury of peers or a society at large can come to a consensus of what is what.

  • source
  • parent
  • 61 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] [S] 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    I believe Quebec is right.

    Religion is like sex. I'm not against sex. But you don't do it at work or in the streets. You do it at home or in a place that is designed for that. And you don't that with children.

    This is one of these things I will never understand about English Canada. In the Anglosphere culture, people believe secularism means all religions should have the equal right to express themselves in public area.

    In France, there is laicité. People don't want to see any religion in public. Religion is considered a sensitive private matter. You can wear religious clothes and pray on your own time.

    Some one asked people in European countries subreddit about their thoughts on Quebec's laicity law. In France, the majority of respondents (about 99%?) said it was a great idea

    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFrance/comments/104tov9/how_france_deals_with_religion_practice_in_its/

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Extremely bad idea "laicite" is very wrong and as seen in France enforced selectively and against "others" to produce "conformity".

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago* (54 children)

    Let’s ban something that never happened.

    The only public prayers in recent years were done by far right extremism who were protected by the police from the counter protesters.

    Fuck the CAQ gov

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    By far right you also mean the muslims who pretended a protest was just a public prayer event in the middle of the street and arguably caused this law to be a thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (39 children)

    I love it. Public prayer shouldn’t happen at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (26 children)

    The problem is not if it should or shouldn’t happen

    The problem is that it will not be enforced equally between religious communities and Christian poser asshole

    It’s racism with more steps

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It just so happens that it always boils down to policing what Muslims do. Just one big coincidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    That's very fair yes. But how can you tell those who are anti-religion for racist reasons from those who are for not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    There are two hazards in our discussion:

    1. someone being called racist
    2. someone suffering from systemic racism

    I prioritize hazard 1 as having a lower consequence than hazard 2.

    In other words, I care much more about eradicating systemic racism than the hurt feelings of someone whose motives are misunderstood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    The context made it so that people conflates the two.

    Medias and public debates pretty much always framed the issue of religion in public as a racist thing (in order to get more views) instead of only talking how the CAQ government targetted non-christian religions with their bill.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    That is not push on a non-racism way in Quebec. Like I said they don’t want to use the law equally, they want to use it specifically against Muslim.

    And so far, from my perspective (that is a confirmation biais), no one debate the idea without a racist undertone

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    That's my issue as well with the bill. Just look at the crucifix at the Assembly. They didn't remove it, they just moved it outside the room. If the intent of the law was really to remove religion from the public space, it wouldn't have been a debate about keeping the crucifix in the Assembly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    Sure, you can be against it for authoritarian reasons as well. Disturbing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I don't really see how that's related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that'd be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn't matter what the motivation for that is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    It’s not racism with more steps. You don’t even know it has not been enforced improperly. It’s a lot easier to enforce enforcement than it is to stop people ruining the world

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    Praying doesn't ruin the world. Just like having a party, or a poetry slam, or Shakespeare in the park.

    It's behaviors that cause health or safety issues that are the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    Praying in PUBLIC is like having sex in public. Don’t.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    So someone praying before a meal is an equivalent obscenity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    So, you and I both know that public praying isn’t just people being in public standing around praying without anyone knowing they’re praying.

    If a person went to a restaurant and started vocally praising Satan for this meal for an hour prior to eating it… yeah I bet they would make a lot of people uncomfortable. Not to mention the restaurant would refuse them service.

    What you want to do is justify bothering people in public spaces with your beliefs. If you can stand around in public thinking about your god without letting anyone else know you’re doing it, then no one would be uncomfortable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Then that's not prayer, it's being a public nuisance, a disturber of the peace. That's a different crime / tort that I'm sure is already on the books.

    The prayer part is irrelevant.

    There's a precedent like this in the US: enhancement laws

    They ruin lives, and don't stop crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Sorry, can you expand on the ways prayer is like sex? Are people praying with their dicks out in your vicinity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    If you aren’t able to see how a comparison between two things does not create a combination of those two things, then you aren’t intelligent enough to converse in a polite manor. I’ve provided more details in my other comments, you can read those without interacting with me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 11 months ago* (12 children)
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    Religion is like sex. You can do it in your home and maybe even designated enclosed places in groups, but you should never do it out in public—and under no circumstances should you ever involve children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 11 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    Do you believe that people should be able to have sex out in public for everyone to see? And, why Do you feel the way you do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 11 months ago* (10 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I would say about the same number of people are offended by profanity in public as they are religious acts in public. Moreover, I would estimate the number who are offended by sex acts in public is much higher than either of these. So, for the sake of other people's sensibilities, shall we ban public profanity?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

    I believe that public display of religion makes enough people feel uncomfortable that it was banned in Quebec.

    Let me ask you this, why do you feel that you should be able to practice your religion in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable? And a follow up question, don’t you think that you should be going to the designated spot for this?

    I certainly don’t think we should ban religion in general. That’s crazy talk. I just don’t think we should be forcing things onto other people. Do you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Do you feel that you should be able to hold hands with a same sex partner in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

    Do you feel that you should be able to be trans in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

    Maybe people being uncomfortable is not a good yardstick for determining what people can do in public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago

    Do you feel that you should be able to hold hands with a same sex partner in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

    Yes, you can hold hands and you can hold your bible. You can also be a believer in god while also walking in public. You can even wear a rainbow or a crucifix to identify your own kind. But, keep your void damned pants on and don’t scream out praising your god.

    Do you feel that you should be able to be trans in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

    Yes trans is a person being who they are. Religion is a choice.

    Maybe people being uncomfortable is not a good yardstick for determining what people can do in public.

    I don’t disagree that “uncomfortable” is a slippery slope word. And while I completely agree with banning prayer in public—I probably wouldn’t vote for it. Unlike religious people, I dislike forcing my views on people, even if their entire existence is doing that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Your opinion makes me uncomfortable and I think we should ban expressing things like this in public :(

    /end sarcasm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Good thing this isn’t public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    You have fundamentally misunderstood the internet if you do not think this is public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    There’s a real difference between doing something on an open internet forum and doing it out in public, physically. Online, people have to choose to click on something, follow a link, or open a post. If they don’t want to see it, they can just scroll past or block it. In the real world, you can’t avoid someone the same way—you can’t block a person walking toward you on the sidewalk, and you can’t just scroll away from something happening right in front of you.

    Plus, online spaces usually come with filters, warnings, and moderation tools that don’t exist in physical public spaces. Everything online is also separated by screens and distance, so the impact isn’t the same as doing something right in front of people who have no way to opt out.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    Here in Coquitlam, our parks get flooded with public prayers at noon. It makes me uncomfortable as someone who moved out of sharia law country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Which parks exactly are being flooded with people on prayer mats?

    If you tried that in Mundy, you’d likely get hit in the head with a frisbee.

    Most of the other parks I know of in Coquitlam don’t have enough flat space to do such a thing, being filled as they are with trees and trails.

    Tri Cities? Sure… there are also people doing yoga, going for prayer walks, sword dancing, and many other things from many cultures. But none are really flooding anywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Nothing wrong with public prayer, even a large gathering. I'm an atheist, and as long as no one is causing a health or safety issue, fuck it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Well I don't feel very comfortable in a space like that personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Then don't be in that space?

    So you feel the same when a bunch of people are meditating? Same action, really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    It's a public park, and I'm not gonna advocate for banning it, but it does make me uncomfortable and if they eventually start blasting the quran in public (like the government does in Iran) I will support banning it.

  • source
  • parent