Quebec Charter: Not My Last Word

In a comment to my most recent post, “Aspects of Anti-Charter Propaganda,” Jim Royal has asks me a series of questions. I intend to answer some of his questions here.

However, before I begin, I would like to address Jim Royal’s earlier comments addressed to me on Joe’s post, “Secularism: A Separatist Trojan Horse“:

Jim Royal implies that my attitudes to the Charter are similar to those the Pineault-Caron family express. According to a CBC article, the Pineault-Caron family criticized a particular Islamic religious practice:

Geneviève Caron spoke before a national assembly commission in Quebec City, describing her shock after visiting a mosque in Morocco.

“There were men on all fours on the ground … ‘Come on!’ I said, “Praying on all fours on the ground on little carpets…what the heck is that all about?’”

I have no desire to criticize what religious practices people follow in the privacy of their home or place of worship. The freedom to practice religion is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, to Jim Royal’s comment to “Aspects of Anti-Charter Propaganda”:

Veronica, I am disappointed that you chose to hide behind the words of another person, rather than speak for yourself.

I am not hiding behind another person or his words. I am a member of Atheist Freethinkers; I fully support AFT’s position on the Charter and fully support David Rand’s latest post: “AFT Blog # 42: Anti-Charter Propaganda.”

Royal objects to my statement,

Government employees should represent the government they work for: they should not represent their religion.

According Royal,

Boiled down, this says that people should not wear religious symbols at work because people should not wear religious symbols at work. This is a circular argument . . .

I amended my statement to

Government employees should represent the government they work for while they are at work; they should not represent their religion.

If this still appears to be a circular argument, then I’ll amend it again: It is necessary to know which branch of the government employees represent; it is not necessary to know which religious practice they follow.  I don’t want to be told, either verbally or non-verbally, which religious practice the clerk who renews my vehicle plates follows.

Royal asks,

Some people have taken the bill to mean that wearing anything muslim-looking is now out of bounds in Quebec, whether you work for the government or not.

Where are these “people” getting this impression from? They are getting this impression from people like you and the media which spread this misinformation.

Finally, Royal asks,

Do you have any muslim friends?

Yes, I have Muslim friends, but I don’t know whether they are Islam.  I don’t ask.

70 thoughts on “Quebec Charter: Not My Last Word

  1. Jim Royal implies that my attitudes to the Charter are similar to those the Pineault-Caron family express.

    No, I did not. I did precisely the opposite. I assumed that your attitudes were in fact quite different from the Pineault-Caron family, but that perhaps you had not taken a hard look at the ugly landscape that now surrounds you. Sometimes, people walk themselves into indefensible positions out of principle.

    In the name of secularism, you are now allied with people who are true religious bigots. Sometimes, that’s a necessary unpleasantness in the defence of a principle like free speech. But I don’t see how that’s the case here.

    My comment was an honest invitation to you to take stock of your current position, which to me, is anti-secularism.

    It is necessary to know which branch of the government employees represent; it is not necessary to know which religious practice they follow. I don’t want to be told, either verbally or non-verbally, which religious practice the clerk who renews my vehicle plates follows.

    Too bad. You have to share the world with people who are different from you. You do not have the right to be shielded from that.

    Where are these “people” getting this impression from? They are getting this impression from people like you and the media which spread this misinformation.

    You’re not serious. You think that more people are assaulting muslims because they’re listening to me?

    And I see you still have not addressed any of substantive questions from myself or any of the others commenting on this blog, the questions that go to effects and consequences.

  2. Religion is the problem most of us have problems dealing with. Unless a state (governments, etc.) is strictly and outspoken secular, we will always have problems with religious tribalism. That is why Israel and the Palestinians will never ever solve their problems about living together in peace. If religious pressure groups try to impose their rules and superstitions on others, restricting other’s lifestyles, they will never be able to live together in peace!

  3. “I don’t want to be told, either verbally or non-verbally, which religious practice the clerk who renews my vehicle plates follows.” I have two problems with this statement; one, it is uncomfortably similar to the common homophobic argument where someone claims they are fine with a stranger’s “life choices” but doesn’t want to see them; insisting that it’s better for everyone if gay people just, you know, pretend to be straight every day in public, just to make that person more comfortable. This has long been acknowledged as a homophobic and oppressive demand on homosexual people; it sounds just as bigoted when aimed at religious people.

    The second problem I have with it is why it bothers you so much that a perfect stranger you have to deal with for five minutes is religious. Someone wearing a headscarf is not infringing on your rights, they are not preaching to you. After you have renewed your license you will probably never have to see them again, and their religion has no effect on the job that they do renewing your license. If it has no effect, then why on earth is it so important that they hide it away so you never have to see it? As Jim Royal said above me, “You have to share the world with people who are different from you. You do not have the right to be shielded from that.”

  4. Agree against homophobia but not for civil servants. We are citizens not members of this or that religion or philosophical orientation when we work in state institutions. I can’t conceive a teacher coming in his class with a T-shirt saying «God does not exist».

    • How did the comment “spreading misinformation” get all the way to “assaulting Muslims”????? Jim Royal is on a bit of a tangent, don’t you think? That is not a leap of logic, but rather it is a step off the cliff of reason and common sense.
      I also have to agree with the comment above of Bernard La Rivière. People working for the government have no more right to advertise via the wearing of religious garb and symbols, than a person proselytizing for atheism. Both are entitlements of free speech, but are wrong in a government workplace!

  5. Why is it I have difficulty believing Global News? Could it be because the http://www.islamophobiequebec.org/ denounced those «numerous attacks» the second day the Charter was announced? Could it be because the police never received a complaint? Could it be because this serves the cause of the anti Charter?

    How can you not know the religion of your doctor if he wears a yarmulke?

    Governments make the laws and thus determine what’s legal or not. Not you.

    Laïcity is separation between politic and religion; and most of all, religion does not make the law.

    • Bernard, of course I know that a man wearing a yarmulke is Jewish. The point is that he doesn’t talk about it. The presence of the yarmulke makes no difference to anyone except for him.

      Governments make the laws and thus determine what’s legal or not. Not you.

      I never claimed that I did. I was talking about secularism. The principle of laïcity denotes the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs. If the government is making laws that affect religion, then laïcity has disappeared.

  6. And if religion is making laws that affect government?

  7. Jim says: “You just equated wearing a piece of clothing to proselytizing. Who is off on a tangent here? My doctor wears a yarmulke. He makes no mention of his religion. He has every legal right to wear it. What possible difference does it make to you?”

    Jim: Nobody is saying your doctor cannot wear his religious garb, but he DOES NOT work for the government! That is the difference. Government Secularism is the assertion of the right to be free from religion. While working for the government, wear your magic underwear out of site of the public! Place your crucifix under your clothing! That is a right that I will fight to the death to defend.
    And YES I am saying that the wearing of certain clothing is proselytizing. If and atheist shows up at his government job wearing a t-shirt that says “God does not exist”, then perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe it is proselytizing. The same(in my opinion)holds true for the wearing of a crucifix in public view.
    Thank goodness there was no electricity in biblical times! Instead of a crucifix, Christians would be wearing tiny electric chairs on a chain around their necks.

    • Nobody is saying your doctor cannot wear his religious garb, but he DOES NOT work for the government!

      Wayne, which country do you live in? Of course my doctor — who works in a public hospital — is in the employ of the government.

      Bill 60, the charter of Quebec values, applies to doctors, nurses, teachers, daycare workers, clerical workers, police officers, crown prosecutors, and judges. Go look it up. Amazingly, the rule does not apply to MNAs.

      I can see how the rule could apply usefully to police officers and judges — these people wield the punitive power of government. It is reasonable that a cop be required to not modify the uniform. But for the rest?

      Do you still support this law? Do you think a daycare worker is the same as a cop?

      If and atheist shows up at his government job wearing a t-shirt that says “God does not exist”, then perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe it is proselytizing.

      Yes it is proselytizing. But a scarlet A lapel pin is not. The content of the message is different. The first case is a message about other people, while the latter is a message about yourself. While I don’t approve of the hijab, I understand that the wearing of a hijab is a statement about the wearer, not a statement intended to influence other people. That’s the difference between expression and proselytizing.

  8. I still don’t like the whole “People should represent the government they work for” angle.

    I prefer the “Government works for the people” sensibility to the “People work for the Government” one.

    If government employees are no longer able to wear religious symbols at work, I will lament the loss of the visual panoply of religions one can (and usually does) encounter arrayed before you, as the biggest and least violent and violating boon to atheism.

    I will also view it as a quasi-fascistic trend.

    • I’m also curious if this proposed charter law includes the big red dot that religious hindus who are newly married or on I guess some other religious occasions as well, must wear.

      And if not, why not?

  9. Easy on fascism, Bubba, religions have a heavy record on this king of things.

    You van benefit of «visual panoply» every day on the street (but not in every country…).

    Civil servants are citizens, not members of this or that religion or atheists or skeptics or whatever.

    The red dot is a beautiful question. If I were you, I’d refer to a specialist.

    • easy on thinking atheist are some how invincible to the possibility of fascistic behaviour Bernard. Sometimes it can come up on you by surprise.

  10. Has laïcity a long record of fascism? Wanting that religion be kept out of the State, is that fascism? Not in my book.

    Hitler and Mussolini went very easy on religion. Jaurès was a socialist. The atheist are persecuted in non laïcists countries. I’m sure you know witch ones and by witch religion. The soviets persecuted the Orthodoxes as hard as the christians persecuted the pagans. The fascists, never. But I’ll be careful for coming up surprises, thanks for the advice.

    • Keeping religion out of the State is laudable and applaudable. Keeping religion out of the people by force is not, and as we can clearly see, is oft used as an excuse for genocide.

  11. Genocide !!!! Let’not boil over. I guaranty there won’t be any genocide in Quebec. And laïcity does not extract religion out of people.

    Please.

  12. The standard mockingly dismissive refrain.

  13. Yes I think so. There is no gob, Bubba.

  14. god, I mean.

  15. correction: god, I mean.

  16. Regarder ici Monsieur La Riviere, tu sais tres bien que t’est entrain d’essayer de me convaincre d’une loi d’un autre pays, etablis dans un autre temps, avec autre intention, un pays avec une autre histoire, une histoire enjambant les conquetes des romains, les plusieurs guerres religieuse, les massacres des Huguenot inclus, l’oppression religieuse, les grands boulversements sociales. Cette loi la de que tu me parle, cette concept, la laïcité, c’etait concu expressement pour s’adresser a un milieu purement chretien, pour s’adresser a les conflits entre purement des chretiens eux memes, et n’importe quel autre français non-religieuse inclus.

    Tu n’peu pas me dire que nous parlons de la meme chose ici. Vous ne pouvez pas me dire que ce qui est adressee sont les memes problemes. Le meme milieu. Vous ne pouvez pas me dire que vous etes essayent de contenir la grande bataille entre toutes les religions innombrables representes au Québec maintenant. Aujourd’hui.

    You can’t tell me the biggest and most beautiful help atheism could ever receive, is having so many different religions arrayed in front of you, all respected as embodied by the individual believer in them — as long as they remain within the confines of respect-des-droits– yet all so preposturously and irreconcilably different that none can claim to be the true, right one. You can’t tell me that this is nothing but quasi-fascism du jour. Et tres probablement rien d’autre qu’un effort cynique et puerile de s’cacher de ses echecs de responsabilite a la fois nationiale et internationionale.

    • Sunnites et chiites se font la guerre, ils font la guerre aux coptes aussi. Au nord de l’Inde, c’est entre Hindous et musulmans. Et je ne parle pas de l’Afrique.

      Il est trop tard pour parler des conflits entre chrétiens; à ma connaissance, il n’y en a plus.

      Le Projet de loi 60 ne s’adresse pas aux problèmes internationaux, ni même à ceux du Canada. Il n’interdit pas non plus la critique des religions.

      Je ne réponds plus à l’insulte de fascisme. Mussolini était catholique. C’est Garibaldi qui était (plus ou moins) laïque.

      L’effort de laïcisation date d’aussi loin que des 92 Résolutions des Patriotes (quelque part au 19e siècle). Quant à l’«effort cynique et puéril de s’cacher de ses echecs de responsabilite a la fois nationiale et internationale», je ne sais pas de quoi vous parlez. Si c’est du «bashing», tant pis pour vous.

      • Laisse moi t’aider parce que tu manque un peu pour je ne sais pas pourquoi, mais si ca te donne la plaisir, peut-etre tu peux me donner la raison pour la lacune. Sunnites et chiites se font la guerre, ils font la guerre aux coptes aussi, avec les Etats Unis et des autres pays, principalement anglaises, et plusieurs d’autre pays, en pleines centre avec pas une modeste ou legere quantite de sang sur les mains ni pour peu de temps, ni pour des raisons parfaitement ni presque parfaitement honorable, avec un quantite de monnaie obscene partager entre les plus grandes coupables tous, pas au moins en forme militaire. Au nord de l’Inde, c’est entre Hindous et musulmans. Et je ne parle pas de l’Afrique ou autre fois encore il ya plusieurs d’autres pays, entre ce qui j’y viens dont de mentione, qui sont entrain de se regaler la dessus d’un bon repas de sang, de monnaies et de pouvoir, avec des chretiens de ‘l’Ouest’ pas en manque ni encore pas avec peu de sang sur les main, ni timide d’inciter ouvertement les violences plus horribles, les evangelistes americain par example, autant que les catholiques, ni sans aucunes athee heureusement ouverte a omettre la conte complete, quand ca les donnes le plaisir, peutetre pour raisons moins q’honorable et surement avec de l’argent ou de la pouvoir meme minuscule encore implique.

        Moi j’aime mieux l’idee qu’on peux demontrer une modele ou les gens tous sont respecte, meme si ils sont des tetes d’epais et de gras religieuses, sans des pogrom ni meme des presque-pogrom, ni meme des pas vraiment presque-pogrom, contre n’importe qui, avec tous vivant ouvertement sans la violence. Un demonstration que c’est possible. On l’a deja presque, pourquoi se diriger a l’reverse, meme si presque?
        Pourquoi, se ceder, seulement pour la timidite et l’inquiet? Pourquoi se joindre a le
        chœur de la force et de la violence? A mon avis, c’est le plus grand regal qu’on peux donner a l’atheisme. Le cadeau le plus fort.

        Et si non, le pis nous apartient a tous.

        • Cher Bubba,

          Avec le temps, nous devenons ami. Je suis content que tu combles mes lacunes sur les violences entre religions dans le monde.
          Je veux seulement te rappeler, mon ami, qu’il n’et question de fusiller personne au Québec pour des raisons religieuses ni pour d’autres. Toute violence, même uniquement verbale, peut être dénoncée, et je la dénonce de quelque bord qu’elle vienne.
          Tu te rappelles que nous n’avons jamais eu de colonies (ce qui n’empêche pas de comprendre ce qu’est la rancœur —certains Québécois en ont pour la couronne Anglaise…)

  17. And here’s the logical next step. Pauline Marois said that private businesses could legally and appropriately make use of the ban on religious symbols for their employees.

    English:

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/promises+family+doctors+everyone+2016/9626626/story.html

    French:

    http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/402912/chartedesvaleurs-concue-pour-le-secteur-public-mais-possiblement-utilisee-au-prive

    So, those of you who have been claiming that Bill 60 is solely about the neutrality of government… what say you now? Is this what you want in this country, where free expression can be legally slienced just because someone disagrees with it? Do we want a Quebec where everyone is shoehorned by force of law into the public persona of a lapsed Catholic with a vague nostalgia for the church, regardless of who they are and where they come from?

    And you know that this statement from Marois is a declaration of open season on muslims in the public square.

    I am as eager as anyone for Christianity and Islam to fade and become quaint mythology, as have so many other religions. But this is not the way to accomplish that.

    • Update: Marois has backtracked on her statements. She admitted that if private businesses adopted it they could face legal action from employees.

      Question: Would government employees be prevented from taking similar legal action?

  18. This bill has been contested for months. If the political party that puts it forward is elected and if the law is past, after all the promised actions in front of the Supreme court, of course the law will be enacted like any law.

    «So, those of you who have been claiming that Bill 60 is solely about the neutrality of government» were right.

    There is no laïcity tradition in english culture but you have surely noticed that multiculturalism has failed in England (and in Germany). Why is it that a state apparel can’t be free of religious costumes ?

    • «So, those of you who have been claiming that Bill 60 is solely about the neutrality of government» were right.

      Bernard, I don’t see how you can claim that. Marois has not changed her mind on this issue. It’s quite clear that she still thinks Bill 60 is applicable as a guide for private businesses. She did not say that she changed her mind, or that it was a bad idea. She backtracked only because of the legal nightmare that would inevitably ensue.

      This bill is not just about the neutrality of government, at least in her view.

      And if you doubt that, go look at the comment thread on the La Press article. When I read it this morning, there were a number of people who slid effortlessly from “government should be neutral on religion” to “business should be neutral on religion.”

      Michael Kinsley said that a gaff is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. I think this qualifies.

      There is no laïcity tradition in english culture but you have surely noticed that multiculturalism has failed in England (and in Germany).

      Canada is not Europe. Geography matters, for one thing. Our points of entry are few and easier to control; in Europe, travel over land allows for people to move between countries much more fluidly. This is a prime reason why fundamentalist Islam is an issue there; the lack of control over the movement of undesirables.

      Also, multiculturalism in, say, England has taken a very different form than here. The UK government stupidly poured millions of pounds into faith schools, creating enclaves and ghettos. There are 90 sharia courts in England. Kids in muslim families are growing up without exposure to other children, learning nothing about the world outside their ghettos. The result is native-born people who are nevertheless alienated and angry, and who share nothing in common with their neighbours.

      In this situation, fighting radicalism by banning hijabs is not only not useful, it is not even wrong.

      Why is it that a state apparel can’t be free of religious costumes?

      I think, ideally, the state should be free of religious costumes. The problem comes in trying to apply that rule to the real world. The side-effects are problematic and destructive, and ultimately worse than the original problem.

      I have explained these points at length in other threads. I can repeat myself here if you wish.

      In brief, my principle objection is that even though the bill sounds fair and egalitarian on paper, when applied to the real world, it will result in inequality. This is not a unique phenomenon; it has happened many times that a law that is theoretically equitable turns out to be grotesquely unfair in its application.

      • I do not profoundly care about mrs Marois’ mind. Bill 60 doesn’t concern business.
        Business wil have to respect all laws like everybody.

        «prime reason why fundamentalist Islam is an issue there; the lack of control over the movement of undesirables» and government politics as you very well describe them. We all hope this will not happen here, however far we are geographically…

        Laïcity is not a philosophy thought to fight radicalism, there are other ways to do that. I heard many times : it will radicalise the muslims. Let’s wait and see.

        Some bars forbid jeans. Some never wear jean, some only wear that. What would be equitable for that bar ? (Excuse the banality of my logic… sometimes simple things…)

        • They are not banning hats, they are banning religious hats. The entire motivation is anti religious. This is not a simple dress code. It is thought policing. And it is directed at minorities. Stanndard PQ bigotry.

          • Not only hats… All religious objects, but only in the state services. Religions is permitted and protected everywher else. May we, mister insult ?

        • Business wil have to respect all laws like everybody.

          Even unethical laws, I guess.

          Laïcity is not a philosophy thought to fight radicalism, there are other ways to do that.

          Well, you brought it up: the failure of multiculturalism and all that.

          Some bars forbid jeans. Some never wear jean, some only wear that. What would be equitable for that bar ? (Excuse the banality of my logic… sometimes simple things…)

          Not the same thing. Denying access to a bar because a person is wearing jeans is very different from limiting a person’s job options because of religious expression. One of these things is guaranteed by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the other is not.

          Besides, this is not the point I made to you. My point — which you failed to address — was that Bill 60 might be fair on paper, but will be tremendously unfair when applied to the real world.

          Do you know the joke about the farmer and physicist, the one that ends with the line about spherical cows in a vacuum? If not, Google it — it’s funny and instructive. And it applies here. Bill 60 is applicable only to an abstracted version of Quebec that doesn’t actually exist in reality.

          • The I suppose with pretty much certainty will be applied in reality as on paper.
            As for spherical religious objects and worshippers, I agree they should be admitted and cared for. 🙂

            I thougt I had answered about fairness and differences. If a religious objet I don’t wear i permitted, am I treated unfairly ? But is that the point ? Will the presence of multiple religious «parures» in public services produce a «favororable» environment (reality) ? Is religion superior, more determining then politic ?

          • I thougt I had answered about fairness and differences. If a religious objet I don’t wear i permitted, am I treated unfairly ?

            No, this case is not unfair treatment of you. You’re not being restricted in any way. If you’re concerned about others getting special treatment… I agree, there are limits. For example, ensuring that a vegetarian can get a proper meal at the office cafeteria would be an example of special treatment that is reasonable. Eliminating meat from the menu would not be reasonable. Personally, I think permitting hijabs in the office is reasonable. Permitting burkas, to me, is not.

            Will the presence of multiple religious «parures» in public services produce a «favororable» environment (reality) ?

            Most of the time, yes, it would provide a better environment. Not because religion is superior in some way, but because people would be allowed to be themselves. This makes for a more peaceable, more relaxed atmosphere. Although I disapprove of the hijab (as do most of my muslim relatives), it doesn’t harm me if a coworker wears it. And if makes her happier, then my working relationship with her is better.

          • You »ostracise» the vegetarians but not the religious… Strange. Again my favorite example : a teacher entering is class every morning with T-shris sayiing «God doesn’t exist» or «Belief is moronnic», etc, would not create a favorable atmosphere.

            Allow people to be simple citizens they will eventually relax. After all, they are ciitizens, they are humans before religion came on top of that.

      • Oh god…the intricacies of the depths the anglo-francais rivalry will go too…except not all that intricate and pretty mundane really. Do we really have to suffer it? We all know it will just end in a wink-wink nod-nod and “jerk” whispered under both your breaths.

        This is a prime reason why fundamentalist Islam is an issue there; the lack of control over the movement of undesirables.

        Wow…not petty criminals, crime syndicataries, hustlers, and swindlers, eh? Fundamentalist Islamists.

        You guys certainly haven’t drunk the Kool-aid of the machine that just happens to have killed millions upon millions of completely and utterly innocent men, women and children in the Middle East for the past 20 years?

        • The snark is strong with this one, Obi-Wan.

          You guys certainly haven’t drunk the Kool-aid of the machine that just happens to have killed millions upon millions of completely and utterly innocent men, women and children in the Middle East for the past 20 years?

          Yes, that’s right. I haven’t. I have a good understanding that neoconservative politicians and religious fundamentalists have both been at work messing up the middle east for the last 20 years. And I’m aware that these two parties have, to some extent, been feeding off each other since Gulf War #1. And I’m also aware that the threat of Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated in order to give certain western politicians a frightening amount of power.

          My comments have nothing to do with terrorism. The people most threatened by Islamic fundamentalism are not you and I, but other muslims, especially muslim women. This is true in the middle east and in the west. In the UK, 66,000 women in the are living with the consequences of FGM, and over 20,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk, according to the NHS. The 85 sharia courts in the UK mean that thousands and thousands of women are systematically discriminated against. Don’t you think calling that undesirable is a reasonable position?

          This situation is at least partly the result of misguided policies that kept a generation of British children out of the public school system.

          The 2005 riots in France are real consequences of excluding people from society on the basis of culture and religion. The BBC reported that French society’s negative perceptions of Islam and social discrimination of immigrants had alienated some French Muslims and may have been a factor in the causes of the riots: “Islam is seen as the biggest challenge to the country’s secular model in the past 100 years”. I see the same attitude from the PQ, and it worries me.

          I should also point out that my wife and every one of my inlaws are muslim. I am far from naïve on this subject.

          Any more snark, Bubba?

          • I fully agree with Jim Royal. I think some should stop drinking Koll-Aid and … whatever.

          • Yes, that’s right. I haven’t. I have a good understanding that neoconservative politicians and religious fundamentalists have both been at work messing up the middle east for the last 20 years. And I’m aware that these two parties have, to some extent, been feeding off each other since Gulf War #1. And I’m also aware that the threat of Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated in order to give certain western politicians a frightening amount of power.

            Wow, good for you Jim Royal. I’m so impressed. Though I don’t agree with a lot of it. For example, I’m not sure if the threat of Islamic Terrorism has been exagerated at all.

            Thing is, I DIDN’T FUCKING SAY ANY OF WHAT YOU ARE FUCKING REPLYING TOO.

            What I fucking said, is that the west and multiple governments including our own government, HEAVILY GODDAMNED IMPLICATED in the massacring of millions upon millions of innocent men women and children in the middle east in the past 20 years.

            Our own private Rwanda.

            And you want to cry and whine at people about a few goddamned veils?

            And you want people to just stand by while you continue to heinously throw in the same old propaganda (FGM) to justify that genocide, just because it makes you feel good?

            See a psychiatrist, will ya?

            I don’t see HOW IN THE HELL, you will be able to explain that ANY of the things you list, other than FGM, ARE NOT simply recent developments DIRECTLY associated to the MASSIVE genociding going on in the middle east?????????????????????????????????

          • I can’t follow a word of that.

          • Me neither. Needs Kool Aid. An exception.

          • It was perfectly clear.

          • Bubba : two «reasonables» against one… And swearing will get you nowhere, tabarnac.

          • Thank you for your lessons in politeness but I don’t need them. Especially from people who enjoy practicing false politeness.

          • Bubba boom, yes you need my lessons. Hear this on which is very true politeness as you practice it : go fuck yourself. You see, the accent is on fuck, as you pratice it but there is here a human accent : yourself. I’m curious about your irretractable reaction to that…

          • Bernard La Riviere.

            Doesn’t bother me.

            What bothers me is killing innocent people.

          • “massacring of millions upon millions of innocent men women and children”

            There is that “massacring of millions upon millions” lie again. Didn’t I school you on this one some time ago?

          • No you did not. In fact you failed miserably. There has been another survey released corroborating the 600,000 low estimate for Iraqi deaths from 2003 onward. Plus another book corroborating the 1 million children from sanctions number.

            Would you care to get into it again?

          • That is “600,000 as low estimate”.

            Every single one of these body counts specifically and very deliberately make a point to announce that these are to be considered “as low side estimates”.

            Or did you miss that line?

          • You’re not worth engaging with because you’re so willing to lie pathologically and refuse to admit when you are wrong. No study has corroborated the “massacre of millions and millions”. At the very best you were able to take the most generous study and extrapolate to a bit over one million deaths–many caused by sectarian warfare, not western “massacre.

          • Suit yourself. I’ll be here if you change your mind.

            In any case,

            Maybe you should all be <a href="looking at Albania, 60% sunni muslim population and completely secular separation of religion and gov.

            Instead of constantly spouting what is obviously nothing more than blood, race-baiting, and powerlust filled bullcrap and thinking you're fooling everyone (including yourselves) when all you're doing is giving everybody a headache?

            Huh? Whatsay?

          • Bubba, it bothers me too. What do you think. Who kills is alsoimportant to know. We will never denounce them enough.

          • Including our own governments.

            However, I reserve the right not to denounce our military. Simply because I do view our soldiers as following orders and more easily fooled than the general public, and necessarily so. Even the ones that engage in crimes. If they are guilty, then they should serve their time but not be denounced. After all, it’s war, life and death.

            Also because from my observations the Canadian military is not as heavily entwined within the whole military-industrial complex as others. Wisely so. As long as we fill that military research and development gap with civilian research and development. As well as research and development into defense in the face of exploding military and intelligence budgets around the world.

            However, I don’t go easy on members of the public and government who should know better and are sullying all of us.

            And if soldiers kill innocent people, if not a crime, then I hold my government directly responsible in place of the soldiers.

          • Here, let me give you a hand Jim Royal, so you can better hide your true racist and specifically anti-islam based intentions, and perfect the art of convincing people through lie and deception. I mean you won’t be as successful as you’d like, obviously, if you get easily caught red handed manipulating empirical fact for ulterior motives, will you? That wouldn’t be logical:

            Percent of denomination practicing FGM, ranked by most prevalent countries practicing:

            Eritrea
            Other Christians 85%
            Roman Catholic 89%

            Mali
            Other Christians 85%

            Guinea
            Other Christians 80%

            Sierra Leon
            Other Christians 80%

            Ethiopia
            Other Christians 69%
            Roman Catholic 77%

            Egypt
            Other Christians 75%

            Burkina Faso
            Other Christians 60%
            Roman Catholic 65%

            Liberia
            Other Christians 64%

            Niger
            Other Christians 55%

            Sudan
            Other Christians 47%

            Chad
            Other Christians 26%
            Roman Catholic 41%

            Nigeria
            Other Christians 34%

            Kenya
            Other Christians 25%
            Roman Catholic 29%

            Central African Republic
            Other Christians 25%
            Roman Catholic 24%

            Gambia
            Other Christians 20%

            Republic of Tanzania
            Other Christians 20%
            Roman Catholic 14%

            Cote D’Ivoire
            Other Christians 12%
            Roman Catholic 11%

            Guinea-Bissau
            Other Christians 8%
            Roman Catholic 7%

            Benin
            Other Christians 4%
            Roman Catholic 7%

            Senegal
            Other Christians 7%

            Ghana
            Other Christians 1%
            Roman Catholic 5%

            Uganda
            Other Christians 2%
            Roman Catholic 1%

            Togo
            Other Christians 1%
            Roman Catholic 1%

            Camaroon
            Other Christians 1%

            Hey but we can’t fault you, Jim Royale, for what is just you overriding concern for these women, can we.

            By the way, FGM is practiced in Iraq also. But only amongst the Kurds. Shall we ban them from Jolly England as well?

          • Yes, of course. How foolish of me. I married into an Indian muslim family because I am a racist and bigot. How obvious. I’ll be sure to tell my family.

            But please, continue swatting at phantoms. I won’t interrupt.

          • Well thanks for making the true nature of the problem clear, Sir.

            I’m certainly glad you didn’t use FGM purely in conjunction with a statement expounding on the failure of “multiculturalism” and specifically general muslim integration.

            Thank god for that!

          • Oh wait:

            My comments have nothing to do with terrorism. The people most threatened by Islamic fundamentalism are not you and I, but other muslims, especially muslim women. This is true in the middle east and in the west. In the UK, 66,000 women in the are living with the consequences of FGM, and over 20,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk, according to the NHS. The 85 sharia courts in the UK mean that thousands and thousands of women are systematically discriminated against. Don’t you think calling that undesirable is a reasonable position?

            I guess you did. My view of you as heroic hero are dashed.

          • I mean, clearly, you are so concerned about FGM and female rights that you

            FUCKING BOTHERED TO GET THE RIGHT FUCKING GEOGRAPHIC REGION where it is practiced.

            yes?

    • “Why is it that a state apparel can’t be free of religious costumes ?”

      Because freedom of religion and expression trump xenophobia and bigotry.

  19. Forgot to click for answer (sorry)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Help

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15