Ok, so let's ask the septics.

Hey guys, reckon we need to ban Thanksgiving. I find it offensive and demeaning to native Americans.

Who wants to tell me to go Fuck myself?

(December 11, 2013 at 10:06 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: Quebec isn't authoritarian though. They are actually very liberal, so how is it authoritarian if it is being done by the most liberal province in Canada?

Well, you're committing a bit of a reverse fallacy of composition there, by assuming that the composition of the whole makes it impossible for any constituent parts to be something else; Quebec can be liberal, yet still have a single- or set of- authoritarian laws. Quebec is probably filled with Canadians too, that doesn't mean everyone in Quebec was born there.

Quote:Except hoodies aren't a sign of theocratic fascism & the oppression of women.

And if the government near you took it in mind that atheism or antitheism was fascist and banned the public display of that, would you still be okay with it?

That's the point we're making: regardless of personal feelings, and I agree with you as to the symbolism of this particular garment, it's never okay for the government or majority to start dictating how one might express beliefs that aren't immediately physically harmful. That door swings both ways.

(December 11, 2013 at 10:24 am)MarxRaptor Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 10:13 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: So are their any other "signs" you'd like banned?

Public display of the swastika & Stalin's portrait. If you want to display those things in your own home, fine, but keep that out of the public square as well.

This is just plain silly.

You are seriously suggesting that a symbol (which is more ancient than you realise and has never been "owned" by nazis) and a picture of a guy you don't like be banned in public?

Do you seriously want to live in a society that bans things like this, simply for the reason that "it might be offensive" or "it doesn't agree with my own personal morality" or "I don't like it"?

I seriously think people are getting these issues confused. Banning a niqab/burka whatever the fuck they are called is an entirely different matter to banning a symbol or a portrait of a man.

*edit* I seriously need to stop saying seriously.

---

(December 10, 2013 at 10:38 pm)MarxRaptor Wrote: It also means religion out of the public square.

I actually thought it meant that a government couldn't endorse a particular religion over others and that what individual people decide to represent and display is entirely up to them. But I may be wrong...

I believe that what I am actually referring to is the the French form of secularism; Laïcité.

http://www.wluml.org/node/2163
This might add some context to what is happening here as the same group that is screaming over this is the same that back a attempt to implentment sharia law in Quebec

The only thing I don't like about Quebec is Napoleonic Law.

(December 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: I think it should be banned for security reasons. You simply cannot allow people to walk around with everything covered, you know basically nothing about them. Not their gender, not their age, not their face, nothing. It's just too easy to commit crimes and it gives them a type of liberty that the rest of us don't get, which is they can go in and out of shops and you can't identify them on any cameras or any eyewitness accounts. It's just common decency to show your face when you're interacting with someone. But if that isn't enough, ban it. I don't agree with banning religious garments for religious reasons or anti religious reasons, but religions aren't allowed to step on common sense either.

Boy, is my face going to get chapped when I go skiing when head coverings that cover your face are banned.

(December 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 10, 2013 at 12:30 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: I think it should be banned for security reasons. You simply cannot allow people to walk around with everything covered, you know basically nothing about them. Not their gender, not their age, not their face, nothing. It's just too easy to commit crimes and it gives them a type of liberty that the rest of us don't get, which is they can go in and out of shops and you can't identify them on any cameras or any eyewitness accounts. It's just common decency to show your face when you're interacting with someone. But if that isn't enough, ban it. I don't agree with banning religious garments for religious reasons or anti religious reasons, but religions aren't allowed to step on common sense either.

Boy, is my face going to get chapped when I go skiing when head coverings that cover your face are banned.

Valid point, Quebec extends very far north, and there was times as a kid that it would get so cold here in nova Scotia I had a wear a ski mask to school.

(December 11, 2013 at 10:49 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: I believe that what I am actually referring to is the the French form of secularism; Laïcité.

The definition of 'laïcité" is absence of religious involvment in government affairs and absence of government involvement in religious affairs. Banning the niqab is a violation of laïcité, not an example of it.

Political secularism or laïcité is the idea that the government should be as neutral as possible toward religion, neither promoting nor oppressing it. Banning an article of clothing because of what its religious significance is oppression. And it's stupid, since oppresson promotes solidarity in the oppressed.

---

(December 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Boy, is my face going to get chapped when I go skiing when head coverings that cover your face are banned.

Valid point, Quebec extends very far north, and there was times as a kid that it would get so cold here in nova Scotia I had a wear a ski mask to school.

No worries, ski masks are fine in Quebec, only facial coverings with religious significance were banned. It had nothing to do with security concerns.

(December 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(December 11, 2013 at 10:49 am)MarxRaptor Wrote: I believe that what I am actually referring to is the the French form of secularism; Laïcité.

The definition of 'laïcité" is absence of religious involvment in government affairs and absence of government involvement in religious affairs. Banning the niqab is a violation of laïcité, not an example of it.

Political secularism or laïcité is the idea that the government should be as neutral as possible toward religion, neither promoting nor oppressing it. Banning an article of clothing because of what its religious significance is oppression. And it's stupid, since oppresson promotes solidarity in the oppressed.

---

(December 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Valid point, Quebec extends very far north, and there was times as a kid that it would get so cold here in nova Scotia I had a wear a ski mask to school.

No worries, ski masks are fine in Quebec, only facial coverings with religious significance were banned. It had nothing to do with security concerns.

Oh it a actually passed?