Clothing and…

Dimitri Lascaris discusses the right-wing Coalition Avenir Quebec’s (CAQ) regulation that bans the carrying of any non secular symbols or clothes by public staff, …

21 thoughts on “Quebec Bans Public Staff from Sporting Spiritual Clothes or Symbols

  1. One must be an incurable fool and a complete moron not to notice that the adoption of universal suffrage forces any political community to align itself with the republican model of government. Because, from the moment when all can vote, then it is clear that the end of the society is the freedom, the promotion of the capacity of deliberation of its members. So that the sovereign people splitting themselves into government and citizens, because of the universality of suffrage, demands, in return, that the state, or the government, be neutral ideologically, or secular, so as not to interfere with the citizen's deliberation, given its monopoly on the capacity of constraint. This is why, in this context, the multiculturalist attachment to the Lockean liberalism is the last idiocy and the most perfect incoherence, since the law is no longer conceived as an exclusive property (Locke), to oppose anyone, but as equivalent participation (Rousseau), deserving equal respect, of everyone for freedom, or the sovereignty of the state. As such, every employee of the State must be ideologically neutral, during his working hours, in order not to compromise the peaceful exercise of citizen deliberation. Moreover, in any case, the official regains his rights of expression outside his paid time. As such, the official is in no way prejudiced, since in accepting to work for the body politic, he defends, by means of its neutrality, the common good of the city: the freedom of all, his own and that of others. Therefore, only idiots and morons can oppose the coherence of such a political approach, as we have, alas, been able to see it these last few days …

  2. Crétinisme anglaid et cohérence québécoise/l’idiotie canadienne-anglaise est sans limite. car, sa perspective politique repose sur une pratique attardée du pouvoir, datant du parlementarisme britannique du xviie siècle. en effet, à l’époque, la liberté se déclinait comme des licences accordées à une coterie parlementaire, en révolte contre la tyrannie royale. on était loin de considérer le suffrage comme universel, perçu en tant qu’obligation de redistribution sociale de la richesse, ainsi que les « levellers » l’entendaient. c’est, donc, à une perception attardée du politique que convie le libéralisme parlementaire, en l’espèce. a preuve, le parlementarisme s’est assez longtemps-1688 à 1834-accommodé de l’esclavagisme…
          au contraire, la démocratie républicaine française s’est conçue, non pas comme la défense de la propriété, en face du pouvoir, au point d’émanciper les esclaves, en 1794, contre 1834, en ce qui concerne l’angleterre. elle s’est comprise, plutôt, comme la promotion du citoyen et non de la propriété. de sorte que, la liberté fut redistribuée selon la citoyenneté et non comme la capacité d’appropriation. la liberté était participation citoyenne équivalente à la souveraineté du corps politique, au lieu d’être déclinée en termes de propriété. c’est pourquoi, le imbéciles canadiens-anglais ne peuvent saisir que l’état-et ses salariés-doit être neutre, puisque la liberté n’est pour eux qu’une propriété individuelle inaliénable, tandis qu’elle est indispensablement liée, en démocratie républicaine, à l’exercice libre et universel de la citoyenneté, lequel exclut toute influence idéologique de l’état, donc nécessite sa neutralité ou sa laïcité.
    ainsi, le multiculturalisme canadien ramène au crétinisme de la confusion entre parlementarisme aristocratique et démocratie, tandis que le républicanisme tire toutes les conséquences logiques de la démocratie, devant lesquelles les débiles ont toujours reculé… :

  3. amusing that "real news" couldn't find someone who agrees with the law, even though the vast majority of quebecois do. thanks for the usual lesson-giving, anglos. such moral superiority.

  4. Folks can't ware religious symbols but everyone had to see the gay flag fly at state buildings, churches, and so on. Their agenda is being shoved down EVERYONE'S throat.

  5. Please don't be a hypocrite. In Canada, being naked in public spaces is prohibited/ illegal as well. I don't see TRNN devoting a whole segment on that. The argument that nudists are a superminority, while wearing sikh or muslim religious garbs are not because larger number of people wear and them, is equally racist. Please don't go on hyperbole and use words like nuclear and explosive – irresponsible journalism like this leads to fomenting/provoking terrorist acts.

  6. Religion poisons everything. This would be a better world without religion Sadly that will not be because ''religion has too great an affect on the mind of fools.''

  7. This interview is a trash hit piece , just plain colonialist hate speech.
    Gross misinformation . . . shame on TRNN for this shit job.

    TRNN , you are dramatically ignorant about Quebec , and this matter
    … and you still are after this interview
    … because you asked an imperialist Quebec hater to manipulate you into hating Quebec.

    Imperialism is always a bad thing , not just when it suits you.
    We frenchies and natives – I am 1/4 Wendat – were here in peace long before the Empire came.
    Your guest is of the colonizers , culturally french haters.
    He can teach you nothing about those hated sub-humans they failed to colonize.

    This interview is a disgrace … just hate speech from english colonizers
    We are not in 'murica here.
    Quebec is still natives driven … but we are constantly fighting for our survival … in Venezuela's oppressing 'murica.

    Know this : your certainty of cultural superiority if imperialism … mind your F*cking businesses … masters
    What's next ? … you'll bring "your" democracy to the savages ?

  8. Law that unites Believer & Non Believer alike. Tactically woeful from the politicians. They'll have to find another way to divide folks to get this thru or back off.

  9. I am not certain keeping the right of religion is the way to go.
    Religion to the state is a non-political thing. 
    The State cannot stand to claim to be acting in the common interests of the citizens if it did regard religion, or wealth, education, occupation, race, gender, as political interests.
    The contradiction is that religion is political when it has access to political persuasion. Just like wealth, race, gender are political when they have access to political power.
    Religion or race cannot be treated as a-political social factors by state officials and legislators, in a society full of prejudice and bigotry. Canada like many other western societies has an unrepresentative character of their so called representative institutions. The state is of this society, it does not stand above society; if social life is prejudiced and bigoted so is the state.

  10. Apparently, only secular and political symbols are permitted. As with atheism, secularism is to be the only acceptable religion of the insipid and shallow machine state.

  11. Personally I'm skeptical of the arguement that says that if you can't dress in religious costume when you are at work it means you are being prevented from having your religion. Religion is you private right and not wearing a costume in public doesn't violate that.

  12. Very good interview, and having lived in Quebec for 30 years or so, I definitely agree with Dimitri. What he says about the Quebec Solidaire party and the now long-former Quebec PM, René Lévesque, is definitely appreciated, as well as correct.

  13. p.s. Archaeology is a *physical science (proof) of the existence of the True living God explained in the Scripture. Places, peoples, things of ancient times in the Word, also found in the 'record of the rocks'…..physical evidence real.

Leave a Reply

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