Decidedly, Quebec is on track to become a master in the art of the flat-ventrisme identity. As I already mentioned in a previous article, to hit the little that remains of Christian heritage (and all in the name of the new religion of multiculturalism, or "Rights"), you will soon have the opportunity to s' surprise, the day when it will be found that we are here as fellows. The day is coming, hence the term "Quebec strain" will become a shameful synonymous with intolerance, akin to a racist past that we rejoice at wrong to be buried for good.
Not without jokes! The human rights tribunal the person, not satisfied to order the City Council to remove their crucifixes Saguenay and abolish their prayers before council, pushed the blame to order him to pay $ 30,000 fine dollars in damage to a citizen saying discriminated by reciting a short prayer before the Christian council monthly meeting. To borrow a phrase from Matthew Bock side, here we are swimming in delirium ideological publicly encouraged. Let me humbly remind you that this is the same court which decided long ago in favor of Muslims demanding prayer rooms in Quebec universities. Wake me if I sleep while awake, but I here that decodes what is good for Muslim immigrants, has no place to apply to indigenous people with a small 400 years of Christian culture?
I do not know the mayor of Saguenay (pictured above) and I have no desire to participate in the ongoing debate about its supposed control problem or trends Pharisaic but I sympathize wholeheartedly with him and all believers in this city.
Also, I am not at all cons the separation of church and state, whether municipal, provincial or federal. So if ever the state decided to settle the issue of reasonable accommodation by opting for the ï city wall to wall (yes I know, this requires a courage that is sorely lacking to most politicians), it should conduct a parliamentary committee and then give birth to a charter that would then be adopted as a law that would regulate the entire machinery of government, full stop. We can therefore, by extension, get rid once and for all of religious ethics course that forces us into the groove since last fall. You guessed it, I take no pleasure in living in a society that must rely on a tribunal to resolve the dilemmas associated with religious practice in public space.
In my opinion, instead of wasting their time refining their insults in parliamentary session, our elected officials should take care of fussing to find a concrete solution to prevent the social fabric of our province and crack more. In this sense, the Committee Bouchard-Taylor was a step in the right direction, but no more. When the potatoes become too hot and it might cost votes, it has preferred to maintain the good sense to throw it in the courtyard of the courts to continue to decide for us.
But then, we find ourselves still governed by lawyers who were not trained to decide taking into account the opinions of a group of citizens and common sense, but to analyze the facts according to specific criteria. The fact that you and I find the guy who complained of being discriminated against exaggerating , should theoretically not influence the decision of a judge. The fact is that under the Charter of Human Rights, in this specific context, there is indeed discrimination. This smacks of the Inquisition by cons, it's fine to $ 30,000!
I read the ruling, because up to a fine appears to me unnecessary and dangerously abusive.
It all feels pretty bad for the Christians of Quebec, I'm paranoid or what?
0 comments:
Post a Comment