Your post made me realize that the OP didn’t include a link to anything about this bill, and I didn’t see that anyone else posted one, so I went looking and found this article:
Interesting notions of “racist” and what that entails, I note. :rolleyes:
Religious symbols: Grandfather clause splits MNAs in CAQ caucus:
What a shitshow. This is really the most important and pressing thing they have to talk about? So dishonest, so oppressive.
If that’s what it says or implies, it’s wrong. From what I remember of that previous clusterfuck, they were going to make an exception for their own religious symbols like crosses back then, too. I even remember some claim they made up that the crucifixes they like to wear around their necks are “small”, while the symbols of other religions are supposedly large and obnoxious, or some such bullshit.
They wouldn’t try that in reddest of red religious conservative states here, but then it would be a clear First Amendment violation. Still I’m surprised that such a law is being considered anywhere in Canada.
Canada has no official separation of church and state. When we moved here, our children were forced to go to schools under the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal. There was no religion actually taught, but the Catholic School Board did teach it. Ten years earlier, some Jewish students had no public school they could go to, although Jewish schools received (and still receive) some public funds. But this new bill is claimed to have nothing to do with religion.
One other point should be made. As soon as the premier makes it a party matter, all members of the party must vote the party line. The penalty is expulsion from the party and loss of the party designation if you run in the next election. This is also true in the federal government and, AFAIK, in all provincial governments. So if Trudeau decides to build a wall at the border the required legislation will pass.
In Ontario during the mid 70s to the early 80s (up to grade 6) at a completely secular public school we started every day reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Only my Jewish mother’s intervention with a snotty school teacher allowed my brother to choose not to say it.
Just curious - back in December, Pence was photographed with a police officer who was wearing a QAnon patch on his uniform. As I recall, Dopers in the Trump Clusterfuck thread criticized the officer, and a media rep from the police service in question quickly announced that wearing the patch wasn’t consistent with uniform policy and would be attended to.
Why wasn’t that a clear First Amendment violation, interfering with the officer’s freedom of speech? 
They consider that something like it was done to them in the past which it arguably has. Which isn’t to say that they should now do it.
They don’t worry about it being done to them because that would increase support for secession in Quebec and the federal government doesn’t want that.
As far as I can tell, there are two broad bases for nationality: Ethnicity or citizenship. Without an independent state of your own, you can’t have citizenship-based nationality, so it has to be ethnicity-based. The window for national sovereignty is closing for Quebec, 1995 was probably the best year for it. I’ll paraphrase Senoy here and say that cultures that know they’re going to either disappear or undergo drastic change don’t tend to take it well and often turn inward and hostile to change and outgroups.
No, Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the federal government and can be given instructions by the Governor General on the instructions of the federal Cabinet. In the early years of Confederation the federal government did give instructions, particularly on the use of the reservation and disallowance powers referred to up-thread, but that is no longer the case.
Because he is free to speak as he pleases, provided it is not in his capacity as a police officer. Most employers – and especially governmental ones – frequently require their employees to remain neutral while serving the public at large.
An example I’ve used previously on this board: I was a civil servant for many years employed as a judge’s assistant. My job required me to administer oaths that include the language, “so help you God.” Now, I’m an atheist. But if I expected to keep the job for which I was being compensated in government work, I was required to set aside my personal “freedom of speech” rights and speak those words thousands of times, as if they were meaningful to me (they’re not).
Similarly, ol’ Kim Davis of Rowan County Kentucky fame, is not permitted to impose her personally-held views regarding gay marriage. She can have and express those views on her own time as she likes. But she can’t do it in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk.
All civil servants are expected to set aside their personal political views and demonstrate no bias in their work. It’s very important. The officer’s QAnon patch indicated his particular alliance with a political point of view. Not ok.
They would if they thought they could get away with it. Back in 1923, Oregon passed a law forbidding teachers from wearing religious garb in public classrooms. However, they could still wear crosses. This was a KKK-supported[sup]1[/sup] law aimed squarely at Catholic nuns. Pennsylvania has a similar law and Nebraska did until 2017. The Oregon law was repealed in 2010.
[sup]1[/sup] The KKK was especially strong in Oregon at that time.
So would it be a First Amendment violation to tell police officers they could not wear religious patches on their uniforms? Because that is what this proposed law will do, in part.
One of the tenets is to disallow the establishment of religion. If the prohibition of patches on uniforms is… uniform, then it does not violate that section. Allowing one type but disallowing all others would violate the 1st.
The remainder of the religious aspect is having to do with ‘free exercise’ of religion, which would come into play. It’s a grey area because exercising ones religion can vary from wearing a hat to giving religious sermons. A math teacher who wears a crucifix is different than one who opens and closes every class with a mandatory prayer.
Federal Cabinet, not Parliament, but they’ve not used the power for a long time.
The “f” in lieutenant is invisible but sounded, just like the invisible “r” in “colonel”. 
On the low end my record is -42°C (-44°F) in Winnipeg, MB. That was without the windchill.
On the high side it was 51°C (124°F) in Lake Havasu City, AZ.
A range of 93°C or 168°F is pretty good. However, I am curious what it would be like to join the 300° club in Antarctica. To join that you need to leave a 200°F sauna on a day where the temperature is below -100°F, run around the pole, and quickly get back into the sauna. You need to do it only wearing shoes or boots; so you had better be quick.
Thus is why we need s. 33, to keep these kinds of temperatures under control without judicial interference!
Very common, though. It’s one of the key differences between inclusive and exclusive identity groups: inclusive groups reckon that one may have multiple identites (even within the same category, such as “answers to the question ‘where are you from?’”) and that no identity is better than another of the same category; exclusive groups define only one identity label as valid, consider it’s incompatible with others of any kind of similar category, and define it as superior to any other similar labels. Anybody who lives in the territory they claim and whose identity politics do not match theirs is not merely different but a traitor (see: catalanist reaction to Tabarnia; ETA, IRA, ISIS etc. murders of people within their general group but not within their specific one).
That’s a typo on y’all’s part, actually. In Spanish we both write and pronounce it coronel, you say it right but spell it misshapen.
The original term comes from Italian, which spells it with an L (colonello). French borrowed it but changed the L to an R. English (and I assume, Spanish) borrowed that word. However, English and French later re-borrowed the original Italian spelling. English (but not French) kept the R-pronunciation. The usual English mess, in other words.
So how do you distinguish between a purely religious and a cultural symbol? I’d consider a hijab more cultural than religious…not all Muslim women wear them. A yarmulke, while undoubtedly both, is farther toward the religious end of the spectrum ISTM. It seems like this law would be ripe for a court challenge.
It is sad to see this provincial small-mindedness infecting Canada. I think of them as what the US should be. And I could not give less of a shit what religious symbols federal workers wear as long as they are professional and do their jobs competently
That’s because the law in France (like the law in Turkey) was specifically aimed at the majority religion. It’s only come to be applied against the minority religion as a side-effect. I won’t call it an unintended consequence, but it was a consequence, not a prime cause.
Yes, that’s a fair comment on the difference.