Quebec's "values test" for immigrants now in effect

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

7 minutes ago, Economy said:

Some ppl hate ppl just for being gay while others only have a problem if it's acted on. That's what I meant

That’s such catholic thinking. And I say this as an ex-catholic. What are “gay acts”? We would be here all day examining stereotypes and we would have arguments on every single example if it’s problematic or not lmao.

being gay and acting on gayness makes no sense. Being gay is already acting gay. There isn’t one way to act ~gay~ and society determines what is gay and what’s not with the time period. Malaysians think v neck t shirts are gay so the *act* of wearing one demonizes those gay people.

Sorry not directed at you. Just the concept. Major eyeroll at the concept.

[Economy 52,932]

12 minutes ago, ltlmnstr said:

That’s such catholic thinking. And I say this as an ex-catholic. What are “gay acts”? We would be here all day examining stereotypes and we would have arguments on every single example if it’s problematic or not lmao.

being gay and acting on gayness makes no sense. Being gay is already acting gay. There isn’t one way to act ~gay~ and society determines what is gay and what’s not with the time period. Malaysians think v neck t shirts are gay so the *act* of wearing one demonizes those gay people.

Sorry not directed at you. Just the concept. Major eyeroll at the concept.

I literally didn't say that to defend the thinking tho that wasnt the point

 

I was just trying to point out that there's ppl that don't agree with the acts and stuff but don't necessarily hate gays themselves as people

 

There's ppl that just hate gays in general

 

There's a slight distinction there I was pointing out

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

39 minutes ago, Economy said:

I literally didn't say that to defend the thinking tho that wasnt the point

 

I was just trying to point out that there's ppl that don't agree with the acts and stuff but don't necessarily hate gays themselves as people

 

There's ppl that just hate gays in general

 

There's a slight distinction there I was pointing out

As I ended my comment, it wasn’t directed at you nor did I think you were defending that way of thinking.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Economy said:

Yeah... Canada's NDP Leader (3rd biggest party) Jagmeet Sing wears a turbant

 

If he lived in the Province of Quebec I assume this would be considered religious wear and he could not wear it

 

Oh so this law were talking about is only in Quebec? I assume they get that kind of thinking from france?

[Economy 52,932]

1 minute ago, Faysalaaa said:

Oh so this law were talking about is only in Quebec? I assume they get that kind of thinking from france?

Yeah only in Quebec

 

And yeah... Their stances on religious matters has often followed France attitudes

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Telling people "these are the values/laws of this community" is more than fair. Asking people to respect them as a common courtesy of living in that location is also fair re: the rule of governance itself. Warning them that they may come in contact with law enforcement for not following the law is fair as well. It only becomes a problem when they try to forcibly assimilate, monitor and police immigrants specifically to get them to actually believe in XYZ values. 

I havent done much reading on this though, and as of now I don't see the test as doing that, so I guess its okay on a like, 2 minute skim  

[Economy 52,932]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

Telling people "these are the values/laws of this community" is more than fair. Asking people to respect them as a common courtesy of living in that location is also fair re: the rule of governance itself. Warning them that they may come in contact with law enforcement for not following the law is fair as well. It only becomes a problem when they try to forcibly assimilate, monitor and police immigrants specifically to get them to actually believe in XYZ values.

I havent done much reading on this though, and as of now I don't see the test as doing that, so I guess its okay on a like, 2 minute skim  

Agree. That's what I hope isn't included

[Melech 9,900]

33 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It only becomes a problem when they try to forcibly assimilate, monitor and police immigrants specifically to get them to actually believe in XYZ values. 

Why is it a problem? If they fail, they can’t immigrate 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

32 minutes ago, Melech said:

Why is it a problem? If they fail, they can’t immigrate 

Well, I didn't say if they fail the test, I was saying that if the test is just an instrument that is actually meant to discriminate based on ideological purity, then its flawed.

No community, no state, no city, no place in the world is ideologically homogeneous in every single way possible. There are homophobes in places that are 80-90% gay friendly places. There are racists in black neighborhoods. It is not naturally possible to create a place where everyone agrees on everything just by the fact that human beings are diverse and somewhat malleable social creatures. Attempts to force this in the past have usually resulted in things like Genocide and Ethnic cleansing, mass deportations, forced disappearances, etc. 

What danger do I pose if I am an immigrant who wants to migrate to a place like Quebec -  either for its economic opportunity or for the fact that family/a community of my people is there, or maybe I don't have a choice and this is the only place that will accept me? But, let's say that I also do not value women or respect their rights. What should happen to me?  Well, it depends. Am I just holding this belief while going along on my way? Or am I violating women's rights, treating women terribly in public, etc. and generally disrupting the society in a way that is untenable? Have my beliefs hurt other people in actionable ways?

If its the former, while I would encourage trying to change this person's mind and perspective, I wouldn't kick them out of the country on a presumption because living somewhere is about basic human needs of security and that would be immoral. Also, immigrants generally contribute to the economies etc. of the places they go, so its not a net loss or anything from that standpoint.  If it is the latter however, then they should ofc be subjected to the same extent of the law as the people living in the area - given that they are informed of the laws and culture that they entered into voluntarily before hand (Which is what I think this test is trying to do)

 It would be discriminatory to persecute them before this kind of behavior occurs based on an assumption (especially if they for example, do pass this kind of test, but since people can lie, I mean w.e), or to persecute them more harshly than the plenty of other regular citizens in the area who had the same beliefs, but are not immigrants, brown people, etc. Also, studies show that immigrants don't tend to actually be more violent, and criminality is a much more complex matter than "They moved here, violence went up, we shouldn't have let them move here!"

[OBEY 57,109]

5 hours ago, Melech said:

Because it doesn’t guarantee neutrality. 

See that's where I disagree with.

It just gives an appearance of neutrality and it forces the stereotypes that people that wear religious symbols aren't neutral/can't think about stuff without having their religion in mind !  Even if you don't wear your religious symbol at work you're still a "member" of this religion so it's just a matter of looks in the end

Concerning the values test (which is the subject of this topic) I think it's okay  

[LeoFameMonster 1,592]

6 hours ago, Economy said:

There's lots of immigrants who disagree with the act or lifestyle but they have never been a threat because they by nature have always been more reserved in being vocal politically and socially

 

Conservative white Canadians were always more problematic with Gays and Trans than immigrants

 

I never ever see Immigrants get agressive about that stuff regardless of what they believe

I have in toronto, when I lived there. It was chaos with the sex ed that was updated. A lot of Muslim ppl didnt want their kids educated, particularly females, about sex education and women's rights as well as different lgbt topics.  They pulled their kids out of schools for weeks and protested daily.

But this test doesnt exclude white conservatives. 

[Guillaume Hamon 7,025]

3 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Well, I didn't say if they fail the test, I was saying that if the test is just an instrument that is actually meant to discriminate based on ideological purity, then its flawed.

No community, no state, no city, no place in the world is ideologically homogeneous in every single way possible.

I don't think it's about requiring "ideological purity" or going into the details of everybody's views. Probably more about establishing global values that are deemed necessary to live in their society. They would be crazy to expect one specific mindset indeed.

50 minutes ago, OBEY said:

See that's where I disagree with.

It just gives an appearance of neutrality and it forces the stereotypes that people that wear religious symbols aren't neutral/can't think about stuff without having their religion in mind !  Even if you don't wear your religious symbol at work you're still a "member" of this religion so it's just a matter of looks in the end

Well you can fail to be neutral with your appearance and, as you said, also with your behavior so demanding neutrality with your looks is not a guarantee of full neutrality in itself indeed but it's already a step towards it.

So I think it makes sens to require that in the name of neutrality, mainly when the neutral behavior is also required in the job's rules and can get you fired if you fail to apply it.

Also will people really believe that a religious sign means you can't think in a neutral way because of this law? To me they know it's done as a step towards more neutrality and know it doesn't guarantee full neutrality.