Proposed Religious Accommodations in Quebec: Diverting the Neutrality of the State

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, the following video shows some additional excerpts from the debate in Quebec’s Legislative Assembly in Quebec City about proposed religious accommodations — mainly benefiting Muslims — for the province.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


00:00   We have a big problem with a community that arrives, in fact
00:04   several communities that arrive from Arab countries,
00:08   from North African countries. And they have attitudes and they have behaviors, they have
00:12   clothes they wear that are different from ours. What do we do with it?
00:16   They tell us about religion in the public space, they tell us about religion everywhere
00:20   they impose their life habits on us. They should adapt: instead they demand,
00:24   they are the ones who are demanding that Quebec, the society that is welcoming them, adapt to
00:28   their usages and habits. To the point that today we have neighborhoods
00:32   or zones, where people live practically as if they were in Morocco or Algeria
00:36   or Tunisia, or Egypt, or Lebanon and so on. This law project wouldn’t exist if,
00:40   since the mid 80’s, Islamism hadn’t invited itself
00:43   into the public space here in Quebec, and
00:46   if it hadn’t also invaded the public and semi-public institutions and organizations and tried
00:50   to extend its influence into all other spheres of commercial activities.
00:53   Imagine, in Algeria, a Muslim country, state religion.
00:56   There was a time when we had invasion and opening of praying rooms:
01:00   it doesn’t exist any more. And here we are going to offer to accommodate one or
01:04   two or three people, very, I would say, they are much more Islamists than
01:08   Muslims, who are demanding a prayer room. —It’s possible that there might be
01:12   agents of ideological indoctrination, who could doctrinally exploit that crack
01:16   for unreasonable demands, which are the demands of ideological agents,
01:20   agents of indoctrination, and agents with a sort of political agenda.
01:24   Or they’ll be defended by associations, by groups with their own agendas.
01:28   Because the accommodations are being perceived this way:
01:32   it’s a way of diverting the secularity or the neutrality of the state.
01:36   They are being told: there is the religious neutrality and it has to be respected,
01:40   but you can divert it in another way. So it’s another way of encouraging them
01:44   to continue their project of radicalization
01:49   or extremism. For example, when a father
01:53   sees that there’s his daughter is forbidden
01:57   to work in an government institution while wearing a complete covering,
02:01   he won’t tell her to leave, so she would be marginalized as a result;
02:05   he will be dissuaded, even if he supports that ideology, but at least
02:09   he’ll spare his child. —Bottom line, do we have to limit
02:13   the range or possibility of according an accommodation based on
02:17   a religious grounds, to avoid the rise of the radical Islamism?
02:21   But it’s because there are, in Quebec, other citizens
02:25   of different faiths, and there you are telling me: that in order
02:29   to brake the rise of the radical Islam we would have to prevent all forms of
02:33   accommodations for the Christian citizens, Jewish citizens?
02:37   There, what you are saying, we, because of certain
02:41   form of instrumentalization that we notice,
02:45   we should abolish religious accommodations? What do we do with freedom of religion?
02:49   For us the veil isn’t religious, so for me there is no possible accommodation;
02:53   and especially in the pubic and semi-public institutions. —On what grounds
02:57   can we determine what is religious and what isn’t? For example,
03:01   I can claim something as religious, but at the end there is the ritual,
03:05   the traditional, and sometimes there is the ideological, as in the case of the chador
03:09   or the veil, that is ideological, political, more that anything else.
03:13   We do know the Islamists, we have experienced them in our countries;
03:17   they are in an influential situation. They’re working,
03:21   they work to influence children, who are the citizens of tomorrow.
03:25   [A woman] wearing a veil in a family nursery, she has more influence
03:29   than a university professor on his student. So today,
03:33   even the fact of wearing of the veil in a nursery, in a CPE,
03:38   is sending a very precise message
03:42   for the very person who will later become a citizen.
03:46   For example a person who asks a service for an employee
03:50   who shows his religious membership, it’s possible when
03:54   his demand is not satisfied he can interpret it like this:
03:58   it’s because I am member of a different religion from the one that is in front of me.
04:02   Only walls that are neutral … it’s a way to refuse the neutrality.
04:06   It’s a way of saying that the religious sign
04:10   somehow isn’t transmitting the message. If in this case
04:14   it doesn’t convey the message, why does it qualify as religious?
04:18   So it does convey a message. It cannot be neutral while exhibiting
04:22   his religious membership. —Who can determine that “X” is convinced by his religion?
04:26   And that he’s really practicing a religion, and it’s not just an element of a custom?

8 thoughts on “Proposed Religious Accommodations in Quebec: Diverting the Neutrality of the State

  1. It sounds like they have a long row to how, rather than the entirely acceptable thought that Canada is a Christian country and you should leave your veil at home for your own personal culture and assimilate to Canadian culture (which is Christian)…
    Unfortunately, this is now up for debate. I don’t know how accessible alternatives are for daycare in Canada but, I will tell you that I would search long and hard for an alternative.
    I understand how stressed parents of working families are. I was one once. I also know that I would have never placed my children in a day care with a swimming pool (#1 death for male toddlers in So Cal).
    People looking for pre-school in Canada should look at this in the same way.

  2. The discourse seems to avoid a clear view of exactly What Islam is. The Muslims insist it is a Religion. Is is indeed a Religion in the manner of Naziism…Communism and the Jim Jones enterprise. However; unless this ” religion ” is absolutely respectful of all other ” Faiths “; it must be banned from being practiced in Civilized nations. Look closely at Islamic ruled nations. These nations ban the practice of ANY and ALL other methods of worshiping our creator. If we cannot practice our religion in Muslim countries…..Mulsims are forbidden to practice their religion in our countries. Is this too simple a concept for the fools in Quebec to grasp ?. Of course it is. That fluoridated water has already taken effect on most westerners. They can’t think clearly. Enjoy live under the Caliphate….You are entitled to it.

    • Islam is not a religion.

      It is a political system which the NWO (world dictatorship) wishes to impose on Christian nations.

      Why? Because Christians are more educated,more free and they want to live in a democracy.

      In a democracy one has a say something that does not exist in living under Islam.

      The solution is:Pack them up and send them back where they belong.


      If a muslim attacks you do not fear but attack him back and show him that here in Europe you are the master.

      Actually they are cowards but they behave with audacity because they know that our wretched governments will protect them.

      If we start behaving like that either they adapt themselves to our customs or they will go back,something which i prefer.

  3. I’m honestly perplexed at the actions of the entire western world. What on earth is it people don’t understand about moslems? (I use the spelling ‘moslems’ because I know they don’t like it) They are, always have been, and always will be the enemy, as long as they obey the terror manual they call the koran.
    Both my wife and I have got into discussions with people about moslems here on the other side of Canada, and we have always been amazed at the naivete, disinterest, and if I’m to say it honestly, downright uninformed stupidity. If our experiences are anything to go by, the islamic takeover of Canada will go very quickly and smoothly—particularly considering who we have as Prime Minister.

  4. I wholeheartedly agree with Peter35. We live on the west side of Canada (but have also lived 12 yrs in Quebec). We too are amazed at the naïveté of good and seemingly educated people, who do not want to see the severity of the muslim threat and believe that being nice to them will bring them around to our way of thinking. No amount of examples of the opposite will convince them and in closing one gets a sarcastic remark, which implies one is a bigot and unchristian.

  5. People should read the koran and learn what the religion really is. Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous!

Comments are closed.