Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Daffy Canadians Strive to Prove They Can Be as Bigoted as Americans

The good folks of Herouxville, Quebec (presumably the locale for Comment Le Grinch a Volé Noel) want all the A-rabs who are thinking of moving there to know that they are most certainly welcome, but please, no hand grenades in li'l Mohammed's lunch box and stop killing and/or mutilating the gals:
"We wish to inform these new arrivals that the way of life which they abandoned when they left their countries of origin cannot be recreated here," said the declaration, which makes clear women are allowed to drive, vote, dance, write checks, dress how they want, work and own property.

"Therefore we consider it completely outside these norms to ... kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."


The Herouxville regulations say girls and boys can exercise together and people should only be allowed to cover their faces at Halloween. Children must not take weapons to school, it adds, although the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Sikh boys have the right to carry ceremonial daggers.
Oh Canada, it's so adorable when you try to imitate us.

My parents are Quebeckers but not Québécois, so I can assure you that I'm shocked --astounded!-- to hear that French Canadians can be so breezily bigoted.


Fraea said...

She could have added "but we don't really care if women are shot or abused cause that's pretty Canadian."

Anonymous said...

Like any self respecting terrorist would want to move there anyway.


Anonymous said...

Wait, wasn't I reading recently that Canada recognized religious laws allowing certain institutions to have authority over citizens?

Jordan Bowen said...

Well, I am no bigot, and I consider myself very progressive, but they're insisting that Muslim immigrants respect the freedoms guaranteed by equal rights under the law for all people. That is what we mean by a free society. The War on Terror may be a genocidal scam, and yes, we must respect their culture as we expect them to respect ours, but only the most reflexive and unthinking logic would denounce standing up for human rights as "bigotry." If it were white people in Texas who were keeping their women at home and putting veils over their heads, you would be outraged, and rightly so.

Princess Sparkle Pony said...

f it were white people in Texas who were keeping their women at home and putting veils over their heads, you would be outraged, and rightly so.

Um, yeah, but it's not.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the lamest defenses I've ever read.

Edith's Friend said...

Oh, this world is headed for so much trouble. Even here, where there's so much agreement, this is an issue where I find it hard to come down to one consistent opinion.

On one hand, I can see the point of setting down rules against the sort of oppression that -- face it, please -- does go on in Islamic countries, mostly against women, but also against anyone who does not live by Sharia law. I think if you're a woman, or if you're queer, living in places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Nigeria, you must fear for your life. Every one of those physical outrages outlined in the town's declaration does indeed occur.

I'm sure at least in part Herouxville's intent is to be reassurring that such a condition does not obtain in their town, and that it won't.

The questionable part of the town's rules is where it is in turn invasive to the private (and public) lives of muslims. Frankly, I have more of a problem with the injuction against the covering of faces than denouncement of the more heinous practices of civil society in certain countries, no matter how inappropriately stated (overstated?).

At the same time, I do understand that there are certain sweeping assumptions being made that are intolerant and ignorant, and that the town elders have chosen a rather combative means of dealing with an issue that is appearantly very much on the minds of Canadians currently.

It seems to be less an issue of whether or not intolerance is a bad thing than of whose intolerance gets to prevail.

Matty Boy said...

When I actually was a boy, it was standard practice for religions to mock one another and portray the differences they had in the practice of their faiths as odd and maybe satanic. It didn't matter if you were a Papist or a Holy Roller or one of those people from the Church of Henry VIII, the Christian church was worse than a high school full of jealous cliques. And Jews! Jews?!?! You had to live in a BIG city to actually know a Christ Killer personally, and that was good enough reason not to move there in the first place.

But now we have the ecumenical spirit, where people of faith can get together and hate the people who really need to be hated: swarthy foreigners, queers and queer-loving, swarthy-tolerating liberals.

It's not the bad hate, people, it's the good hate. Praise Jesus!

Jess Wundrun said...

Is it so wise to outlaw the covering of the face at all times in ... Canada? (Except Halloween). There goes my balaclava business!! Will they check scarves to make sure they cover only the neck and not more than say half the chin?

Oh the hatey hate hate hate.

Anonymous said...

Vive le Quebec libre!

Anonymous said...

It's sort of a straw man, really. There is only one immigrant family in this crappy little town, so it's not like this directive is coming from painful lessons learned. It's just a few loser hicks thinking that if Quebec were independent and all French they wouldn't be losers any more; they'd be important people in a shiny new society. Hell, if they were independent perhaps their town would stop sucking too.

I love Quebec, but nationalism is nationalism. Because they've been on the losing end of things historically people are afraid to point out that their nationalism smells as bad as anyone elses, and their losers are still losers. I'm talking about you Josee Verner!

Anonymous said...

Why would we (Canada) try to imitate you (America). Your stupid, fat plus the whole world practically hates you!
Don't mess with Canada!