ok.

so, i think i've posted all the way to the end of july - it took a lot longer than planned, but it is actually a lot of posts.

1) http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2013/07/
2)  http://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.com/2013/07/
3) https://deathtokoalas.blogspot.com/2013/07/

the next step will be to consolidate and archive. that should be by the end of the night.

i am going to push forward through august, which should not be nearly as hairy, before i start on the corresponding alter-reality, dated to the summer of 1993.

the trudeau government's intent in it's policy - and this was broadcast during the last election campaign - is to act as a public relations arm for the oil industry. not only did the ndp say exactly the same thing, but they were actually more aggressive about it. while carrying through with certain environmental actions may be seen as bettering the public perception of the oil industry, the primary focus was always to act in the best interests of the oil sector.

so, that is the answer to your contradiction - it seems incoherent on it's face, but only until you realize what they're actually doing.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/03/29/BC-Climate-Leadership-Fundamental-Incoherence/

we're not talking about personal belief, here.

what we're talking about is power.

i think that this thinking about political restrictions on public employees maybe even clarifies the point.

what the law is saying - essentially - is that displaying religious symbols while in a position of power in the context of a secular society is an ad hoc declaration of a conflict of interest, and if the conflict cannot be resolved by voluntarily removing the symbols then the individual must excuse themselves from that position of power, as their judgement is unreliable in the presence of that conflict.

most of the legislation is defensible.

so, the government needs to get to work, make the argument and win the case.

otherwise, it's going to leave this cloud of doubt over something that should be seen as social progress.

there is in fact a proper precedent in canadian law - well tested - about the restriction of political activities by public employees.

so, for example, if you work for the government, you can't organize a protest against it. is that a restriction of expression? absolutely, perhaps. but, it is upheld by the need to ensure for neutrality in government - you can't have activists running public services.

this law is actually more lenient than the precedent would allow for, as the precedent bans all political expression, not just inside work but outside of it as well.

"What if I want to be a guidance counsellor? Or a principal? They’re telling me I can’t have career advancement if I wear a religious symbol,"

yes. that's correct; the society is telling you that it doesn't want people that insist on outward displays of faith to occupy positions of power.

people just keep restating this as though it's impossible, or absurd or something.

but, it is in fact the absolute foundational enlightenment principle of western society.

what i find baffling is that we've come to a point where such a large percentage of the population is baffled by what is supposed to be the principle of our own civilization - that there is in fact a separation between church and state. how did we get here? and how do we reverse it?

"...apparently what I have on my head is more important than what I am as a person and what I give to society.”

this is a false dilemma. the society is saying that what you have on your head represents a value system that modernity finds repugnant - the society is saying "we do not want people with your beliefs and values to occupy positions of power, because we are afraid that you may abuse them.".

and, it is in fact a simple test - if you are a muslim, for example, it is easy to prove that you don't believe in the hateful and oppressive aspects of your religion by removing your religious observances at work. otherwise, by wearing these symbols, you are broadcasting your support for a violent, oppressive system, while wielding power over other people.

the important issue here is not the rights of expression of employees - and there is nothing in the law that restricts this expression on an absolute basis. the important issue here is the rights of the people being serviced by the state, and namely their right to be free from religious authority. they can't find another teacher, or another jail guard. it is this accommodation that the state must be primarily concerned with.

i want to see the issue properly adjudicated because a proper ruling would actually legitimize the primary basis of it, even as it reigns in some excesses. by keeping it out of court, they're allowing reactionaries and conservatives to push all kinds of ignorance about it.

if you have a good argument, and the secularists do, then you should be able to support it in court. for the sake of secularism itself, they must end the cowardice and revoke the clause.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mcgill-philosopher-adds-voice-to-chorus-of-criticism-against-bill-21/

why would they bring the kid back to parents this negligent?

the kid should be placed in foster care.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toddler-found-wandering-streets-in-downtown-toronto-reunited-with-parents-1.4357176

“We’re saying that when you come to work, when you exercise the power of the state, that you leave your religion at the door, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask in a secular society,”
i don't disagree with this.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/proposed-secularism-bill-would-force-singh-to-remove-turban-in-public-sector-gig-quebec-mna-1.4358767

"you put the limey in the coconut tree"

don't ask.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/richards-concussed-after-fall-from-coconut-tree-6102254.html

i bet the teachers in brunei are allowed to wear hijabs.

i understand that we are not in imminent threat of religious rule in quebec or in canada. but, complacency is a bad idea - this is not a joke, this is real.

brunei is not the only country with these kinds of laws, or the only country with a strong tourism industry that punishes people very harshly for trivial behaviour. it's not an isolated example. there is a pattern, here.

there is a large british military presence in brunei, tasked with protecting the royal family from it's own people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/world/asia/brunei-stoning-death.html

and, why is "religious freedom" a contradiction in terms?

because religion is identical to slavery - or, rather, because religion is a type of slavery. it follows that the idea of "freedom" exercised by the religious person is a kind of deluded stockholm syndrome, the illusion of freedom rather than the actuality of it.

if a religion dictates that a person must pray a certain number of times a day, or have a certain diet, or have sex in a certain way, or wear a type of clothing under threat of either imminent punishment or eternal damnation, who could possibly argue that obeying those dictates is "freedom" - or that interfering with them is the negation of it? any coherently thinking person should be able to see that it is the religion that is imposing a restriction on freedom, and that interfering with the ideology's grasp on the individual is breaking the chains of bondage.

this is not a new insight, either - it is classical in nature, going back to plato's allegory of the cave. these people only think they are free because they cannot see what freedom is, to the point that they recoil in fear when it is presented to them.

to argue for the observance of "religious freedom" out of "respect for believers" is consequently intellectually equivalent to arguing for the continuation of slavery in order to not perturb the slaves. it is in every way a backwards, regressive position that can almost never be justified, except perhaps in the realm of distant anthropology; about the only people left on this earth that deserve "religious freedom" are in the andaman islands - everybody else deserves to have the chains smashed, the cord cut, the delusions destroyed...

and, that is not disrespect.

disrespect is smiling and nodding; disrespect is looking the other way, as people are exploited and taken advantage of.

this has little to do with the legislation, other than to point out the absurdity of the claim - there is no such thing as "religious freedom", but only emancipation from ignorance.