For years, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has pushed ethnic minority groups like Tibetans and Uyghurs to adopt an identity rooted in Chinese nationality and allegiance to the ruling Communist Party.
It is the same thing you restrict people right for an identity and belief system you decided to pick for everybody. Did Quebec consulted the first nations before imposing this. Real secularism is religion do not control the state and the state do not control the religion.
Not only this law target only known religions. There are thousannds of religion.It also do not prohibit people growing a beard for religion reason. This law cause division by growing rhe feeling of unferness that can lead to hate and violence.
The party quebecois and caq are racist parties rejecting multiculturalism like China does
No, the Quebec law and this Chinese law are not comparable. It’s an invalid comparison because the two laws aim to do fundamentally different things.
Quebec’s Bill 21 is very simple and straightforward law. The law basically does 3 overarching things:
Face coverings ban - All public services have to provided and received without face coverings to ensure safety and neutrality. The only face covering allowed are ones required by the service provided or ones related health situations.
Religious symbolism ban - This ban ONLY affects public employees in authoritative positions (school teachers, judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison guards, etc.) from wearing any object for religious purposes or is reasonably considered religious in nature while on active duty. This regulation only applies to wearables, it does to people’s bodies or what they choose to do with them. So things like tattoos of religious symbols, shaved heads, long beards, and even things like the Hindu bindis are not restricted in any way under this law.
State secularism - The law officially declares Quebec to be a secular and neutral state, mandating that all public lands, property, institutions, and funds must be kept strictly secular. Meaning that schools funded with public dollars, can’t force religious diets on students (halal, kosher, etc), government agencies can’t be used to advocate for any religion, public spaces can’t be used for things like public calls for prayer.
Whether you agree or disagree with this law is irrelevant. What matters in this conversation is what it does and who it affects. This law exclusively applies to the state itself. In other words, this is law is just a reiteration of secularism in the province. It does not affect the general public, it does not impose on the private lives of any citizen, it does not target or favor any religion, and the entirety of the law is based universal secular principles. This law doesn’t restrict identities and beliefs, it protects them by making sure that the state respects all faiths equally and remains neutral.
The Chinese law is completely different. From what I gathered from this article and a couple others, the law does the following:
All 56 recognized ethnic groups are required to assimilate into a single national identity based around the Han majority.
Mandarin is now mandated to be the primary language of instruction in schools everywhere, thus removing the choice to teach in local languages.
Educational curriculums must have heavy ideological elements that actively promote the Communist Party, Chinese patriotism, and strong sense of the Han Chinese identity.
Parents are legally required to teach their kids to love the Communist Party and the Chinese people.
Strictly prohibits any acts that are deemed “undermining ethnic unity” or “creating ethnic division”. This is kepty intentionally vague so the CCP can have a legal avenue to prosecute minority activists, dissenters, and independent cultural practices. Essentially setting the stage for ethnic cleansing.
The CCP gave itself power to prosecute any Chinese organizations or individuals in diaspora around the globe that they deem to be undermining their efforts at ethnic unity. They’re basically claiming ownership of citizens of other countries just because they’re ethnically Chinese, thus overriding the soverignty of other countries.
This law is as draconian as it gets. The Chinese government wants to enforce the CCP approved version of the Han identity on everyone, everywhere, at all times by force. The law applies to public employees, private citizens in their private lives, and even to non citizens around the world. The CCP is not neutral, they are playing favorites with ethnicities, and they vocally want to erase the ethnicities that they don’t like.
This law is inherently different from the Quebec law. This law has nothing to do with secularism or religion, and it’s implementation and enforcement is completely different. These two laws aren’t comparable. This Chinese law is infinitely more tyrannical, insane, evil, and dangerous. It goes well past just being racist, this is some really spooky shit.
It is a valid comparison. Both have a dogmatic view of what an national identity is so they start make laws to false problems resulting real problem of unfairness and restricting freedom leading to less unity and more hate.
Bill 96 also restrict anglophone rights and ignore first nstions languages.
The leader of PQ literally admit to believe in the great replacement
You’re starting to cross the line from being ignorant to being disingenuous. I don’t care about other laws or about individual politicians, that’s not what the topic is about. The only reason you’re even bringing them up is to distract from the actual points I’m making because you know I’m right.
You made the explicit claim that the Chinese law is the same as the law in Quebec, when they are completely different in content, scope, philosophy, intent, implementation, and enforcement. These two laws have nothing in common with each other outside of them both being laws. This is an inherently invalid comparison. You can double down as many times as you want, the reality is not going to change.
If you want to make a point about the Chinese law, then just outright do it. If you still refuse to be direct with it then at least use another example that’s more comparable to the Chinese law.
Ah, looks like I was right. You are a disingenuous idiot. Well no matter, everybody else saw your dishonest comparison for what it is, which is a desperate attempt to bootlick the CCP. I just happened to be the one to break down the facade.
Then let me ask you this, why are you shilling for this Chinese law so hard?
My stance is very straightforward. You cited a specific law as a comparison to this Chinese law, and I’m merely pointing out that your comparison is invalid because the laws are radically different from each other. That’s not a double standard because that requires someone to have a contradicting stances on two similar situations. These two laws are not similar. You could’ve pointed out to other laws that are actually similar like Denmark’s assimilation laws, and made your point, but you didn’t. You intentionally ignored your own point and doubled down on the Quebec law, claiming that it did things that it clearly did not do. That’s not a defense of the Quebec law, that’s a critique of your misrepresentation of that law.
So I ask again, for what purpose are you going this far to lie about what I said, lie about the Quebec law said, and then double down on this bad comparison? The only thing that I can think of is that you’re using it as a way to downplay or otherwise justify this Chinese law. If that’s not the case then are you at least willing to concede that this Chinese law is a draconian law on its own merits?
It is the same thing you restrict people right for an identity and belief system you decided to pick for everybody. Did Quebec consulted the first nations before imposing this. Real secularism is religion do not control the state and the state do not control the religion.
Not only this law target only known religions. There are thousannds of religion.It also do not prohibit people growing a beard for religion reason. This law cause division by growing rhe feeling of unferness that can lead to hate and violence.
The party quebecois and caq are racist parties rejecting multiculturalism like China does
No, the Quebec law and this Chinese law are not comparable. It’s an invalid comparison because the two laws aim to do fundamentally different things.
Quebec’s Bill 21 is very simple and straightforward law. The law basically does 3 overarching things:
Whether you agree or disagree with this law is irrelevant. What matters in this conversation is what it does and who it affects. This law exclusively applies to the state itself. In other words, this is law is just a reiteration of secularism in the province. It does not affect the general public, it does not impose on the private lives of any citizen, it does not target or favor any religion, and the entirety of the law is based universal secular principles. This law doesn’t restrict identities and beliefs, it protects them by making sure that the state respects all faiths equally and remains neutral.
The Chinese law is completely different. From what I gathered from this article and a couple others, the law does the following:
This law is as draconian as it gets. The Chinese government wants to enforce the CCP approved version of the Han identity on everyone, everywhere, at all times by force. The law applies to public employees, private citizens in their private lives, and even to non citizens around the world. The CCP is not neutral, they are playing favorites with ethnicities, and they vocally want to erase the ethnicities that they don’t like.
This law is inherently different from the Quebec law. This law has nothing to do with secularism or religion, and it’s implementation and enforcement is completely different. These two laws aren’t comparable. This Chinese law is infinitely more tyrannical, insane, evil, and dangerous. It goes well past just being racist, this is some really spooky shit.
It is a valid comparison. Both have a dogmatic view of what an national identity is so they start make laws to false problems resulting real problem of unfairness and restricting freedom leading to less unity and more hate.
Bill 96 also restrict anglophone rights and ignore first nstions languages.
The leader of PQ literally admit to believe in the great replacement
You’re starting to cross the line from being ignorant to being disingenuous. I don’t care about other laws or about individual politicians, that’s not what the topic is about. The only reason you’re even bringing them up is to distract from the actual points I’m making because you know I’m right.
You made the explicit claim that the Chinese law is the same as the law in Quebec, when they are completely different in content, scope, philosophy, intent, implementation, and enforcement. These two laws have nothing in common with each other outside of them both being laws. This is an inherently invalid comparison. You can double down as many times as you want, the reality is not going to change.
If you want to make a point about the Chinese law, then just outright do it. If you still refuse to be direct with it then at least use another example that’s more comparable to the Chinese law.
You just an hypocrite and a west boot licker
Ah, looks like I was right. You are a disingenuous idiot. Well no matter, everybody else saw your dishonest comparison for what it is, which is a desperate attempt to bootlick the CCP. I just happened to be the one to break down the facade.
Not having a double standard like you do not make me a CCP bootlicker. You defending restricting liberties when the west does it make you one
I am a chinese bootlicker right?
Then let me ask you this, why are you shilling for this Chinese law so hard?
My stance is very straightforward. You cited a specific law as a comparison to this Chinese law, and I’m merely pointing out that your comparison is invalid because the laws are radically different from each other. That’s not a double standard because that requires someone to have a contradicting stances on two similar situations. These two laws are not similar. You could’ve pointed out to other laws that are actually similar like Denmark’s assimilation laws, and made your point, but you didn’t. You intentionally ignored your own point and doubled down on the Quebec law, claiming that it did things that it clearly did not do. That’s not a defense of the Quebec law, that’s a critique of your misrepresentation of that law.
So I ask again, for what purpose are you going this far to lie about what I said, lie about the Quebec law said, and then double down on this bad comparison? The only thing that I can think of is that you’re using it as a way to downplay or otherwise justify this Chinese law. If that’s not the case then are you at least willing to concede that this Chinese law is a draconian law on its own merits?