Propositions 31 & 32 (QOTD): Religious Symbols Ban

I hate this new law so much. It’s so clear from the way it was put in place and the way it’s been defended that it’s just about racism against Middle Eastern people, mostly women specifically.

The two ‘Questions of the Day’ when I took the Vote Compass were all about this law, and though they are different questions, I can’t imagine most people answering them on different sides of the political spectrum (I guess it comes back to the question about the independence of Quebec).

I don’t know much about the way that the government of Canada could challenge the laws in Quebec, but given how racist the law is, I hope it is widely contested by whatever civil liberties bodies could be responsible for standing up for the rights of these civil servants.

Once again, the question itself is fine, with the exception that there could probably be some contextual information on the page about the specifics of the law available. It pains me to see that places in Canada would come up with something like this, but that’s where we are now.

Summary: Disagreeing with a law that most reasonable people would consider racist (was there a problem with religious people interfering with their civil duties, or is the problem with people using civil services complaining about feeling uncomfortable with non-Christian religious ‘symbols’ like burqas and complaining about it) shouldn’t be political. Do better and get back to me.

Table of Contents

Proposition 30: Religious Minorities

This is a weird question for me, and because there’s no context, I’m also going to call it a bad question. How much are we saying is currently done to ‘accommodate’ religious minorities, because from my perspective it doesn’t seem like much outside of the bare minimum (for a secular state which for Christianity has all major holidays off and anybody who is not Christian arouses suspicion if in positions of influence).

I don’t want to say ‘much more’ should be done, because I know things are already done, but I don’t think we should be bending over backwards to make any possible accommodation for religions when what they want accommodated can potentially hurt others (eg. anti-vaccine people). If somebody can have their life improved through ‘accommodations’, I absolutely think they should be able to if it’s not hurting anyone, but I don’t think ‘because religion’ is a particularly good reason for making these accommodations. We should just do it.

Summary: The question is tough because it lacks context, but what context would you even give? It doesn’t mention what laws or legislation it’s referring to, so we’re just left to guess based on what we know about ‘religious minorities’. They shouldn’t be treated any differently than anybody else, religious or not.

Table of Contents

Proposition 29: Carbon Tax

As a planet, we need concrete ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and research has shown that taxing pollution in this way is a good way to curb emissions. I think this question is still OK because it again gives a solid agree/disagree, but the idea of a ‘carbon tax’, and especially the specific implementation in Canada could easily be cited here to give context.

I think in this case in particular it would really helpful because a lot of people don’t really understand a carbon tax, and descriptions of it by its opponents do not do it justice, or try to give any context for it.

Summary: This question itself is fine, but some sources of additional info on the page would be REALLY helpful.

Table of Contents