Despite his (and our) sorrow, why is the PM of Pakistan interfering with Québec’s affairs? And why is he, again, asking Western countries to ban “hate website”?

Today is a VERY sad day in Canada…

May the Afzaals rest in peace.

May God support their surviving boy as well as all their loved ones.

Bambi already sent her heartfelt condolences to her fellow Canadians and to the people of Pakistan, especially to the relatives and friends of the Afzaals (in an earlier post shared again below). Today, if she may, she would like to begin by extending her condolences to Mr. Imran Khan, the Pakistani PM.

This being said, Bambi does not understand why he seems to be interfering with our own freedom of expression in Canada and earlier in Western countries at large? Why does he seem to be encouraging online censorship in our own country, as per the CBC and France24?

Of course, Bambi has the utmost respect for his grief (including any feeling of sadness or anger). However, had the Afzaals been of Lebanese origins, not a single politician (even of the corrupt ones, including powerful, Islamist-leaning ones) would have expressed such demand. So why does Mr. Khan feel entitled to do so (again)?

Furthermore, despite their obsession with religion and their sectarianism-based corruption, Lebanese politicians would have never ever allowed themselves to criticize Québec’s Bill 21. This is a bill made by Québec for Québec. It may not be ideal in all its parts but it has been democratically voted by lawmakers while being endorsed by the vast majority of the population, including MANY of those of Muslim faith.

This being said, a message to the CBC now, please do your homework about Bill 21 before further reporting about it. This bill does NOT “ban public servants, including teachers and police officers, from wearing religious symbols at work“.

And no, Mr. Khan, this is bill is NOT a form of “secular extremismthat “leads to intolerance against Muslims“. This bill is known to be moderate, compared to similar bills in Europe.

If it could perhaps help to clarify this bill using the Government of Québec’s own language, below is a text copied pasted from one of Bambi’s earlier posts on Bill 21, which she respects for the simple following reason: It is the choice of Québec, whether she fully agreed with it at first or not:

Bill 21 came after 10 years of public debate in Québec about reasonable accommodations.

Bill 21 is moderate, compared to other bills in secular countries in Europe.

Bill 21 is mainly about public servants in positions of authority, including all the following:

“the President and Vice-Presidents of the National Assembly, administrative justices of the peace, special clerks, clerks, deputy clerks, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, clerks and deputy clerks respecting municipal courts, and bankruptcy registrars, members or commissioners who exercise their functions within the Comité de déontologie policière, the Commission d’accès à l’information, the Commission de la fonction publique, the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, the Commission des transports du Québec, the Commission municipale du Québec, the Commission québécoise des libérations conditionnelles, the Régie de l’énergie, the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux, the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec, the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, the Régie du logement, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec or the Administrative Labour Tribunal, as well as disciplinary council chairs who exercise their functions within the Bureau des présidents des conseils de discipline, commissioners appointed by the Government under the Act respecting public inquiry commissions, and lawyers or notaries acting for such a commission, arbitrators appointed by the Minister of Labour whose name appears on a list drawn up by that minister in accordance with the Labour Code, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, and persons who exercise the function of lawyer, notary or criminal and penal prosecuting attorney and who are under the authority of a government department, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, a person appointed or designated by the National Assembly to an office under its authority (or a body referred to in paragraph 3 of the bill), persons who exercise the function of lawyer and are employed by a prosecutor (Code of Penal Procedure), unless the prosecutor are persons acting in criminal or penal matters for such a prosecutor before the courts or with third persons, lawyers or notaries acting before the courts or with third persons in accordance with a legal services contract entered into with a minister, the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, the National Assembly, a person appointed or designated by the National Assembly to exercise a function under its authority (or a body referred to in paragraph 3 of the bill), or lawyers acting in criminal or penal matters before the courts or with third persons in accordance with a legal services contract entered into with a prosecutor, peace officers who exercise their functions mainly in Québec; and principals, vice principals and teachers of educational institutions under the jurisdiction of a school board established under the Education Act or of the Commission scolaire du Littoral established by the Act respecting the Commission scolaire du Littoral.”

Bill 21 includes a “grandfather” clause, which allows existing public servants to keep serving.

Bill 21 also has a section on the necessity to have one’s face uncovered whilst receiving public services for safety concerns.”

Of course, this bill is not in the spirit of Canada’s multiculturalism. Mind you, it is not in the spirit of the (religiously diverse) Lebanon neither. However, it is in the spirit of countries like France and Switzerland (at least in the canton of Geneva) and Québec, as a distinct society (or nation). Why can’t we accept this once and for all? Is it that hard to remember?

Bambi agrees that the idea of such bill may not appear ideal, even it is a logical result of a 10-year public debate. Perhaps the world would have appeared nicer or fair to all without resorting to this bill. However, sometimes in life or history rather, there is a time for such legal measures to protect/ensure the survival of one’s civilization (like bill 101or 96 on the French language, etc.). For those who forget it, Québec is a minority in North America.

One must also keep in mind that Québec did a symbolic gesture by removing the cross from its National Assembly (putting it in a nearby museum, if Bambi understood well). This cross likely did not have any religious meaning to lawmakers. However, it represents a deep cultural heritage meaning (Judeo-Christian tradition); Québeckers know how to be proud of their heritage.

To be fully non-politically correct about this topic, between Bill 21 and Islamism (as a political movement within the beautiful Muslim religion), Bambi clearly prefers the former despite her respect for the latter. She is saying so as a human being and especially as a woman. In her mind, she is clearly for the separation of the church (i.e. all religions; any religion) and the state. She is writing so despite her respect for all the religions of the world as well as for those who chose not to believe in any religion.

To conclude this post, you may or may not agree with neither Québeckers nor Bambi on this topic. However, from Mr. Khan to Mr. Trudeau, from Mr. Blanchet (Bloc Québécois in Ottawa) to Mr. Legault (PM of Québec) as well as to you and Bambi, we are ALL mourning today (together) :(. Most importantly, we all agree that violence is NOT acceptable, regardless of its source and regardless of its victim!

Not only for the Afzaals, but also to each one of you/us saddened by this human tragedy…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *