Talk:Hérouxville, Quebec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Added English translation of article
Need some current links in English. Please help update. By the way, this is a direct translation, the line "highlight the evident xenophobia" was in the original French article, no POV intended. I will not revert changes to eliminate that line so as not to cause any controversy (but if someone else should they should subtantiate change accordingly). Berimbau1 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Hérouxville Standards by Bearcat
I'd like to know why my referrence to Hérouxville Standards is consistently removed while it is extremely pertinent to the city and content of the main article. There is no valid reason to obfuscate this entry.
- Your reference has not been removed from this article; it was merely moved to another spot in the article. Bearcat 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
(Same problem into Wiki:FR ), I think ReasAcc as a improper sub-title. And something like "Controversies over Herouxville Standards" should be better"--Ecclecticus2 09:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Targeting of religious minorities
It is all referenced Globe and Mail article. It is not reasonable to remove items that are referenced. It is extremely pertinent because it explains why these prohibition are controversial and particularly offensive to religious minorities.
Specifically, - the prohibition on veiling one's face in public targeted the wearing of the hijab, an exclusive practice of Muslim women; - the prohibition on symbolic "weapons" was in the context of a recent court case of students in Montreal wearing a Kirpan to school, an exclusive practice of Sikhs; - the statement that "food nourishes the body, not the soul" is in reference to the Jewish practice of eating kosher meats; - the reference to "blood transfusions" targeted the practices and beliefs of Jehovahs Witnesses, which have also been in the news lately.
Mentioning these is also highly relevant, because it also explains why these groups are particularly offended. --Soulscanner 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- However, the "targeted" groups are not directly specified in the controversial measures. It is open to interpretation, as no particular group or organisation is named. The rules are not intended to affect any religious group, but rather the general public.
I am uncertain inference has its place in an encyclopedia. I would rather judgemental reasoning be used.
Perhaps a "Backlash" subsection would be in order.
