Reply to Mr Clennett
I guess this sort of letter kills your attempts to filter out fake news? “Une attaque contre les droits des minorités religieuses” Mr Clennett writes.
Bill 21 is not an attack on rights -- where is there a “right” to proselytize, a “right” to wear certain symbolic clothing, a “right” to impress one’s religious views upon children (in school to learn how to think), or upon the poor and dispossessed (by police, prosecutors) – where is there a “right” to wear advertising of any kind? And why is 21 “attacking” only minorities? 21 applies to all religious/cult advertising -- are gang members allowed to tattoo their logos on each other? Is there a right of a police officer to wear a swastika? The Bulletin has raised these points before, but Mr Clennett and others prefer to repeat only that they are being oppressed.
Could Mr Clennett kindly attempt an answer to these questions, instead of repeating the same claims and accusations over and over? Will those so concerned about the “right” to conceal their identity, or the “right” to advertise one’s religious views, also explain why kids have no rights to a ideology-free classroom, or why other immigrants and poor people have no rights to an ideology-free police station, court room, even bus ride?
Those are real questions. Frankly, I think the logistics of enforcing this law are what make it unrealistic – not this weeping for the State trampling on one’s right to advertise one’s personal and private views. No one’s beliefs are being attacked or suppressed, only your ability to advertise publicly what should be a private matter.