Sure. It's difficult to comment further absent the actual rules. I think most of the ones described in the article are *already* covered. I mean, why make a rule saying stoning a woman is illegal, when murder and assault are already illegal? Such remarks do seem like piling on.
Where are the first principles? When we agree, there's no need for a rule, right? Like boys and girls exercising together?
Wait. Just re-reread the article and found the english version of the document. I think the authors of the document are possibly well meaning, but misguided. Come on. It's a statement, not a law. It's called "Standards". And it's in response to a poll of the "electors". Who is the audience here? It's *not* the newcomers. This is a bone to the voters. Newcomers sufficiently present in the 21 century that can make there way from "out there" to Quebec aren't stoning women. That's just a shot.
And the section about children being able to eat any food, and pork and beef and chicken being sold in the same shop, and no need to know about the source of the meat, what's that about? No halah shops? No kosher shops? What's the point?
That's my question. What's the point of this document? I see it as pure pandering. Yes, the elected officials are doing the will of the people. Great. But the people for whom these standards represent an obstacle are not going to see them before they get there, are they? And if when they get there, and bump up against these standards, what will happen? They will not have this little five page document rolled up and swatted on their nose, they'll have to deal with the laws that are already in place. "No, sorry, Mr New Guy, that woman doesn't have to have a man drive her about, she's permitted to drive herself." Or some such imagined conversation. Ridiculous.
Quote:
To publish all the laws and standards of Municipalité Hérouxville would be a tedious task. The standards published above are just a sample so the new arrivals to this territory can clearly identify with us before making their decision to move here.
Certainly, being the elected members, we would give the new arrivals the assurance that the conditions that they have fled from in their country would not happen again here in our territory.. Consequently, the peace of mind that we live with will always be.
It must be very clear that any person or persons, groups legal or not that would like to modify our habits and customs or our general way of life cannot do so without going through a referendum process following all laws put forward by our towns and municipalities. These referendums will be at the petitioner or petitioner’s cost.
|
This is the conclusion to the document. The first paragraph positively exsanguinates the whole document. What is this, a warning? Please. The second paragraph is just as absurd. If someone's fleeing stoning, why would they want to continue it here? If someone's fleeing a society where there is sexual equality, why would they be reassured that the "conditions would not be repeated here"? And the third paragraph is just breast-beating. We have a way of making rules, and if you don't like the rules, you have to change them according to our rules for changing rules. Ok, but then why have the intimidating "at your cost" zinger at the end?
My vote: :thumbsdown: