In my latest blog post, I discuss Quebec's ban on unauthorized public prayer, with a few thoughts on how it could affect the Montreal Worldcon.
https://garymcgath.com/quebec-prayer-ban/
With Worldcon coming up in Montreal next year, fans who go there will
have to be aware of QuebecrCOs anti-prayer law. It imposes serious restrictions on religious freedom. Group prayer in public requires government permission. People have had to choose between wearing
religious symbols and quitting their jobs. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has condemned the law as an rCLattack on freedom of religion, freedom of expression, protest rights, and equality.rCY
The law is touted as promoting religious neutrality, but itrCOs no more neutral than a ban on all protests is.
The law has been challenged in CanadarCOs Supreme Court, so it might not
be an issue when the convention comes around.
Some of its provisions will affect just people living and working in the province. IrCOll focus here on the impact on visitors.
A lot depends on the word rCLpublic.rCY What is a rCLpublic placerCY? The streets of Montreal are certainly public, but what about the Palais de Congr|?s, where the convention will take place? What about hotels where
fans will stay? Will the convention be able to schedule religious gatherings? This is a question for lawyers, and I hope the con will have some answers for the public. I wrote to the conventionrCOs address for asking questions, and so far IrCOve gotten an acknowledgement but no other response. Probably theyrCOre still working on it.
In practice, thererCOs a good chance only Muslims will be targeted for enforcement. As an atheist, IrCOm not directly affected by a prayer ban,
but laws denying freedom of expression undermine the principle and have
a chilling effect on all discourse. In 2025, Montreal slapped a church
with a $2,500 fine for hosting a concert by a singer the government
didnrCOt like. I think Sean Feucht is all wet (bonus pun for German speakers!), but thatrCOs not the point. If the city can fine private organizations for hosting singers or speakers based on the ideas they support, it can silence anyone, and events such as fan conventions
arenrCOt safe.
On 5/6/26 06:49, Gary McGath wrote:
In my latest blog post, I discuss Quebec's ban on unauthorized public
prayer, with a few thoughts on how it could affect the Montreal
Worldcon.
https://garymcgath.com/quebec-prayer-ban/
Is this Chengdu 2.0?
Presumably individual prayer isn't included (e.g. saying a blessing over one's meal before one eats, etc.) I suppose all the Jews could swap
their yarmulkes for baseball caps. :-(
And up until now, Canada had seemed like such a bastion of sense and rationality.
There's something peculiarly French about this. France also enforces secularism. The American constitution authors had the good sense
simply to leave out religion. France couldn't stop at that but went
on to insist on making secularism official state policy. Why?
On 5/8/26 3:32 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
There's something peculiarly French about this. France also enforces
secularism. The American constitution authors had the good sense
simply to leave out religion. France couldn't stop at that but went
on to insist on making secularism official state policy. Why?
Merriam-Webster defines secularism as "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations." This means
exclusion from governmental policies and social structures, which is
what the US constitution does in the governmental sphere, and what
society in general does at least in the part of the USA where I live.
You can be a Catholic, fundamentalist, pagan, or atheist, and you won't upset most people as long as you don't shove it in their face.
The idea that secularism entails hostility to religion is a notion of
the religious right, which wants Protestant Christianity to be the basis
of social organization and wants America to be a Christian nation. To
them, indifference to religion is hostility to them.
...
There's something peculiarly French about this. France also enforces >secularism. The American constitution authors had the good sense
simply to leave out religion. France couldn't stop at that but went
on to insist on making secularism official state policy. Why?
In England they first had the reformation in the 16th century which broke
a lot of that, so that when the American Revolution happened 250 years later it was just a distant memory. But when the French Revolution happened it was a current problem.
Britain still had serious religious issues in the 18th century. At the
time of the American Revolution, Catholics couldn't vote in Britain, and >George III opposed letting them have the vote.
On 5/8/26 10:43 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In England they first had the reformation in the 16th century which broke
a lot of that, so that when the American Revolution happened 250 years
later
it was just a distant memory.-a But when the French Revolution happened
it was
a current problem.
Britain still had serious religious issues in the 18th century. At the
time of the American Revolution, Catholics couldn't vote in Britain, and George III opposed letting them have the vote.
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote
until the Representation of the People Act 1918.
Britain still had serious religious issues in the 18th century. At
the time of the American Revolution, Catholics couldn't vote in
Britain, and George III opposed letting them have the vote.
Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote
until the Representation of the People Act 1918.
The year after the Balfour Declaration. Coincidence?
Lawrence D\377Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote
until the Representation of the People Act 1918.
The year after the Balfour Declaration. Coincidence?
Perhaps more relevant, 1918 is also when women got the right to vote
there. (But, initially, only women over 30.)
In Message-ID:<10u7lep$3kj$1@reader1.panix.com>,
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Lawrence D\377Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote
until the Representation of the People Act 1918.
The year after the Balfour Declaration. Coincidence?
Perhaps more relevant, 1918 is also when women got the right to vote
there. (But, initially, only women over 30.)
I'm not sure where I got this from, but...
Many people know about the Suffragettes who won the vote for some UK
women in 1918. However, many people don't realize that before 1918,
not all men had the right to vote either. While voting had been
gradually expanded over the previous 80 years, it was still
restricted by property ownership and wealth. The 1918 Representation
of the People Act granted the vote to all men over 21, as well as
women over 30 who met property qualifications. This was a significant
step toward universal suffrage in the UK, though full equal voting
rights for men and women were only achieved in 1928.
On 5/8/26 16:37, Gary McGath wrote:
Britain still had serious religious issues in the 18th century. At the
time of the American Revolution, Catholics couldn't vote in Britain,
and George III opposed letting them have the vote.
The Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 basically granted Catholics the right
to vote (with some restrictions).
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote until
the Representation of the People Act 1918.
On 5/8/2026 4:48 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
On 5/8/26 16:37, Gary McGath wrote:
Britain still had serious religious issues in the 18th century. At
the time of the American Revolution, Catholics couldn't vote in
Britain, and George III opposed letting them have the vote.
The Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 basically granted Catholics the
right to vote (with some restrictions).
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote until
the Representation of the People Act 1918.
I don't think that's accurate, although I can't find exact proof as to
when Jews got the right to vote in the UK.
In fact, in 1858, Lionel de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of
the House of Commons.
He had actually first been elected in 1847, but had not been able to
take his seat since at the time the oath of office required him to swear
"on the true faith of a Christian." Not until 1858 was a law passed
which provided "... any Person professing the Jewish Religion, in taking
the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid, may omit the Words 'and I make this Declaration upon the true Faith of a
Christian' ...."
So if a Jew could be elected to Parliament by 1847 and serve there by
1858, it seems unlikely that Jews were prohibited from voting at that time.
Many things in the UK are enforced by custom rather than explicit
law. The king potentially has a lot of power if he exercised it,
but then he wouldn't be invited to tea.
And I had read that the reason for this gradual addition of women to the voting roles was that because of the loss of 400,000 men from the UK in
WWI, making the ratio of adult men to adult women 100:107, adding all
the women at once would have made the women the majority of the voters.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Many things in the UK are enforced by custom rather than explicit
law. The king potentially has a lot of power if he exercised it,
but then he wouldn't be invited to tea.
It's an interesting question what would have happened if in 1936
Edward VIII had refused to abdicate but had still insisted on marrying
Wallis Simpson. Would someone -- who? -- have somehow forced him to abdicate? Would the monarchy have somehow fallen?
I, for instance, was forbidden from voting for nearly 40 years due
to my wrongful conviction. Millions of people Americans with clean
records are unable to vote because they live in a state in which only
people with a government-issued picture ID can vote, and they are
unable to get one. (The Republicans want to make this ID requirement universal.)
Coveniently for the current king, Princess Diana was no longer living
when he wanted to marry Camilla.
Conveniently for the current king, Princess Diana was no longer living
when he wanted to marry Camilla.
As far as I can tell, in some circumstances you can even vote if in
prison:
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/updated-guidance-on-voting-in-prison/
On 5/16/2026 4:13 AM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Conveniently for the current king, Princess Diana was no longer living
when he wanted to marry Camilla.
Wasn't Camilla also a divorcee?-a If so, what is the status of her ex husband?
On 5/15/26 9:05 PM, Joshua Kreitzer wrote:
On 5/8/2026 4:48 PM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
On 5/8/26 16:37, Gary McGath wrote:
Britain still had serious religious issues in the 18th century. At
the time of the American Revolution, Catholics couldn't vote in
Britain, and George III opposed letting them have the vote.
The Catholic Emancipation Act 1829 basically granted Catholics the
right to vote (with some restrictions).
For what it's worth, Jews in the UK didn't get the right to vote
until the Representation of the People Act 1918.
I don't think that's accurate, although I can't find exact proof as to
when Jews got the right to vote in the UK.
In fact, in 1858, Lionel de Rothschild became the first Jewish member
of the House of Commons.
He had actually first been elected in 1847, but had not been able to
take his seat since at the time the oath of office required him to
swear "on the true faith of a Christian." Not until 1858 was a law
passed which provided "... any Person professing the Jewish Religion,
in taking the said Oath to entitle him to sit and vote as aforesaid,
may omit the Words 'and I make this Declaration upon the true Faith of
a Christian' ...."
So if a Jew could be elected to Parliament by 1847 and serve there by
1858, it seems unlikely that Jews were prohibited from voting at that
time.
Many things in the UK are enforced by custom rather than explicit law.
The king potentially has a lot of power if he exercised it, but then he wouldn't be invited to tea. In a quick search, I can't find any
indication of religious requirements for voters, but my guess is that it
was common for many years in many places to assume only Christians could vote. The overturning of the custom was probably gradual.
But this is all guessing.
The US example show that 'enforced by custom' can be a risky position,
with the current administration ignoring all norms.
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
As far as I can tell, in some circumstances you can even vote if in
prison:
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/updated-guidance-on-voting-in-prison/
In Louisiana you can run for public office while in prison.
--scott
[Hal Heydt]
Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison.
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
[Hal Heydt]
Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison.
There isn't necessarily any correlation between being allowed to run
for office and being allowed to vote.
Before my right to vote was restored in 2016, I would not have been
allowed to run for any Virginia state office, but I would have been
allowed to run for president.
Similarly, people have gotten airplane pilot licenses even though they
were too young to drive a car.
Rules vary enormously between states. That's why I like physics so
much: The rules are always exactly the same in all places, all times,
all orientations, and all inertial frames of reference.
And I like math even more. It's exactly the same in all possible
worlds.
In Louisiana you can run for public office while in prison.
On 5/17/26 18:05, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
And I like math even more. It's exactly the same in all possible
worlds.
Except for non-Euclidean geometries.
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
[Hal Heydt]
Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison.
There isn't necessarily any correlation between being allowed to run
for office and being allowed to vote.
Before my right to vote was restored in 2016, I would not have been
allowed to run for any Virginia state office, but I would have been
allowed to run for president.
Similarly, people have gotten airplane pilot licenses even though they
were too young to drive a car.
Rules vary enormously between states. That's why I like physics so
much: The rules are always exactly the same in all places, all times,
all orientations, and all inertial frames of reference.
And I like math even more. It's exactly the same in all possible
worlds.
On 5/17/2026 3:05 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
[Hal Heydt]
Eugene Debs ran for president while in prison.
There isn't necessarily any correlation between being allowed to run
for office and being allowed to vote.
Before my right to vote was restored in 2016, I would not have been
allowed to run for any Virginia state office, but I would have been
allowed to run for president.
Similarly, people have gotten airplane pilot licenses even though they
were too young to drive a car.
Rules vary enormously between states.-a That's why I like physics so
much:-a The rules are always exactly the same in all places, all times,
all orientations, and all inertial frames of reference.
And I like math even more.-a It's exactly the same in all possible
worlds.
Jeannette Rankin was first elected to congress in 1916, before women got
the vote.
On Sun, 17 May 2026 18:17:01 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
On 5/17/26 18:05, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
And I like math even more. It's exactly the same in all possible
worlds.
Except for non-Euclidean geometries.
The same rules of maths apply to them, too.
You never heard of generalizations? Add a parameter to your formulas >representating the curvature of space, and now you have a set of
formulas that work across Euclidean, Riemannian and Lobachevsky/Bolyai >spaces?
This is what I didn't understand at all when I was a kid. I took the usual Euclidean geometry class and it seemed to me that the Euclidean postulates had nothing to do with the real world. You could draw perfect infinite lines but there wasn't anything like that here. My teacher just got mad when I pointed this out but he should have given the correct answer which is "this is an abstract game to teach you method of proof."
And that's what math is, it's an abstract game. It doesn't necessarily
apply anywhere in the world. Sure, 10+20=30 but 20 hours after 10:00 is
6:00 because you need to use a different set of rules for that.
Those other world... the same rules of math don't apply to them, but different rules of math do apply to them, and we can also use those
different rules in our world even though they might not apply, because
they are all an abstract game.
Plato took the opposite approach. He thought that the laws of
mathematics meant that somewhere there is a perfect straight line,
perfect circle, etc. They exist in a world of their own, and all lines
and circles in the visible world are just crude imitations of them.
He then generalized this to all concepts, saying this "world of forms" >contains not just perfect mathematical objects but perfect archetypes of >everything, including the ideal wolf, the ideal house, and the ideal >souvlaki. Unfortunately, you can't eat the ideal souvlaki.
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Plato took the opposite approach. He thought that the laws of
mathematics meant that somewhere there is a perfect straight line,
perfect circle, etc. They exist in a world of their own, and all lines
and circles in the visible world are just crude imitations of them.
Many mathematicians feel this way today. But if you feel this way, then
what about universes that we can imagine where there are different perfect circles where the circumference is five times the radius?
Any universe that we can imagine, we can create mathematics for. That does not mean such a universe exists or that such mathematics are in any way useful.
On 5/18/26 10:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary McGath-a <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
Plato took the opposite approach. He thought that the laws of
mathematics meant that somewhere there is a perfect straight line,
perfect circle, etc. They exist in a world of their own, and all lines
and circles in the visible world are just crude imitations of them.
Many mathematicians feel this way today.-a But if you feel this way, then
what about universes that we can imagine where there are different
perfect
circles where the circumference is five times the radius?
Any universe that we can imagine, we can create mathematics for.-a That
does
not mean such a universe exists or that such mathematics are in any way
useful.
You can create a mathematical system where a closed curve called a
"circle" is 5 times the radius, but a lot of other things would have to
be different. On a non-Euclidean plane, for instance, the ratio could
even be variable, and a "circle" (defined as all the points on a plane a specified distance from a given point) might look nothing like what we
think of as a circle. But it could still exist in our universe,
depending on what you're modeling.
When Arthur C. Clarke posited in one of the 2001 sequels that the
creators of the universe had encoded a message in the digits of Pi, he
got a lot of pushback.
When Arthur C. Clarke posited in one of the 2001 sequels that the
creators of the universe had encoded a message in the digits of Pi, he
got a lot of pushback.
Carl Sagan
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:07:01 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,321 |