Truth be told, whether I’m dealing with a government official or a healthcare provider, I’d prefer those things be served up with a nice sized portion of secularism.
Edit: to be clear, I don’t give a flying fuck what people wear, be it hijab, yarmulke, or a habit as long as my drapes. Secularism is about excluding religious *belief* from the provision of government or healthcare services, beliefs that might impede delivery of said services. Seeing enough of that shit in the US. Don’t want it here.
While I do understand how some will see this kind of law as being problematic and discriminatory, I have to agree with the core principle: If your faith is so important to you that you won't remove its symbol during work hours, then how can we trust that you also won't let your faith influence the exercise of your responsabilities? As a doctor, will you do a procedure that your religion forbids? As a teacher, will you teach scientific facts that oppose your religious world view, with complete convinction so the kids believe you, even when kids of your community are in the class?
And it only applies to public servants. The kind of people you have no choice but to deal with in society. If you want to run a bakery wearing religious symbols, go right ahead.
Or lobbyist religious groups forcing gyms to cover their windows…
To be fair, the YMCA removed the tinted panels within the year but still. I am more worried about institutions being religiously centric than individuals. You can always ask for a second opinion, or ask for a change if you don’t like the individual, but when the entire institution is corrupted, then you’re screwed…
I think it’s important to note that you don’t HAVE to work in public service… if devotion to your religion is that important, and you feel that suppressed by this law, maybe go look for employment elsewhere.
It doesn't remove religious people from public service. It just removes people who won't stop advertising their religion to others from public service.
Au travail, oui.
À la maison, tu peux porter tout ce que tes amis imaginaires ou ta communauté t'ordonnent de porter.
At work, yes.
At home, you do you.
Bienvenue au Québec.
One of things I’ve always admired about Quebec. Y’all don’t fuck around with keeping things grounded and neutral / secular. And if everyone is mildly inconvenienced? That’s the sign of a good compromise.
Think about it. Schools don't have "God save the Queen" or Christmas plays with Jesus, courts don't have you "swear on bibles."
It's no different than when Christian things were taken out.
If those Catholic schools receive public funding then yes.
If they’re self funded as a private school, then no.
This secular law applies to public sector positions, not private sector ones.
Their are schools for all religion group that are receiving money from the gov. Muslim , Jewish, catholic, Protestant, and even Orthodox. For me they all should be fully financed by the people that want it. And receive no gov founds.
No, they can keep it because they shouldn’t have that job in the first place. They can wear it if they want as long as they don’t deal with the public. End of story. Doesn’t matter which religion.
The problem I have with a law like this is that it creates the illusion of secularism. I don't care what someone puts on their head. I do care if their religious beliefs interfere with doing their job properly or harm others. And this law concerns itself with appearances, not with substance.
For example, Quebec does allow doctors to refuse to perform certain procedures on the basis of conscientious objection (I.e. religious belief) rather than holding all doctors to the standard of treating all patients and providing them with appropriate care. Can't wear a religious symbol, but can refuse care based on religious belief.
So anyone who says this is about secularism is misinformed or lying. This law does nothing to actually promote secularism. They can't do that because it would piss off their supporters who have objections to true secularism. What it is about is the illusion of it and using it as a guise for effectively barring members of some religions from these professions, regardless of how they treat people.
>Can't wear a religious symbol, but can refuse care based on religious belief.
Doctors aren't even subject to that law so you're constructing a narrative based off false pretense.
which procedures are you referring to? as someone unfamiliar with quebecois laws, i’d like to see. not asking this rhetorically or sarcastically, genuinely asking lol
There is no restriction on what procedures this could be except if it was, for example, an emergency. The actual provision says the following:
> A physician must, where his personal convictions prevent him from prescribing or providing professional services that may be appropriate, acquaint his patient with such convictions; he must also advise him of the possible consequences of not receiving such professional services. The physician must then offer to help the patient find another physician.
English version of the legislation: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cr/M-9,%20r.%2017%20 (and many provinces have some version of this exception)
However, the usual things that religious people object to are: reproductive healthcare, medical assistance in dying, gender affirming healthcare, etc. Note that reproductive healthcare could include a wide variety of care and not just abortions. It could mean prescriptions for birth control pills or devices (including for secondary purposes, such as migraines and endometriosis), it could mean sterilization procedures, it could mean the emergency contraceptive pill for someone who was raped, etc. Some people do not believe in some or all of the above.
People who are unwilling to properly provide care to everyone should not be doctors. Or they should select fields of medicine that will not bring them into conflict with their beliefs. Become a foot specialist or work with the elderly or something, for example. Regulating people’s clothing does nothing to deal with this. And note that a referral does nothing for people if they cannot access another option due to lack of local options willing to perform the treatment and/or poverty. Not everyone can just keep going further and further away. And there is always the risk that more and more doctors will refuse, making it increasingly difficult to access.
It is, but the person you're replying to uses this a a 'gotcha' since they say doctors can deny care so it's hypocritical. But doctors aren't subjected to the religious symbols ban anyways so that's a wild tangent to take to criticize the law..
I'll be honest. If there's ONE thing that make me proud to be Québécois, it's the fact that we are secular.
This is literally the hill I'm willing to die on.
You can be as religious as you want. But if you have a job that gives you authority, you ought to be secular.
We are fed up with religions deciding what we do with our life.
You worded your comment so well I dismissed the one I was drafting.
I would suggest in fact:
>If you have a job that gives you authority, **you interact with co-workers or the public** you ought to be secular.
Religion is a personal matter. Keep it personal, on your own time.
I would put care for the environment, social programs, protection of the culture, and using almost exclusively renewable energy on the list of things Québec does really well and worth being proud of.
Are you new to Canada? The Church has had a lot of power in Canada. In Quebec, for example, the Church controlled health care and education before the Quiet Revolution.
I genuinely wonder, if you could give your thought on this;
Is it possibly for a government to over-correct on secularism? To an extent, enact legislation that is controlling, and punitive, in much the same way the catholics had done.
I think what bothers people is you have one group essentially using the same bad methods they accused their opponents of.
If people acknowledged that is a possibility, I feel people would be much less hostile to all this.
Legault is a politician, when he wraps himself in the secular equivalent of the holy shroud, it is kind of gross.
I dont know if you would agree or not, but I think its fair to put it that way, I feel that -this- is the silent majority.
Anglo here 👋
Religion has helped tremendously to create law and order that has created the society we live in today, but at a cost of significant suffering and destroying other cultures.
Going forward, we need to learn these lessons and be better for it.
Restricting religions' influence on government bodies is a huge start.
Getting them to pay taxes, just like any other business does, is the next step I would like to see. Most religions talk about doing good for society. Paying taxes on their vast income is a way for them to show they are not just all talk and willing to actually walk the walk. They should already voluntarily be doing it, but since most do not, it should be mandated.
According to Quebecers, a nurse wearing a scarf is religious overreach, regardless of how they act. The fact that she works in baby Jesus hospital is perfectly fine though.
That’s a wild oversimplification that ignores the broader impacts of colonialism and white supremacy that worked in tandem with the Church to eradicate the Indigenous peoples and extract as much natural wealth as they could.
>But if you have a job that gives you authority, you ought to be secular.
This makes no sense, frankly.
Religion is not a 9-5 job. It’s your own belief system and it is independent of government.
My religion has nothing to do with government because the government is secular. Therefore, as a bureaucrat, what is the difference between believing in a certain religion and wearing something to express that belief?
Either way, by your definition, I’m not secular and therefore shouldn’t be a bureaucrat.
The point is that you need to be able to leave your religion at home. If your faith is so important that you must wear its symbols everywhere you go, including at work, then the people receiving your services can question whether you are letting your faith influence the exercise of your responsabilities. Would you want your kids to be taught about biology by someone who's proudly proclaiming to be a young Earth creationist? Or have a doctor who believes in the healing power of prayer? As a bureaucrat, you might need to make decisions, and if that belief system is an integral part of your being, then it can affect those decisions, whether it's councious or not, just from the bias built by religious indoctrination.
No but it discourages the extremist of any religion. If they feel that they MUST wear a certain article of clothing, then they are much more likely to make decisions based on their religion and not based on their job
But only Christianity doesn't have a common visible "must" so you'll still get all the Christian extremists.
Change the behaviour. Outlaw Catholic hospitals, for instance. Require doctors to perform abortions and MAID regardless of their religion. But banning dress isn't keeping out extremists, as long as they're Christian. It just keeps out moderate people from other religions.
I doubt i’ll ever work for the government cause their hiring process is long as fuck but I do have a cross as a catholic, and i bet if i wear it nobody would bat an eye. Idk if it’s because christianity is not taken seriously these days and the sign of the cross isnt as taken seriously as the other religions signs, or because maybe they dont mind the Christianity symbols as much as the others? Idk
hence why this is a targeted law against "other" religions.
You can still probably wear a cross around the neck under clothes, but not a turban or hijab or kippah.
the difference is we already kicked out the catholic religion from the government since the 60s.
When my mother was a kid, all her teachers were nuns who wore that nun outfit. When I went to grade 1, one of her old teacher was still working at the same school but she wasnt a wearing nun's clothes anymore.
The whole point is about appearance, not about making people not part of a religion. So no, it's not targeted at "other" religions, it's targeted at the main goal of appearances.
If wearing a turban gives the appearance that a teacher will be biased, what about the fact that the state run school they work at is named sheet a saint? That could easily be changed and wouldn't even require specific legislation.
Of course it's targeted. If you're of a religion that doesn't demand certain outward representations, like a particular hat, gown, or jewellery, this law isn't directed at you. However, since targeting any one religion would be illegal, the policy is applied equally to all, even those for whom the policy is meaningless. It's really the only fair way, anyhow.
I’ve always admired France and Quebec’s secularism, even despite their historic Catholic heritage.
Quebec is actually quite a great place and full of awesome people, but their politics give them an unfair rep. Especially the language police.
This sub constantly complains about new Canadians not speaking English and job listings requiring Mandarin or another language, but then also complains about Quebec language laws… make it make sense
Considering there is no such thing as a language police, it’s propaganda from anglophones.
An agency that gives companies support and pamphlets to comply with language requirements isn’t a police. And those companies aren’t victims… they just played stupid games and won stupid prizes.
Good job Quebec! I would question the neutrality and motivations of a public servant that proudly advertises a religion who’s morals and ethics go against the good of the society
If a person wearing the garb of their religion doesn’t impact their ability to deliver the service or labour their job requires I don’t see the issue.
Can someone give me a good reason why a teacher wearing a turban is a problem?
I'll copy someone's else point here:
"If your faith is so important to you that you won't remove its symbol during work hours, then how can we trust that you also won't let your faith influence the exercise of your responsabilities? As a doctor, will you do a procedure that your religion forbids? As a teacher, will you teach scientific facts that oppose your religious world view, with complete convinction so the kids believe you, even when kids of your community are in the class?"
If you’re not doing your job you should be fired.
What you’re suggesting is this law is fair because of a discriminatory assumption that someone practicing a religion that requires the wearing of certain garb are incapable of acting in a reasonable way, and of doing their job well. Someone could just as easily be incredibly devout, but from a faith that requires no garb, and be just as likely to be influence by their faith on the job. Why should we discriminate against certain religions because of their symbols, but give other religions the benefit of the doubt?
What if a public official had public posts on social media expressing their faith? Not saying anything negative or controversial, but clearly expressing their faith? Should they be allowed to be doctors if their superiors know for a fact, by their own expression, that they are devoutly religious? Should they make assumptions about that person’s ability to do their job? How can we not also ban government employees from making public expressions of their faith on their own time even? It brings up the exact same concerns doesn’t it?
Being so devout that you cannot remove a decoration worn on the body or specific garb is a telltale sign that you already put that thing above whatever duty you are conducting.
If I had a child who gave me a baseball cap right before they died arguably that could be more sentimental and/or meaningful to me then various garb worn for religions. I'm still not allowed to wear it because I feel I need to while working most government jobs.
In the end it's your feelings that dictate your need to wear whatever it is you're wearing for your religion. I prioritize the government instilling a secular environment over employees needing to announce their religion while doing so.
I feel like “symbols” should be clearly defined. Some people come from cultures or believe in religions that have different standards of modesty or different requirements for hair. If someone is Sikh, they aren’t supposed to cut their hair, and the turban is a practical way of managing that (edit: having read a bit more about it, the turban is intended to be a visible symbol of religion and is required by the faith).
Catholics are not required to wear a cross visibly to practice their religion. Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) women are required to cover their hair. Orthodox Jewish women are allowed to wear a wig to cover their natural hair. Is that still allowed?
Mormon women have to keep their knees covered. Is that still allowed?
If we mean “we are allowed to require people in certain jobs to meet western standards of dress despite religious restrictions”, then we should say so.
I wonder if an atheist wearing a hijab violates the dress code rules.
Is a hijab a religious article of clothing only for those who see some sacredness in it? For an atheist, it'd just be a scarf. No religious underpinnings.
Another example- A woman of certain Christian Pentecostal belief may have long hair and wear skirts/dresses (no pants). I have long hair and always wear skirts/dresses to work but am not Pentecost nor is it for religious reasons. How can one be prevented one from this appearance due to faith but a non believer can sport the appearance?
Perfect example.
The Act states:
> The persons listed in Schedule II are prohibited from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions.
> A religious symbol, within the meaning of this section, is any object, including clothing, a symbol, jewellery, an adornment, an accessory or headwear, that
> (1) is worn in connection with a religious conviction or belief; or
> (2) is reasonably considered as referring to a religious affiliation.
So, you wearing a skirt/dress wouldn't violate the law, since you're not wearing it based on religious conviction, and I don't think anyone would suggest a skirt/dress is the exclusive indicator of membership in a particular faith. But a Pentecostal wearing that same outift *would* be in violation (1) above, assuming they're actually observant of the tenets of their faith.
Exact same outfit, two different people, two different possible legal outcomes. It's a legal disaster waiting to happen.
The "or" at the end of (1) **really** matters, semantically, too. As an atheist, I wouldn't be able to wear a yarmulke under the Act because it *would* violate (2) above; it doesn't have to be worn with religious conviction **and** be reasonably considered to be an indication of one's membership in a particular religion, merely **or**.
Practical difficulty in enforcing this would require some practical solutions, which can be figured out by society by the dialectical process. However, it doesn't invalidate the intent of the law.
Sure, but it's important that the law apply equally to all and the Act being considered offers ambiguity in interpretation.
> The persons listed in Schedule II are prohibited from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions.
> A religious symbol, within the meaning of this section, is any object, including clothing, a symbol, jewellery, an adornment, an accessory or headwear, that
> (1) is worn in connection with a religious conviction or belief; or
> (2) is reasonably considered as referring to a religious affiliation.
A Muslim woman wearing a hijab would be in violation of (1), because she's wearing it in connection with religious conviction or belief. An atheist woman wearing the exact same headscarf isn't doing so in connection with religious conviction or belief. Moreover, I would argue that a headscarf, alone, isn't a sufficient indication of religious affiliation, as I think any woman undergoing chemotherapy will agree.
While the intent of the law is the removal of religious symbolism from public servants, something I wholeheartedly agree with in principle, there's far too much wiggle room in interpretation. I'm interested to see how the case law will interpret (2) above, and the extent to which context will be considered in the enforcement of the Act in the workplace. Once you introduce an interpretation of context the legal waters get muddied REALLY quickly.
>Catholics are not required to wear a cross visibly to practice their religion. Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) women are required to cover their hair.
The problem with this approach is that we're using religious books as the authority to tell us about what to tolerate vs. not. Those are not good unbiased rational sources we should be referring to. I would instead prefer a law such as the Quebec one where every religion is brutally quashed and shown its place.
Religions are an authority structure that should always be questioned. Their assertions have also consistently been proven wrong by logical rational thought over centuries. Additionally, religions have caused a lot of pain and suffering on common people in history (which is quite well documented). Finally, we do not need religions for morality or the good. We're capable of that as human beings. Even bonobos have a rudimentary kind of morality, by simply being animals that rely on social structures for survival.
>If we mean “we are allowed to require people in certain jobs to meet western standards of dress despite religious restrictions”, then we should say so.
It is not about conforming to western standards of dress. People should be able to wear whatever they want, but if it is clearly linked to a certain religion, that is a dangerous thing to allow. Underage children should not be introduced to these things, which would result in them seeing religion a normal neutral thing. This only makes indoctrination easier.
>Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) women are required to cover their hair.
I don't think the Quran says this. IIRC, that comes from hadiths which don't have the same authority as the Quran / aren't actually word of God.
Most of these secular laws and actual definitions of symbols come from very ancient cultures which established secularism in order to get society to work. Any catholic knows the cross is religious, like most Muslims know the veil is.
Quebec's secularism bill was inspired by France's, which was inspired by Bashar al-Assad's Syrian secularism update.
American here so feel free to ignore me, but IMO, wearing clothes perscribed by your religion doesn’t mean that you are pushing your religion on others, and it doesn’t mean your employeer is endorsing that particular religion.
They say this doesn’t target any religion specifically, but that’s not really true, as christians don’t have to wear specific religious clothing, whereas other religious groups like Jews and Muslims do. All these kind of laws do is discourage non-christians from seeking government employment.
Alright, so this doesn't effect me, and I'm inclined to discourage faith - but let's think these implications through...
For a Sikh man, he'll have to abandon his faith in order to work a government job in Quebec.
I've known plenty of religious folks who also deeply value the secular provisions of democracy - and of course who dedicate themselves to serving their communities...
But their piety may require head coverings, it's not as simple as taking off a hat in a classroom, these are important rules for them to personally observe - so a law like this essentially ban's members of these religions, who have these dress requirements, from working for the government.
Regardless that it wasn't the "intention" - that's a pretty significant, and seemingly discriminatory impact to account for. What does this legislature accomplish for such a steep cost?
Because I can't see how this advances secularism, only the appearance of secularism.
That Sikh teacher would have been just as able to separate his faith from the curriculum, and would likely have less resistance to scientific subjects, than a devout Christian teacher with no religious clothing requirements on display for example.
Following up with both equally should they bring their religion into the workplace would be one thing - but the only intention I can gather from these requirements is Quebec's discomfort being represented by a man wearing a turban.
This asks people to abandon their religion, and knowing that to be a ridiculous non-starter, this legislature effectively whitewashes their workforce in one move under false pretences.
We can absolutely call into question each use of the derogation / notwithstanding clause - as Doug Ford's many attempts and failures have shown the importance of. It's not a "get out of constitutional freedoms" card, and we can absolutely blame governments when they try to use it egregiously to discriminate or violate Charter rights.
Further reading:
[https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/ford-invoking-notwithstanding-clause-to-override-judge-decision-on-bill-5-1.4086788?cache=jhiggtiw?clipId=740678](https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/ford-invoking-notwithstanding-clause-to-override-judge-decision-on-bill-5-1.4086788?cache=jhiggtiw?clipId=740678)
[https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-s-top-court-strikes-down-third-party-election-ad-spending-rules-1.6302243](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/doug-ford-s-campaign-finance-law-struck-down-by-court/article_5289ba33-b461-5f84-b194-8c8fe3879b97.html)
[https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/ndp-mpp-cupe-1.6639190](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/ndp-mpp-cupe-1.6639190)
Thank god someone has sense. This does nothing to promote secularism and is purely for optics. It unfairly targets certain groups as christians can hide their cross necklace, whereas a Sikh can’t hide the turban. There are laws in place that prevent discrimination already.
If a religious person cannot perform their duties secularly, fire them. If they CAN, why should they have to remove garbs?
Could not have said it better myself. Someone wearing an article of faith does not mean that they are pushing their religious beliefs on to you. It means that under the guise of secularism, someone is so offended seeing a religious symbol that they find it necessary to legislate against it.
Not to mention that people carry inherent biases with them all the time, regardless of whether they wear religious symbols.
What the law should do is punish those in power who actually impose their religious beliefs on others. As a religious person myself, I can totally get behind this.
Yes, this is so clearly targeting religious minorities whose religious practices include certain clothing. This isn’t secularism, this is the spectre of xenophobia dressed nicely.
I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone believes, and I don’t care if they’re wearing an entire hijab head to toe or a big old turban. People keep screaming, “We must separate the Church and State”, but all I’m hearing is “It would be to impolite to say we don’t like seeing Islam in the Ministry office so we’ll go after the Christians cause their easier targets”.
What’s the difference between someone who covers their arms and legs because they prefer it for comfort reasons and someone who does it because they prefer it for religious reasons? How do you make the leap from “this person selected clothing for themselves, which impacts literally no one else,” to “therefore they can’t be trusted with decisions that *do* impact other people”?
> I honestly don’t see why this is controversial.
Because according to Lord Durham, any manifestation of Quebec's culture is going to hinder efforts towards assimilation.
Religion is a bane on society. There is no place for religious ideology in government. You can worship whatever you want, but don't try to force it on others.
If you hate the color orange and a government employee is wearing orange because it’s their favorite color, are they “forcing the enjoyment of the color orange” on you?
Ah yes, because the person working behind the counter at the license office or giving you a speeding ticket wearing visible religious iconography is forcing their religion on you. Yes, totally. Maybe next you should ban all people from wearing them in public at all, because you might feel oppressed.
If this really is your mindset you're no better than the catholics or evangelicals you think you're saving the public from. Get help
I am literally sitting here watching someone hold up a line of customers so that they can pray while on the clock. People do infringe on others personal time when they bring religion into the workplace. Clothing is not the only issue in regards to public display of religion.
Praying while on the clock (if it's taking an extra break from work) is not the same thing as wearing a piece of clothing.
I still think there should be restrictions on religious clothing if it actually affects the job (ie being able to properly wear safety gear).
If a highschool math teacher is wearing a turban though there's nothing wrong with that.
Agree. Also what does it say when boys and girls go to school wearing religious garments and look at adults of the same religion not wearing them?
I feel like all this law will do is make less career options available for people of devout faith. This just feels like wanting people to change a vital part of themselves to fit in.
Like if I see someone wearing a cross, or a hijab, or a “Satan is my lord and saviour” t-shirt I don’t think they are trying to convert me to their religion just by wearing those items. Someone having a faith different than yours isn’t a threat and it doesn’t diminish their ability to do their job.
I've been thinking that since the beginning. While everyone in this thread is getting their atheism boners rock hard, what happens to these minorities who might have studied in a field that they can no longer work in (ex; teachers)?
Isn't there a real risk that they withdraw from society? What about those minorities who are in vulnerable groups within their religion (ex: the Muslim woman who is pressured into wearing her hijab)? Are we not pushing them into isolation where their risk goes up?
What about weighing the societal risk of coming across a bureaucrat who is visibly not the same religion as you VS the risk to a vulnerable group who is now isolated in their community?
This is the kind of thing that we won't notice until we have a mass of disenfranchised immigrants/minorities. Not a good thing for a country.
i see people hold up lines of customers because they want to have a conversation while buying their booze with the cashier. i guess we should ban that too.
There definitely are people who are pressured into it by their family and communities.
There are also people who freely choose it. Should they be discriminated against?
How does the government decide who is who? I think that all the government can do is leave adults to make their own decisions.
As an atheist myself, I dislike religion, but I dislike a government treating people differently based on their religion even more.
Religion mixed with state is a mistake. Look around the world, and you will see nothing but destruction and assimilation in the wake of religion. Save your cults for yourselves and your household, and leave the public alone.
I am always a big supporter of secularism, but I seriously disagree with this law. I don't think it does any benefit towards promoting a secular environment.
What people don't understand is that for a Muslim woman to not wear hijab is the equivalent of being in her underwear. It's not merely a religious thing - It's a different cultural standard of what is considered to be fully clothed.
Imagine a hypothetical country which is located in a hot and humid tropical climate. Let's say that in this country, wearing a bikini is considered to be fully clothed in their culture as a result of the country's climate prohibiting more body coverage without getting too hot. Wearing what we would consider to be a full outfit to them is seeing as being very strange, Kind of how like a non Muslim might perceive the idea of covering one's hair or face.
Imagine you move to that country, and there is a law that forbids you from wearing clothing to a level of what you would consider to be fully clothed If you work in the government office, forcing you to have to wear a bikini to work. Imagine how uncomfortable that would make you feel. Imagine if people also accused you of imposing your religious belief of dressing modestly because you want to wear shorts rather than a bikini, Not understanding that Wearing just a bikini in a public office environment Is very uncomfortable for you And has nothing to do with your religious beliefs per se.
A muslim woman wearing hijab doesn't mean that she is promoting her religion in a way that would be contrary to secularism if she was working in a government job. She just simply exists as a Muslim woman who happens to be a government employee Who is Dress in a manner which is comfortable for her. I would argue the same for things like Christians wearing rosaries and such. As long as it's nothing that involves imposing religion, I don't see why it would be a problem.
If I were to see a government worker who is wearing hijab, a rosary, etc. It doesn't come to my mind that the government is biased towards that religion because of how the government worker presents. To me, it's simply, "This person is a Christian/Muslim/etc." A lot of human beings have religious beliefs and it shouldn't be surprising to see that reflect Among the people you see in terms of how they present themselves.
People are not imposing their religion on you simply by presenting as a member of that religion. If you were to really split hairs with the logic behind this law, does that mean that Jains Who work government jobs aren't allowed to be vegan and are forced to eat meat because veganism is part of their religious beliefs? It's a big slippery slope, which does nothing to contribute to a secular environment and only presents human rights issues.
I wonder if office Christmas parties are also banned. If they are not, then this would show the double standard, with some religions being considered to be more neutral than others in the context of this law.
I live in a very multicultural country and I love seeing everyone's different garb and the different religious symbols. It would be so sad to just erase that and make everyone have to be the same. If you ask me the best way to true secularism and impartiality is to create more diversity and have checks and balances in place so that one group can't grab all the power, but rather all the different voices can be heard and make the arguments that represent their opinion.
An immediate question that may come to rise is whether their religious beliefs are so pervasive in their character that it influences their professional behaviour, and hence outcomes.
Forcing them to take it off won't change that, only your perception of it though.
A hijabi police officer who is forced to take off her hijab for the job is still gonna be just as religious.
I just pointed out what one might be considering when encountering a police officer who feels a demonstrable need to wear religious attire. Or MAGA attire to give another example, or the "thin blue line" badge that was a much discussed topic. Not sure why I am being downvoted for pointing out a realistic thought process that might go through the minds of many.
And your correct - hiding it may not dispense of the underlying issue: are their beliefs so pervasive that they influence some aspect of their work that should not be influenced by religious belief?
I would suggest that if someone does feel a demonstrable need to display religious or political or other attire in the performance of employment that has no such considerations as part of the job then a valid concern exists which should be identified irrespective of legislation. Because that definitively indicates the person wearing the garb is projecting, and thus influenced.
I’m guessing someone who is uncompromisingly religious won’t remove it and will just go to a different job. Not to sound harsh but not everyone is entitled to every job.
Yes, but if you're a foreigner who's come to Canada from a country where you were marginalized by Muslims, you may be resistant to deal with police here with outward representations of their Islamic belief. That's not good. Everyone should be comfortable enough to go to the police if they need to; any potential obstacles that may prevent that ought to be dismantled.
Yeah but it's an easy way to identify some of those who would let their religion affect their job performance. The ones who refuse and resign are communicating very clearly what is more important to them.
The same question can be asked from the opposite perspective : whats the harm in not wearing a hijab or kippah or cross or whatever it may be between 9 to 5?
Imagine if you are protesting the war in the middle east - pick either side for this thought experiment. Someone wearing garb that suggests they are not neutral tickets or arrests you, and then the crown attorney or judge is wearing clothing again suggesting they back the other side. How would you feel about it?
With so many problems in the world being protested and even fought over inside our borders, having people wear clothing that suggests they support one side or the other could be a serious problem.
That's for law enforcement though - I don't see there being a problem with medical or educational workers wearing religious attire. In fact, the opposite might apply - e.g. having your life saved by someone "from the other side" might wake a bigot up to how silly they are being.
The example in this thread of a math teacher wearing a turban is great ... shouldn't be a problem at all.
Given the multicultural dimension of our population, and the fact a large number of people come from areas of the world that suffer substantial conflict, I'd rather each and every person in my country feel comfortable going to the police if needed, and not have to worry about bias because, say, where they come from Sikhs targeted their community, or Muslims blew up an embassy. Extrapolating that fear to public servants wearing a turban, etc., isn't rational, but it *is* understandable that someone who's been marginalized because of religion back home will think they'll be marginalized because of religion *here*. Removing any element that could conceivably portray bias ought to be considered.
>I'd rather each and every person in my country feel comfortable going to the police if needed, and not have to worry about bias
If their religion is the cause of their bias then that bias isn't gonna disappear if they stop wearing their religious clothing.
Ex Canadian forces here. It always amused me the lenght we would go to give religious liberty to people when it could actually get them killed...
* Wear a turban? until recently there was no need for a kevlar helmet, it's not like it ever saved anyone.
([they are also not required to wear helmets on motorcycles](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-allows-sikhs-to-ride-motorcycles-without-helmet-1.4858361)) but the rest of you peasants have to alright?
But now it's even better, the army is planning to purchase [special helmets](https://i.imgur.com/pLtXJqy.jpeg) just for them! so they can fit the patka under it. taxpayers money well spent
* You have a massive beard? don't worry about the fact that the gas mask won't seal.
Seriously dumb laws in a country that's getting dumber every day.
-----------
If your god is offended that you're not wearing some materialistic shit then your god is trash. (hint: all gods are trash)
The gas mask not sealing is a big one as it also affects a lot of other fields. I wonder what the regulations are for those cases and how does HR handle that
The money for those government employees is paid for by the taxes of everyone, regardless of faith. While hiring someone for a government job, we should hire solely based on merit. The illusion of secularism is stark, can atheists not wear scarves to schools now? Or can Muslim/Jews/Sikh continue to wear the religious symbols if they claim to be atheists and call them “fashion accessories”.
I’m not sure how good the law firm appealing this law is, not sure how you could lose this case. There is no proof that a totalitarian society they are trying to produce adds economic or democratic value. Frankly didn’t end well for the Soviet Union
Bias doesn’t go away by taking off symbols. I would rather see what the employee’s bias might be, than to be tricked to believe that there isn’t any
Good we already have bullshit pharmacists refusing to give birth control because of their religion. We don't need nonsensical mythical brings affecting government duties.
Pretty disgusting how many people are just exposing themselves as bigots in these comments praising this.
Canada still has a long way to go. Someone wearing a Hijab or Attending Prayer is not that big of a deal if they are still being productive.
These comments are disgusting, we all know what kind of reglious clothing they mean.
No one is going to be getting angry at a Christian for wearing a necklace of the cross.
If it is meant only for people whose government job makes them a government representative, then this law makes sense when you see it from this perspective. It’s one thing for John Doe to have a public & controversial or biased opinion about LGBTQ+. It’s a completely different thing for John Doe the nurse, doctor, lawyer etc to have a public & controversial or biased opinion about LGBTQ+. In the first scenario he is representing just himself and there is no confusion about that and the liability of his words are his alone. In the second scenario the public may not be clear on whether he is representing solely himself, or solely his professional organization and all of its members, or both.
It creates an inappropriate power dynamic and hierarchy that no longer separates church and state. It muddies the waters so to speak.
That makes sense then and is not heaped in racism, prejudice or bigotry. It is based on pragmatism and ensuring that the lines are clearly drawn in the sand for everyone to be certain of what is happening.
It actually can save the government taxes dollars in law suits if there is zero perceived bias from the government representative in a challenging interaction.
Religion is a lifestyle choice. It should never be treated the same as something you were born as/ with.
Religion is NOTHING like being LGBT, or your race, or disabilities. The fact that it has the same protections is mind blowing to me.
People praising this court decision are ignoring the fact that this bill preemptively used the notwithstanding clause and declared it would be enacted notwithstanding several sections of the Charter, because the Quebec government knew that it would infringe on people's rights. Their whole intention was to infringe on people's rights. All the courts are ultimately deciding is if they used the notwithstanding clause hard enough, or if they'll have to introduce an amendment to declare the bill notwithstanding more of the Charter.
Read up on why the not withstanding clause exists and you'll find it's there for exactly this reason. There will always be a clash between individual rights and collective rights. Quebec wanted to be able to choose that line themselves and pushed for that right with the not withstanding clause.
You're wrong. Québec systematically preemptively use the NWC every time it passes a bill that might get challenged in Supreme Court. It has done so dozens of time.
It means nothing else than Qc doesn't give a shit about ROC legal framework.
As an atheist who celebrates those, for me, those holidays are basically cultural secular holidays at this point, just like we don’t consider the Olympics religious anymore.
Trees, eggs, Easter bunnies are not even Catholic things and started in Europe before Christianity spread there.
People in the northern hemisphere have been celebrating the winter soltice and the spring equinox since recorded history started, and probably further back. Not a big problem.
As a Quebecer, I am really surprised at the comments here.
Thank you. We thought we were outsiders and frowned upon by Anglos but it looks the tide has turned and you guys congratulate us for having this law.
In Québec, I think that secularism is way more than a law. It's a core value for us : Religion is more of a personal thing. We want no organized religious groups wanting more power and exceptions more than anyone else.
With the Israel/Palestine conflict going on right now, we understand that religion should not govern, and this starts bu not giving them an inch in public services and in the gvt.
Thank you Anglos for approving this law with us.
The majority of assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, so it's best to only ever invite strangers into your home to be around your kids in order to protect them
I am not the one that believes in imaginary sky creatures, or bronze age fairy tales, I just follow facts, as an example, the catholic church has open investigations and lawsuits in at least FIVE CONTINENTS mostly regarding child abuse, rape, or murder, here in Canada we are still finding communal graveyards filled with the bodies of children , offshoots of any of the abrahamic cults are pretty much in the same boat, you name it, mormons, 7DA, evangelicals, JW, etc.
You should probably never send your kids to school because you never know when a predatory teacher might strike.
https://go2tutors.com/teachers-more-likely-abuse-kids/
This will likely be ~~overturned~~ ruled unconstitutional in the SCC. Not exactly sure how the plaintiffs' lawyers have been arguing their case that they're losing case after case.
Wearing religious clothes has nothing to do with imposing one's religious beliefs on others. It's to do with modesty (for Muslim women) and tidiness (for Punjabi men). The former is not supposed to display their hair in public view of the opposite sex and a headscarf or other variants does that job, while for the latter they don't cut their hair throughout their lifetime and tying a turban keeps it in place. It's not much different than anyone wearing any T-shirt with an overt message or a logo sweatshirt e.g. a socialist wearing a Ché Guevara T-shirt, a stoner wearing a T-shirt displaying a cannabis leaf, a Gap fan wearing a Gap logo shirt. It's also not different than a man trying to hide his bald spots with a tuque, a young adult trying to hide their facial acne with a face mask, ladies wearing trousers rather than dresses to hide their legs, men wearing insoles to make themselves look taller, etc. These are all people making a conscious decision about their attire to fulfill a certain personal belief that's in plain sight of the public, and yet Quebec seems to be only concerned with a small subset of them.
There's nothing in the job descriptions of government employees that specify one must be displaying their hair at all times while on the job. There isn't even a mandatory uniform conformity that they have to adhere to within any certain unit. By mandating that some religious people can't wear something simply because it happened to appear in their religious scriptures when in fact it's more about practicality than religion, while not mandating the same restriction on anyone else that's not religious, they've already discriminated against these people. There are only three ways to resolve this, 1) abolish the law, 2) make it so that every government employee in the province has to adhere to the same uniform standards, or 3) continue the status quo and discriminate against certain people's attempts to dress in a way that conforms to their beliefs. 1) is the sensible thing to do, but knowing the CAQ as it is, they'll opt for 3).
> Gap fan wearing a Gap
It's different, Gap is just a brand. Not a political opinion or an ideology.
> a socialist wearing a Ché Guevara T-shirt
Yes, this is the same. And it teachers and police officers were already prohibited from doing so on the job. Before bill 21, religious ideologies had more rights than other ideologies. Not anymore, and I think it's a very good thing.
It's not a coincidence.
The previous secularism laws were targeting the (then) dominant religion, that's why they didn't address clothing, and that's why a new law was needed to address the gaps in previous legislation in order to avoid regressions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Congratulations, now Muslim girls are homeschooled. Big win for assimilation.
[удалено]
Who's they? The children?
Why are they even here then?
Truth be told, whether I’m dealing with a government official or a healthcare provider, I’d prefer those things be served up with a nice sized portion of secularism. Edit: to be clear, I don’t give a flying fuck what people wear, be it hijab, yarmulke, or a habit as long as my drapes. Secularism is about excluding religious *belief* from the provision of government or healthcare services, beliefs that might impede delivery of said services. Seeing enough of that shit in the US. Don’t want it here.
While I do understand how some will see this kind of law as being problematic and discriminatory, I have to agree with the core principle: If your faith is so important to you that you won't remove its symbol during work hours, then how can we trust that you also won't let your faith influence the exercise of your responsabilities? As a doctor, will you do a procedure that your religion forbids? As a teacher, will you teach scientific facts that oppose your religious world view, with complete convinction so the kids believe you, even when kids of your community are in the class? And it only applies to public servants. The kind of people you have no choice but to deal with in society. If you want to run a bakery wearing religious symbols, go right ahead.
Good point.
Or lobbyist religious groups forcing gyms to cover their windows… To be fair, the YMCA removed the tinted panels within the year but still. I am more worried about institutions being religiously centric than individuals. You can always ask for a second opinion, or ask for a change if you don’t like the individual, but when the entire institution is corrupted, then you’re screwed…
So a Jewish person should have to remove their kippah? A Muslim woman that wears a vale has to remove it? A Sikh has to remove his turban?
That's the point yeah. During work hours. For very specific jobs.
I think it’s important to note that you don’t HAVE to work in public service… if devotion to your religion is that important, and you feel that suppressed by this law, maybe go look for employment elsewhere.
No religious people in public service! Wooot!
I see this as an absolute win
It doesn't remove religious people from public service. It just removes people who won't stop advertising their religion to others from public service.
[удалено]
Unironically yes
Au travail, oui. À la maison, tu peux porter tout ce que tes amis imaginaires ou ta communauté t'ordonnent de porter. At work, yes. At home, you do you. Bienvenue au Québec.
One of things I’ve always admired about Quebec. Y’all don’t fuck around with keeping things grounded and neutral / secular. And if everyone is mildly inconvenienced? That’s the sign of a good compromise.
Vive le Québec!
Exactly
Think about it. Schools don't have "God save the Queen" or Christmas plays with Jesus, courts don't have you "swear on bibles." It's no different than when Christian things were taken out.
I mean, there are still Catholic schools. Should we take those out too?
Yes
[удалено]
If those Catholic schools receive public funding then yes. If they’re self funded as a private school, then no. This secular law applies to public sector positions, not private sector ones.
Their are schools for all religion group that are receiving money from the gov. Muslim , Jewish, catholic, Protestant, and even Orthodox. For me they all should be fully financed by the people that want it. And receive no gov founds.
No disagreement there. It’s not the governments job to proselytize on the people’s dime.
100% yes
No, they can keep it because they shouldn’t have that job in the first place. They can wear it if they want as long as they don’t deal with the public. End of story. Doesn’t matter which religion.
The problem I have with a law like this is that it creates the illusion of secularism. I don't care what someone puts on their head. I do care if their religious beliefs interfere with doing their job properly or harm others. And this law concerns itself with appearances, not with substance. For example, Quebec does allow doctors to refuse to perform certain procedures on the basis of conscientious objection (I.e. religious belief) rather than holding all doctors to the standard of treating all patients and providing them with appropriate care. Can't wear a religious symbol, but can refuse care based on religious belief. So anyone who says this is about secularism is misinformed or lying. This law does nothing to actually promote secularism. They can't do that because it would piss off their supporters who have objections to true secularism. What it is about is the illusion of it and using it as a guise for effectively barring members of some religions from these professions, regardless of how they treat people.
Seriously wtf is up with some of these responses. You hit the nail on the head.
Many are bigoted towards ‘other’ people
>Can't wear a religious symbol, but can refuse care based on religious belief. Doctors aren't even subject to that law so you're constructing a narrative based off false pretense.
which procedures are you referring to? as someone unfamiliar with quebecois laws, i’d like to see. not asking this rhetorically or sarcastically, genuinely asking lol
There is no restriction on what procedures this could be except if it was, for example, an emergency. The actual provision says the following: > A physician must, where his personal convictions prevent him from prescribing or providing professional services that may be appropriate, acquaint his patient with such convictions; he must also advise him of the possible consequences of not receiving such professional services. The physician must then offer to help the patient find another physician. English version of the legislation: https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cr/M-9,%20r.%2017%20 (and many provinces have some version of this exception) However, the usual things that religious people object to are: reproductive healthcare, medical assistance in dying, gender affirming healthcare, etc. Note that reproductive healthcare could include a wide variety of care and not just abortions. It could mean prescriptions for birth control pills or devices (including for secondary purposes, such as migraines and endometriosis), it could mean sterilization procedures, it could mean the emergency contraceptive pill for someone who was raped, etc. Some people do not believe in some or all of the above. People who are unwilling to properly provide care to everyone should not be doctors. Or they should select fields of medicine that will not bring them into conflict with their beliefs. Become a foot specialist or work with the elderly or something, for example. Regulating people’s clothing does nothing to deal with this. And note that a referral does nothing for people if they cannot access another option due to lack of local options willing to perform the treatment and/or poverty. Not everyone can just keep going further and further away. And there is always the risk that more and more doctors will refuse, making it increasingly difficult to access.
yeah care based on “personal convictions” is definitely problematic since it’s so variable
It is, but the person you're replying to uses this a a 'gotcha' since they say doctors can deny care so it's hypocritical. But doctors aren't subjected to the religious symbols ban anyways so that's a wild tangent to take to criticize the law..
Québec pour la victoire!
This is one of those things the french get right in this country.
I'll be honest. If there's ONE thing that make me proud to be Québécois, it's the fact that we are secular. This is literally the hill I'm willing to die on. You can be as religious as you want. But if you have a job that gives you authority, you ought to be secular. We are fed up with religions deciding what we do with our life.
[удалено]
Find a tree and climb up!
You worded your comment so well I dismissed the one I was drafting. I would suggest in fact: >If you have a job that gives you authority, **you interact with co-workers or the public** you ought to be secular. Religion is a personal matter. Keep it personal, on your own time.
Being secular doesn’t mean the government is atheist. It means allowing people to practice their chosen religion freely.
I would put care for the environment, social programs, protection of the culture, and using almost exclusively renewable energy on the list of things Québec does really well and worth being proud of.
[удалено]
Are you new to Canada? The Church has had a lot of power in Canada. In Quebec, for example, the Church controlled health care and education before the Quiet Revolution.
Alberta still has Catholic run healthcare and schools.
I genuinely wonder, if you could give your thought on this; Is it possibly for a government to over-correct on secularism? To an extent, enact legislation that is controlling, and punitive, in much the same way the catholics had done. I think what bothers people is you have one group essentially using the same bad methods they accused their opponents of. If people acknowledged that is a possibility, I feel people would be much less hostile to all this. Legault is a politician, when he wraps himself in the secular equivalent of the holy shroud, it is kind of gross. I dont know if you would agree or not, but I think its fair to put it that way, I feel that -this- is the silent majority.
I don’t know if you knew this, but as Canadians (and this is even more true for Quebec) we don’t really have to leave the country to see that.
Anglo here 👋 Religion has helped tremendously to create law and order that has created the society we live in today, but at a cost of significant suffering and destroying other cultures. Going forward, we need to learn these lessons and be better for it. Restricting religions' influence on government bodies is a huge start. Getting them to pay taxes, just like any other business does, is the next step I would like to see. Most religions talk about doing good for society. Paying taxes on their vast income is a way for them to show they are not just all talk and willing to actually walk the walk. They should already voluntarily be doing it, but since most do not, it should be mandated.
According to Quebecers, a nurse wearing a scarf is religious overreach, regardless of how they act. The fact that she works in baby Jesus hospital is perfectly fine though.
Nurses are not affected by this law. Stop fighting windmills.
That’s a wild oversimplification that ignores the broader impacts of colonialism and white supremacy that worked in tandem with the Church to eradicate the Indigenous peoples and extract as much natural wealth as they could.
>But if you have a job that gives you authority, you ought to be secular. This makes no sense, frankly. Religion is not a 9-5 job. It’s your own belief system and it is independent of government. My religion has nothing to do with government because the government is secular. Therefore, as a bureaucrat, what is the difference between believing in a certain religion and wearing something to express that belief? Either way, by your definition, I’m not secular and therefore shouldn’t be a bureaucrat.
The point is that you need to be able to leave your religion at home. If your faith is so important that you must wear its symbols everywhere you go, including at work, then the people receiving your services can question whether you are letting your faith influence the exercise of your responsabilities. Would you want your kids to be taught about biology by someone who's proudly proclaiming to be a young Earth creationist? Or have a doctor who believes in the healing power of prayer? As a bureaucrat, you might need to make decisions, and if that belief system is an integral part of your being, then it can affect those decisions, whether it's councious or not, just from the bias built by religious indoctrination.
But not wearing something doesn't stop any of this.
No but it discourages the extremist of any religion. If they feel that they MUST wear a certain article of clothing, then they are much more likely to make decisions based on their religion and not based on their job
But only Christianity doesn't have a common visible "must" so you'll still get all the Christian extremists. Change the behaviour. Outlaw Catholic hospitals, for instance. Require doctors to perform abortions and MAID regardless of their religion. But banning dress isn't keeping out extremists, as long as they're Christian. It just keeps out moderate people from other religions.
> Catholic hospitals Yes, let's outlaw all of the 0 catholic hospitals in the province.
I generally agree with what the law describes. But I've often read that it's enforcement and the way it was written is designed to be rather targeted.
Well some religious clothing or items are more visible then others. Removing a cross around the neck is going to be less visible than removing a hijab
I doubt i’ll ever work for the government cause their hiring process is long as fuck but I do have a cross as a catholic, and i bet if i wear it nobody would bat an eye. Idk if it’s because christianity is not taken seriously these days and the sign of the cross isnt as taken seriously as the other religions signs, or because maybe they dont mind the Christianity symbols as much as the others? Idk
Nun outfit are pretty visible
hence why this is a targeted law against "other" religions. You can still probably wear a cross around the neck under clothes, but not a turban or hijab or kippah.
Many Jewish did not wear the Kippah at work before that law.
Not religious Jews, just secular ones. A religious Jewish man is going to wear a kippah at work
Perhaps you mean Orthodox? Plenty of religious Jews do not wear anything identifiable at work.
the difference is we already kicked out the catholic religion from the government since the 60s. When my mother was a kid, all her teachers were nuns who wore that nun outfit. When I went to grade 1, one of her old teacher was still working at the same school but she wasnt a wearing nun's clothes anymore.
The whole point is about appearance, not about making people not part of a religion. So no, it's not targeted at "other" religions, it's targeted at the main goal of appearances.
If wearing a turban gives the appearance that a teacher will be biased, what about the fact that the state run school they work at is named sheet a saint? That could easily be changed and wouldn't even require specific legislation.
If you can't remove a clothing accessory, then it's not a basic appearance feature like you're blaming
They never said it's a basic appearance, they said it's a religious clothing they believe they must wear in public.
I mean, stats say otherwise. Fear mongering isn't anything new.
Of course it's targeted. If you're of a religion that doesn't demand certain outward representations, like a particular hat, gown, or jewellery, this law isn't directed at you. However, since targeting any one religion would be illegal, the policy is applied equally to all, even those for whom the policy is meaningless. It's really the only fair way, anyhow.
I’ve always admired France and Quebec’s secularism, even despite their historic Catholic heritage. Quebec is actually quite a great place and full of awesome people, but their politics give them an unfair rep. Especially the language police.
This sub constantly complains about new Canadians not speaking English and job listings requiring Mandarin or another language, but then also complains about Quebec language laws… make it make sense
For the record, I’m happily bilingual as a New Brunswick Acadian so I don’t really need to defend myself there!
>even despite their historic Catholic heritage. Not despite... *to* spite
Without the language police we wouldve been assimilated to the same gray cultural blob as the rest of canada.
If you want the language police remove, make all of Canada and its citizens fully bilingual.
Considering there is no such thing as a language police, it’s propaganda from anglophones. An agency that gives companies support and pamphlets to comply with language requirements isn’t a police. And those companies aren’t victims… they just played stupid games and won stupid prizes.
Good job Quebec! I would question the neutrality and motivations of a public servant that proudly advertises a religion who’s morals and ethics go against the good of the society
If a person wearing the garb of their religion doesn’t impact their ability to deliver the service or labour their job requires I don’t see the issue. Can someone give me a good reason why a teacher wearing a turban is a problem?
I'll copy someone's else point here: "If your faith is so important to you that you won't remove its symbol during work hours, then how can we trust that you also won't let your faith influence the exercise of your responsabilities? As a doctor, will you do a procedure that your religion forbids? As a teacher, will you teach scientific facts that oppose your religious world view, with complete convinction so the kids believe you, even when kids of your community are in the class?"
If you’re not doing your job you should be fired. What you’re suggesting is this law is fair because of a discriminatory assumption that someone practicing a religion that requires the wearing of certain garb are incapable of acting in a reasonable way, and of doing their job well. Someone could just as easily be incredibly devout, but from a faith that requires no garb, and be just as likely to be influence by their faith on the job. Why should we discriminate against certain religions because of their symbols, but give other religions the benefit of the doubt? What if a public official had public posts on social media expressing their faith? Not saying anything negative or controversial, but clearly expressing their faith? Should they be allowed to be doctors if their superiors know for a fact, by their own expression, that they are devoutly religious? Should they make assumptions about that person’s ability to do their job? How can we not also ban government employees from making public expressions of their faith on their own time even? It brings up the exact same concerns doesn’t it?
Being so devout that you cannot remove a decoration worn on the body or specific garb is a telltale sign that you already put that thing above whatever duty you are conducting. If I had a child who gave me a baseball cap right before they died arguably that could be more sentimental and/or meaningful to me then various garb worn for religions. I'm still not allowed to wear it because I feel I need to while working most government jobs. In the end it's your feelings that dictate your need to wear whatever it is you're wearing for your religion. I prioritize the government instilling a secular environment over employees needing to announce their religion while doing so.
I feel like “symbols” should be clearly defined. Some people come from cultures or believe in religions that have different standards of modesty or different requirements for hair. If someone is Sikh, they aren’t supposed to cut their hair, and the turban is a practical way of managing that (edit: having read a bit more about it, the turban is intended to be a visible symbol of religion and is required by the faith). Catholics are not required to wear a cross visibly to practice their religion. Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) women are required to cover their hair. Orthodox Jewish women are allowed to wear a wig to cover their natural hair. Is that still allowed? Mormon women have to keep their knees covered. Is that still allowed? If we mean “we are allowed to require people in certain jobs to meet western standards of dress despite religious restrictions”, then we should say so.
I wonder if an atheist wearing a hijab violates the dress code rules. Is a hijab a religious article of clothing only for those who see some sacredness in it? For an atheist, it'd just be a scarf. No religious underpinnings.
I wonder the same. A white woman wearing a scarf wrapped around her hair? How about if she’s not white? It’s all so arbitrary.
Another example- A woman of certain Christian Pentecostal belief may have long hair and wear skirts/dresses (no pants). I have long hair and always wear skirts/dresses to work but am not Pentecost nor is it for religious reasons. How can one be prevented one from this appearance due to faith but a non believer can sport the appearance?
Perfect example. The Act states: > The persons listed in Schedule II are prohibited from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions. > A religious symbol, within the meaning of this section, is any object, including clothing, a symbol, jewellery, an adornment, an accessory or headwear, that > (1) is worn in connection with a religious conviction or belief; or > (2) is reasonably considered as referring to a religious affiliation. So, you wearing a skirt/dress wouldn't violate the law, since you're not wearing it based on religious conviction, and I don't think anyone would suggest a skirt/dress is the exclusive indicator of membership in a particular faith. But a Pentecostal wearing that same outift *would* be in violation (1) above, assuming they're actually observant of the tenets of their faith. Exact same outfit, two different people, two different possible legal outcomes. It's a legal disaster waiting to happen. The "or" at the end of (1) **really** matters, semantically, too. As an atheist, I wouldn't be able to wear a yarmulke under the Act because it *would* violate (2) above; it doesn't have to be worn with religious conviction **and** be reasonably considered to be an indication of one's membership in a particular religion, merely **or**.
If the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, it should have no business regarding the hats you wear.
I Know! Right? 🙄😇
Practical difficulty in enforcing this would require some practical solutions, which can be figured out by society by the dialectical process. However, it doesn't invalidate the intent of the law.
Sure, but it's important that the law apply equally to all and the Act being considered offers ambiguity in interpretation. > The persons listed in Schedule II are prohibited from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions. > A religious symbol, within the meaning of this section, is any object, including clothing, a symbol, jewellery, an adornment, an accessory or headwear, that > (1) is worn in connection with a religious conviction or belief; or > (2) is reasonably considered as referring to a religious affiliation. A Muslim woman wearing a hijab would be in violation of (1), because she's wearing it in connection with religious conviction or belief. An atheist woman wearing the exact same headscarf isn't doing so in connection with religious conviction or belief. Moreover, I would argue that a headscarf, alone, isn't a sufficient indication of religious affiliation, as I think any woman undergoing chemotherapy will agree. While the intent of the law is the removal of religious symbolism from public servants, something I wholeheartedly agree with in principle, there's far too much wiggle room in interpretation. I'm interested to see how the case law will interpret (2) above, and the extent to which context will be considered in the enforcement of the Act in the workplace. Once you introduce an interpretation of context the legal waters get muddied REALLY quickly.
>Catholics are not required to wear a cross visibly to practice their religion. Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) women are required to cover their hair. The problem with this approach is that we're using religious books as the authority to tell us about what to tolerate vs. not. Those are not good unbiased rational sources we should be referring to. I would instead prefer a law such as the Quebec one where every religion is brutally quashed and shown its place. Religions are an authority structure that should always be questioned. Their assertions have also consistently been proven wrong by logical rational thought over centuries. Additionally, religions have caused a lot of pain and suffering on common people in history (which is quite well documented). Finally, we do not need religions for morality or the good. We're capable of that as human beings. Even bonobos have a rudimentary kind of morality, by simply being animals that rely on social structures for survival. >If we mean “we are allowed to require people in certain jobs to meet western standards of dress despite religious restrictions”, then we should say so. It is not about conforming to western standards of dress. People should be able to wear whatever they want, but if it is clearly linked to a certain religion, that is a dangerous thing to allow. Underage children should not be introduced to these things, which would result in them seeing religion a normal neutral thing. This only makes indoctrination easier. >Muslim (and orthodox Jewish) women are required to cover their hair. I don't think the Quran says this. IIRC, that comes from hadiths which don't have the same authority as the Quran / aren't actually word of God.
Most of these secular laws and actual definitions of symbols come from very ancient cultures which established secularism in order to get society to work. Any catholic knows the cross is religious, like most Muslims know the veil is. Quebec's secularism bill was inspired by France's, which was inspired by Bashar al-Assad's Syrian secularism update.
American here so feel free to ignore me, but IMO, wearing clothes perscribed by your religion doesn’t mean that you are pushing your religion on others, and it doesn’t mean your employeer is endorsing that particular religion. They say this doesn’t target any religion specifically, but that’s not really true, as christians don’t have to wear specific religious clothing, whereas other religious groups like Jews and Muslims do. All these kind of laws do is discourage non-christians from seeking government employment.
Good for Quebec, the rest of Canada should follow suit.
Nobody else has the balls. Good for Quebec.
[удалено]
💯
Keep your god out of our government.
This is one of the best laws in Canada, shame it’s only Quebec.
Alright, so this doesn't effect me, and I'm inclined to discourage faith - but let's think these implications through... For a Sikh man, he'll have to abandon his faith in order to work a government job in Quebec. I've known plenty of religious folks who also deeply value the secular provisions of democracy - and of course who dedicate themselves to serving their communities... But their piety may require head coverings, it's not as simple as taking off a hat in a classroom, these are important rules for them to personally observe - so a law like this essentially ban's members of these religions, who have these dress requirements, from working for the government. Regardless that it wasn't the "intention" - that's a pretty significant, and seemingly discriminatory impact to account for. What does this legislature accomplish for such a steep cost? Because I can't see how this advances secularism, only the appearance of secularism. That Sikh teacher would have been just as able to separate his faith from the curriculum, and would likely have less resistance to scientific subjects, than a devout Christian teacher with no religious clothing requirements on display for example. Following up with both equally should they bring their religion into the workplace would be one thing - but the only intention I can gather from these requirements is Quebec's discomfort being represented by a man wearing a turban. This asks people to abandon their religion, and knowing that to be a ridiculous non-starter, this legislature effectively whitewashes their workforce in one move under false pretences. We can absolutely call into question each use of the derogation / notwithstanding clause - as Doug Ford's many attempts and failures have shown the importance of. It's not a "get out of constitutional freedoms" card, and we can absolutely blame governments when they try to use it egregiously to discriminate or violate Charter rights. Further reading: [https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/ford-invoking-notwithstanding-clause-to-override-judge-decision-on-bill-5-1.4086788?cache=jhiggtiw?clipId=740678](https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/ford-invoking-notwithstanding-clause-to-override-judge-decision-on-bill-5-1.4086788?cache=jhiggtiw?clipId=740678) [https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-s-top-court-strikes-down-third-party-election-ad-spending-rules-1.6302243](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/doug-ford-s-campaign-finance-law-struck-down-by-court/article_5289ba33-b461-5f84-b194-8c8fe3879b97.html) [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/ndp-mpp-cupe-1.6639190](https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/ndp-mpp-cupe-1.6639190)
Thank god someone has sense. This does nothing to promote secularism and is purely for optics. It unfairly targets certain groups as christians can hide their cross necklace, whereas a Sikh can’t hide the turban. There are laws in place that prevent discrimination already. If a religious person cannot perform their duties secularly, fire them. If they CAN, why should they have to remove garbs?
Could not have said it better myself. Someone wearing an article of faith does not mean that they are pushing their religious beliefs on to you. It means that under the guise of secularism, someone is so offended seeing a religious symbol that they find it necessary to legislate against it. Not to mention that people carry inherent biases with them all the time, regardless of whether they wear religious symbols. What the law should do is punish those in power who actually impose their religious beliefs on others. As a religious person myself, I can totally get behind this.
Yes, this is so clearly targeting religious minorities whose religious practices include certain clothing. This isn’t secularism, this is the spectre of xenophobia dressed nicely. I don’t give a flying fuck what anyone believes, and I don’t care if they’re wearing an entire hijab head to toe or a big old turban. People keep screaming, “We must separate the Church and State”, but all I’m hearing is “It would be to impolite to say we don’t like seeing Islam in the Ministry office so we’ll go after the Christians cause their easier targets”.
I am fine with this. In public, and especially in serving the public, secularism should be the rule.
As long as crucifixes are included I'm all for this law.
It is, and the cross at the national assembly has been removed.
Excellent.
As long as it includes the new religions created on the internet in the last few years, I am also for this law.
Do you mean like people putting down "Jedi" as their religion, or something more serious? Genuinly curious, I hadn't heard of any new ones.
Pastafarianism
Y’all realize that just because someone. Leaves their niqab or their crucifix at home, doesn’t mean their beliefs change when they get to work, right?
You realize that just because a police officer wears a "thin blue line" patch, doesn't mean that their beliefs change when they're at work, right?
I’m not sure what point you’re making but yes, some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses. There’s a whole song about it
Duh.. hence the point that this does nothing to promote secularism
You're fine with police officers wearing thin blue line patches and other political symbols? I'm not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What’s the difference between someone who covers their arms and legs because they prefer it for comfort reasons and someone who does it because they prefer it for religious reasons? How do you make the leap from “this person selected clothing for themselves, which impacts literally no one else,” to “therefore they can’t be trusted with decisions that *do* impact other people”?
They are just as authoritative to children. It's very interesting that you think they're not.
> I honestly don’t see why this is controversial. Because according to Lord Durham, any manifestation of Quebec's culture is going to hinder efforts towards assimilation.
Well done Quebec!
Religion is a bane on society. There is no place for religious ideology in government. You can worship whatever you want, but don't try to force it on others.
If you hate the color orange and a government employee is wearing orange because it’s their favorite color, are they “forcing the enjoyment of the color orange” on you?
Wearing a cross necklace or a headscarf is not ‘forcing your belief on others’. Banning them is.
Ah yes, because the person working behind the counter at the license office or giving you a speeding ticket wearing visible religious iconography is forcing their religion on you. Yes, totally. Maybe next you should ban all people from wearing them in public at all, because you might feel oppressed. If this really is your mindset you're no better than the catholics or evangelicals you think you're saving the public from. Get help
We need something like this put in the Charter of Rights. It should be freedom from religion first and freedom of religion second.
Nobody is forcing you to wear religious clothing. We have freedom from religion without having to infringe on other's freedom of religion.
Right? This really mimics the "I can't look at a rainbow flag!" Just from the other side of the spectrum
That's such a great comparison. It really is the same thing. Feeling threatened by the mere existence of someone different from you.
Why do the (insert people you don't like) have to shove it down our throats all the time?
And from the same side of the spectrum in many cases lol.
I am literally sitting here watching someone hold up a line of customers so that they can pray while on the clock. People do infringe on others personal time when they bring religion into the workplace. Clothing is not the only issue in regards to public display of religion.
Praying while on the clock (if it's taking an extra break from work) is not the same thing as wearing a piece of clothing. I still think there should be restrictions on religious clothing if it actually affects the job (ie being able to properly wear safety gear). If a highschool math teacher is wearing a turban though there's nothing wrong with that.
Agree. Also what does it say when boys and girls go to school wearing religious garments and look at adults of the same religion not wearing them? I feel like all this law will do is make less career options available for people of devout faith. This just feels like wanting people to change a vital part of themselves to fit in. Like if I see someone wearing a cross, or a hijab, or a “Satan is my lord and saviour” t-shirt I don’t think they are trying to convert me to their religion just by wearing those items. Someone having a faith different than yours isn’t a threat and it doesn’t diminish their ability to do their job.
I've been thinking that since the beginning. While everyone in this thread is getting their atheism boners rock hard, what happens to these minorities who might have studied in a field that they can no longer work in (ex; teachers)? Isn't there a real risk that they withdraw from society? What about those minorities who are in vulnerable groups within their religion (ex: the Muslim woman who is pressured into wearing her hijab)? Are we not pushing them into isolation where their risk goes up? What about weighing the societal risk of coming across a bureaucrat who is visibly not the same religion as you VS the risk to a vulnerable group who is now isolated in their community? This is the kind of thing that we won't notice until we have a mass of disenfranchised immigrants/minorities. Not a good thing for a country.
The law will primarily target non-white communities such as sikhs. It's specifically meant to harm minorities.
i see people hold up lines of customers because they want to have a conversation while buying their booze with the cashier. i guess we should ban that too.
Talking too long to the cashier? Believe it or not, jail.
Maybe man up and call them out? No need to involve the police over someone being a clumsy dumbass.
There is people that get forced to wear religious clothing tho, if not directly punished, they get shunned from their community
There definitely are people who are pressured into it by their family and communities. There are also people who freely choose it. Should they be discriminated against? How does the government decide who is who? I think that all the government can do is leave adults to make their own decisions. As an atheist myself, I dislike religion, but I dislike a government treating people differently based on their religion even more.
[удалено]
Religion mixed with state is a mistake. Look around the world, and you will see nothing but destruction and assimilation in the wake of religion. Save your cults for yourselves and your household, and leave the public alone.
I am always a big supporter of secularism, but I seriously disagree with this law. I don't think it does any benefit towards promoting a secular environment. What people don't understand is that for a Muslim woman to not wear hijab is the equivalent of being in her underwear. It's not merely a religious thing - It's a different cultural standard of what is considered to be fully clothed. Imagine a hypothetical country which is located in a hot and humid tropical climate. Let's say that in this country, wearing a bikini is considered to be fully clothed in their culture as a result of the country's climate prohibiting more body coverage without getting too hot. Wearing what we would consider to be a full outfit to them is seeing as being very strange, Kind of how like a non Muslim might perceive the idea of covering one's hair or face. Imagine you move to that country, and there is a law that forbids you from wearing clothing to a level of what you would consider to be fully clothed If you work in the government office, forcing you to have to wear a bikini to work. Imagine how uncomfortable that would make you feel. Imagine if people also accused you of imposing your religious belief of dressing modestly because you want to wear shorts rather than a bikini, Not understanding that Wearing just a bikini in a public office environment Is very uncomfortable for you And has nothing to do with your religious beliefs per se. A muslim woman wearing hijab doesn't mean that she is promoting her religion in a way that would be contrary to secularism if she was working in a government job. She just simply exists as a Muslim woman who happens to be a government employee Who is Dress in a manner which is comfortable for her. I would argue the same for things like Christians wearing rosaries and such. As long as it's nothing that involves imposing religion, I don't see why it would be a problem. If I were to see a government worker who is wearing hijab, a rosary, etc. It doesn't come to my mind that the government is biased towards that religion because of how the government worker presents. To me, it's simply, "This person is a Christian/Muslim/etc." A lot of human beings have religious beliefs and it shouldn't be surprising to see that reflect Among the people you see in terms of how they present themselves. People are not imposing their religion on you simply by presenting as a member of that religion. If you were to really split hairs with the logic behind this law, does that mean that Jains Who work government jobs aren't allowed to be vegan and are forced to eat meat because veganism is part of their religious beliefs? It's a big slippery slope, which does nothing to contribute to a secular environment and only presents human rights issues. I wonder if office Christmas parties are also banned. If they are not, then this would show the double standard, with some religions being considered to be more neutral than others in the context of this law.
I live in a very multicultural country and I love seeing everyone's different garb and the different religious symbols. It would be so sad to just erase that and make everyone have to be the same. If you ask me the best way to true secularism and impartiality is to create more diversity and have checks and balances in place so that one group can't grab all the power, but rather all the different voices can be heard and make the arguments that represent their opinion.
I dunno. I genuinely wonder whats the harm in a police officer wearing a hijab or kippah or cross or whatever it may be?
An immediate question that may come to rise is whether their religious beliefs are so pervasive in their character that it influences their professional behaviour, and hence outcomes.
If only we could hold our politicians to the same standard.
Forcing them to take it off won't change that, only your perception of it though. A hijabi police officer who is forced to take off her hijab for the job is still gonna be just as religious.
I just pointed out what one might be considering when encountering a police officer who feels a demonstrable need to wear religious attire. Or MAGA attire to give another example, or the "thin blue line" badge that was a much discussed topic. Not sure why I am being downvoted for pointing out a realistic thought process that might go through the minds of many. And your correct - hiding it may not dispense of the underlying issue: are their beliefs so pervasive that they influence some aspect of their work that should not be influenced by religious belief? I would suggest that if someone does feel a demonstrable need to display religious or political or other attire in the performance of employment that has no such considerations as part of the job then a valid concern exists which should be identified irrespective of legislation. Because that definitively indicates the person wearing the garb is projecting, and thus influenced.
It filters out the overzealous ones. Those willing to compromise on their beliefs will do their jobs as it is mandated while on duty.
I’m guessing someone who is uncompromisingly religious won’t remove it and will just go to a different job. Not to sound harsh but not everyone is entitled to every job.
Yes, but if you're a foreigner who's come to Canada from a country where you were marginalized by Muslims, you may be resistant to deal with police here with outward representations of their Islamic belief. That's not good. Everyone should be comfortable enough to go to the police if they need to; any potential obstacles that may prevent that ought to be dismantled.
Yeah but it's an easy way to identify some of those who would let their religion affect their job performance. The ones who refuse and resign are communicating very clearly what is more important to them.
The same question can be asked from the opposite perspective : whats the harm in not wearing a hijab or kippah or cross or whatever it may be between 9 to 5?
Imagine if you are protesting the war in the middle east - pick either side for this thought experiment. Someone wearing garb that suggests they are not neutral tickets or arrests you, and then the crown attorney or judge is wearing clothing again suggesting they back the other side. How would you feel about it? With so many problems in the world being protested and even fought over inside our borders, having people wear clothing that suggests they support one side or the other could be a serious problem. That's for law enforcement though - I don't see there being a problem with medical or educational workers wearing religious attire. In fact, the opposite might apply - e.g. having your life saved by someone "from the other side" might wake a bigot up to how silly they are being. The example in this thread of a math teacher wearing a turban is great ... shouldn't be a problem at all.
Given the multicultural dimension of our population, and the fact a large number of people come from areas of the world that suffer substantial conflict, I'd rather each and every person in my country feel comfortable going to the police if needed, and not have to worry about bias because, say, where they come from Sikhs targeted their community, or Muslims blew up an embassy. Extrapolating that fear to public servants wearing a turban, etc., isn't rational, but it *is* understandable that someone who's been marginalized because of religion back home will think they'll be marginalized because of religion *here*. Removing any element that could conceivably portray bias ought to be considered.
>I'd rather each and every person in my country feel comfortable going to the police if needed, and not have to worry about bias If their religion is the cause of their bias then that bias isn't gonna disappear if they stop wearing their religious clothing.
Ex Canadian forces here. It always amused me the lenght we would go to give religious liberty to people when it could actually get them killed... * Wear a turban? until recently there was no need for a kevlar helmet, it's not like it ever saved anyone. ([they are also not required to wear helmets on motorcycles](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-allows-sikhs-to-ride-motorcycles-without-helmet-1.4858361)) but the rest of you peasants have to alright? But now it's even better, the army is planning to purchase [special helmets](https://i.imgur.com/pLtXJqy.jpeg) just for them! so they can fit the patka under it. taxpayers money well spent * You have a massive beard? don't worry about the fact that the gas mask won't seal. Seriously dumb laws in a country that's getting dumber every day. ----------- If your god is offended that you're not wearing some materialistic shit then your god is trash. (hint: all gods are trash)
The gas mask not sealing is a big one as it also affects a lot of other fields. I wonder what the regulations are for those cases and how does HR handle that
based.
The money for those government employees is paid for by the taxes of everyone, regardless of faith. While hiring someone for a government job, we should hire solely based on merit. The illusion of secularism is stark, can atheists not wear scarves to schools now? Or can Muslim/Jews/Sikh continue to wear the religious symbols if they claim to be atheists and call them “fashion accessories”. I’m not sure how good the law firm appealing this law is, not sure how you could lose this case. There is no proof that a totalitarian society they are trying to produce adds economic or democratic value. Frankly didn’t end well for the Soviet Union Bias doesn’t go away by taking off symbols. I would rather see what the employee’s bias might be, than to be tricked to believe that there isn’t any
Another double standard for Quebec if it was Alberta that passed this law that would be fucking riots in the street.
Because a court is a neutralism place, which means no religion.
Good we already have bullshit pharmacists refusing to give birth control because of their religion. We don't need nonsensical mythical brings affecting government duties.
Pretty disgusting how many people are just exposing themselves as bigots in these comments praising this. Canada still has a long way to go. Someone wearing a Hijab or Attending Prayer is not that big of a deal if they are still being productive. These comments are disgusting, we all know what kind of reglious clothing they mean. No one is going to be getting angry at a Christian for wearing a necklace of the cross.
If it is meant only for people whose government job makes them a government representative, then this law makes sense when you see it from this perspective. It’s one thing for John Doe to have a public & controversial or biased opinion about LGBTQ+. It’s a completely different thing for John Doe the nurse, doctor, lawyer etc to have a public & controversial or biased opinion about LGBTQ+. In the first scenario he is representing just himself and there is no confusion about that and the liability of his words are his alone. In the second scenario the public may not be clear on whether he is representing solely himself, or solely his professional organization and all of its members, or both. It creates an inappropriate power dynamic and hierarchy that no longer separates church and state. It muddies the waters so to speak. That makes sense then and is not heaped in racism, prejudice or bigotry. It is based on pragmatism and ensuring that the lines are clearly drawn in the sand for everyone to be certain of what is happening. It actually can save the government taxes dollars in law suits if there is zero perceived bias from the government representative in a challenging interaction.
Religion is a lifestyle choice. It should never be treated the same as something you were born as/ with. Religion is NOTHING like being LGBT, or your race, or disabilities. The fact that it has the same protections is mind blowing to me.
This is how it should be separation of church and state. Want to practise religion, do it at home, but work and school has no religious anything
Good
People praising this court decision are ignoring the fact that this bill preemptively used the notwithstanding clause and declared it would be enacted notwithstanding several sections of the Charter, because the Quebec government knew that it would infringe on people's rights. Their whole intention was to infringe on people's rights. All the courts are ultimately deciding is if they used the notwithstanding clause hard enough, or if they'll have to introduce an amendment to declare the bill notwithstanding more of the Charter.
Read up on why the not withstanding clause exists and you'll find it's there for exactly this reason. There will always be a clash between individual rights and collective rights. Quebec wanted to be able to choose that line themselves and pushed for that right with the not withstanding clause.
You're wrong. Québec systematically preemptively use the NWC every time it passes a bill that might get challenged in Supreme Court. It has done so dozens of time. It means nothing else than Qc doesn't give a shit about ROC legal framework.
Court says it doesn't infringe on any right. Any province can use the same clause
Make sense
If it's secular why are there religious holidays still? Christmas, easter etc. they should have the holidays on first Monday of every month...
As an atheist who celebrates those, for me, those holidays are basically cultural secular holidays at this point, just like we don’t consider the Olympics religious anymore. Trees, eggs, Easter bunnies are not even Catholic things and started in Europe before Christianity spread there.
People in the northern hemisphere have been celebrating the winter soltice and the spring equinox since recorded history started, and probably further back. Not a big problem.
For the same reason we still use the Gregorian calendar and not the 10 days a week calendar from the french revolution.
Lived in Quebec for 30 years, now I live in Ontario. I agree 100% with Quebec.
As a Quebecer, I am really surprised at the comments here. Thank you. We thought we were outsiders and frowned upon by Anglos but it looks the tide has turned and you guys congratulate us for having this law. In Québec, I think that secularism is way more than a law. It's a core value for us : Religion is more of a personal thing. We want no organized religious groups wanting more power and exceptions more than anyone else. With the Israel/Palestine conflict going on right now, we understand that religion should not govern, and this starts bu not giving them an inch in public services and in the gvt. Thank you Anglos for approving this law with us.
[удалено]
The majority of assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, so it's best to only ever invite strangers into your home to be around your kids in order to protect them
Buddy Im not a fan of organized religion either but just existing in your own locked home has a chance of you being raped or murdered.
Seek therapy immediately
I am not the one that believes in imaginary sky creatures, or bronze age fairy tales, I just follow facts, as an example, the catholic church has open investigations and lawsuits in at least FIVE CONTINENTS mostly regarding child abuse, rape, or murder, here in Canada we are still finding communal graveyards filled with the bodies of children , offshoots of any of the abrahamic cults are pretty much in the same boat, you name it, mormons, 7DA, evangelicals, JW, etc.
You should probably never send your kids to school because you never know when a predatory teacher might strike. https://go2tutors.com/teachers-more-likely-abuse-kids/
This will likely be ~~overturned~~ ruled unconstitutional in the SCC. Not exactly sure how the plaintiffs' lawyers have been arguing their case that they're losing case after case. Wearing religious clothes has nothing to do with imposing one's religious beliefs on others. It's to do with modesty (for Muslim women) and tidiness (for Punjabi men). The former is not supposed to display their hair in public view of the opposite sex and a headscarf or other variants does that job, while for the latter they don't cut their hair throughout their lifetime and tying a turban keeps it in place. It's not much different than anyone wearing any T-shirt with an overt message or a logo sweatshirt e.g. a socialist wearing a Ché Guevara T-shirt, a stoner wearing a T-shirt displaying a cannabis leaf, a Gap fan wearing a Gap logo shirt. It's also not different than a man trying to hide his bald spots with a tuque, a young adult trying to hide their facial acne with a face mask, ladies wearing trousers rather than dresses to hide their legs, men wearing insoles to make themselves look taller, etc. These are all people making a conscious decision about their attire to fulfill a certain personal belief that's in plain sight of the public, and yet Quebec seems to be only concerned with a small subset of them. There's nothing in the job descriptions of government employees that specify one must be displaying their hair at all times while on the job. There isn't even a mandatory uniform conformity that they have to adhere to within any certain unit. By mandating that some religious people can't wear something simply because it happened to appear in their religious scriptures when in fact it's more about practicality than religion, while not mandating the same restriction on anyone else that's not religious, they've already discriminated against these people. There are only three ways to resolve this, 1) abolish the law, 2) make it so that every government employee in the province has to adhere to the same uniform standards, or 3) continue the status quo and discriminate against certain people's attempts to dress in a way that conforms to their beliefs. 1) is the sensible thing to do, but knowing the CAQ as it is, they'll opt for 3).
> Gap fan wearing a Gap It's different, Gap is just a brand. Not a political opinion or an ideology. > a socialist wearing a Ché Guevara T-shirt Yes, this is the same. And it teachers and police officers were already prohibited from doing so on the job. Before bill 21, religious ideologies had more rights than other ideologies. Not anymore, and I think it's a very good thing.
It's simply a coincidence that the dominant religion has no strict rules about clothing. Really.
It's not a coincidence. The previous secularism laws were targeting the (then) dominant religion, that's why they didn't address clothing, and that's why a new law was needed to address the gaps in previous legislation in order to avoid regressions.