adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.
That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no.
Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut".
If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals, you would be on the barricades by now. But it is by a supressed minority? Well that minority is not supressed in over 40 countries. In fact its the majority there, and supresses anyone not wearing a headscarf. Want to see what happens if you do not wear a headscarf there?
That machoism is very real in the middle east- and the headscarf is part of the dividing and conquering. Nothing less. Cause there is always the mother and saint who wears it and the "cheap" whores free to hunt who dont.
May be that for some, this clothing has already lost its symbolism, like the white-wedding dress lost the symbolism of virginity it once held for christianity. If it has no symbolic value, why make such a fuzz about wearing it at all?
> Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut".
That's a problem with that religion-dominated subculture, not with the symbolism itself. The notion that women should be shamed for the mere act of wearing a particular piece of clothing shuch as a headscarf is just as toxic as the one you're reacting to in your comment.
It shouldnt matter. But that dream is for another paradise edition of earth yet to come.
Its really difficult to find out wether a piece of clothing was a personal choice or something chosen/force upon a person to define in and outgroups. Basically, it boils down to detecting a thought-crime against open society.
So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs made from hair-extensions? Something like that?
You know what - seperation from society, aka the public plaza from any religion and attempts to impose religion like dogmas/rules/systems.
It really is the most easy way out. Nobody gets to errect his borderwalls of textile or lack thereof in main street. We vote on a standard, and thats it. That way all those warmongers steering the soupkitchen of hate cant warm on the heat of the debate. The only solution is not to play.
What about nuns? In Québec, education was a religious matter until the early 60s. Which meant some catholic schools required teachers to be nuns. When schooling became government-run back then, many nuns left their congregation when they could now teach in civilian clothes. This left a profound mark on Quebec's catholic population and its perception of itself.
I'm not saying it excuses or changes anything. But the fact of the matter is that at least in Quebec, there was a large group of Catholic women who abandoned their religious garbs to teach because they didn't have to be nuns to do so.
I'm more hesitant to say it's targeting any group in particular outside of the "other".
There's sadly a lot of fear floating through various circles perpetuated and amplified by online social groups. If those didn't exist I wonder if this pandering bill would have been tabled.
> there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban
There is no obligation to wear anything. There is an "obligation" for some sects of Islam. But that does not mean anything in the domain of secular government.
The truth is, most Muslims do NOT wear any special clothing. And even those that feel obligated to are not obligated to really; they are obligated to try, if possible. If they are not permitted to do it, they are spiritually off the hook. If it's a choice between wearing a headscarf and not providing for your family, you are most likely a bad muslim for not providing for your family. So, by banning it explicitly, we are actually making things easier for them by giving them an excuse not to do it.
> there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of.
Who are you to say that I can't wear a giant pope-hat to work? I'm "obligated" to by my obscure sect of Catholicism. Perhaps I can carry around some lit incense and clanking metal jewelry. We have to draw the line somewhere.
The idea that this is to make life easier for Muslims by allowing them to escape their obligation, is laughable. I suppose we should make it illegal to not eat pork, so they can escape dietary laws. Or forbid Christians from going to church on holy days, so they don't feel guilt when they don't go. Or make it illegal to wear clothes that are spun from one form of cloth, so Jewish people don't feel like they need to wear clothes from one kind of cloth.
People deserve freedom of choice, religion, and clothing. That is the help you need to give people.
The Quran never mentioned the hijab or any other specific veiling. It only mentioned modest dress. This has been mutated and distorted as applying only to women by despotic regimes and certain countries.
Dressing modestly includes the veil. Furthermore, there are authentic Hadiths, as well as accounts of the Companions that are used for litigation. We know for certain that women used to cover their hair by narrations and historic accounts, and they did that because it was part of the religion.
Sikhs are some of my favorite fellow Canadians. The Sikh community puts a lot of effort into really integrating into the Canadian culture and it shows.
It really helps that Sikhism is a relatively young religion that didn't ask that much of individuals. We're just "below the fold" enough to not have too many prejudices attached to us. Even the keeping hair / turban stuff isn't really required unless you want to.
Come to think of it, that's probably true of most Hindus too. I think it's just the Abrahamic religions that have too deep a history of conflicts within the western world.
Agreed. I thought the title was suggesting the federal government was looking at a bill similar to the one in
Quebec, but it’s actually about the one in Quebec.
Other commenters have noted that this is a provincial rather than a federal bill, but it’s also worth adding context that this was a hot topic in Canada’s 2015 federal election. [1][2]
This bill bans every "religious symbol", including a hijab. The niqab is, from my understanding, a full face and body covering garment, and most people would consider that different from what this bill targets. I don't think it is fair to say this exact same thing was a "hot topic" in the Federal election.
This isn't a "Canadian" bill, as much as a specific provincial government bill. It has already received condemnation from the leaders of every major Federal party which is probably the only thing they've agreed on in the last several years. Several public sector organizations such as the Montreal public school board have already stated that they will not enforce it.
So we'll see what happens but the headline would be like saying some sort of insane law passed by a state is an "American Law". The provincial government, voted in by ~38% of the population (thanks FPTP!) in a single province has proposed a law that will likely not be standing when the government changes in a few years time. This does not represent the views of a major or even significant minority of Canadians.
Also the party will invoke Notwithstanding clause, which basically overrides the courts ever considering it or concluding that this whole thing is totally unconstitutional.
As many other posters have noted this is a Quebec bill, and has (sadly) been a long time coming.
My personal opinion is that this is making a mountain out a molehill. And, I don’t think this is the right way to encourage integration (if anything, I suspect it’ll engender resentment, can’t prove it). I’m disappointed that the Quebec government pursued this.
The latest poll on this issue showed 64% of Quebec’s population backed the bill. One of the issue in Quebec is that the French (I’m French Canadian) are affraid of getting assimilated and fight toe and nails to keep their traditions which sometimes come off as racist. Quebec feels like it is the only important Canadian minority.
How about changing the bill so that men have to wear exactly the same thing that they force their women to wear? Or else no one gets to wear any religious symbols.
Because I think, subconsciously, that what makes me bananas about religious symbols is not the symbols themselves, but the gender-inequality with which they are applied.
Muslim coverings are a very thinly-disguised misogyny. Same with kippahs and the stuff they force nuns to wear.
I support very strongly people's right to wear a symbol of any ridiculous, half-assed, imaginary bullshit that some shithead told them about and they believed on zero evidence.
But when it is a symbol of unequal treatment of women, of subjugation, of silent misery, it makes me angry to see it because it is not consistent with the equal rights that I associate with our country.
That, if only subconsciously, is where this is probably coming from.
While this is specific to Quebec, I think a lot of Canadians are blind to the Islamophobia that exists across the country. Looking at some of the comments by members of the UCP or some of Doug Fords pals, I don’t think Quebec is that out of step with other provinces.
