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?
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.
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.
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.
currymj|7 years ago
LifeLiverTransp|7 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/egypt-women-ra...
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?
But in that case, i rather be safe then sorry.
godzillabrennus|7 years ago
Seems like the bill is just trying to justify the headscarf ban.
philistine|7 years ago
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.
teh_infallible|7 years ago
52-6F-62|7 years ago
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.
daniel-cussen|7 years ago
throwawaymanbot|7 years ago
[deleted]
vixen99|7 years ago
apostacy|7 years ago
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.
dmode|7 years ago
richjdsmith|7 years ago
knight-of-lambd|7 years ago
nickelcitymario|7 years ago
danbolt|7 years ago
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-niqab-... [2] http://www.parli.ca/niqab-debate/
jgon|7 years ago
jgon|7 years ago
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.
k_sze|7 years ago
anth_anm|7 years ago
Would be like talking about an Illinois bill as an "American bill".
prolepunk|7 years ago
CBC source, no paywall, actually explains what's in the bill -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secul...
Also the party will invoke Notwithstanding clause, which basically overrides the courts ever considering it or concluding that this whole thing is totally unconstitutional.
allengeorge|7 years ago
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.
solitus|7 years ago
gerbilly|7 years ago
As far as I’m concerned people can wear whatever they want: hallowe'en costumes, huge onesies with bunny ears, headscarves whatever...
Ironically, all the teachers at my grade school wore headscarves (nuns) and that’s not that long ago...
ackfoo|7 years ago
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.
sys_64738|7 years ago
devoply|7 years ago
bearcobra|7 years ago
caiob|7 years ago
[deleted]