Racism or Secularism? Quebec looking to ban all religious garb.

Boges · August 21, 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/20/pol-cp-quebec-identity.html

Quebec has launched its next debate on minority accommodation and this one could make the erstwhile soccer-turban ban look like a leisurely stroll on the pitch.

The government is preparing to introduce long-awaited legislation that would restrict religious symbols in numerous places.

A media report Tuesday with leaked details of the Parti Quebecois government's "Charter of Quebec Values" says the proposed policy will prohibit public employees from donning Sikh, Jewish and Muslim headwear in the workplace.

It appears the PQ hopes to cash in at the ballot box by championing a position on secularism that polls have suggested has considerable support in the province.

Are we really going to see people wearing crosses as jewellry or Jews wearing yamaka's being told they can no longer enter public building wearing such a garb or is this just a veiled attempt to ban turbans, head scarves, niqabs and burkas?

We have freedom of religion in this country. How can a province unilaterally try and hinder how someone exhibits that faith?

There are reasonable arguments about people showing their face for ID purposes but this is just an attack on religous and cultural garb.

Will this be a vote winner in Quebec or evidence that the PQ is out of touch?

Black Dog · August 21, 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/20/pol-cp-quebec-identity.html

Are we really going to see people wearing crosses as jewellry or Jews wearing yamaka's being told they can no longer enter public building wearing such a garb or is this just a veiled attempt to ban turbans, head scarves, niqabs and burkas?

Crosses no. Gurantee Christians (read: Catholics) will be exempt

We have freedom of religion in this country. How can a province unilaterally try and hinder how someone exhibits that faith?

Because Quebec is the Honey Badger of Confederation.

There are reasonable arguments about people showing their face for ID purposes but this is just an attack on religous and cultural garb

.

Yup.

Will this be a vote winner in Quebec or evidence that the PQ is out of touch?

Yeah, I'm curious about the extent to which this is reflective of the bigotry of the people of Quebec versus a divide and conquer political strategy.

roy baty · August 21, 2013

Yeah, I'm curious about the extent to which this is reflective of the bigotry of the people of Quebec versus a divide and conquer political strategy.

The funny thing in all of this is the utter hypocrisy of the PQ and by proxy Quebec itself. The same people that feel their minority language and culture should be protected federally are the first ones to be intolerant of minorities within their own province.

PIK · August 21, 2013

This is a little extreme. Face coverings or the burka I do not like but the rest ,who cares.

Edited August 21, 2013 by PIK

g_bambino · August 21, 2013

Are we really going to see people wearing crosses as jewellry or Jews wearing yamaka's being told they can no longer enter public building wearing such a garb or is this just a veiled attempt to ban turbans, head scarves, niqabs and burkas?

It seems intended to apply only to employees. But, where's the racism part in this?

We have freedom of religion in this country. How can a province unilaterally try and hinder how someone exhibits that faith?

As sovereignty in this country is vested in the, well, sovereign and parliament is supreme, sovereignty belongs, in essence, to the crown-in-parliament (the monarch making laws with the direction and consent of the elected representatives of the voting populace), whether that be a provincial or the federal legislature. The provincial parliaments can thus debate any bill and even pass any law. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of religion, but the Charter's "notwithstanding clause" permits an otherwise unconstitutional piece of legislation (that violates Sections 2 or 7 to 15, specifically) to stand so long as it keeps getting legslative approval and Royal Assent every five years or less. It is the sole part of the constitution that preserves the supemacy of the parlaiments in this country.

[ed.: +]

Edited August 21, 2013 by g_bambino

Boges · August 21, 2013

It seems intended to apply only to employees. But, where's the racism part in this?

Well some would view Jews as a racial group but ultimately it doesn't. That's why I'm asking the question, is this simply about promoting a secular environment or is it a veiled attempt to prevent people from cultures that wear head-dresses from wearing those head-dresses.

Also most would agree Niqabs, Hijabs and Burkas have nothing to with religion but is more of a cultural phenomenon. But Turbins are religious.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Boges

Black Dog · August 21, 2013

Well some would view Jews as a racial group but ultimately it doesn't. That's why I'm asking the question, is this simply about promoting a secular environment or is it a veiled attempt to prevent people from cultures that wear head-dresses from wearing those head-dresses.

Also most would agree Niqabs, Hijabs and Burkas have nothing to with religion but is more of a cultural phenomenon. But Turbins are.

The National Assembly in Quebec continue to prominently display a large crucifix. I'll believe in the sincerity of the PQs secular pretensions when they take that down.

carepov · August 21, 2013

The funny thing in all of this is the utter hypocrisy of the PQ and by proxy Quebec itself. The same people that feel their minority language and culture should be protected federally are the first ones to be intolerant of minorities within their own province.

It seems like it is a stupid move by the PQ - but I would not extend judgement to Quebec itself. The commission on "reasonable accommodation" is a better reflection of Quebec's tolerance.

I am hopeful that a strong majority Quebecers will reject these proposals and the trial balloon will die a quick death.

g_bambino · August 21, 2013

That's why I'm asking the question, is this simply about promoting a secular environment or is it a veiled attempt to prevent people from cultures that wear head-dresses from wearing those head-dresses.

Well, given that it would affect more than just those who wear religious headgear, including Christians (and people who aren't Christian but wear Christian icons anyway) it's evidently supposed to be about secularism. However, if exceptions are made, that will bring the intent of creating a completely secular environment into doubt.

Black Dog · August 21, 2013

Well, given that it would affect more than just those who wear religious headgear, including Christians (and people who aren't Christian but wear Christian icons anyway) it's evidently supposed to be about secularism. However, if exceptions are made, that will bring the intent of creating a completely secular environment into doubt.

I think you can take exceptions for Christians to the bank. Assuming it gets that far (which I doubt).

Boges · August 21, 2013

Well, given that it would affect more than just those who wear religious headgear, including Christians (and people who aren't Christian but wear Christian icons anyway) it's evidently supposed to be about secularism. However, if exceptions are made, that will bring the intent of creating a completely secular environment into doubt.

No Christian doctrine I know of requires someone to wear a cross. It's just a fashionable thing people do. e. Some Jews do wear a hat but would the government really ban civil servants from wearing a yamaka?

People wear headdresses because it's something they believe they must do. Even if the Burka isn't in the Quran people who require women to do it, do it for religious reasons.

I don't see how this can be seen as a way to ban burkas and turbins.

We already saw this in Quebec with an attempt to ban headdresses playing soccer.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Boges

Black Dog · August 21, 2013

No Christian doctrine I know of requires someone to wear a cross. It's just a fashionable thing people do. e. Some Jews do wear a hat but would the government really ban civil servants from wearing a yamaka?

People wear headdresses because it's something they believe they must do. Even if the Burka isn't in the Quran people who require women to do it, do it for religious reasons.

I don't see how this can be seen as a way to ban burkas and turbins.

We already saw this in Quebec with an attempt to ban headdresses playing soccer.

Does the proposed law actually distinguish between religious symbols worn by choice or by religious edict? I don't think it matters.

Boges · August 21, 2013

Does the proposed law actually distinguish between religious symbols worn by choice or by religious edict? I don't think it matters.

Not sure but if someone said don't wear the cross to work, you can't really call that an infringement of religious freedom. That person is wearing it to be fashionable, nothing wrong with that but no religious text requires it.

Remember WWJD bracelets?

Someone who wears a headdress likely does as a mandatory part of their religion. So it's a bit different IMHO.

g_bambino · August 21, 2013

I think you can take exceptions for Christians to the bank. Assuming it gets that far (which I doubt).

I haven't read much about this, but I seem to recall that crucifixes were among the icons that couldn't be worn. Maybe just plain crosses are supposed to be exempt.

Boges · August 21, 2013

I haven't read much about this, but I seem to recall that crucifixes were among the icons that couldn't be worn. Maybe just plain crosses are supposed to be exempt.

I've heard gaudy ones. What about modest silver or gold ones. It's more jewellery than a religious symbol.

I suppose rap stars won't be able to work for the Province of Quebec.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZuXhNPn_MXk/S9kK5CSvuEI/AAAAAAAAAMU/38F92f3IxVI/s1600/MAYWEATHER+BOXING+GLOVES.jpg

g_bambino · August 21, 2013

No Christian doctrine I know of requires someone to wear a cross.

It's still a religious symbol. This article says "highly visible" crucifixes are not to be tolerated. I wonder where the line is between highly visible and not.

cybercoma · August 21, 2013

The question that needs to be asked is what problem are they trying to address with this law? What devastating social harm are they trying to prevent here?

The_Squid · August 22, 2013

If you ban a religious. Garment (the burka), you have to ban them all.

Moonlight Graham · August 22, 2013

This is a little extreme. Face coverings or the burka I do not like but the rest ,who cares.

Ya this is ridiculous. I'm not even sure it would be constitutional.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

Boges · August 22, 2013

Ya this is ridiculous. I'm not even sure it would be constitutional.

Apparently it's Notwithstanding clause FTW.

Black Dog · August 22, 2013

Not sure but if someone said don't wear the cross to work, you can't really call that an infringement of religious freedom. That person is wearing it to be fashionable, nothing wrong with that but no religious text requires it.

Remember WWJD bracelets?

Someone who wears a headdress likely does as a mandatory part of their religion. So it's a bit different IMHO.

Sure it is. Religious freedom includes the right to religious expression. Not all religions have central authority (for example, not all Muslims wear headcoverings), so how would you determine what is religiously mandated and what is a personal expression?

Boges · August 22, 2013

Sure it is. Religious freedom includes the right to religious expression. Not all religions have central authority (for example, not all Muslims wear headcoverings), so how would you determine what is religiously mandated and what is a personal expression?

Dunno, which is why this law is idiotic.

What would they do if someone has a visible religious symbol tattooed on them?

BC_chick · August 22, 2013

This is a little extreme. Face coverings or the burka I do not like but the rest ,who cares.

I'm all for respecting religious beliefs as long as they don't break existing laws, so I'm against burkas, kirpans and turbans instead of helmets. To me it's logical that religious freedom should not override public safety laws.

But I don't get the logic behind this. Agreed, it's too extreme.

cybercoma · August 22, 2013

The question that needs to be asked is what problem are they trying to address with this law? What devastating social harm are they trying to prevent here?

still wondering...