- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The Quebec government says it will ban religious symbols in the province’s daycare centres.
Secularism Minister Jean-François Roberge says there is a “broad consensus” that Quebecers want secularism to be strengthened.
The announcement follows a recommendation made this summer by a committee tasked with advising the province on how to enhance secularism. The committee had called for the ban to be extended to daycares.
Quebec has already banned public sector workers in positions of authority, such as teachers and judges, from wearing religious symbols on the job.
You must log in or register to comment.
Good, any religion for kids who don’t even have the slightest concept of their own mortality or metaphysics is uenthical and immoral, period.
Québécois here. I’m surprised by the positive reception here.
First because normally, anything about Québec policies on reddit (unless it’s on a Quebec-related sub) is received very negatively, and harshly so, while I may support, be neutral, or against but with understanding where it’s coming from. But that may be a Reddit-Lemmy difference. And that’s welcome. I don’t expect people to agree with everything Quebec does, but I do value reason.
Second, because this time, I’m very much against. I’m an atheist, antitheist even. But what would banning headscarves in daycare centers even achieve? Do you think children growing up will be convinced to become Muslim because their educators were veiled? And for the negative impacts:
- From what I see as a parent in Montreal, nearly half educators in anything daycare in the city are veiled. If they decide to stop working, it will have terrible economic effects.
- Veiled women being made to feel unwelcome, antognized and ostracized.
But what would banning headscarves in daycare centers even achieve
it allows people to escape oppression? Religion has no place in day care centres, period.
People probably mistakenly assumed the law was in good faith and would do something like ban hanging crosses around the classroom, not ban covering up part of your body. Calling head coverings “religious symbols” is flatly dishonest. Next up anybody who doesn’t eat bacon at every meal will be fired for forcing their religion on others.
Oh. That government has been campaigning on this for years now. I didn’t even realize it would mean something different to the wider world. Of course it does. My bad. Yeah. It’s all about veiled women. It’s all very xenophobic, islamophobic.
Good for them
Seems reasonable
Meanwhile in Ontario, right beside them, public funds still go to Catholic schools
lmao catholic private schools receive public funds in quebec too
why do actual secularism when you could just attack Muslim people 🙃
Ugh.
That is fucking absurd.
How the fuck even.
What next remove religious names or part of people name like the word st aka saint?
I’m not sure I follow your attempt to paint this as a slippery slope given that one thing is a person’s personal name, a part of their person, and the other is the state brandishing elements of religion.
I am showing how ridiculous this law is. It serve no benefits just hate and more division
Seperation of church and state is so obviously different than the state infringing on your personhood.
Its a wildly incongruent comparison.
deleted by creator
The argument for it is to remove hate and division. The purpose of them is to act as a shibboleth, to identify yourself as part of an in-group. That necessarily requires division. If you make it harder for people to show their affiliation with exclusive groups then it makes it more inclusive.
This doesn’t make them not allowed to follow a religion. It just makes them not allowed to share identifiers of that religion to children. Children are easily influenced, and having authority figures identities with religion lends that authority and authenticity to that religion, influencing the children.
The argument for it is to remove hate and division.
Canada has religious harmony for long time there were little to no division. Those restrictions of the right to wear a sign that mean someone to a person but is not used to convert other to a religion will only cause more hate since those people will feel discriminated. Being able to display a sign with no one telling you that you shouldn’t wear it is a show of tolerance The idea that a kid will be influenced by a hijab or a cross is also total bullshit .
The real issues that should be addressed in extremist messages in places of cult like a imam who would support terrorism or a synagogues that sell occupied land in the west bank
Those stupid laws remind me of the law to protect French by telling businesses that they can’t use an english name as if this is the reason that french usage decline. All those millions could have been used to boost French cultural projects budgets
The idea that a kid will be influenced by a hijab or a cross is also total bullshit .
Do you think no kid has really liked a teacher and done things to get them to like them? I promise you, there are children who got into a religion, a hobby, etc. because a teacher they wanted to impress was into it.
The real issues that should be addressed in extremist messages in places of cult like a imam who would support terrorism or a synagogues that sell occupied land in the west bank
I mostly disagree with this. Which definition of terrorism are we using? The problem is the state gets to define whatever they want as terrorism, so they can target dissidents. Why does the state get a monopoly on terrorism/violence? (As proof of the term being bullshit to target people, why did use use an Imam for your example? Biased?)
People should be allowed to do and say what they want in private. If they’re a public official, they shouldn’t use that platform to lend credibility to other organizations/faiths. That’s not the place for it.
Do you think no kid has really liked a teacher and done things to get them to like them?
Kids like nice teachers and no they do not copy the teachers faith . You are using the same rhetoric that conservatives use like claiming that trans people would influence kids badly
Lol, try again.
our education system is in ruins, our healthcare system is even worse, people can’t pay for housing and groceries, and despite tons of budget cuts everywhere the provincial debt has never been worse.
…but thankfully, the CAQ is here to fight the real issues: those darn Muslims doing childcare!!!
Good, do schools next.
Goodbye Zero… It was nice knowing you.
I was with them until this:
The government has already tabled legislation to extend the religious symbols ban to all public school staff, and Roberge has also promised to ban prayer in public places.
I hope I’m interpreting this too cynically, but that sounds like something that’s not really possible (nailing down what is and isn’t a prayer just for this comment is giving me a headache, like does “damn it!” count?). What they could do is ban the use of prayer mats, but that would only really hit one religion. Hopefully that’s neither their intent nor the course they’d take.
oh no the public prayer ban thing is 100%, wholly just Islamophobia. the people who want the ban have already said they’re fine with catholic public praying.
i’ll note that Muslims doing prayers in public in quebec started pretty recently, and most of it is grieving during pro-Palestine protests.
that’s what quebec wants to ban: people grieving for Palestine. it’s sickening
I don’t think Muslims really pray in public space, I’ve never seen it personally. I have seen a lot of Jehovah’s witnesses and the rest of the Christ cult having “public prayers” in parks while really trying to talk and convince 15 year olds to join their religion.
I’ve seen it a few times at highway rest stops. But definitely not a common sight
You are being way to strict with your interpretation. Also the way you bring up prayer mats raises an eyebrow.
As I said, I hope I am wrong about my interpretation. What’s eyebrow raising about prayer mats?
Always curious that these rule get roundly criticized as a possible overstep then in the same breath the only actual thing brought up is a possible rule against a part of the islamic faith.
You do try to point out that it’s only effective against one particular faith when you really could have just not brought it up at all.
I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I’ve read their message a few times, and your response, and I think I see the mismatch. They said “I don’t know how they could do this, but what they could do is ban prayer mats”.
And I think you interpreted this as “I don’t know how they’d enforce this. Oh, but here’s an idea, we should get rid of prayer mats”
But the way I read it I think they meant “I don’t know what this means for Christians and Jews, but I hope they don’t use this simply to ban prayer mats and nothing else”
Good on you for attempting to parse different meanings out of what was said. Too few people attempt to do so and instead jump all over a misinterpretation.
Yeah, that’s it. I’m worried that this is just thinly veiled Islamophobia, because praying can occur in someone’s head with no outward indication that a person’s praying, so you obviously can’t ban prayer itself. You can ban public displays of prayer like a prayer mat, which means that Muslims must be on private property where prayer is allowed (good luck screening for that in the job search) at five spaced out and preordained times a day. I hope there’s another way to interpret a ban on prayer.
No no, this is legit. There have been times in the past something like this came up that appeared to apply broadly, but wouldn’t you know it just happened to hit Muslims more than Christians. I had the same thought, which is that this sounds like a good thing, but I hope isn’t secretly just trying to make Muslims lives worse in a way that won’t impact other people.
That’s exactly what this is and has been a long-standing campaign.
Why would I ignore that the only way I can see to implement a prayer ban seems discriminatory against Muslims? That’s my whole issue and the point of my comment: a ban on prayer seems like it might be a whitewashed attack on Muslims.
Well prayer mats aren’t clothing and whats to say it isn’t a yoga mat?
That’s something you can argue in court, but it doesn’t stop you from the hassle and it doesn’t stop the chilling effect that a law like that could cause. I don’t know what you’re actually disagreeing with me about.
Argue what in court? How to wear a rug?
The problem with this ban is what constitutes “religion”, and what symbols are included.
- tattoos?
- names of places?
- holiday decorations?
People show their culture. It has historically not worked very well to suppress culture.
tattoos?
Employees can cover them up while working.
names of places?
What places are you even talking about? But yeah, if you daycare has a “Saint Joseph” room it should probably be renamed.
holiday decorations?
Don’t put up religious holiday decorations.
Doesn’t seem that complicated.
Employees can cover them up while working.
I’m obviously talking about face and neck tattoos.
What places are you even talking about?
Have you been to Québec? La place est completement basee sur l’eglise catholique. Si on commence avec les symboles, qu’est-ce qui arrete Roberge de monter une croisade d’annihilation de toute association religieuse? C’est pas mal ce qu’il veut.
Don’t put up religious holiday decorations.
Yeah, that’ll fly.
Look, I’m French Canadian, and I’m all for not having religion involved in professional decisions, but people are human. They show culture. Previous attempts at this kind of “purism” by prohibition have failed for this reason.
That seems like fear mongering.
Incorrect. You said you were curious to know, I’m telling you what the concerns are.
It is very difficult to describe the boundaries of culture, and therefore difficult to enforce evenly across the board.
Culture is built into more than just symbols worn on the body. If Quebec were truly trying for secularism, there wouldn’t be a day off for Easter or Christmas.
This is an attempt at some form of Quebecois “purism”, same as banning signs in English.
Names of places aren’t a real issue, and the other two are protected by freedom of expression.
Tattoos are prohibited by multiple religions, especially the one that would be offened by this legislation.
It’s already infuriating living in Canada, everyone is drowning in rent and food costs and all the government does is debate loggin contracts, foreign diplomacy and how to help the citizens of other countries. Not once do they actually bother to deal with the everyday issues that are drowning us. Quebec is 100x worse in this sense. Rent control and food assistance? Nah, we banned muslims instead!
Good!
So basically, no Muslims or Jews or Sikhs allowed? Doesn’t seem that great to me.
To the downvotes: this specifically bans religious dress. Don’t you think it’s a little too convenient that the majority religion is one that doesn’t incorporate any type of religious dress? This law is designed to have an outsized effect on people who wear a keffiyeh, yarmulke, hijab, or turban.
For anyone unfamiliar, this is just extending an already contentious, anti-religion law.
Statement from a Muslim civil rights group
Exactly right… this is like a ban on braziers but pretending it applies to all: male, female and everything in between… well, I am sure you can see a group would be more affected than other, right?
Why is no one with this information making a top comment about it?
All the top comments seem totally unreasonable at first glance.
Because it’s basically saying 3/4 of religions should be exempt from separation from church and state.
Symbols and garbs are the same thing, if you can’t separate yourself from your religion to the point where you can’t take off the silly hat for a shift, then you shouldn’t be working for the state. You aren’t working for your God, the government isn’t paying you to advertise whatever flavor you belong to.
It’s all a club so they can treat each other better, it’s tribalism and it has no place in our society anymore. Nice to see someone taking a firm stance.
Yeah, this sort of thing has been going on in Quebec for years with the same intent: Act respecting the laicity of the State
I think you are correct they are definitely able to pass this without issue because of the reasons you state.
On the other hand all religion is a cancer so …
How to create more separation for a problem that never existed. Should the leader of the partie Québecois also remove the word st aka saint for his name since it’s a religious term?
Why none of the canadian leaders condemned the sale of occupied west bank land in synaguoges isn’t that the real issues or insure that there is some problematic statements in place of worship?
“A problem that never existed” right as America falls into christo-fascism. Religion is a cancer, good on them.
Consider yourself lucky that your priest taught you only to lick his boot and not something else.
Because canada is part of the USA right? Also who is in charge of that christo facism yes Trump who do not wear a cross. It is your right to hate all religions just don’t tell people what they should wear
They are separating their government and the stupid kooky religions because of the effect it’s clearly having elsewhere.
If you give a religious nut an inch, he takes a mile. Once this new religious dark age is stomped down, I hope our country has the sense to give the church the same kind of welcome and implement laws so they can’t easily manipulate a bunch of idiots to hate.
Banning signs and clothes won’t change people faith at worst it will push them to extremism Don’t you also realize that to some muslims beard is religious should we ban beard altogether too?
Secularism is state and religion not interfering with each other. Here the state directly interfered to ban mainstream religious clothes yet it is imposible to ban all signs of the hundreds of other religions
Beards aren’t religious and neither is the st for street. You are being silly and honestly, kind of an ass.
they banned symbols and prayers for public servant and in public parks because it’s a form of proselytizing. I don’t care for your religion, I shouldn’t have to deal with it when walking in a park or talking to a police officer. And that’s not mentioning all the hate, manipulation and vile bullshit that comes with it. Even if it was all good, I shouldn’t have to deal with it.
Oh fuck off.
You care more about what people want to wear than the sale of occupied land in synaguoges. It tell me a lot about your almost non existant moral compass
Lol, get triggered snowflake.
I am not triggered by a genocide supporter and the sale of occupied land in synagogues. Is doing illegal stuffs like that secularism for you, you hypocrite
Lol, religious puppet says what?
Genocide supporter
Lol, do you have anything else? You brought up a point that has nothing to do with the article.
Nice attempt at deflection but you’re not clever.
Now go back to your hole.
