Canada’s largest Muslim organisation is outraged over a bill introduced by the Quebec government that would ban headscarves for school support staff and students.

“In Quebec, we made the decision that state and the religion are separate,” said Education Minister Bernard Drainville, CBC News reported. “And today, we say the public schools are separate from religion.”

But the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), who are challenging in the Supreme Court the original bill that forbids religious symbols being worn by teachers, say the new bill is another infringement on their rights and unfairly targets hijab-wearing Muslims.

“This renewed attack on the fundamental rights of our community is just one of several recent actions taken by this historically unpopular government to bolster their poll numbers by attacking the rights of Muslim Canadians,” the NCCM said in a social media post.

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t really agree with banning someone’s personal religious symbol, but if they’re a government employee, like a teacher, I see the argument. That being said, why ban the students from wearing religious symbols?

    Meanwhile, in the USA, there are states trying to mandate Christian symbols in schools.

    • TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Why ? Because CAQ is and was a racist government. There’s a good chance that there’s first big law (21 ?) will be rule anti constitutional, now they’re on the verge to lose (hard) their third mandate (they win the 2nd because Covid) and they push law that will change nothing to make things look like they are doing something. How the law is written they want to ban full nikab but hijab (maybe I inverse the two) will be okay but an asshole school administrators could use the law to be racist

      In the meantime they are trying to pass a law that will limit the Quebecer’s rights to manifest.

  • NewDay@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I hope Germany will do the same. In the western world there is no room for religion in authorities and public owned institutions.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Klugscheisser. No state should dictate how someone chooses to dress themselves, whether it’s a religious garb or not, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the safety of others or indecency laws.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Germany is too religious to do something like that, unfortunately. Their biggest party calls itself Christian, they still collect data about people’s religions, are quite weak on women’s reproductive rights etc.

      • NewDay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Christian is only the name. The church criticises them on a regular basis. The CDU/CSU are just the conservatives of Germany.

      • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Sadly I couldn’t wear a hat or a beanie in school. To some its all it is but that’s people who never know how serious it is to them.

        The girls in my school were allowed to wear tight hair coverings. I was jerk one time about it saying it was loose and almost made her cry. They take that ultra serious. Learned my lesson right there. This will force them out of public schools and that’s probably the intent.

        • Akuchimoya@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The lesson here isn’t “they shouldn’t be able to wear headwear, either”, but “I should be able to wear headwear, too”.

        • MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          But as you know, hijabs, turbans and yamulkes are not equal to a hat. A hat is something you put on as an accessory and can easily take off, the other three are basic tenets of those people’s faith, a very different thing indeed. I believe a public school system should be staunchly secular, but to not allow someone to wear something mandated by their faith isn’t secularism, it’s religious oppression.

          • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Public school was in my mind is education for the masses free to all citizens. So wear a tiny blue cap or dress in fae outfit so long as it doesn’t disturb anyone. IMO best way to help those kids? Let them be part of secular society. Once they see the freedom others have they will want it. It may not help them now but 15 years from now when they are more independent. Maybe even sooner Or maybe they’ll just be less restricted with their kids. Isolating them is not the answer.

      • NewDay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        They can wear the hijab if they go to private schools and universities. If they want to go to public educational institutions, they have to comply. Germany was very liberal to people who are actively practising one religion. Then they began to make problems in many ways. For example, there was a room for religious people to pray in the university. The result was that the people fighted each other because they had different religions. The women were isolated from the men. Now there is not a room anymore. This was one of the more harmless problems.

        • MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I’m an atheist and completely non-religious - but someone wearing a hijab, a turban or a yamulke in observance of their religious beliefs is frankly none of my business, and had zero effect on me. I believe in a secular public school system, but that doesn’t mean oppressing someone’s religious freedom.

      • NewDay@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Cringe bro. Germany is a secular country. There is no room for relgion in authorities and public owned institutions. Article 4 GG says that all people have the freedom of practising their religion in private. If you work for an authority you have to be neutral because you represent the federal state and the federal government.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          Germans genociding Muslims is pretty cringe indeed.

          I do not think you understand what the word secular means.

          • NewDay@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            You really need to learn how to debate. You made yourself ridiculous with those two comments, trying to accuse Germans and Germany of genocide against Muslims and changing the subject completely.

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Legault keeps “solving” problems that don’t exist to try to appear more nationalistic than the PQ.

    They are just pushing moral panic against Muslims to appear like they are doing something to protect QC culture. At the same the same time they have defunded french language classes. And they keep not saying anything about how the feds are consistently discriminating against African francophone potential immigrants.

    There is no culture war with Muslims in actual Quebec society beyond the shit the CAQ is stirring to stay in the news. There are no armies of niqab wearing fanatics trying to take over our cities. But it costs the government nothing to push this crap. This is all shadowboxing for appearances.

    • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Me too,

      Blanket ban on all religions I’m all for.

      But this doesn’t stop someone secretly wearing a torcher cross under their shirt.

  • small44@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    By banning religious signs you do the opposite of separating religion from the state, since the state is forcing people to hide any sign that the person is from a religious group.

    There is also the problem that there is thousands of religions that may have their own signs how can you known all the religion signs and ban them? Also beards can be considered a religious sign should we also ban it or require a certain beard length limit just like peoole used to measure how short a women skirt is?

    I hope this don’t make more visible divisions between canadian. Right know most of the separation is shiwn online.

    • HonoredMule@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I heard arguments about it in other spaces that made a lot of sense to me. Like a judge who ought to be able to visibly set their religion aside while exercising their authority, rather than signaling possible conflicts of interest in the very office such would compromise. I think I’m even on board with that reasoning. By that same reasoning, maybe it’s appropriate to also restrict displays of religious affiliation by school staff.

      But why students?

      That’s blatant cultural suppression and I cannot conceive a remotely coherent justification for it. And why the focus specifically on people showing their faces? Can you imagine if we mandated a certain amount of cleavage? How the fuck is this anybody’s business?

      This just has me re-evaluating the cultural protectionism/outgroup suppression I’d previously deemed adequately justified.

  • Iapar@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think it’s a good move that Christians aren’t allowed to wear crosses in public anymore. Always reminds me of pedophiles and that makes me feel uncomfortable.

    • Underfreyja@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They’re not, the CAQ is nothing but hypocrites on the subject. They excluded Christians symbols from the get go.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        2 days ago

        They excluded religious items that didn’t shove oppressive symbolism in people’s faces. Get your facts straight.

        • Shezzagrad@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          16 hours ago

          No body was enslaved due to the power of the hijab. Christian pedophiles and their obsession with the cross did use the cross as a power symbol. Interesting how racist and dumb you are

          • Ricky Rigatoni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I mean. Women in theocratic islamic states get arrested and assaulted if they don’t wear their hijab. This is a pretty well documented fact.

            • Shezzagrad@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran and Libya?

              Let’s see, house of Saud was supported by the British as an friendly clan who then took over most of arabia and when a king acted against American/British values they got couped

              For afganistan look at operation Cyclone, most of these terror groups or their predecessors were funded by America to take out the potentially socialist leaning afganistan among many other nation which later backfired on the American govt

              Iran has a democracy under mossadeq until he nationalised oil, made Britain big made, told daddy America it’s communism, mossadeq was couped with the Shah, the people then couped the Shah with the islamic fundamentalist among other funding from again America.

              Libya had ghaddafi who wasnt no saint by libya thrived under him. America invaded and now it has open slave markets

              There’s a something that’s similar about all these stories I can’t get by hear around…

              Why is Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Lebanon, turkey, Tunisia not killing or arresting women for hijab? That’s a far far bigger amount of Muslims?

              • Ricky Rigatoni@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                “They only oppress women because the west were mean to them” you people are genuinely ridiculous.

                • Shezzagrad@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Is that what you got out of my entire comment? You’re not proving your point, only you lack education and reading comprehension.

            • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Well documented by your comment?

              Saudi had their Esports covered by women without hijabs. Even when watching Youtube videos about tourists visiting Iran you see plenty of women without hijab.

  • Sami@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I don’t think this law bans all hijab but just the niqab which is the one that also covers the face and is generally seen as fundamentalist in most Muslim countries. The bill itself says face and not head covering. Not to say that this entire bill isn’t driven by some level of xenophobia (Christian symbols and holidays are seen as heritage/culture while non-Christian ones are seen purely as religious etc)

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Christian symbols and holidays are seen as heritage/culture while non-Christian ones are seen purely as religious etc

      Exactly – these items of clothing are not even religious, they are cultural! Cultural cleansing under the cover of state secularism.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Most articles spefically mention hijabs even though the word face keeps getting mentioned which is indeed strange. Assuming the ban is all religious symbols and not only face veils it would include the Hijab.

      • Sami@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The reporting in French I saw said “voile integral” which is niqab/burqa and I checked the bill itself and it just said face covering (excluding medical purposes)

    • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      The fact that it’s a religious organization opposing the ban proves it is religious

      • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The fact that it’s a religious organization opposing the ban proves it is religious

        It doesn’t prove it per se, but it’s a good indication. But also religion should have no place in government.

  • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I think this is wrong. I get that the hijab is complicated ethically, as it’s expected of Muslim women. Wether or not it’s consensual is debatable, sure.

    I’ve also spoken to Muslim women who claim to be wearing it voluntarily, because it makes them feel less objectified and more comfortable in their own skin. It’s also a connection to their cultural and religious background, which is important. As a non-Muslim, I don’t really think I’m qualified to argue. I don’t think it should be the provincial government’s decision either. At the end of the day, it’s a piece of cloth… What does it really hurt?

    When I lived in Quebec, I saw plenty of Christian religious symbols. Will removing those be enforced as well?

    • smorks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      apparently, yes. crosses, anyways:

      The ban, meant to separate the state from religion, also outlaws Christian crosses, Jewish kippahs and Sikh turbans.

      • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m happy that Quebec has finally decided to include Christian symbols in these laws (they started targeting Muslim women around 2012/2013 but didn’t end up passing any laws banning religious symbols until Bill 62 in 2017), but I don’t believe that they will be enforced equally. Also, a cross is easily hidden whereas a head or face covering is not.

        • HonoredMule@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Surely any hidden symbol is that much harder to justify banning in the first place. It’s pretty hard to attribute to that a negative effect on others who can’t even see it.

            • HonoredMule@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I pretty much agree, but at least in the visible case I can construct scenarios where some marginal harm is possible. For example, displays that suggest biases so strong they cannot even be temporarily set aside while exercising authority would undermine the integrity of institutions granting that authority.

              • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                If a person who is wearing a hijab is not breaking any other laws, I don’t believe that it’s right to ban wearing a hijab. To construct a situation that makes this okay with nothing to suggest that there is actually a real threat here is really strange.

                If you want to ban terrorism or defiance of authority from Muslims, those things are already illegal.

                • HonoredMule@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I’m not in Quebec and I don’t know what effects religious symbols are actually having. Someone who claimed to be from Quebec described a couple examples to me that sounded pretty reasonable - things like someone from one religion being condemned and sentenced/fined by a judge wearing overt symbols of an opposing religion. Until I have concrete data either validating or discrediting the impact or actual occurrence of such scenarios, I’m inclined to at least consider them.

                  All examples were closely tied to religious influence on top of a substantial power imbalance and wouldn’t really translate beyond that situation. I don’t see it as being particularly different from trying to dictate who someone can date or engage in sexual activity. That’s insane out of context - then add the context of a pre-existing boss-employee relationship.

      • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I saw that, but I’m very skeptical it will be enforced with the same frequency as hijabs. In my experience, Quebec is obsessed with promoting it’s own culture. Christianity is a big part of French Canadian culture, so I expect it will get a pass. It’s very much a “rules for thee, not for me” sort of place.

        If I’m wrong and it’s enforced equally for everyone, that’s better. I still don’t think the government has any business making laws around peaceful religious expression, however.

        • k_rol@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Maybe many still consider themselves Christians if you ask them for a title as they still believe in a god but not really the religion. That’s my 40 years of experience anyway. For a couple decades I don’t know of a single person who goes to church or prey. It’s definitely not a big part of the culture.

          When the CAQ first proposed to ban religious symbols in government years ago, they first said the cross would stay as it is “historical”. Everyone got upset at how hypocritical this was and they had to fold. Quebecois didn’t like that at all.

          All that said, I think they are going too far again with their last idea. Anyway they are not so popular right now and there is a controversy about the SAAQLIC project, they are just trying to change the narrative.

        • A_A@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          The main culture in Quebec since the 1960 is to ridicule Christianity and other religions.

            • A_A@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              … and Christianity is the most criticized : consider only swear words are all ridiculed christian terms 🤣 !

              • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                I think this is more indicative of the historical influence of Christianity over French Canadian affairs than it is proof of modern Quebec’s perception of world religions…

                • A_A@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  In my experience, Quebec is obsessed with promoting it’s own culture.

                  Yes indeed Quebec is really protective of its culture which include bashing Christian religion and, by extension, other religions … but not as strongly 🤣.

                  Christianity is a big part of French Canadian culture,

                  Big ? 🤣 No, small and smaller everyday. Churches go bankrupt and get converted to whatever else …

    • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The social implications of veiling are an interesting and complex topic. Unfortunately, public discourse tends to be pretty bad at handling complex topics. But there are occasional moments of lucidity. To wit:

      Sometime around 2015 or so we had a big political debate in Germany. Some politicians were floating the idea of a “burqa ban” (= a flat ban on all forms of Islamic face veiling). For a while it was seriously debated but it ultimately failed as most Germans considered it to violate freedom of religion.

      The media were actually helpful – at least the publicly funded ones were. One particularly interesting report I saw was when a female reporter put on full veils (and correctly identified what she was wearing as a niqab, not a burqa) and went out in public. First with a hidden camera to see how she was treated, then with a camera team to get vox pops.

      Opinions were actually fairly divided even among Muslims. One male Muslim argued that face veils always are inherently oppressive and have no place in society. A young woman (who was wearing nothing indicating her religion) expressed admiration for those who fully veil and hoped that one day she’d be able to as well. An old woman wearing a headscarf who was carrying groceries said that she did wear the niqab “but not right now; I have things to do”.

      That diversity of views has stuck with me, especially that last statement. I never expected someone who observes such full veiling to be so pragmatic about it. (Yes, that does go against the reasons for wearing them in the first place but everybody tailors their religion to themself.) If wearing any kind of veils can be something you can just decide not to do, then it becomes an expression of agency, not one of lack thereof. I respect that.

      Of course it’s not respectable when someone is forced to wear a headscarf/a niqab/whatever. But a ban isn’t going to fix that; people who oppress their wives aren’t going to stop doing so. If they feel that nobody outside the house is allowed to see their wife’s face then the wife will simply no longer be allowed to leave the house.

      Ultimately, in my opinion, people should be allowed to wear any religious garment they want, provided it’s their own desire to do so and there’s no overriding reason to disallow it. (E.g., no matter how religious you are, you do not wear a kaftan or a cross necklace or anything else that dangles while operating industrial machinery.) Anything else is useless at best.

  • rex_meatman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Eliminate tax free status of ALL religions. Fine and charge all public displays of religion that are outside of their own properties, be it private or congregations. So sick and tired of seeing our laws bend to include or exclude religions. It’s a wonder that after 3000 some years that the Abrahamics still have this much pull.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees freedom of religion. That means freedom to worship in private or public. Unless you’re planning on bending the constitution, you can’t remove public display of religion in Canada.

      • rex_meatman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Forgive my ignorance, but can the charter of rights and freedoms be amended?

        I am an anti-theist, and would love nothing more than to ban all public displays of all religions.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          While I don’t doubt your stance comes from a history of trauma, policing any kind of identity in this way causes real trauma to others. It causes a pervasive sense of isolation that is antithetical to feeling supported and secure and puts a check on a person’s ability to participate in their culture. Your lack of comfort does not mend leveling the playing field of stripping away the comfort of others if it is being expressed peacefully.

          Bans also very become a very fuzzy line. Most holidays are based off of religious festivals that are widely participated in by the secular and non-secular alike. Once someone starts making exceptions because a wide number of people like a specific one you start creating an artificial canon where minority cultures are oppressed while a narrative of “dominant culture” is allowed giving certain religious traditions cultural supremacy. For example people inside the Church have been trying to get rid of the multitude of pagan festivals that were rebranded as Christmas for eons. They ended up just rubber stamping it because taking away something beloved doesn’t go well. In a modern context you could try and rebrand Christmas to a non-religious holiday… But good luck. It’s layers of Christian over Pagan imagery and traditions fused into a gastalt religious melange. Any governing body that has tried to get rid of it before has spectacularly failed and leaving it be would quickly become a symbol to people who come from places with different dominant partially seclarized religious traditions that they remain cultural outsiders who don’t have the nessisary concensus to participate in public. It would translate directly into supremacy narratives.

          It’s healthier for a society by far not to police the range of peaceful human expression and connection. People deserve to see themselves represented and connect with each other without needing to act like undercover spies in hostile territory.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It can be amended of course, but you mentioned bending the laws to accomodate religion. I’m just setting that part straight. The laws (in Canada) aren’t bent to allow for religious freedom, they guarantee it.

          It’s worth considering the material conditions upon which the Charter was created. Religion was prevalent and religious people wanted to be free from being persecuted for their religion. Today irreligious people in Canada are about a third. If we amended the Charter to curb public religious display, it would go against the majority of Canadians. That’s undemocratic, and unrepresentative of the reality of the country. If some gov did that, it would likely experience severe backlash and the changes would be reversed to more closely match the material conditions.

          I’m also an anti-theist and would love religion to disappear, but I think that cannot occur through repression via law or other means. Rather people of religious cultures have to go through the material evolution secular societies have. The Eastern bloc did a lot of work to repress religion without addressing the material conditions giving its rise. Now irreligious people are still a minority in those countries.

        • HonoredMule@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I am anti-theist, and fuck no to banning public displays of anything. It’s in the name - public. Public space belongs to everyone. Freedom of expression should not be a privilege restricted to people who can afford to buy or rent a place to exercise it.

          If you can prove harm, we can ban the harm. Any and all bans must be tightly focused on restricting only harm and to a greater degree than it inherently restricts freedom. Elsewise, we’re just oppressing dissent/diversity and essentially abandoning freedom itself as a core value. And the fact that we’re talking about dictating what people can do on or with their own bodies raises the stakes that much higher. Seriously, this is a dangerous path and the hazards far greater than any possible reward.

          Tax religion. Remove their privilege. Do not create a new underclass.

          • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            So what is the difference between you and the Taliban? I guess that the Taliban stops at clothing while you also want to force your ideology on people.

            • HonoredMule@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Golly, I wouldn’t want to force freedom on you.

              But as long as you have it, you can always exercise it to go somewhere you won’t. Try doing the reverse.

    • blackris@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Personally, I think all religions can go fuck themselfes and I also think that you are right, wrapping up women is a tool of oppression.

      But this is exactly the same: Forcing women what (not) to wear. This is bad for those who want to wrap themselfes up and this is bad for those who get problems with their shitty families who don’t want them to go to such places. So fuck that shit, too.

    • Zutti@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Women can make that decision for themselves, individually, based on what they are comfortable with.

      • rylock@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ah yes, because muslim family units are beacons of freedom, self-expression and feminism. No threats of shunning or violence, ever.

        • small44@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          How this going to fix things the women may just start wearing it outside of schools?

          • rylock@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            It gives them a secular place to grow interpersonally and develop their critical thinking skills without a literal shroud of dogma over their eyes.

            • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Where’s your critical thinking gone? If racist wankers like you are gonna take it as a given that the typical Muslim household in Canada is extremely controlling, would it not be logically consistent of you to conclude that this sort of policy will just force women out of those “secular places” where they interact with the broader community and isolate them in religious spaces which you consider to be harmful?

              • rylock@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Religious dogma does prevent critical thinking, actually. Secular places of learning are critical for the young and easily influenced to be able to develop their own belief structure, or lack thereof, without the influence of family or community exerting often overwhelming social pressure.

          • rylock@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Great non-sequitor. You’re clearly not obsessed with a certain topic and shoving it into every unrelated conversation, are you?

      • Brotherinsatan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Just like the women in Iran/Afghanistan. They can do whatever they want there. Put on a bikini, shorts etc. Totally free to do what their husbands tell them to. Maybe I’ll send my two daughters.

        • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          What does this even mean? A woman whose family is going to bring her back to their native country for punishment often does so because she won’t wear a covering, which this law will support by forcing women not to cover. A woman who does wear a covering (forced or otherwise) probably won’t be, so your argument doesn’t even make sense.

      • HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Despite all your raging comments in this thread, I still don’t know what your stance is. The weak straw man argument isn’t helping.

        • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          Preventing people from practicing their religion is obviously bad. Especially when there is no justification to do so.

          This is akin to Uyghur “reeducation camps” and I am not being hyperbolic. But apparently it is only bad when China does it.

          • HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah I can tell you’re not commenting to convince anyone, you’re just commenting to vent your frustrations. I get it, no worries. I mean the world is pretty shitty right now, and if you’re thinking Canada and China and equally evil authoritarian regimes, yeah I guess all us commenters are equally not worth the effort. Have a good weekend mate, keep up the good fight against… everyone.

            • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              2 days ago

              You can walk away from the argument when you lose it by pretending to have the moral high ground.

              It only requires ignoring Canada’s origins of forced assimilation into colonial culture

  • vegantomato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    “In Quebec, we made the decision that state and the religion are separate,” said Education Minister Bernard Drainville

    What is religion anyway? Worshiping men (politicians) is okay, but worshiping Allah is not?

    As someone else pointed out, even from a liberal pov, this is wrong as it is anti-freedom and anti-personal autonomy. Women should have the right to choose what to wear according such a philosophy. Using the unconvincing loophole of “but they were forced to wear hijab” to turn this into something pro-freedom/pro-autonomy hardly changes that fact.

    It’s a dangerous path to take, as these politicians will not only step on Muslims’ rights, but also set a precedent that the government (a few elites) can dictate when people are wearing too much. It also undermines the entire notion of protecting women’s rights.

    Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) should have been a red flag that Canada’s rulers are mildly deranged along with being morally bankrupt.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    The two things that have sown division in this world since forever, rich and poor, and religions

    I’d get rid of all religions if I could, but if not that, this is a good step. Schools are not about indoctrinated ideas, it’s about learning science and facts. Sure, teach about religions (and don’t skip the parts where religion absolutely fucked this world over sideways) but sldont condone the practice of it on school grounds.

    If you want to live in the stone Age then go back to a country where that is allowed. If you want to live in a civilized country, then don’t expect your religion to be catered to at every corner.

    • shawn1122@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Part of what makes Canada great is that it’s charter of rights and freedoms upholding individual self expression, as long it does not bring harm to others.

      A piece of cloth on a person’s head, whether it’s a hijab, turban, kippah or nun’s veil brings no harm to others.

      This is a misstep and a breach of Canadian values in my opinion.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nobody is stopping them to wear whatever they want in school … they just have to choose another country if they are so brainwashed.

    • small44@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nobody is stopping people protest against Israel in the USA. They just have to choose another country or stop protesting? This is how stupid your argument is

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes, sometimes i will sound stupid. But about the genocide committed by Israel : it is much more important than any idiotic hijab or whatever pieces of clothes.

        • small44@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Protecting harmless freedom of expression is a lot less important than a genocide but still important.

          • A_A@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yes some things are much more important than others, still …

            Do you know this whole debate about stupid religious signs in Quebec came once again because there has been disregard of basic rights (life threatening) in some schools for non-religious children ?

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        i agree conservatives and Nazi are bad. Thankfully, you and i are not like them 😁👍