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.
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.
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.
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.
Well done. 👏😂
They’re not, the CAQ is nothing but hypocrites on the subject. They excluded Christians symbols from the get go.
They excluded religious items that didn’t shove oppressive symbolism in people’s faces. Get your facts straight.
I thought as much.
That report is made by these guys.
You, know, the guys behind Reaganomics and push for the privatization of everything
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research
Is that why the content of that article gives only absolute numbers and nothing that can actually aid comparison or put it in context?
Feel free to treat that as a rhetorical question. 🤨
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)
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.
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)
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?
apparently, yes. crosses, anyways:
The ban, meant to separate the state from religion, also outlaws Christian crosses, Jewish kippahs and Sikh turbans.
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.
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.
Surely a government that wants to respect human rights including its own charter of human rights and freedoms would not try to justify the banning of certain types of apparel at all. It’s pretty hard to attribute to that a negative effect on others who can see it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The main culture in Quebec since the 1960 is to ridicule Christianity and other religions.
Christianity is still by far the predominant religion in Quebec. There are more Christians in Quebec than people who identify as non-religious.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810035301
… and Christianity is the most criticized : consider only swear words are all ridiculed christian terms 🤣 !
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…
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 …
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.
Wrapping women up is the tool of oppression, so good for Canada.
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.
Women can make that decision for themselves, individually, based on what they are comfortable with.
Ah yes, because muslim family units are beacons of freedom, self-expression and feminism. No threats of shunning or violence, ever.
How this going to fix things the women may just start wearing it outside of schools?
It gives them a secular place to grow interpersonally and develop their critical thinking skills without a literal shroud of dogma over their eyes.
A hijab or any other religious signs do not prevent critical thinking.
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.
Trying to moral high ground about violence in 2025
Great non-sequitor. You’re clearly not obsessed with a certain topic and shoving it into every unrelated conversation, are you?
These can’t. Ask their owner, i mean dad.
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.
Or if they want to get dragged back to a country where they can be stoned to death.
Bombed to death by American planes you mean?
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.
You are right all women should be forced to go to school naked.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Suppose Canada goes 100% banning such idiocy, now, where do you want to live ?
In your head, rent-free.
Thanks for the humor and light tone, have a nice day, take care 😋
Can the fucking French stop trying to take cloth off Muslim women for one fucking second?
Nobody is stopping them to wear whatever they want in school … they just have to choose another country if they are so brainwashed.
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
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.
Protecting harmless freedom of expression is a lot less important than a genocide but still important.
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 ?
You sound just like conservatives saying “if you don’t like it you can just leave”.
i agree conservatives and Nazi are bad. Thankfully, you and i are not like them 😁👍
It’s literally a piece of cloth. How is that a fundamental right? I was forced to take my cap off at school back in the day. What about my rights?
I have nothing against Muslims. But I have a problem with people emigrating to other countries and then crying about having to follow rules and scream DISCRIMINATION!
Go somewhere else then. Omg… it’s not like they’re forbidding Islam or something. Just practice it at home instead.
In Germany, pork is banned in school cafeterias and during Ramadan, SOME teachers ask ALL students not to eat during recess/breaks out of respect for fasting Muslims. Fuck that. This is Europe, not the Middle East.
It’s like moving to china and then demanding that chopsticks need to be replaced by forks, otherwise they’re literally nazis lol.
With your logic, western countries should stop talking about lack of human right in certain countries.
Yes, you’re right. It’s not our business. Let these places deal with their issues and stop wasting funds on them.
It’s literally a piece of cloth.
Right…
Damn, I was hoping we wouldn’t have your type around here.
Edit: I really should have quoted the other part, I think you softened the wording (slightly). I just hate the attitude of “blend in or stay out”.
Not sure what my „type“ is. If thinking that people who emigrate need to adjust to new rules and culture, then yes, hate me all you want.
This is not how Canada operates. Canada isn’t a melting pot.
I mean, according to the post, it’s enough of an issue to be made a rule/law. So don’t tell me there are no issues and that’s not how Canada works. Because apparently it does.
The law is specifically about arbitrating the display of religious symbols in government institutions in order to enforce visible separation of church and state. It’s not saying that Muslims have to adopt a different culture. Also, it could very well be unconstitutional. That remains to be seen but there’s a high likelihood.
Isn’t that a good thing? Not sure what you’re on about. Religion and state has nothing to do with each other and should be clearly separated.
Schools are government institutions to an extent. Unless you count private schools.
If I wouldn’t have gone to school, the police would have come and literally taken me there, by order of the state (government) so…
Religion is fine, just keep it private.
If you aren’t considering what the downside of this type of law is, then I don’t think you’re engaging beyond stating your beliefs. Clearly there are problems with it and people have expressed them. And as I said it is likely to be found unconstitutional.
You aren’t even Canadian, you are German. You quite literally don’t even understand that Quebec is simply one region of Canada and their culture is different from the rest of us in many unique and important ways.
I am not Canadian because I live in Europe? Wtf? I was literally born there lmao.
I’m not living in Canada, I currently live in Germany (just because this is the Canada „sub“ doesn’t mean everyone who is active here lives in Canada right now)
My apologies, I misread your previous comment to mean that you found this thread randomly from your front page, not that you are here because you used to live here.
Either way, you seem to have forgotten that what Quebec does on its own has nothing to do with the rest of us. They even have their own legal system.
The Canada I believe in is a mixture of cultures and beliefs. Saying they should assimilate to our (white) ways conflicts with that.
Edit: to be clear, I’m obviously not for oppression of women, but that’s not what it symbolizes to everyone. At a certain point they’re old enough to make their own choices and if they feel better wearing one I prefer to respect that.
Secularism is forced atheism now?
Who are you to force women to wear less clothes?
There are reasons for banning hijabs, it’s widely known that it’s a form of oppression against women. Just because some say they wear it voluntarily, doesn’t mean it applies to most.
You emphasize “some” but do we have any data and real numbers?
Genuine curiosity, while recognizing this is hard to measure as a lot of oppression can be internalized.
It’s not an easy discussion (and that’s fine).
People could be manipulated by emotions to do the worse things ever should we ban expressing emotions?
I mean, we do ban some emotions.
I couldn’t just go outside and let the rage out. Destroying things and punching people. I mean, I could… but I would have to deal with what? Yes. Consequences.
We never banned emotions with ban certain actions or hate speech. We can hate anyone we want but we can’t harm them or disrespect them with actions or words
Dude I agree with you to some extent. I am looking like this massive aushole right now that hated everyone. But all I really wanted is for religion and public institutions to be separate. And so how is banning hijabs (a religious symbol) from government institutions a bad thing?
Nobody is going to convert to Islam just because a teacher or student wear a hijab but you can’t forcing people who want to wear it not to do it. This is the completely opposite of separation of religion and state. How you going to also ban the symbols of the other thousands of unknown religion. How would you know the person who grow a beard for a religious reason or just because it look nice on him?
You appear to be an expert on this. Surely you have conversed with many of these women and have not received all your knowledge from racist media figures.
I have received my knowledge from going to school where there is probably 15% Muslims in there. And I heard some of them complain about not only hijabs but in general not being allowed to do certain things.
This is a free world (the west) and should not condone such „culture“.
The key word is some of them
Which is enough.
Some people killed a person they love because of rejection so let’s ban relationships and love
I am sure you have. I can hear the racism dripping on your keyboard.
It‘s probably a shock to you, but I’m not living in Canada, I currently live in Germany (just because this is the Canada „sub“ doesn’t mean everyone who is active here lives in Canada right now) and needy Muslims and also the oppression of Muslim women is quite the hot topic/issue over here.
Are French nazis? Are (modern) Germans nazis? For banning full face coverage for example? Where do we draw the line?
If I move somewhere, I fucking assimilate. End of story.
You live in germany, who is the second biggest supporter of the terrorist state of israel occupying paledtine for 58 years
Extremely Islamophobic and racist comments
“This might come as a shock but I live in Germany”
I am quite unshocked.
In Germany, pork is banned in school cafeterias and during Ramadan, SOME teachers ask ALL students not to eat during recess/breaks out of respect for fasting Muslims. Fuck that. This is Europe, not the Middle East.
Irrelevant to this issue. I don’t care if you have schoolboy trauma from not eating pork, get it out of this conversation. This is about Muslim women in Quebec, not snowflake Germans who want to spread conservative racist ideology.
LOL. Again. Please tell me how this is racist. Islam is NOT A RACE.
Oh my god. And to what race do the majority of Muslims belong? What sorts of issues have been talked about in Quebec as of late? Oh, anti-immigration? I wonder how these concepts might relate politically…
Talking to racists is like talking to toddlers, they often deliberately refuse to follow basic logic.
Dude if I was a toddler I couldn’t even reply to this, please fuck off. Calling someone a racist for wanting state and religion (and the public) separated is fucking dumb.
It’s not just Islam. I want ALL religions to be practiced privately.
It just so happens that some religions are unable to and need to show it publicly whenever they leave their homes.
It just so happens that some religions are unable to and need to show it publicly whenever they leave their homes.
https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/cs/c-12#se:3
- Every person is the possessor of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_genocide
A province that respects human rights wouldn’t do this.
