273
Quebec to ban religious symbols in daycare centres
(www.cbc.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
273 points (100.0% liked)
World News
50531 readers
2863 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
The problem with this ban is what constitutes "religion", and what symbols are included.
People show their culture. It has historically not worked very well to suppress culture.
Employees can cover them up while working.
What places are you even talking about? But yeah, if you daycare has a "Saint Joseph" room it should probably be renamed.
Don't put up religious holiday decorations.
Doesn't seem that complicated.
I'm obviously talking about face and neck tattoos.
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.
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.
I notice you didn't include the religious holidays.
I don't care about religious holidays. Like at all.
I don't celebrate, like at all and I think they are a concession that should be removed.
Edit: you also didn't ask about religious holidays, nice goal post shift.
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?
You can argue that your prayer mat is a yoga mat. I still don’t understand what your issue with my comment is.
And I still don't understand how you made the leap from clothing to prayer mats.
Because of the quote from the article I included wherein he talks about banning prayer in public places.