154

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NewDay@feddit.org 23 points 3 days 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 17 points 3 days 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 5 points 3 days 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 3 points 3 days ago

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

[-] MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago

So you don't think Muslim students should have the freedom to wear a hijab if they choose? Pathetic.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 6 points 3 days 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 5 points 3 days ago

The lesson here isn't "they shouldn't be able to wear headwear, either", but "I should be able to wear headwear, too".

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago

Are you saying if everyone can wear it, it is ok?

[-] Akuchimoya@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

I'm saying everyone should have equal freedom to wear the headwear they want to wear or not wear, regardless of whether it's for fashion, cultural, or religious reasons.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 points 1 day ago

Cheers to that

[-] MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days 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 7 points 3 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NewDay@feddit.org 6 points 3 days 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 4 points 3 days 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago

Good. Ban displays of crucifixes and necklaces with crosses as well.

Religious symbols have no place in tax payer funded institutions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 days 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 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

What do you think about state mandated mini skirts for teachers? Since you are a big fan of telling people what they are allowed to wear.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

So again, I don’t agree with it. What I meant was that there is an argument to keeping teachers from displaying religious imagery, since one could mistakenly interpret that as the state promoting a particular religion. I think that argument is weak, but at least there’s flimsy logic behind it. There’s no logic behind keeping students from displaying religious imagery.

Do you understand what I mean?

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I have had plenty of teachers wearing crosses and other religious symbols and have never been bothered by it.

If anything it helps students identify there are other cultures in a multicultural society.

There is only one clear reason for these laws and it inspired by French colonialism.

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Maybe Canada is already a Red State and just doesn’t know it yet.

[-] small44@lemmy.world 49 points 4 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 19 points 4 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 42 points 4 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 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

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

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

[-] SecurityX@lemmy.ca 18 points 4 days ago

I have mixed feelings on this topic.

[-] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 9 points 4 days 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.

[-] Sami@lemmy.zip 18 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 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@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Sektor@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

Wrapping women up is the tool of oppression, so good for Canada.

[-] blackris@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 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 15 points 5 days ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] rex_meatman@lemm.ee 15 points 4 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.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] blunderworld@lemmy.ca 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 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 22 points 4 days ago

apparently, yes. crosses, anyways:

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

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Can I wear a hijab for non-religious purposes?? You know, like EVERYONE WHO WEARS A HIJAB??

[-] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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

[-] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days 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.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's not remotely what "prove" means.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
154 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9130 readers
1860 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS