Good, any religion for kids who don't even have the slightest concept of their own mortality or metaphysics is uenthical and immoral, period.
Québécois here. I'm surprised by the positive reception here.
First because normally, anything about Québec policies on reddit (unless it's on a Quebec-related sub) is received very negatively, and harshly so, while I may support, be neutral, or against but with understanding where it's coming from. But that may be a Reddit-Lemmy difference. And that's welcome. I don't expect people to agree with everything Quebec does, but I do value reason.
Second, because this time, I'm very much against. I'm an atheist, antitheist even. But what would banning headscarves in daycare centers even achieve? Do you think children growing up will be convinced to become Muslim because their educators were veiled? And for the negative impacts:
But what would banning headscarves in daycare centers even achieve
it allows people to escape oppression? Religion has no place in day care centres, period.
People probably mistakenly assumed the law was in good faith and would do something like ban hanging crosses around the classroom, not ban covering up part of your body. Calling head coverings "religious symbols" is flatly dishonest. Next up anybody who doesn't eat bacon at every meal will be fired for forcing their religion on others.
Oh. That government has been campaigning on this for years now. I didn't even realize it would mean something different to the wider world. Of course it does. My bad. Yeah. It's all about veiled women. It's all very xenophobic, islamophobic.
Seems reasonable
Meanwhile in Ontario, right beside them, public funds still go to Catholic schools
lmao catholic private schools receive public funds in quebec too
why do actual secularism when you could just attack Muslim people 🙃
Ugh.
That is fucking absurd.
How the fuck even.
Good for them
Good, do schools next.
our education system is in ruins, our healthcare system is even worse, people can’t pay for housing and groceries, and despite tons of budget cuts everywhere the provincial debt has never been worse.
…but thankfully, the CAQ is here to fight the real issues: those darn Muslims doing childcare!!!
So basically, no Muslims or Jews or Sikhs allowed? Doesn't seem that great to me.
To the downvotes: this specifically bans religious dress. Don't you think it's a little too convenient that the majority religion is one that doesn't incorporate any type of religious dress? This law is designed to have an outsized effect on people who wear a keffiyeh, yarmulke, hijab, or turban.
For anyone unfamiliar, this is just extending an already contentious, anti-religion law.
Statement from a Muslim civil rights group
Exactly right... this is like a ban on braziers but pretending it applies to all: male, female and everything in between... well, I am sure you can see a group would be more affected than other, right?
Why is no one with this information making a top comment about it?
All the top comments seem totally unreasonable at first glance.
Because it's basically saying 3/4 of religions should be exempt from separation from church and state.
Symbols and garbs are the same thing, if you can't separate yourself from your religion to the point where you can't take off the silly hat for a shift, then you shouldn't be working for the state. You aren't working for your God, the government isn't paying you to advertise whatever flavor you belong to.
It's all a club so they can treat each other better, it's tribalism and it has no place in our society anymore. Nice to see someone taking a firm stance.
Yeah, this sort of thing has been going on in Quebec for years with the same intent: Act respecting the laicity of the State
I think you are correct they are definitely able to pass this without issue because of the reasons you state.
On the other hand all religion is a cancer so ...
I was with them until this:
The government has already tabled legislation to extend the religious symbols ban to all public school staff, and Roberge has also promised to ban prayer in public places.
I hope I’m interpreting this too cynically, but that sounds like something that’s not really possible (nailing down what is and isn’t a prayer just for this comment is giving me a headache, like does “damn it!” count?). What they could do is ban the use of prayer mats, but that would only really hit one religion. Hopefully that’s neither their intent nor the course they’d take.
oh no the public prayer ban thing is 100%, wholly just Islamophobia. the people who want the ban have already said they’re fine with catholic public praying.
i’ll note that Muslims doing prayers in public in quebec started pretty recently, and most of it is grieving during pro-Palestine protests.
that’s what quebec wants to ban: people grieving for Palestine. it’s sickening
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.
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.
tattoos?
Employees can cover them up while working.
names of places?
What places are you even talking about? But yeah, if you daycare has a "Saint Joseph" room it should probably be renamed.
holiday decorations?
Don't put up religious holiday decorations.
Doesn't seem that complicated.
Employees can cover them up while working.
I'm obviously talking about face and neck tattoos.
What places are you even talking about?
Have you been to Québec? La place est completement basee sur l'eglise catholique. Si on commence avec les symboles, qu'est-ce qui arrete Roberge de monter une croisade d'annihilation de toute association religieuse? C'est pas mal ce qu'il veut.
Don't put up religious holiday decorations.
Yeah, that'll fly.
Look, I'm French Canadian, and I'm all for not having religion involved in professional decisions, but people are human. They show culture. Previous attempts at this kind of "purism" by prohibition have failed for this reason.
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.
I don't think Muslims really pray in public space, I've never seen it personally. I have seen a lot of Jehovah's witnesses and the rest of the Christ cult having "public prayers" in parks while really trying to talk and convince 15 year olds to join their religion.
I've seen it a few times at highway rest stops. But definitely not a common sight
How to create more separation for a problem that never existed. Should the leader of the partie Québecois also remove the word st aka saint for his name since it's a religious term?
Why none of the canadian leaders condemned the sale of occupied west bank land in synaguoges isn't that the real issues or insure that there is some problematic statements in place of worship?
"A problem that never existed" right as America falls into christo-fascism. Religion is a cancer, good on them.
Consider yourself lucky that your priest taught you only to lick his boot and not something else.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/