260

Quebec passes secularism law banning street prayers and prayer rooms in universities (www.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Valnao@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Vanth@reddthat.com 84 points 3 weeks ago

At my university (US), one of my calculus professors with a 150+ student lecture hall would repeatedly open his lecture with a slide showing his church and an invitation for students to join him there on Sunday. Absolutely inappropriate to proselytize a captive audience under his power to pass/fail them. There has to be some accountability for universities to stop this, but not to harass a person wearing a cross necklace or a koppel or a hijab. Shame this is legislated at such a high level instead of people just being professional and not a*holes.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 54 points 3 weeks ago

Minister Roberge has previously stated that street prayers could be considered “acts of provocation.”

Municipalities will be able to authorize them, but only under certain criteria. The new law will also ban the wearing of religious symbols by daycare educators. The government is also extending this ban to teachers and staff at private schools.

Bloody ridiculous. This helps nobody.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 weeks ago

I thought the whole point of secularism / separation of church and state was that the state couldn't ban individual religious expression nor the right to assembly for religious purposes (or any other purpose)?

If the municipalities now have a say in what religious activities are authorized, and which aren't, then that's no longer separation of church and state.

[-] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

So, yes, specifically targeting Muslims, but catching strays with Yarmulkes as well.

[-] teolan@lemmy.world 48 points 3 weeks ago

Fuck religion but fuck stupid laws like this. Seriously this is just as stupid as the age verification stuff everyone he is mad about.

People have the right to do their rituals if it makes them feel good...

[-] MonkRome@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Not only that, but if you want to end religion, causing people to think their religion is under attack from the outside is the best way to isolate everyone in that religion and make them far more likely to stay in that religion for life.

[-] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 44 points 3 weeks ago

What a load of crap

[-] Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 weeks ago

It's to protect freedom, obviously.

[-] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 5 points 3 weeks ago

No shit, that’s the Quebec government argument.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 3 weeks ago

And I'm sure like french laicite this will be enforced unequally and will discriminate in order to target minorities.

[-] scutiger@lemmy.world 46 points 3 weeks ago

It doesn't need to. I don't think anyone but Muslims is required to pray multiple times a day and need places to do so. It's specifically meant to be an anti-Muslim law.

Just like making it illegal for anybody to sleep under a bridge. Surely that wasn't aimed at the homeless, right?

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 3 weeks ago

Muslims don't need places to do so (Friday prayer aside), but they have to pray somewhere and they're also forbidding praying in the street.

[-] LongLive@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Defining prayer is difficult, surely?
Would that be a catch all cause for investigations?

I figure this will be compared to thought-crime law.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago

"The suspect was seen sitting on a park bench with his eyes closed, his head inclined, and his hands clasped in his lap. So you see, your honor, and I submit to the jury, that the suspect was indeed clearly praying in public, and I motion to add a charge of perjury, for lying to this court under oath when he stated 'I was just resting my eyes.'"

[-] choui4@lemmy.zip 29 points 3 weeks ago

Who tf does this help

[-] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago

Secularism? As long as it’s applied across the board - including Christians and others - this seems sensible.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 31 points 3 weeks ago

This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.

Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).

[-] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So in other words, forcing your worldview on others because you don't agree with theirs?

That's no better than forced conversions...

[-] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Is it though ? I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others. That’s literally the opposite. In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism. So yeah maybe this would be for the best.

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 weeks ago

Let's recap.

Literally, what I said was this:

This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.

Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).

And you said this:

Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.

And now you're trying to backtrack by claiming this:

I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.

No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn't just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, "ending religions," in your words).

The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally "institutions forcing their beliefs on others." So, no, you're just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.

Also,

In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.

Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn't plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things "reality and science," or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?

For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?

Who gets to determine what constitutes "science and reality," and what constitutes "religion and belief," particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?

Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined "reality"? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.

How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where "reality" can't be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?

Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I'm not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (28 replies)

[-] SalaciousBCrumb@lemy.lol 7 points 3 weeks ago

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

That’s what this law does, it specifically targets Muslims who need to pray during the day while pretending to be for everyone.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago

The Quebec right wing, which paradoxically is secular and pro abortion.

[-] crandlecan@mander.xyz 26 points 3 weeks ago

Good. Delusions have no place in academia.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago

They're not teaching prayer, they're accommodating it.

You're suggesting Canadian Universities should show religious people less respect than American prisons.

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 17 points 3 weeks ago

Freedom of religion moment.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MrSmith@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago

Religion is cancer. Every and any.

[-] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it's used to harm non-believers especially it's really easy to see this.

I wouldn't give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I'm not giving Atheists one either.

[-] Wataba@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago

Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] EatMyPixelDust 7 points 3 weeks ago

Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] embed_me@programming.dev 7 points 3 weeks ago

Get back to me when there are "discussion rooms" for practising atheists in public spaces 😆

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No, it's not.

Not watching football isn't a "football stance".

Not eating pork chops isn't a "pork chop stance".

Not drinking jagermeister isn't a "jagermeister stance".

Not reading Spider-Man comics isn't a "Spider-Man stance".

Not being religious isn't a "religious stance".

Not doing something isn't a stance on that something, that's goofy

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[-] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago

What problem does this solve?

[-] Napster153@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

The lack of oppression, there are people who got too comfortable with the illusion of power. Hence, they have to generate misery while they still can.

[-] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

No, I think is more absurd. They look at the US and overcorrect. There’s a reasonable middle ground where a grey area in processing works itself out after a few generations. That is totally skipped with this volatile approach.

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

Instead of feel-good measures like this, they should TAX mosques, churches, temples, prayer sheds, whatever. (it feels good to ME, anyway)

In USA, religions pay virtually nothing, with many more benefits than any secular charity or non-profit.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago

Based

[-] EatMyPixelDust 12 points 3 weeks ago

Good, now ban religion altogether, preferably by recognising it as the mental illness that it so clearly is.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] faizalr@fedia.io 11 points 3 weeks ago

Bad law. There will be consequences for this law.

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

"If you are a minority, specifically one that has to pray 5 times throughout the day, you don't get university anymore."

- Fr*nce.

[-] Miaou@jlai.lu 8 points 3 weeks ago

Lemmy "leftists" out here defending religion at any cost

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don't hate random people believing in their religion, I hate people using religion as an excuse to force laws that oppress minorities.

[-] Bogus007@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

Interesting to see so many comments defending religion, especially one particular religion. Anyway, IMO religion should be always a private matter. If you don’t like certain rules or laws, nobody is preventing you to leave and be happy somewhere else. So, if a Christian is not happy in a Muslim country due to restrictions, the person can move to a Christian or secular country. If a Muslim is not happy in a basically Christian or secular country, there are many Muslim countries, which will allow him or her to follow the rules of the religion. So, everybody is happy. Hence, what is the deal here?

[-] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

"Just give up your home, job, and family and likely become a refugee if you don't agree with the prevailing religion. What's the big deal?"

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

"Abortion is illegal now because it's unchristian. If you are not a devout Christian, move."

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026

260 points (100.0% liked)

World News

55698 readers

1187 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.
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.
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.