this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
146 points (94.0% liked)

Canada

9105 readers
1518 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
 

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
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

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

[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

Religious symbols have no place in tax payer funded institutions.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Are the taxpayers paying for the hijabs?

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 21 hours ago (1 children)

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 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours 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.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] NewDay@feddit.org 17 points 1 day ago (16 children)

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 12 points 1 day 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 1 day ago (1 children)

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 1 day ago

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

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have mixed feelings on this topic.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 9 points 2 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.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 18 points 2 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 34 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (14 children)

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

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

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 2 days ago* (last edited 2 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)
load more comments
view more: next ›