Canada. Just read that Quebec government has passed a bill barring schoolteachers, police officers, judges and other public employees from wearing religious symbols in the workplace, prompting an outcry that civil liberties were under attack in the province.
Francois Legault, the right-leaning Quebec Premier, had called the bill a necessary measure to ensure the separation between religion and state in an abidingly secular province. It applies to Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and Catholic crosses among other symbols. The bill passed 73 - 35 and was supported by the majority of Québécers.
Members of the Opposition called it a dark day for the province. Critics say that it will effectively exclude religious Muslims, Sikhs and Jews from positions of authority in education and law enforcement, and that it runs roughshod over the freedom of religion and expression at the heart of Canada’s model of multiculturalism.
Thoughts?.....
17
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
39 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.If I understand the Sikh religion, the turban isn't so much a religious symbol but a means of keeping their hair under control. Sikh males are not supposed to cut their hair or beards and so they grow quite long. When I was a child, my family was a host family for a couple Indian exchange students. They were older men who were married and had children in India. They were both Sikhs and wore the turban and did something to tie up their beards. My dad once asked one of these men how long his hair was and as I recall, he said it was 15 feet. I suppose there are other ways they could keep the tenets if their religion without the turban, but it doesn't seem to be any more practical than wearing the turban.
As for the law generally, I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I see a benefit from separating religious symbols from civil government. On the other, the restriction would make civil service difficult for very devout people. I'm not certain we could get such a law passed here in the US. We would run into problems with rights guaranteed in our Constitution.
RussRAB
Level 8
June 23, 2019
1
Quebec has done away with any and all religious symbols in public schools and public buildings (courts, for instance). Generally speaking, keeping religion out of the government/public service, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction.
There are dress codes all over the place.
Some schools have dress codes (like banning short skirts or non-school sport's team attire) or even school uniforms.
Some work places also have codes or uniforms.
This is no different.
This is a dress code for folks serving the public. If someone wants to be in the public service (paid by government, to serve the public interest), they should be 'neutral' when on the job.
Do what you want at home, in your car, or in your free time, but not at work.
If someone feels the need to broadcast their beliefs whilst at work, maybe they shouldn't be in 'public service'.
I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and I respect that. But that doesn't mean I want to know about it, or that anyone should get to break the rules or have special privileges.
Sure we are each special, precious, unique individuals, but generally speaking, no more so than anyone else.
Don't become a surgeon of your religious (or any other) beliefs prevent you from wearing a surgical mark.
I do volunteer work, catering to many different sorts people, and I treat them all with respect. That includes dressing appropriately. I would never wear a star wars shirt, an atheist hat, or even a FSM pin, when I volunteer.
For all that makes me who I am (and that's a big bucket of fandoms and personal beliefs), I present myself in appropriate, neutral attire when I volunteer.
Appropriate, Neutral Attire.
Why is that too much to ask from public servants?
scurry
Level 9
June 23, 2019
9
My views mirrored entirely,
Who gets to decide what’s neutral?
@skado ...and that's why they need dress codes.
Left to individuals, there might be too much room for misinterpretation of the word 'neutral'.
The definition sounds a bit bland, but basically what I had in mind.
Easily Googleable:
neu·tral
adjective
- not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
"during the Second World War, Portugal was neutral"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, objective, without favoritism, open-minded, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, disinterested, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical, indifferent... -
having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.
"the tone was neutral, devoid of sentiment"
noun
- an impartial or unbiased country or person.
"Sweden and its fellow neutrals" -
a neutral color or shade, especially light gray or beige.
Be who you want on your own time...
@scurry
I know what the definition of neutral is. But what’s neutral from one perspective is not from another. Jeans and T-shirt looks neutral to me but looks disrespectful to some. Whose neutral gets to set the standard? Should every public employee have the same hair color, or be bleached white? How about skin color? There are certain aspects of “you” that are intrinsic to your sense of self. Why should religious identy be expunged? How about style of eyeglasses? Should all marks of personal identity be erased in order to be a public servant, or is this just an excuse for religious oppression?
@skado ....
"...and that's why they need dress codes.
Left to individuals, there might be too much room for misinterpretation of the word 'neutral'."
....
" The bill passed 73 - 35 and was supported by the majority of Québécers"
.....
Seems that the province in question decided on this case.
Jeans & tshirt don't offend me, but I wouldn't wear that to meet the Queen.
"Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and Catholic crosses" also don't offend me, but now, according to Quebec, these should not be worn to work if you work in the public sector.
They have drafted it up and drawn the line, no doubt after the proper legal and governmental process.
I'm sure there will be some figuring out still to do, and time will tell how it plays out.
And yes I'm sure they will mandate that everyone's hair have to be the same colour, wear the same glasses, and everyone has to be the same height; platform shoes for the shorter employees, while the taller ones will likely have to get some sort of leg-cutting surgery to cut them down to size.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
If you're looking to poke holes in the system, go ahead. No system is perfect.
I agree with separation of Church and State. I have given this a lot of thought, and I am very familiar with Quebec. I don't agree with everything Quebec does or stands for, but they seem to be taking a hard stand to keeping the separation of Church & State.
Be whoever you want to be, let your freak flag fly high and proud... I am all for that. 100%. I encourage it!! ... When appropriate and on your own time.
@altschmerz LOL. Nothing is wrong for it, but there's a time and place for novelty tees.
Thankfully I can wear them at work. 
Well, since I don't respect any religious ritual, or paraphernalia, I think it's a
fantastic idea, and I wish we'd do it in the US.
As far as the opposition claim that it prevents those who are religious Muslims, Sikhs and Jews from attaining positions of authority in education and law enforcement,etc, that is not actually true. They prevent themselves from attaining those positions by their refusal to compromise. It's their self-imposed rigidity that does that, not the law.
It's their religious beliefs, practices, and expression which run roughshod over the rights of everyone else, and endanger multiculturalism.
I truly wish such a law were enacted on a national level in this country.
We NEED it.
Unfortuately, the christians wouldn't allow it. They don't want to give up an
ounce of their power and influence.
KKGator
Level 9
June 23, 2019
7
My own views are pretty much the same. The workplace should be neutral, secular and non discriminatory, in order to make it so all emblems and religious symbols need to be excluded.
I think the decision is fine. People in those kinds of positions of authority shouldn’t portray that they could be biased in anyway. Feel free to express yourself when you’re “off the clock.” And as far as excluding people of a faith from those positions, I actually think it makes it more fair for everyone.
mentalinnuendo
Level 5
June 23, 2019
5
Agreed.
I love the idea and we should have it here as well. Properly applied you might have your cross around your neck but NOT visible. Headgear from religions should not be worn in public and full face covering outfits should not be allowed. MAGA hats and "Trump is Jesus" T-shirts should all go away. Keep in mind this new law is for schoolteachers, police officers, judges and other public employees. Certain members of the general public can still wear what they want to.
DenoPenno
Level 9
June 23, 2019
4
Agree.
Talking about full face covering... I saw a baby's reaction on the bus recently : poor thing was so scared ! Another time at the doctor's office, a kid was staring so much at the lady she went for a walk.
I'm a Canadian and an atheist (an anti-theist even) but I don't like this law at all. This has nothing to do with maintaining neutrality in the public sector and all to do with preserving Quebec culture. If they had a law to ban just non-Catholic (Christian?) religious symbols/clothing (I believe the original intention under the pretext of security/safety), they would have been significantly criticized as discriminatory. This is why they decided to include even Catholic symbols/paraphernalia. This is also less xenophobia per se. Quebec has always been adamant about protecting its French and Catholic heritage (re: Quebec Act, etc.)
I don't think people wearing religious clothing or symbols in public positions have ever caused significant problems in Canada, as far as I know. No other provinces or territories in the country would consider this law necessary. It's not what people wear, but what they do, how they treat others, what they say. If the religious paraphernalia pose security or safety issues, I can understand laws to keep them off would be necessary. Yeah, I'm sure it's possible for John Wick to use a Jewish skullcap to kill someone, but I doubt it poses an issue in and of itself.
Awhile back, there was a big crackdown on stores and restaurants in Quebec supposedly not following the French language restrictions. One restaurant complained that it wasn't allowed to use the word "pasta" on the menu because that isn't a French word and they had to translate it into a French equivalent. I think Quebec has more to worry about than whether someone can use the word "pasta" in their menu.
graceylou
Level 8
June 24, 2019
5
Thank you for bringing a Canadian perspective to this news item. At face value it seems a good move...but look closely and there may be a more self serving motivation.
@Marionville The previous incarnation of this bill, if I can remember, was meant to ban things like hijabs, burkas, and similar items citing security and safety issues. It was not supported and I thought that whole thing was dead. Then they came back with this revision of the bill with a more wide-ranging ban.
The original Quebec act (from the 1700s) protected the French in Canada by allowing them to keep their French language and Catholic religion (of course, the English were Anglican/Protestant). With immigration from other provinces and other countries, Quebec fears the dilution or disappearance of their French Catholic culture. Immigrants from other countries coming into Quebec must enroll their children in French schools (not given the choice to enroll in either French or English). I have a doctor friend in Montreal who told me his parents came from Italy and they had to enroll their children in a French speaking school. On the one hand, I understand the need to preserve one's culture, but sometimes it goes a bit too far.
I can agree with not displaying religious symbols in public secular buildings like courts, government offices, hospitals, etc. But personal items worn by a person, as long as it doesn't interfere with the work, who cares. I mean, seriously, who's going to be enforcing the law when you see someone in public service wearing a cross. Call the police? Call management and human resources to deal with the offender? Fire the person? What a waste of time and resources. It would be divisive in the workplace and encourage hate. More people have caused fear, injury, damage, and death without wearing or showing religious clothing or symbols.
@graceylou I want to persuade people through reason and logic, not through imposing laws and persecution. It worries me when laws suppress religious freedoms that we, atheists, are just as intolerant as the religious. As long as they don't use their position as a teacher to promote their personal beliefs
@MsDemeanour Exactly.
there is Canada and then there is Quebec
bookofmorons
Level 9
June 23, 2019
4
Not sure what laws other provinces have in this respect.
@Marionville none do or would do. Many in Quebec see themselves as a french minority (which is true) in an ocean of North American English and it needs to be protected at all costs. This allows them to justify any action against internal minorities to protect their Quebec/Pure lan culture .
@bookofmoron I totally agree. You have to know the history of Quebec in order to understand where this bill came from.
I live in Ontario since 4 years and I miss my Quebec. What you get is what you see.
Just put on the Jesus pajamas when you get home.
chucklesIII
Level 7
June 23, 2019
3
Seems to me the only ones that specifically excludes, are the ones not willing to cede to the secular law. There for excluding themselves.
oldFloyd
Level 8
June 23, 2019
4
Precisely.
YES!! Exactly!
Although I firmly support the separation of church and state and would prefer that civil servants refrain from displaying any religious affiliation on their person, I consider this a bad law. The reasons for wearing religious accoutrements varies by religion, from mere decoration to pious humility to personal modesty. For some Muslim women, a mandate to forgo the hijab at her place of employment would be tantamount to that employer's mandating that a Western woman forgo coverage of her breasts, i.e., extremely invasive and prohibitive to the continuation of her employment. However, there's no Christian religious mandate for non-clergy/non-monastics to wear Christian decorations. Therefore, this law will impact Muslims more heavily than Christians, and Muslim women more than Muslim men, making it a bad law.
vertrauen
Level 7
June 23, 2019
4
I have some sympathy for that argument, although the Koran doesn’t prescribe any head covering it’s purely a cultural custom and manmade. It is sad that women think that they must cover their heads...and even worse, their faces, because of the dictats of males. It has been mentioned by others that it’s probably why this law has been introduced...in order to keep Muslims and others out of civil service jobs.
I feel that your reasoning is sound, and so is your conclusion that it would effect Muslim women more than any others... however, that is exactly why I feel it is a good law. It will make it impossible for Muslim women to have positions of influence while wearing a burka or hijab, and if said effected Muslim women wish to have those positions, they will either have to take off their burkas and hijabs to obtain or keep them or give up the absurd practice entirely.Forced progress is still progress.The longer we let backward thinking cultures remain that way, the longer they hold all of us back as a species.
When I was a soldier( US Army) there was a regulation against wearing religious symbols while in uniform.
this rule was enforced sporadically.
exceptions were made for religious medals worn under the shirt and wedding rings.
when I became a sergeant I enforce these rules to the letter.
we limit all sorts of personal expression wall in the workplace.
for example the competition might have a better price but we are not allowed to mention it. political commentary is often Limited in the workplace.
a federal employee is not allowed to criticize the president at the workplace.
a police officer is not allowed to pray with a citizen while on duty.
therefore these measures seem to me to be appropriate correct.
m16566
Level 7
June 24, 2019
3
Thanks for that insight into the regulations and how they are enforced by the US Army and other federal employers. I think it’s right to have complete neutrality in any workplace, especially in the public sector.
Did it apply to chaplains and padres while in uniform?
In the US in terms of public school teachers, the religious symbols described would not be a problem. Teachers are also allowed to tell students their own beliefs within a reasonable context (no proselytizing, no preaching, no setting the lesson aside to tell everyone how Jesus will save them).
But there is also a standard that says anything substantially disruptive to the learning environment doesn't have to be allowed. (I know of a parapro a few miles from my town who posted comments on facebook about how Trump should send all Mexicans back home, etc., and since her school's population is largely Hispanic, she could no longer do her job without massive disruptions. Once word spread, virtually all the kids hated her. She was fired. I can imagine a similar situation if a Muslim teacher wanted to teach in the reddest of a red community in the south. If the head scarf, etc, would be substantially disruptive to the learning environment, it could be in effect banned.)
greyeyed123
Level 7
June 23, 2019
2
@NoPlanetB Presumably there would have to be evidence of the disruption and it could be taken to court. The problem with education in the south (and in much of the country) is far, far deeper than this issue. There is a deep anti-intellectual, anti-education culture in this country, and often in the reddest states, the best people they can get to work and live and teach in these areas don't know very much. And the best and brightest that make it through the system there with a head on their shoulders...leave. Why would you stay, with little pay, no respect, and no support for actual education. (A variation of all of those things are true throughout the country, though.)
Therefore you can not wear your 'agnostic.com' tee shirt.
Fernapple
Level 9
June 23, 2019
3
Well...Agnosticism isn’t a religion...so maybe you could!
Yeah, a level playing field, imagine that.
Nor would I.
It's not the place.
@scurry I’m not saying that I would either, it wouldn’t be good judgement to do so .
In theory applying equal standards to all religions doesn't seem bad. In practice it might keep some people from working as a teacher, police officer ect. to solve which problem exactly? Does this keep religions from influencing those institution? I don't see it. Maybe it only benefits the religion with the least obvious religious symbols.
I think it is either an unnecessary or a harmful government overreach. Instead of suppressing all religions equally we should educate people about all religions equally and thereby foster tolerance.
Dietl
Level 7
June 23, 2019
3
Not always an easy balance to strike. It does seem to be supported by the majority of the population though.
@Marionville It's not an easy subject with a lot of grey area. There is not only the principle but also how it plays out to be taken into consideration. That the majority of the population supports it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't think there is a need to make the old slavery/nazi germany/... arguments here.
@Dietl I feel sure that there must have been some incident which was the impetus for this legislation, although I have no information on this. I am neutral in my remarks when I mention the population being in support, I only mention them as commentary and am not making the argument either for or against. Nobody, especially me, is making any “old slavery/Nazi Germany.....argument”.... cannot understand that inference.
@Marionville I didn't want to put any words into your mouth. I just wanted to make the point that what the majority thinks is irrelevant when we want to judge if it is a good or a bad law.
The arguments I was refering to were about the majority in the past supporting slavery, secregation etc. We wouldn't say putting people into concentrations camps was okay because the majority thought it was.
I like the idea in principle, not being sure what all the ramifications will be.
brentan
Level 8
June 23, 2019
3
Perhaps counterproductive.
@Marionville Yes indeed. One thing against it might be ruling out some good teachers etc. On the other hand, I really like the idea that the public arena, as the public manifestation of a secular government and a secular society, is seen to be a secular place for everybody.
@brentan We, in N.I have a huge problem with symbols as you probably know. Flags and emblems, both religious and political!
@Marionville It will be interesting to see if or how the macro-political situation around N.I. will affect the identity politics there.
@brentan No idea...but things had really improved here greatly....until Brexit reared it’s head. There is a tension back again, and of course no Stormont govt. for two years!
Governments of every shade and variety suffer from an innate tendency to overstep the mark of their bestowed authority. Though I hate religion, I consider the actions of the Canadian State to be a little over-zealous. Glad it's not my fight.
rcandlish
Level 7
June 25, 2019
2
I think we are pretty evenly split in either agreeing with the Quebec authorities or believing they are overstepping the mark.
As my e-mail address, Antitheistocrates, implies I am an Anti-Theist and a Philosopher and I support what the Quebec Government has done 100%.
Triphid
Level 9
June 24, 2019
2
Me too.
Religious garments are the embodiment of religious brainwashing and lunacy, with the knowledge we have nowadays, how can anyone justify the logic behind wearing any of these ridiculous made up things "or you are offending your god and won't go to paradise" bullshit.
Mofo1953
Level 9
June 24, 2019
2
They are slaves to their own lack of reason.
Quebecer here. I didn't vote for Prime Minister Legault. He's too far right for me. But as an atheist and a former catholic, I think his new secularism law is mostly a good idea. It's mostly a dress code for some government employees.
The law could have been better. They could have expand the dress code to daycare staff and to private school teachers that are still receive funds from the province. And they could have remove the crucifix above the speaker seat at the provincial legislative assembly hall.
QuidamOutrepont
Level 8
June 24, 2019
2
Thank you ...nice to get the opinion of someone directly affected.
I'm not sure this is the best way forward here.
I've known people who wear religious symbols as memorial pieces.
And I've never been very big on forcing people to not be themselves.
I think when you get into people covering their faces that might be a problem in the workplace for security reasons - but other than that - I'm not sure it matters? I've seen pretty much every religion represented at Teaching Hospitals - and it never bothered me.
It does out people as what they represent though if they go to work "representing" in their dress or jewelry. As an atheist I wouldn't mind having that clue I guess.
But it's a way for prejudice to form - so I'm also a bit against it.
It's definitely a conflicting topic.
RavenCT
Level 9
June 23, 2019
2
It seems to have divided opinion here...and it has provoked some discussion, which is always good.
On paper this is a step forward but in practice it will be Catholic majority persecution of all the other religious minorities. I would be quite happy to see all religions banned and all religious fanatics receive government supplied health care for their mental illness, a great savings to the economy and social fabric of the country but this is not really that sort of thing at all. Watch how it is implemented and you will quickly see that this is a far right attack on minorities.
Surfpirate
Level 9
June 23, 2019
2
Time will be the only judge of that .
@Marionville yes, 9 generations as a Canadian is enough time for me to know exactly how this will play out. Much like you would realize what a train wreck having that merchant banker as the new PM will play out for England.
@Surfpirate I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Canadian. By England I presume you actually mean The United Kingdom...! I live in Northern Ireland and we have had wars over flags, emblems and religious symbols here for centuries, and have had similar legislation as Quebec in place here for some time. The only way to ensure a neutral working environment in the public sector is to ban all religious symbols. The motivation in Quebec may be as you say, but the principle of neutrality is correct.
@Marionville I agree completely, the principle is excellent and I support it but unfortunately I understand the motivation of the Far Right French. My wife is a Montrealer so I get the gist of where this will be going and why it was so widely supported. Quebecers have a strong Vichy French undercurrent that should not be ignored.
@Marionville When my ancestors sailed away from the British Isles it was just England.
@Surfpirate Must have been before 1603 then...that was when we had the Union of the Crowns and we became the United Kingdom! 
@Marionville On paper yes but let's be honest about it, Scotland never fully bent the knee, Wales claims that it was never conquered and as for the Irish; well let's just say that hard fighting, hard drinking bunch of buggers never bent a knee to anybody for real. 
If it makes the Queen happy to think she is in charge of that rag tag bunch of islands then so be it. lol
But there isn't a catholic majority in Quebec !! They don't practice, they believe in god...or not. As a Quebecois he/she will say " I've been baptized but I'm not a believer. So it won't be catholics against others. People rarely get married, some don't even baptize their child ! They let them choose for themselves. It's really different.
@Surfpirate I think I need to give you a history lesson. The Union of the Crowns was when our King James VI of Scotland became James I of the United Kingdom, Wales had already been incorporated into part of England since since annexation by Edward I in 1283. Ireland is a completely different matter altogether and only the part I live in was colonised properly by the British after 1690 and the Battle of the Boyne. The Queen is as Scottish as she is English, and she is only a figurehead anyway, as head of State, as we are now a Parliamentary Democracy as well as a Monarchy. I am a proud Scot, but my nationality is British and Scotland hasn’t been an independent nation since 1603... not by conquest but by union. The Queen is also your Head of State as she is Queen of Canada too. Anyway...do you know where in England your ancestors were from prior to departing for Canada?
@Marionville It's such a tiny place and it was so long ago that it really doesn't matter, we have lakes in Canada that are bigger than England. As for the rest of it, I can only relate what more recent arrivals to Canada have to say about the UK, I try not to see what is in the Daily Mail as that is just embarrassing.
@Nathalie_Quebec I agree with you for the majority of Quebecers but these right wing people are throw backs to another time and their credo is hate.
@Surfpirate. The Daily Mail is an absolute right-wing rag,..nothing in it should be taken as representative of what’s actually happening in the UK. I know how vast Canada is...I’ve visited it...but only managed it see a very small proportion of it.
Extremely difficult position religion does not belong in politics but this could easily be overdone the only suspicious thing is where it came from conservative right party
bobwjr
Level 10
June 23, 2019
2
Everything that the right does is not necessarily bad. I think in view of the fact that they are trying to make the working environment in the public sector more neutral and secular is a good thing....religious symbols and emblems are not usually obligatory in any religion, but are designed mainly to show how devout that believer is. Their religion is a private matter and should have no bearing on their ability to do their job, therefore an unnecessary distraction.
@Marionville agree but they can be hiding real purpose
Excellent idea! We should follow. There is no reason to display signs of religious mental disability in public by persons of authority!
zesty
Level 7
June 23, 2019
2
D’accord!
I am strongly in support of separation of church and state, but I don't see the logical conection between outward religious beliefs of specific teachers and separating church and state.
This logical non sequitur becomes most apparent if there is religious diversity in a school. If one teacher wears a turban and another has a cross necklace, what religion if any does the government support?
IMO the relisation that other religions exist opens up the doors to recognizing that your way of thinking isn't the only one, and may not always be the best, and for me reading about other religions drew me away from them.
In conclusion, this clearly has nothing to do with separation of church and state. This is about limiting the participants of religion in positions of power.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
June 23, 2019
2
Possibly so. I feel there may have been some incident used as a catalyst for this move, but without any specific information cannot be definite.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.