• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quebec’s Bill 21, Now a Law, Foolishly Bans Religious Symbols for State Workers

Skwim

Veteran Member

Last night, Quebec’s government passed Bill 21, which will stop certain government workers — including cops and teachers — from wearing religious symbols like hijabs and yarmulkes and turbans “in order to protect Quebec’s secular society.” The final vote was 73-35.

Bill 21 also says people who use certain government services can’t wear any religious symbols either, which essentially means Muslim women with face veils won’t be allowed to use buses.

"It’s a move that trounces on religious freedom in the name of religious neutrality and creates far more problems than it solves.

The law, which “grandfathers in” whatever people wear now while prohibiting new hires and people in new positions from wearing the same religious symbols, was championed by premier François Legault. Critics say it will effectively block Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and other people who are required by their faith to wear certain symbols from advancing in their careers or taking on these government jobs.

The law also includes a clause that immunizes it from legal action… which is a thing they can do.

The notwithstanding clause, officially called Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows provincial or federal authorities to override certain sections of the charter for a period of five years.

“It’s not a small thing. It’s a big decision. But sometimes, in order to protect collective rights, we have to use it. I think we have to protect our collective identity,” Legault said, pointing out the clause has been invoked numerous times by different premiers.

“To separate religion and politics is important in Quebec.”


source and more
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
While I would like people to understand that absolutely nothing is going to happen to them if they don't flaunt their religious symbols and praise their deity 24/7, I would really like for them to come to that understanding on their own. Not by implementing man-made consequences for when they do flaunt their religious symbols. I'm not on board with this. We need these people to desire to relegate their beliefs and irrationality to the shadows on their own - not have to practice in secret while putting on a "secular face" and giving them more passengers riding the "persecution train."
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Missing-the-point micromanagement that only gives a veneer of secularism while alienating secular religious folks.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
This has got me stumped... What religious symbols do atheists wear?
81DuGkhZ4rL._UX385_.jpg
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
While I would like people to understand that absolutely nothing is going to happen to them if they don't flaunt their religious symbols and praise their deity 24/7, I would really like for them to come to that understanding on their own. Not by implementing man-made consequences for when they do flaunt their religious symbols. I'm not on board with this. We need these people to desire to relegate their beliefs and irrationality to the shadows on their own - not have to practice in secret while putting on a "secular face" and giving them more passengers riding the "persecution train."
Most people arent " flaunting" it, and you probably wont even notice a cross that's worn around the neck anyways. I can see some restrictions against full-face coverings, but a Sihks turban is actually pretty important to them, it causes no real bother or harm to anyone, and it alone isn't promoting their religion.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Last night, Quebec’s government passed Bill 21, which will stop certain government workers — including cops and teachers — from wearing religious symbols like hijabs and yarmulkes and turbans “in order to protect Quebec’s secular society.” The final vote was 73-35.

Bill 21 also says people who use certain government services can’t wear any religious symbols either, which essentially means Muslim women with face veils won’t be allowed to use buses.

"It’s a move that trounces on religious freedom in the name of religious neutrality and creates far more problems than it solves.

The law, which “grandfathers in” whatever people wear now while prohibiting new hires and people in new positions from wearing the same religious symbols, was championed by premier François Legault. Critics say it will effectively block Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and other people who are required by their faith to wear certain symbols from advancing in their careers or taking on these government jobs.

The law also includes a clause that immunizes it from legal action… which is a thing they can do.

The notwithstanding clause, officially called Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows provincial or federal authorities to override certain sections of the charter for a period of five years.

“It’s not a small thing. It’s a big decision. But sometimes, in order to protect collective rights, we have to use it. I think we have to protect our collective identity,” Legault said, pointing out the clause has been invoked numerous times by different premiers.

“To separate religion and politics is important in Quebec.”
source and more

Being an atheist, I am normally on the side of separation of church and state. But this bill reeks. I can see perhaps not allowing a government worker to wear religious symbols while at work. outside that environment, what they do is their business.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Why, an upside down upside down cross, of course (gotta be destinct from St. Peters and Satans cross, afterall).:cool:


Thats not an atheist symbol is it? I thought it was angels who wore them... Hells angels, very religious bunch.

There was a guy at college who had one on a huge linked chain around his neck. He was asked not to wear if because it offended people. One law for christians, another for antichristians.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Thats not an atheist symbol is it? I thought it was angels who wore them... Hells angels, very religious bunch.

There was a guy at college who had one on a huge linked chain around his neck. He was asked not to wear if because it offended people. One law for christians, another for antichristians.

Laws should be the same for everyone.

Question... How did his huge linked chain offend any one?

Disregard my question. I see now you were talking about a upside down cross on a chain.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Most people arent " flaunting" it, and you probably wont even notice a cross that's worn around the neck anyways. I can see some restrictions against full-face coverings, but a Sihks turban is actually pretty important to them, it causes no real bother or harm to anyone, and it alone isn't promoting their religion.
I probably did go to an extreme word that I didn't need to use, but it was to make a point. Which is that wearing anything at all, unless worn explicitly for your own peace of mind or benefit, is flaunting it either to the people around you or to God. Even if it is only to appease some mandate or achieve some level of "respect" for God, you are then wearing it so that God can know you are wearing it. If you're wearing it for your own benefit, then fine. Otherwise, I would argue it is a form of flaunting.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Laws should be the same for everyone.

Question... How did his huge linked chain offend any one?

Disregard my question. I see now you were talking about a upside down cross on a chain.

It was, the complaint was christian who wax proud to wear a crucifix. He could not see the hypocrisy
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I probably did go to an extreme word that I didn't need to use, but it was to make a point. Which is that wearing anything at all, unless worn explicitly for your own peace of mind or benefit, is flaunting it either to the people around you or to God. Even if it is only to appease some mandate or achieve some level of "respect" for God, you are then wearing it so that God can know you are wearing it. If you're wearing it for your own benefit, then fine. Otherwise, I would argue it is a form of flaunting.
If a Catholic walks in with an iced rosary you'd have a point. If you can't see a yarmulke without thinking "he's flaunting his religion" that's all on you.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
If a Catholic walks in with an iced rosary you'd have a point. If you can't see a yarmulke without thinking "he's flaunting his religion" that's all on you.
They are at least showing off to a God they think exists, unless, as I said, they wear it only for themselves. How can you deny this?
 
Top