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

Evangelicalhumanist said:

I think that one should look at that one quote from the OP, and then give a little thought to the history of Quebec.

Up until the 1960s, much of what happened in Quebec, especially in medicine and social programs, was the strict purview of the Catholic Church. As a result, Quebec often struggled to keep with the rest of Canada (aka TROC), economically, socially, in matters of education, and quite a bit more. Even much economic activity, especially around the province's natural resources, were developed and controlled by foreign investors.

This led to something that we now refer to as "The Quiet Revolution," or "La Révolution Tranquille" which has put the province on quite a resolute and increasingly popular path to complete secularization.

I'm not arguing for the bill, here, I'm merely trying to give some perspective on the political background of the province that has adopted the bill. Quebec, for that reason, would not be a particularly good place for Muslims, for example, to start pressing for Shariah Law. Snowballs have significantly more chance of survival in Hell than that would.

Click to expand...

SugarOcean said:

Too bad Canada abdicated religious freedom.
Those afraid of the religious are happy of course. For now.
Thank God I don't live in Canada anymore.

Click to expand...

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Just a point of clarification. Quebec is only one province in Canada...Canada did not abdicate religious freedom.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

I know next to nothing of Canadian politics, but don't they have a rough equivalent of our Supreme Court? I would hope that this bill runs contrary to their constitution.

Click to expand...

Evangelicalhumanist said:

All of our provinces have high courts, and of course Canada has a Supreme Court. It will take some time for all of this to work through the system.

Our Constitution, however, provides something called the "Notwithstanding Clause," in which the government can enact a law that appears to violate the Charter of Rights, for a 5 year period, after which it must invoke the clause again...which of course then becomes a political issue that voters can weigh in on. Do it wrong, and governments get tossed out...sometimes a very good thing.

Click to expand...

lostwanderingsoul said:

What about Mormons who have special underwear? Will they have to take it off?

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

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​

Click to expand...

lostwanderingsoul said:

But atheists can wear anything they want.

Click to expand...

shmogie said:

What happens when there are no ironclad rights for the people.

Click to expand...

Shad said:

Yup. Canada's government grants it's citizens rights. As always people need to cross their fingers in the hope that "benevolent" people are in power.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

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​

Click to expand...

Shadow Wolf said:

Yup. The highly religious but officially secular US compared to the pfficially religious yet far more secular in practice Europe really does show it doesnt matter how things are run on paper.

Click to expand...

Shadow Wolf said:

Here is what flaunt actually means:
flaunt
/flônt,flänt/
verb
display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
So, again, if you see a yarmulke and think "he's flaunting his religion," that's all on you because he's not flaunting it.

Click to expand...

A Vestigial Mote said:

Fine, we'll go with "enthusiastically displaying". How's that?

Click to expand...

Shadow Wolf said:

Still no, and still very much at a " get over yourself" level.

Click to expand...

A Vestigial Mote said:

So, they're not intensely interested, nor intensely enjoy, nor intensely approve of their wearing the items.

Click to expand...

Shadow Wolf said:

Its causing them no harm, so they can bugger off and mind their own business.

Click to expand...

lostwanderingsoul said:

I bet if someone wore a cross they would be told to remove it.

Click to expand...

A Vestigial Mote said:

Just "displaying?"

Click to expand...