CAQ's Bill 21 ban on wearing religious symbols

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I'll be honest with you. Meaningful opposition to Bill 21 can only come from the people of Québec. Anything else is just noise which will, at best, have a negative effect here. Once the notwithstanding clause is invoked, this becomes a matter of purely provincial jurisdiction. Wish us well!

I agree with this completely.

I agree. If the three of us agree that is saying something. 

Outside pressure will only lead CAQ and Quebec to dig in its heels. The grandfather clause is because years ago a poll was taken that showed people in favor of the law but against people losing their jobs. There is a lack of understanding rather than militancy. School boards have already stated they will not be respecting the law. Support for the law where it matters is very soft. How are they going to enforce it when a hijab wearing woman gets a promotion or is hired? Or one is hired who doesn't wear it and begins to. It would be a real indignity to force a woman to remove her hijab for the day. It isn't like wearing a cross which can be concealed. How is hijab defined? Will cancer patients be unable to wear head scarves or turbans? 

lagatta4

Technically, it doesn't affect "religious minorities" but those among the minorities who wear conspicuous signs or garments. Which doesn't make it better, but it is important to be precise here. Most Muslim women in Québec don't wear the hijab.

By the way, for decades, women in Tunisia were forbidden to wear the hijab if they were students (university as well as lower levels where students are usually minors) or civil servants. So there it was the majority faith that was affected. Many Sephardic women wear a kind of snood; I don't know whether Jewish Tunisians were affected but the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. I don't think the kinds of skullcaps some Muslim and some Jewish men wear (not exactly the same style) were ever banned; the ban was based on the headscarf being a sign of the oppression of women.

Now in theory there is utter freedom, however conservative religious figures pressure women to cover, and of course they could also be pressured by family members (usually men, but sometimes women).

Getting back to Québec, QS get smeared as covert Liberals (rather absurd considering all our protests not only about the tuition fee hikes but also government collusion and corruption) so we get a lot of pressure in all directions.

Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:

Pariah was a bit strong, but becoming an international embarrassment is the only thing that will stop this bill. I will continue attending the protests but no amount of protest from minorities and anglo/allophones will do anything. The CAQ doesn't care what we think, but at least the Liberal and PQ governments seemed to be really sensitive to being made fun of in the international press.

A stream of articles comparing Legault to Donald Trump, saying that Legault is banning certain religious minorities from certain jobs, something even Trump has never done, could shame enough people. Unlikely but you gotta have hope.

In Quebec it is more likely to cause a flare up of garrison mentality and even more resentment against visible minorities. 

We need to protest and to support workers being discriminated against, support legal challenges. Protest Valerie Plante announcing Montreal will respect the law. If the city refuses to bow down Legault cannot enforce the law. Internal resistence and humanization of the issue is the wisest path forward. If shaming worked this wouldn't be happening after Herouxville. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta4 wrote:

Technically, it doesn't affect "religious minorities" but those among the minorities who wear conspicuous signs or garments. Which doesn't make it better, but it is important to be precise here. Most Muslim women in Québec don't wear the hijab.

By the way, for decades, women in Tunisia were forbidden to wear the hijab if they were students (university as well as lower levels where students are usually minors) or civil servants. So there it was the majority faith that was affected. Many Sephardic women wear a kind of snood; I don't know whether Jewish Tunisians were affected but the law targeted the Muslim headscarf. I don't think the kinds of skullcaps some Muslim and some Jewish men wear (not exactly the same style) were ever banned; the ban was based on the headscarf being a sign of the oppression of women.

Growing up in the '50's all the Italian and Ukrainian immigrant women in our city always wore a headscarf when they went out in public. I am sure it all stems from some quote about covering ones hair for modesty reasons from that evil book shared by the big three Western religions .

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I agree. If the three of us agree that is saying something. 

Indeed.

But if this ever passes (science forbid), I don't see "enforcement" as being a huge problem - unless the CAQ lets that idiot say "we'll call the police" again:

Pondering wrote:

How are they going to enforce it when a hijab wearing woman gets a promotion or is hired?

They tell her to not wear the hijab at work. If she insists, they send her home / discipline her. Exactly as they would do today if someone wore a "Support the Liberal Party!" t-shirt, or came to work naked. This is not a problem.

Pondering wrote:

Or one is hired who doesn't wear it and begins to.

Same answer as above.

Pondering wrote:

It would be a real indignity to force a woman to remove her hijab for the day. It isn't like wearing a cross which can be concealed.

I wouldn't know how women feel about wearing a hijab, or people who wear crosses. I think the indignity factor would be a rather individual and personal matter. But that certainly wouldn't affect enforceability.

Quote:

How is hijab defined? Will cancer patients be unable to wear head scarves or turbans? 

Why should "hijab" be defined? It's not mentioned in the bill. Nor are head scarves nor turbans nor kippahs nor crosses... Whether or not something is a "religious symbol" will depend on the circumstances. If a person says, "This may look like a religious symbol to you, but it isn't for me - I'm wearing it for medical reasons", they could be expected to provide a credible medical note to that effect - the same way sick leave or disability accommodation is "enforced" at present.

Where I foresee problems in enforcement is if a person comes to work in a fedora hat (to concoct an example), which doesn't appear to have any religious significance - but it could satisfy the requirements of some religions to keep one's head covered. The institution would need to have some rule saying "don't cover your head while at work", and that rule would need to pass muster as a bona fide occupation requirement. There will be grey areas. Especially if it's my hat, and my hair.

Unionist

'It is our duty to speak up': Montreal city council passes unanimous declaration against Bill 21

It's extremely rare to see such a unanimous declaration. Bravo to Projet Montréal and the opposition councillors.

Unionist

"The government is going to remove people's rights without any proof there is any problem," says QS secularism critic Sol Zanetti.

Quote:

The Legault government should do its homework and demonstrate how public employees wearing religious symbols compromise the neutrality of the state, Québec solidaire said on Monday.

The opposition party criticized the absence of statistics to buttress the government’s rationale for Bill 21, even as its proposed ban of religious symbols has become a flash point for debate in Quebec.

QS also contends that Premier François Legault falsely claimed last week that Quebec drew inspiration from Morocco for its ban on religious symbols worn by civil servants in positions of authority — a definition the government has decided includes teachers. There is no ban on religious symbols in Morocco.

“We’re really seeing an approach that is very ideological, very dogmatic, in which there’s very little place for science, and that’s been a trademark of this government from the very beginning,” Sol Zanetti told the Presse Canadienne.

“We’re coming up with solutions to problems that have not been demonstrated,” he said. The Coalition Avenir Québec government “is playing sorcerer’s apprentice with people’s rights, and that isn’t right.”

Sean in Ottawa

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No matter what Trudeau does on this file it will be a gamble but not a certain loss.

Consider this: Quebec is not a monolith. The Liberals are in a bit of trouble there like anywhere else in the country. Standing up against the bill could play well in the seats the Liberals have the best chance of holding. The losses may be limited. Better yet, without standing up the losses could be to Conservatives. this way the loss may be to BQ which is better than a loss to the Conservatives when it comes to government, especially since it might allow the Liberals to get a plurality in some seats that split three or more ways.  Also Trudeau might gain just a little more support outside Quebec by taking on the bill. supporters of the Bill outside Quebec are not potential Liberal voters. also Trudeau may have a problem if he does not stand against the Bill -- leaving that to the NDP is more dangerous. It may be a minority but if the support in favour of the Bill is split and the support against the Bill only has the NDP, this is helpful to the NDP.

So I can see the argument for Trudeau to take a stand.

I can also see the hesitation -- there are some seats he would lose. Still, I think the pluses outweight the negatives.

The key is not to think about what works for the whole population. The choice in campaigns is to consider the subset that would consider voting for you. I think that those in favour of this bill are already tilting away from Trudeau so there is no sense trying to please them by staying out of the debate rather than playing to those against the bill who are more likely to vote Liberal anyway.

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

Trudeau isn't going to condemn this because this is the new political climate around the Western world. He could condemn it and make  some people happy or he can keep his mouth shut and not get the stink of these White Nationalistic crowds. Either way he's fucked. This is the new wedge issue. Scheer's Cons are going to ride that into the election, count on it.

Bacchus

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean, I'm disappointed that in a lengthy passage on this issue, you did nothing but calculate the political advantages of taking a stand. This isn't about building a bridge or increasing the sales tax. This is about a piece of legislation which not only infringes on freedom of religion, but does so very deliberately in such a way as to divide people and stoke the fires of xenophobia. Everyone must condemn it.

I have condemned it -- I did not realize that I have to do this in every post including one about a discussion of the calculations of another party that I do not support and never have. Should I include this caveat in every single post I do regarding the Liberals?

I think you would also have to conclude that I was a Liberal as well to see it this way. I don't think you can or should see every post as a single complete conversation.

I have also spoken about the issue of secularism and that I do not think this is at all secularism but actually the opposite. I did not include that either.

But it is true I did take for granted that after almost 16 years of being here I would not have to repeat positions like this every time.

This is by far not the first post I have written on this topic..

I admit it is a new one on me calling people out for what they did not write in a post...

You know, Sean, you spend so much time talking that you could take a breath and just listen sometime.

I'm not talking about you condemning Bill 21. Of course I bloody well know you're not a Liberal, and I friggin' well know that you could never support Bill 21.

I'm talking about Trudeau condemning Bill 21.

Trudeau must condemn Bill 21. Regardless of what it means to his seat count.

It's a matter of pure principle for all human beings.

That's what I was talking about.

Let me know if I need to say this again. Or better yet, apologize for reading what I said and thinking the worst and then writing at top speed and hitting "Save".

 

 

Were he going to do it on principle, he would already have done so

Pondering

https://globalnews.ca/news/5106035/quebec-religious-symbols-bill-charter-rights/

(last update March 28th)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about the bill just before it was tabled on Thursday, saying he plans to carefully study its contents before commenting further.

“Canada, and indeed Quebec, are places where we are a secular society, we respect deeply people’s rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. It is unthinkable to me that in a free society, we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,”

It seems to me Trudeau did condemn the bill quite some time ago. 

That is not a defence of Trudeau it is just a fact. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-mayor-who-compared-quebec-bill-to-ethnic-cleansing-should-apologize-1.4373824

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, Trudeau repeated his opposition to Bill 21 but said Hampstead Mayor William Steinberg's comments were unacceptable and that the mayor needs to apologize.

"We don't need to go to extremes," Trudeau said. "We can debate the bill without going too far. There are people who are extremely worried by this bill, and I understand them. But we shouldn't use words like that."

 

Unionist

Quote:

The proposed law sets the province’s right-leaning Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government on a collision course with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who promotes religious freedom, in a federal election year with a Quebec a vital battleground.

“It is unthinkable to me that in a free society we would legitimize discrimination against citizens based on their religion,” Trudeau told reporters in Halifax on Thursday.

That was March 28 - just before the bill was tabled, though everyone knew the basic outlines. I don't know what, if anything, he has said since - perhaps others can fill in the gap?

 

Pages