Quebec to ban public employees from wearing religious symbols

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Quebec to ban public employees from wearing religious symbols

Reuters in Ottawa
Thu 28 Mar 2019 17.49 GMT Last modified on Thu 28 Mar 2019 20.19 GMT

The Canadian province of Quebec will ban public sector employees from wearing religious symbols during work hours, in legislation introduced on Thursday, a controversial move that critics say targets Muslim women who wear hijabs or other head coverings.

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

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

The legislation, which is expected to pass, will cover public workers in positions of authority, including teachers, judges and police officers. It exempts current government employees and civil servants in the mainly French-speaking province.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/28/trudeau-criticises-quebec-plan-to-ban-religious-symbols-on-state-employees

[greymattermom]

1. Hmmm

what about Orthodox Jewish women who wear wigs? This could get complicated.

[Mariana]

2. Well, wigs aren't exclusively a religious symbol.

People wear wigs for lots of different reasons. On the other hand, the only reason to wear, say, a visible cross necklace is to make sure other people know that the wearer is a Christian.

[edhopper]

15. Except the law obviously targets

hijabs. If scarfs are considered religious symbols, so are wigs.

[MineralMan]

3. Sacrebleu!

[guillaumeb]

13. D'accord.

[trotsky]

4. "legitimise discrimination against citizens based on their religion"

How does it this discriminate, though?

How is it different than, for instance, telling a DMV employee in the US that they can't wear their red MAGA hat to work?

[marylandblue]

5. In the US, we have separation of church and state

Which means to me that we should take no notice of religious clothing one way or the other. But we don't have separation of politics and state, which would be impossible.

We do have civil service rules which makes civil servants non-political employees of political leaders. This insulates the basic functions of government from political manipulation. Wearing a MAGA hat would defeat this purpose.

[trotsky]

7. So if a Christian wore a Westboro Baptist style shirt...

like "REPENT OR BURN" - would that be OK?

[marylandblue]

9. IMO that would cross the line into proselytizing, so not okay.

[trotsky]

16. "IMO" being the key words.

Just seems like a big ol' mess and all because we're supposed to give special privileges to religion.

[marylandblue]

17. We have people who render these opinions professionally

They are called judges. They've already decided a lot of these cases.

[trotsky]

18. No need to get snarky.

I am well aware of the role of judges in interpreting the law.

I am also well aware of religious privilege and the problems it causes.

[marylandblue]

19. Sorry, sometimes my humor falls flat. No offense intended.

My point is that society is full of conflicts about where we draw lines. We have to draw them somewhere and no matter we draw it, it will be more or less fuzzy, ever shifting, and people will fight over it.

[Pope George Ringo II]

11. The frank truth is that some things really aren't that offensive, some are.

The question is where to draw the line, considering intent, custom, and visibility. Something like this strikes me as (possibly among other motives) an effort to just take a "zero tolerance" approach and group the lot of them together. I have a certain sympathy here as I would hate to be the person drawing a line through religious expression on what is acceptable and what is not, and simply excluding all of it at work is probably not all that different from excluding none of it.

[Eugene]

6. ...or a Jewish skullcap. They've tried that too.

The ban can't be divorced from the right-wing animus behind it. Freedom of religion is generally understood to make reasonable accommodations to the faithful. The U.S. military does make these concessions, and that came after a fight.

[trotsky]

8. It is tough for me, as a non-believer, to see why religious privilege should be granted for this.

Plus it's a very tough line to draw as to what level of proselytization is or is not acceptable.

[marylandblue]

10. Just because it is a tough line to draw, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't draw it.

And it's not religious privilege if you are also allowed to wear a hat or scarf for non religious purposes.

[Major Nikon]

14. One of those things is religious discrimination, one isn't

Provided there’s no law against it, employers are free to discriminate all they want. Technically they can still discriminate all they want anyway provided they are paying the settlements that result.

Some religious discrimination is allowed by law. Let’s say your employer needs you to work the sabbath but your imaginary friend says you can’t. Your employer can fire you with no recourse provided there was no way to reasonably accommodate you as requested.

[guillaumeb]

12. The CAQ Party is very far right.

But even former Québéc PM Pauline Marois, of the Parti Québécois, (PQ) proposed essentially the same law that also just happened to target Muslims.

Edited to add:

CAQ translates to Coalition for the future of Québéc.