Religious Wear Ban In Quebec Under Fire At Canadian Premiers Meeting

[Economy 52,842]

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/pipelines-to-be-a-key-focus-on-final-day-of-premiers-meeting-1.1285620

 

The Province of Quebec recently announced a ban on religious Wear for all public workers, something the rest of Canada and even some in Quebec itself have a hard time swallowing

 

Among other things discussed like pipeline issues at a meeting involving several Provincial Premiers, the Province of Manitoba plans to directly challange the ban face to face with its premier

 

Quebec is the centre of fire from other Provinces as Alberta and Saskatchewan express frustration that Quebec excepts large amounts of money from equalization payment program but then opposes resource development that largely pays for it and won't allow pipelines on its land that

[Economy 52,842]

Just one day in my life can I see this Country United???? Will that ever happen?????

[Karl 3,575]

Low key here for this, cult worshipping shouldn't be something that's encouraged, in your own home and stuff fine but you don't need your cross at work. 

[Economy 52,842]

Just now, Karl said:

Low key here for this, cult worshipping shouldn't be something that's encouraged, in your own home and stuff fine but you don't need your cross at work. 

How is it encouraging it? are people somehow going to convert religions or start becoming religious because someone else is wearing a cross?

 

It's not harming anyone so why can't they wear what they want?

[REALITY 80,162]

I know this is a very unpopular opinion here, but I frankly think it's stupid that people are so adament that others not wear their own religious clothing/garments.

If people want to be able to wear something that is meant to be for their religion, then let them. I also know that this is an unpopular opinion, but some people here need to stop acting like every single religious person is some evil homophobic, transphobic, xenephobic, racist, sexist person. If they are not harming anyone, then who cares? Let people live with the religion they want to believe in/worship. 

[Economy 52,842]

11 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

I know this is a very unpopular opinion here, but I frankly think it's stupid that people are so adament that others not wear their own religious clothing/garments.

If people want to be able to wear something that is meant to be for their religion, then let them. I also know that this is an unpopular opinion, but some people here need to stop acting like every single religious person is some evil homophobic, transphobic, xenephobic, racist, sexist person. If they are not harming anyone, then who cares? Let people live with the religion they want to believe in/worship. 

This!

 

Religion is very hated and generalized here on GGD tho. Ironic that a forum that claims to be so accepting can also be so prejudice

 

The bad stuff on the news from religion or religious people does not represent every individual religious person

 

I'm somewhat religious myself (not very, but a little) and tbh I feel like on this site I can't say it openly without criticism

 

Ppl are entitled to their opinions. But being so triggered by what someone else is wearing that does not affect anyone else what's so ever is just outright intolerance tbh

[ilocorB 548]

I hate this. This is a law made by and only supported by the people who live in tiny towns where everyone is white. The only city that has lots of diversity  is Montreal and most of us here don’t approve this law, the mayor also said she was against it. I hate my province!!!

[Didymus 34,380]

We have bigger ****ing fish to fry than to invent unnecessary and unfair rules for how people should dress in public

I hope that ban gets destroyed.

[Florian 20,017]

I really don't get why people are offended about that law.

Many companies doesn't allow employees to wear shorts, caps, sunglasses, ripped jeans, ... And nobody care. I don't get why people are acting differently when it comes to religion.

If your company wants neutrality when it comes to this then be it. And especially when you're a representative of the State I don't find it shocking if they're enforced to neutrality on their shifts

 

[REALITY 80,162]

1 hour ago, Florian said:

I really don't get why people are offended about that law.

Many companies doesn't allow employees to wear shorts, caps, sunglasses, ripped jeans, ... And nobody care. I don't get why people are acting differently when it comes to religion.

If your company wants neutrality when it comes to this then be it. And especially when you're a representative of the State I don't find it shocking if they're enforced to neutrality on their shifts

 

Your comparison doesn't make sense. Shorts, caps, sunglsses, and ripped jeans are just pieces of clothing/accessories that aren't necessities. For many religious people, their garments/clothes are  necessities to them. You may not agree with their religion or their practices, sure, but you also can't deny the their right to practice the religion they want to practice. If that means wearing a head scraf or any kind of other material, then so be it. 

You can also be a religious person and be a neutral figure in the company...Unless you're forcefully converting other costumers or other people in the work space, then it's absolutely fine. 

[Didymus 34,380]

2 minutes ago, Florian said:

I really don't get why people are offended about that law.

Many companies doesn't allow employees to wear shorts, caps, sunglasses, ripped jeans, ... And nobody care. I don't get why people are acting differently when it comes to religion.

If your company wants neutrality when it comes to this then be it. And especially when you're a representative of the State I don't find it shocking if they're enforced to neutrality on their shifts

The problem is in the definition of neutrality. Like, why is a headscarf not neutral? Why is a rainbow badge not neutral? Doesn't the West supposedly (I laugh) represent freedom of expression, religion,... So how is any of that a breach of neutrality?

A forced cliché of "neutrality" is also not neutral imo.

[LadyGagasGodSon 413]

As an Edmontonian living (and voting) in Montreal I can say that Canadian politics has been giving me a headache lately  Kenney just disbanded SGA’s in schools and allows outing of gay kids to their parents without the kids’ consent. And Legault... let’s not pretend his target is the cross! There’s a reason the religious symbols ban bill was passed at the same time as the bill for reducing immigration quotas in QC. I work and do my MA in TESL, and between me who wears a cross necklace and a colleague who wears a hijab, who will be more impacted??? Not me because I’m wearing heritage symbol 

[Economy 52,842]

8 minutes ago, Florian said:

I really don't get why people are offended about that law.

Many companies doesn't allow employees to wear shorts, caps, sunglasses, ripped jeans, ... And nobody care. I don't get why people are acting differently when it comes to religion.

If your company wants neutrality when it comes to this then be it. And especially when you're a representative of the State I don't find it shocking if they're enforced to neutrality on their shifts

 

What's not neutral about some pieces of clothing? It's not affecting anyone else what's so ever

 

If the worker started preaching about his or her religion, that's a completely different matter

 

But wearing a head scarf or a symbol, why does that have to impact anyone at all????? If it means a lot to those Individuals to wear those things why ban it???

 

Breaking neutrality would be preaching of one's religion or witholding marriage permits for example for gay couples which happened in one of the states of America a couple years back

 

But a piece of clothing does not shuve their religion to someone's face in anyway

[Economy 52,842]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The problem is in the definition of neutrality. Like, why is a headscarf not neutral? Why is a rainbow badge not neutral? Doesn't the West supposedly (I laugh) represent freedom of expression, religion,... So how is any of that a breach of neutrality?

A forced cliché of "neutrality" is also not neutral imo.

Quebec has been problematic for freedom of religion on multiple occasions

 

For Muslims there's been a lot of debate there about banning their head wear

 

For general immigrants especially of religious immigrants the province doesn't want them (they are trying to get out of their immigration quota)

 

And in the past many decades ago they tried to ban Jehovah's Witnesses which the Supreme Court of Canada said was unconstitutional

[Economy 52,842]

27 minutes ago, ilocorB said:

I hate this. This is a law made by and only supported by the people who live in tiny towns where everyone is white. The only city that has lots of diversity  is Montreal and most of us here don’t approve this law, the mayor also said she was against it. I hate my province!!!

I know Montreal is different from most of Quebec. For example few there support seperation like much of Quebec does

 

I've also gotten a lot of bad and unwelcomed treatment in parts of Quebec for being an English Canadian. I never felt so prejudiced against in my life

 

But in Montreal I never got that