Quebec's Religious Wear Ban! Federal Party Leader Says He Wants To Defy It

[Economy 52,861]

Came across this after the issue came up tho this already happened weeks ago

 

Canada's Left-Wing NDP Party Leader Jagmeet Sing (3rd largest party) proudly wears his turban and has been a vocal critic of Quebec's ban on religious wear in public sector jobs

 

 

He went to Quebec to speak out against it and says his presence is a defince to the law

 

In reality the defiance is more symbolic than technical. Sing does not live in Quebec and he does not work for the Quebec Government and as such the law doesn't technically apply to him

[Economy 52,861]

Related to what we were talking about. I only found this news because of the topic discussion we were having on GGD

 

@OBEY @Faysalaaa @DeanWinchester @Florian

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

I mean if it applies to all religious clothing it shouldn't be a big deal. There is no discrimination in theory 

[Gabe 2,587]

9 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

I mean if it applies to all religious clothing it shouldn't be a big deal. There is no discrimination in theory 

That is exactly what it is. I live in the province of Quebec and ~85% of the people support the legislation. Montreal much less (where I am). 

 

[Nicogly 2,579]

always a pattern on who gets triggered by these things

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

9 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

I mean if it applies to all religious clothing it shouldn't be a big deal. There is no discrimination in theory 

Except that they equate Sikh turbans, Jewish kippas/yamakas and female Muslim hijabs with cross necklaces. They are inherently discriminatory as they prevent certain individuals who in Canada's case are brown people from entering government positions. As good as the idea of separation of church and state is, actively discriminating against religious people for articles of faith is not the way to go about it.  

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

5 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

Except that they equate Sikh turbans, Jewish kippas/yamakas and female Muslim hijabs with cross necklaces

Genuine question: why shouldn't they be equated though?

5 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

they prevent certain individuals who in Canada's case are brown people from entering government positions

Not all south Asians are Sikh though?

In any case, that's why I said "in theory".

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

Just now, DeanWinchester said:

Genuine question: why shouldn't they be equated though?

Not all south Asians are Sikh though?

In any case, that's why I said "in theory".

As a Sikh I will tell you that a turban is central to our identity. It does not carry the same weight as a Christian deciding to wear their cross one day or I would argue when even a Muslim woman puts on her hijab. I would suggest you research more about Sikhism and its history to truly understand how important the turban is to the religion.

In Canada an overwhelming number of South Asians are punjabi and Sikh. The law disproportionately affects them thus making it discriminatory in practice and in the case of xenophobia from the politicians and people supporting this law across Quebec in theory as well.

[Economy 52,861]

7 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

Genuine question: why shouldn't they be equated though?

Not all south Asians are Sikh though?

In any case, that's why I said "in theory".

 

14 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

Except that they equate Sikh turbans, Jewish kippas/yamakas and female Muslim hijabs with cross necklaces. They are inherently discriminatory as they prevent certain individuals who in Canada's case are brown people from entering government positions. As good as the idea of separation of church and state is, actively discriminating against religious people for articles of faith is not the way to go about it.  

I think there's also the issue that sometimes religion and culture can also overlap to a large extent

 

Something can be religious at its root but also become cultural

 

I had a girl in my grade 10 class who liked to wear the head cover sometimes (she didn't wear it everyday) cuz she said she likes to honour her culture even tho she wasn't religious herself

 

I think when u get to grey areas that overlap with culture and religion a ban can be problematic too for that reason

 

Another simple argument to make against bans is, why the heck does it matter anyway? Whose it gonna affect? Ppl wearing something is not them forcing their religion on you

 

It might be a big deal to the ppl that can't wear what they want but it doesn't affect others at all what's so ever.

[Gabe 2,587]

Anyway everyone theres no point debating this. Even if the Supreme Court finds it discriminatory Quebec will use the notwithstanding clause to override them. Thats what they did with native English speakers- and they'll do it again. 

[Economy 52,861]

1 minute ago, Gabe said:

Anyway everyone theres no point debating this. Even if the Supreme Court finds it discriminatory Quebec will use the notwithstanding clause to override them. Thats what they did with native English speakers- and they'll do it again. 

How does that work?

 

I know in the 1940s there was a ban on a Christian denomination in Quebec (I think it was Jehovah's Witnesses) and the Supre Court forced them to roll back the ban

 

So the Supre Court at least sometimes must carry some weight

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

 

I think there's also the issue that sometimes religion and culture can also overlap to a large extent

 

Something can be religious at its root but also become cultural

 

I had a girl in my grade 10 class who liked to wear the head cover sometimes (she didn't wear it everyday) cuz she said she likes to honour her culture even tho she wasn't religious herself

 

I think when u get to grey areas that overlap with culture and religion a ban can be problematic too for that reason

 

Another simple argument to make against bans is, why the heck does it matter anyway? Whose it gonna affect? Ppl wearing something is not them forcing their religion on you

Exactly why I don't understand the reasoning behind it. Hence why it seems to be discriminatory in theory as well. And this is true. Because the turban is so symbolic imo it means something more than just Sikh religion and has come to represent Sikh and punjabi culture at large. If I were to apply to a government position in Quebec wearing the turban as an atheist punjabi, would it still be considered an article of faith? 

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

2 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

As a Sikh I will tell you that a turban is central to our identity. It does not carry the same weight as a Christian deciding to wear their cross one day or I would argue when even a Muslim woman puts on her hijab. I would suggest you research more about Sikhism and its history to truly understand how important the turban is to the religion.

In Canada an overwhelming number of South Asians are punjabi and Sikh. The law disproportionately affects them thus making it discriminatory in practice and in the case of xenophobia from the politicians and people supporting this law across Quebec in theory as well.

First I must thank you for actually taking time to explain it to me. I appreciate that I got an answer.

Back on topic, I recall France having the same law several years back. Was something ever done to resolve the dispute on that? Maybe it can provide some way in addressing this? Because I don't come from a religion/culture that must wear specific items, I do not feel as strong about it as others do. I feel like this is the classic case of religion vs patriotism conflicts that are common in many scenarios. As a government official, your role is to serve and enact the law regardless of your ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. so I could see what the law is aiming for, but I suppose in hindsight it does affect certain communities much more.

[Gabe 2,587]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

How does that work?

 

I know in the 1940s there was a ban on a Christian denomination in Quebec (I think it was Jehovah's Witnesses) and the Supre Court forced them to roll back the ban

 

So the Supre Court at least sometimes must carry some weight

They don't *really*- I studied judicial politics- its a bit complicated but ill explain quickly. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the notwithstanding clause allows any province to overrule a court ruling (even on human rights grounds). Its very rarely used and frowned upon. Quebec is the culprit usually- the current government straight up said they were going to use it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

[Economy 52,861]

2 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

First I must thank you for actually taking time to explain it to me. I appreciate that I got an answer.

Back on topic, I recall France having the same law several years back. Was something ever done to resolve the dispute on that? Maybe it can provide some way in addressing this? Because I don't come from a religion/culture that must wear specific items, I do not feel as strong about it as others do. I feel like this is the classic case of religion vs patriotism conflicts that are common in many scenarios. As a government official, your role is to serve and enact the law regardless of your ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. so I could see what the law is aiming for, but I suppose in hindsight it does affect certain communities much more.

I just don't see how what ppl wear would hinder this tho

 

The Government gives ppl a lot more leeway than they used to in Government positions...

 

Like a male teacher using pearcings or long hair used to be a big nono... Having tattoos as a teller for government services probably would work against u

 

The Government no longer cares half as much about how their representatives dress in many ways as they used to. It's up to the individual and what they feel they wanna be seen as their identity

 

Not sure why if something is religious suddenly it's provocative

 

If it's something offensive, or even dangerous (say a dagger) I get it... or an extreme version of face covering like the burqua where u can't even see who you are talking to, I can support bans on specific types of wear on those grounds

 

But that's not overwhelming majority of cases tho