this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
145 points (93.9% liked)

Canada

9078 readers
1721 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada’s largest Muslim organisation is outraged over a bill introduced by the Quebec government that would ban headscarves for school support staff and students.

“In Quebec, we made the decision that state and the religion are separate,” said Education Minister Bernard Drainville, CBC News reported. “And today, we say the public schools are separate from religion.”

But the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), who are challenging in the Supreme Court the original bill that forbids religious symbols being worn by teachers, say the new bill is another infringement on their rights and unfairly targets hijab-wearing Muslims.

“This renewed attack on the fundamental rights of our community is just one of several recent actions taken by this historically unpopular government to bolster their poll numbers by attacking the rights of Muslim Canadians,” the NCCM said in a social media post.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I don't think this law bans all hijab but just the niqab which is the one that also covers the face and is generally seen as fundamentalist in most Muslim countries. The bill itself says face and not head covering. Not to say that this entire bill isn't driven by some level of xenophobia (Christian symbols and holidays are seen as heritage/culture while non-Christian ones are seen purely as religious etc)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rex_meatman@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Eliminate tax free status of ALL religions. Fine and charge all public displays of religion that are outside of their own properties, be it private or congregations. So sick and tired of seeing our laws bend to include or exclude religions. It’s a wonder that after 3000 some years that the Abrahamics still have this much pull.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (6 children)

The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees freedom of religion. That means freedom to worship in private or public. Unless you're planning on bending the constitution, you can't remove public display of religion in Canada.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] blunderworld@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (16 children)

I think this is wrong. I get that the hijab is complicated ethically, as it's expected of Muslim women. Wether or not it's consensual is debatable, sure.

I've also spoken to Muslim women who claim to be wearing it voluntarily, because it makes them feel less objectified and more comfortable in their own skin. It's also a connection to their cultural and religious background, which is important. As a non-Muslim, I don't really think I'm qualified to argue. I don't think it should be the provincial government's decision either. At the end of the day, it's a piece of cloth... What does it really hurt?

When I lived in Quebec, I saw plenty of Christian religious symbols. Will removing those be enforced as well?

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

The social implications of veiling are an interesting and complex topic. Unfortunately, public discourse tends to be pretty bad at handling complex topics. But there are occasional moments of lucidity. To wit:

Sometime around 2015 or so we had a big political debate in Germany. Some politicians were floating the idea of a "burqa ban" (= a flat ban on all forms of Islamic face veiling). For a while it was seriously debated but it ultimately failed as most Germans considered it to violate freedom of religion.

The media were actually helpful – at least the publicly funded ones were. One particularly interesting report I saw was when a female reporter put on full veils (and correctly identified what she was wearing as a niqab, not a burqa) and went out in public. First with a hidden camera to see how she was treated, then with a camera team to get vox pops.

Opinions were actually fairly divided even among Muslims. One male Muslim argued that face veils always are inherently oppressive and have no place in society. A young woman (who was wearing nothing indicating her religion) expressed admiration for those who fully veil and hoped that one day she'd be able to as well. An old woman wearing a headscarf who was carrying groceries said that she did wear the niqab "but not right now; I have things to do".

That diversity of views has stuck with me, especially that last statement. I never expected someone who observes such full veiling to be so pragmatic about it. (Yes, that does go against the reasons for wearing them in the first place but everybody tailors their religion to themself.) If wearing any kind of veils can be something you can just decide not to do, then it becomes an expression of agency, not one of lack thereof. I respect that.

Of course it's not respectable when someone is forced to wear a headscarf/a niqab/whatever. But a ban isn't going to fix that; people who oppress their wives aren't going to stop doing so. If they feel that nobody outside the house is allowed to see their wife's face then the wife will simply no longer be allowed to leave the house.

Ultimately, in my opinion, people should be allowed to wear any religious garment they want, provided it's their own desire to do so and there's no overriding reason to disallow it. (E.g., no matter how religious you are, you do not wear a kaftan or a cross necklace or anything else that dangles while operating industrial machinery.) Anything else is useless at best.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Sektor@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Wrapping women up is the tool of oppression, so good for Canada.

[–] blackris@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Personally, I think all religions can go fuck themselfes and I also think that you are right, wrapping up women is a tool of oppression.

But this is exactly the same: Forcing women what (not) to wear. This is bad for those who want to wrap themselfes up and this is bad for those who get problems with their shitty families who don't want them to go to such places. So fuck that shit, too.

[–] Zutti@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Women can make that decision for themselves, individually, based on what they are comfortable with.

[–] rylock@lemm.ee 11 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Ah yes, because muslim family units are beacons of freedom, self-expression and feminism. No threats of shunning or violence, ever.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (4 children)

How this going to fix things the women may just start wearing it outside of schools?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments