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.
I don’t really agree with banning someone’s personal religious symbol, but if they’re a government employee, like a teacher, I see the argument. That being said, why ban the students from wearing religious symbols?
Meanwhile, in the USA, there are states trying to mandate Christian symbols in schools.
Why ? Because CAQ is and was a racist government. There’s a good chance that there’s first big law (21 ?) will be rule anti constitutional, now they’re on the verge to lose (hard) their third mandate (they win the 2nd because Covid) and they push law that will change nothing to make things look like they are doing something. How the law is written they want to ban full nikab but hijab (maybe I inverse the two) will be okay but an asshole school administrators could use the law to be racist
In the meantime they are trying to pass a law that will limit the Quebecer’s rights to manifest.
What do you think about state mandated mini skirts for teachers? Since you are a big fan of telling people what they are allowed to wear.
So again, I don’t agree with it. What I meant was that there is an argument to keeping teachers from displaying religious imagery, since one could mistakenly interpret that as the state promoting a particular religion. I think that argument is weak, but at least there’s flimsy logic behind it. There’s no logic behind keeping students from displaying religious imagery.
Do you understand what I mean?
I have had plenty of teachers wearing crosses and other religious symbols and have never been bothered by it.
If anything it helps students identify there are other cultures in a multicultural society.
There is only one clear reason for these laws and it inspired by French colonialism.
I hope Germany will do the same. In the western world there is no room for religion in authorities and public owned institutions.
Germany is too religious to do something like that, unfortunately. Their biggest party calls itself Christian, they still collect data about people’s religions, are quite weak on women’s reproductive rights etc.
So you don’t think Muslim students should have the freedom to wear a hijab if they choose? Pathetic.
Sadly I couldn’t wear a hat or a beanie in school. To some its all it is but that’s people who never know how serious it is to them.
The girls in my school were allowed to wear tight hair coverings. I was jerk one time about it saying it was loose and almost made her cry. They take that ultra serious. Learned my lesson right there. This will force them out of public schools and that’s probably the intent.
The lesson here isn’t “they shouldn’t be able to wear headwear, either”, but “I should be able to wear headwear, too”.
Are you saying if everyone can wear it, it is ok?
I’m saying everyone should have equal freedom to wear the headwear they want to wear or not wear, regardless of whether it’s for fashion, cultural, or religious reasons.
Cheers to that
They can wear the hijab if they go to private schools and universities. If they want to go to public educational institutions, they have to comply. Germany was very liberal to people who are actively practising one religion. Then they began to make problems in many ways. For example, there was a room for religious people to pray in the university. The result was that the people fighted each other because they had different religions. The women were isolated from the men. Now there is not a room anymore. This was one of the more harmless problems.
I’m an atheist and completely non-religious - but someone wearing a hijab, a turban or a yamulke in observance of their religious beliefs is frankly none of my business, and has zero effect on me. I believe in a secular public school system, but that doesn’t mean oppressing someone’s religious freedom.
Edit: typo
For Germany there is no room for Muslims in the Muslim world. Only Zionist European colonists.
Cringe bro. Germany is a secular country. There is no room for relgion in authorities and public owned institutions. Article 4 GG says that all people have the freedom of practising their religion in private. If you work for an authority you have to be neutral because you represent the federal state and the federal government.
Germans genociding Muslims is pretty cringe indeed.
I do not think you understand what the word secular means.
You really need to learn how to debate. You made yourself ridiculous with those two comments, trying to accuse Germans and Germany of genocide against Muslims and changing the subject completely.
Who is sending 30% of the weapons to the genocide in Gaza?
I think it’s a good move that Christians aren’t allowed to wear crosses in public anymore. Always reminds me of pedophiles and that makes me feel uncomfortable.
They’re not, the CAQ is nothing but hypocrites on the subject. They excluded Christians symbols from the get go.
They excluded religious items that didn’t shove oppressive symbolism in people’s faces. Get your facts straight.
And how is the cross not “oppressive symbolism”? It’s literally an execution method???
No body was enslaved due to the power of the hijab. Christian pedophiles and their obsession with the cross did use the cross as a power symbol. Interesting how racist and dumb you are
I mean. Women in theocratic islamic states get arrested and assaulted if they don’t wear their hijab. This is a pretty well documented fact.
Well documented by your comment?
Saudi had their Esports covered by women without hijabs. Even when watching Youtube videos about tourists visiting Iran you see plenty of women without hijab.
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.
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.
Forgive my ignorance, but can the charter of rights and freedoms be amended?
I am an anti-theist, and would love nothing more than to ban all public displays of all religions.
I am anti-theist, and fuck no to banning public displays of anything. It’s in the name - public. Public space belongs to everyone. Freedom of expression should not be a privilege restricted to people who can afford to buy or rent a place to exercise it.
If you can prove harm, we can ban the harm. Any and all bans must be tightly focused on restricting only harm and to a greater degree than it inherently restricts freedom. Elsewise, we’re just oppressing dissent/diversity and essentially abandoning freedom itself as a core value. And the fact that we’re talking about dictating what people can do on or with their own bodies raises the stakes that much higher. Seriously, this is a dangerous path and the hazards far greater than any possible reward.
Tax religion. Remove their privilege. Do not create a new underclass.
So what is the difference between you and the Taliban? I guess that the Taliban stops at clothing while you also want to force your ideology on people.
Good. Ban displays of crucifixes and necklaces with crosses as well.
Religious symbols have no place in tax payer funded institutions.
Are the taxpayers paying for the hijabs?
Wrapping women up is the tool of oppression, so good for Canada.
You are right all women should be forced to go to school naked.
Despite all your raging comments in this thread, I still don’t know what your stance is. The weak straw man argument isn’t helping.
Preventing people from practicing their religion is obviously bad. Especially when there is no justification to do so.
This is akin to Uyghur “reeducation camps” and I am not being hyperbolic. But apparently it is only bad when China does it.
Women can make that decision for themselves, individually, based on what they are comfortable with.
These can’t. Ask their owner, i mean dad.
Ah yes, because muslim family units are beacons of freedom, self-expression and feminism. No threats of shunning or violence, ever.
Trying to moral high ground about violence in 2025
Great non-sequitor. You’re clearly not obsessed with a certain topic and shoving it into every unrelated conversation, are you?
Where did your moral high ground go?
You’re arguing with yourself, no one said anything about moral high ground but you. Get a life.
Why are you trying to dodge your stereotype? You were so gladly using those a few comments ago.
How this going to fix things the women may just start wearing it outside of schools?
It gives them a secular place to grow interpersonally and develop their critical thinking skills without a literal shroud of dogma over their eyes.
Where’s your critical thinking gone? If racist wankers like you are gonna take it as a given that the typical Muslim household in Canada is extremely controlling, would it not be logically consistent of you to conclude that this sort of policy will just force women out of those “secular places” where they interact with the broader community and isolate them in religious spaces which you consider to be harmful?
A hijab or any other religious signs do not prevent critical thinking.
Religious dogma does prevent critical thinking, actually. Secular places of learning are critical for the young and easily influenced to be able to develop their own belief structure, or lack thereof, without the influence of family or community exerting often overwhelming social pressure.
Just like the women in Iran/Afghanistan. They can do whatever they want there. Put on a bikini, shorts etc. Totally free to do what their husbands tell them to. Maybe I’ll send my two daughters.
Or if they want to get dragged back to a country where they can be stoned to death.
What does this even mean? A woman whose family is going to bring her back to their native country for punishment often does so because she won’t wear a covering, which this law will support by forcing women not to cover. A woman who does wear a covering (forced or otherwise) probably won’t be, so your argument doesn’t even make sense.
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.
