Title is a bit misleading. It's a provincial bill. It's like state law vs. federal law.
Agreed. I thought the title was suggesting the federal government was looking at a bill similar to the one in
Quebec, but it’s actually about the one in Quebec.
A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
21–30 of 50 posts
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#22adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.
> there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban There is no obligation to wear anything. There is an "obligation" for some sects of Islam. But that does not mean anything in the domain of secular government. The truth is, most Muslims do NOT wear any special clothing. And even those that feel obligated to are not obligated to really; they are obligated to try, if possible. If they are n…
The idea that this is to make life easier for Muslims by allowing them to escape their obligation, is laughable. I suppose we should make it illegal to not eat pork, so they can escape dietary laws. Or forbid Christians from going to church on holy days, so they don't feel guilt when they don't go. Or make it illegal to wear clothes that are spun from one form of cloth, so Jewish people don't feel like they need to wear clothes from one kind of cloth.
People deserve freedom of choice, religion, and clothing. That is the help you need to give people.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
This bill bans every "religious symbol", including a hijab. The niqab is, from my understanding, a full face and body covering garment, and most people would consider that different from what this bill targets. I don't think it is fair to say this exact same thing was a "hot topic" in the Federal election.
How is it not fair to say it was a hot topic? It was one of the biggest and most controversial stories in Canada at the time. Am I missing something?
The claim isn't that the niqab bill wasn't a hot topic, it that this bill is about hijabs and not niqabs.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not fair to say it was a hot topic? It was one of the biggest and most controversial stories in Canada at the time. Am I missing something?
The claim isn't that the niqab bill wasn't a hot topic, it that this bill is about hijabs and not niqabs.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not fair to say it was a hot topic? It was one of the biggest and most controversial stories in Canada at the time. Am I missing something?
The claim isn't that the niqab bill wasn't a hot topic, it that this bill is about hijabs and not niqabs.
Oh wow, you're totally right. I totally should have realized the distinction there. Thank you for speaking up!
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#26adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.
> there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban There is no obligation to wear anything. There is an "obligation" for some sects of Islam. But that does not mean anything in the domain of secular government. The truth is, most Muslims do NOT wear any special clothing. And even those that feel obligated to are not obligated to really; they are obligated to try, if possible. If they are n…
Sorry, but your post is completely ignorant of Islamic rulings.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#27They should ask Her Majesty the Queen to remove the cross on her crown first.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#28adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.
You forgot to mention Mormon underwear, although that would be difficult to enforce anyway.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#29adding the crucifix ban is a ridiculous fig leaf, as there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of. whereas there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban. the bill is obviously targeted at Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs. if there were any special dress requirements for mainstream Christian groups, these bills would never have been proposed.
No enormous crucifix? I've seen Christian Orthodox priests that wear them. Like 25 cm long, and either the normal cross or the double cross.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#30Weirdly, this bill would end up hurting Sikh men the most. And they are probably one of the most well integrated communities in Canada.
Sikhs are some of my favorite fellow Canadians. The Sikh community puts a lot of effort into really integrating into the Canadian culture and it shows.