A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#2Freedom is a state of mind, not a ban on head coverings.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#3This isn't a "Canadian" bill, as much as a specific provincial government bill. It has already received condemnation from the leaders of every major Federal party which is probably the only thing they've agreed on in the last several years. Several public sector organizations such as the Montreal public school board have already stated that they will not enforce it.
So we'll see what happens but the headline would be like saying some sort of insane law passed by a state is an "American Law". The provincial government, voted in by ~38% of the population (thanks FPTP!) in a single province has proposed a law that will likely not be standing when the government changes in a few years time. This does not represent the views of a major or even significant minority of Canadians.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#4adding 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.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#5Title is a bit misleading. It's a provincial bill. It's like state law vs. federal law.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#6This is a Quebec bill.
Would be like talking about an Illinois bill as an "American bill".
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#7adding 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.
Why add the word 'enormous'?
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#8adding 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.
A Yarmulke/Kippah is not large by any reasonable standard.
Seems like the bill is just trying to justify the headscarf ban.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#9I'm guessing burka ban bill got finally struck down, so Parti Québécois is at it again.
CBC source, no paywall, actually explains what's in the bill -- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secul...
Also the party will invoke Notwithstanding clause, which basically overrides the courts ever considering it or concluding that this whole thing is totally unconstitutional.
Re: A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves
#10Will there be religious exemptions to this?