Quebec law banning hijab at work creates 'politics of fear', say critics

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Quebec law banning hijab at work creates ‘politics of fear', say critics

Reuters in Montreal
Mon 17 Jun 2019 17.42 BST Last modified on Mon 17 Jun 2019 19.26 BST

Civil liberties and Muslim groups have vowed to challenge a new law in the Canadian province of Quebec that bans some public sector employees from wearing religious symbols during work hours, arguing it triggered the “politics of fear”.

Critics said the long-expected Bill 21 that was passed by the predominately French-speaking province’s legislature on Sunday mainly targeted Muslim women who wear hijabs.

“We will be filing a challenge to the law,” said Mustafa Farooq, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. “I think Bill 21 is a law that will do irreparable harm to communities in Quebec.

“This creates a second-class citizenship,” he said, adding that the group would seek a court injunction to block the law that he called “a recipe for the politics of fear”.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/quebec-law-hijab-ban-religious-symbols-public-employees

[Sentath]

1. Sigh

Fairly typical, brain-wide-shut, pretending to be valorous, overreach by the catspaws of the far right.

[MineralMan]

2. What a moronic law!

It accomplishes no good purpose. All laws should accomplish some good purpose and do no harm. This one fails on both counts.

[Major Nikon]

3. It might serve a purpose for some

People forget that before the hijab was mandated after fundamentalists took over much of the Middle East, women did not wear them in places where they had been liberated from it.

The problem is far right forces are behind these laws and somehow some people now see it as a symbol of freedom even though it’s actually a symbol of repression.

[MineralMan]

4. I see hijabs every time I venture out to do shopping.

That's here in St. Paul, MN and its close-in suburbs. Some Muslim women wear them; some don't. We have a sizable population of East African immigrants and Middle Eastern immigrants here.

I can't say I have ever inquired whether the women who wear them feel oppressed or not. So, I do not know. It appears to be a cultural thing around here. I rarely see Middle Eastern women in them, but often see East African women wearing them.

From time to time, I also encounter Mennonite women wearing head coverings. A few women wear hats from time to time, as well.

I see men in hats, also, mostly ball caps bearing some farm supply or feed company logo, although it's not uncommon to see Minnesota Twins hats. In the winter, during our infrequent -10 degree or colder weather, I see lots more people wearing something on their head. Personally, I wear one of those hats with ear flaps, and look like a complete Minnesota hayseed in it. But, it's a practical thing.

Here's what I think: It's none of my business why any people wear something on their heads. I think it's not any of the government's business, either.

Laws that regulate cultural or religious headwear are ridiculous and violate the 1st Amendment, it seems to me. Of course, Canadia is a whole other country, I understand.

[Major Nikon]

12. A head covering worn for modesty is quite often coerced at best

At worst they are worn on the threat of being beaten or otherwise shunned from the community. Meanwhile it’s always directed at women. Were it a case of full consent, then yes by all means wear whatever you want. Laws against it tend to be counterproductive, however on some level society should be concerned with it. Not everything cultural that comes with immigrants is positive. There’s still places on this earth where women are publicly beaten by morality police for not covering up. Tolerance is fine, diversity is generally a great thing, but inviting those attitudes is not.

[MineralMan]

13. First-generation immigrants often retain

Cultural standards from their origins. The following generation grows up in this culture, but still has ties to the old. The next generation is fully assimilated. I know of no way to hurry that process, which is well-documented.

I see it daily in my own neighborhood, which now has three generations of two very current cultures in it. Hmong and Somali. They are very different, but the process is identical.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. There is certainly some social enforcement of it.

And social enforcement does not equal individual free choice. But there's enough people who seem to choose it that I am skeptical of it being possible to craft any workable laws around it.

[MineralMan]

34. I'm not sure if is a battle worth fighting.

Not here, anyway.

[Jake Stern]

5. As long as the law covers all religious symbols (this one covers Christian symbols)

I have no problem with it.

The government of Quebec shouldn't be in the business of promoting garb that represents subjugation and oppression. If somebody wants to advertise their second class status they can do it on their time, not when they represent a secular government. This includes those goofy pioneer dresses that some fundie Christian women wear.

And before anybody gets off on the "but what about nuns!?!?" BS I volunteer with nuns frequently and not a one of the wears the habit outside the convent. They all wear street clothes when working.

[MineralMan]

6. The government should have nothing to say about individuals

wearing religious symbols. Period. Here in the USA, wearing such symbols is protected by the First Amendment. I don't know about Canada.

Freedom of religion is simple. It means you can dress as you like, wear what you like as jewelry or hats, and worship as you choose, if you choose to worship in the first place.

Banning the wearing of religious clothing, like the kippah, for example, infringes on a person's freedom of worship. It is not up to the state, and should not be up to the state, to limit such expression.

Why would anyone care? I am harmed in no way by someone wearing a cross necklace or pin. A pin with the mogen david causes no harm. Nor does a piece of jewelry depicting a wiccan pentacle. Nor am I harmed by someone carrying a rosary in their hand. Nor by someone wearing a hijab. No harm is caused by such things, and they represent the religious belief of the person wearing them. The government should have no role in such decisions.

There is no reason to restrict such things, so there should be no law doing so. I do not wear any of those things. I am an atheist. But they cause me no harm when someone does wear them.

Feh!

[Jake Stern]

7. I disagree

As I said if they want to show off their second class status they are totally free to do it on their time not when they are the face of a officially irreligious government.

Funny how it's selective: folks will bend themselves into intellectual pretzels to defend wearing the hijab but will shit a concrete duck if the clerk that's waiting on them at city hall has a cross on their desk.

To me they're them same.

[MineralMan]

8. A cross on a desk is not a matter of personal attire.

There is a difference between that and a cross necklace. The necklace says, "I am a Christian." The cross on the desk says "This desk is Christian." One is a personal identifier. The other identifies a piece of government property as Christian.

Personal expression of religious belief through clothing or jewelry is fine. I'm never troubled by that. The desk at city hall is not a person. It is the property of the government. It has no religion.

[Jake Stern]

9. Oh bullshit

They are the same. An expression of their religion. Twisting those pretzels again. Personally I believe neither should be there.

[MineralMan]

10. I see. Well, never mind, then.

[Major Nikon]

16. Not bullshit

The EEOC has consistently held that religious artifacts displayed in government facilities that are accessible to the public may be prohibited while religious symbols displayed on a person may not be prohibited. So not the same thing at all.

[MineralMan]

17. Exactly. People have freedom of expression.

Government buildings and facilities do not. Understanding that only people have constitutionally guaranteed rights is an important thing.

[Major Nikon]

18. Has to do with the 1st amendment

When it comes to government employees the Establishment Clause sometimes collides with the Free Exercise Clause.

[Voltaire2]

11. It doesn't ban hijabs.

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2019, 04:57 PM - Edit history (1)

It requires that certain public employees in positions of authority refrain from wearing overt religious symbols. For example: judges and police.

I see nothing wrong with this law as long as it is applied uniformly, pun intended.

[uriel1972]

14. I tend to disagree...

If someone wishes to wear such a symbol I have no problem with that, as long as they fulfill their duties it shouldn't matter. Since when is a hijab a religious symbol anyway?

[Voltaire2]

15. It is as much a religious symbol as a yamaka

Which would also be banned for specific types of public employees.

Arguing that it isn’t a religious symbol seems a bit odd in that others in this thread are arguing that the regulation violates religious freedom.

[uriel1972]

20. I would say it's a grey area...

It can be a symbol of religious adherence yes, but where is it actually mandated in the Quran? I say it violates freedom full stop not religious freedom. I say it's as bad as mandating head/body coverings in Saudi Arabia in principle.

[guillaumeb]

21. But it actually does.

So there is that fact.

[Voltaire2]

22. No it requires certain public employees

in positions of authority, such as judges and policemen, to not wear or display overtly religious items. It is not a ban on Hijabs. That - specifying that only Hijabs cannot be worn, would of course be wrong.

[guillaumeb]

23. If employees are prevented from wearing hijab,

that is a ban on wearing the hijab.

And like earlier blatant attempts at religious discrimination, most openly under Pauline Marois when she was the PM, one assumes and trusts that this effort will be struck down by the Supreme Court as well.

[Voltaire2]

24. Well we are quibbling over the phrase

“Ban on hijabs”.

If I characterized a ban on fishing as a ban on trout fishing, that would be a misstatement of what the ban does.

[guillaumeb]

25. We are talking about the politics of fear.

With the addition of well documented intolerance for religion as well.

[Voltaire2]

27. Oh I see you changed the subject.

Understood.

[guillaumeb]

29. This is the Religion Group.

With religion as the subject.

Understood?

[Voltaire2]

30. Clear as mud.

[guillaumeb]

19. It was designed to create fear and mistrust.

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2019, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

And this is only one example of the French, post religious, concept of laïcité without sense or restraint.

Civil intolerance as an antidote to religious intolerance.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. This was your shot to take a perfectly placed and totally appropriate jab at nationalism.

And you wasted on it on "civil intolerance"? Sheesh.

[guillaumeb]

28. I did.

This is merely the latest. When Pauline Marois was the PM, she tried the same thing to boost her support.

Her law was overturned, and she lost the election.

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. Yeah, but Marois was PQ.

CAQ has way more political capital. And it looks like every single one of them voted for it.

In any event, I hope this gets overturned as well. But I doubt CAQ will pay for it like PQ did.

[guillaumeb]

32. I think the name is quite ironic,

given that what some of them see as the future is actually the past.