Quebec’s new Secularism Bill

[Geraldsh]

Pretty well all the meat at Costco is halal now; certain people probably made a fuss about it whereas other people don’t care(they focus on quality and price) so everyone is happy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Banning makes sense if you think the practice is so silly it shouldn't even be acknowledged in public spaces. Not saying that is their reasoning.


But now you got me reved up! Celiac is a medical condition and should be accommodated in the same way any other disability is. It sure as #### ain't the same as "requiring" halal or kosher. Nobody is getting sick or worse if they don't get blessed meat.

Sorry, gluten was a bad example. It occurred to me after that is more often a medical restriction but I didn’t have time to edit. Maybe vegetarian would be a better comparison. I have Crohn’s and have some dietary restrictions as well, so I can relate.

[blankall]

Nm dp

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And a lot of "Christian" traditions are just taken from other cultures, ceremonies and practices. I don't see anything in the bible about decorating a Christmas tree.


If you are lighting candles on a Menorah you are displaying a religious symbol, so I assume even if you didn't discuss why, it still won't be permitted.


And to link the two thoughts, I light a Menorah every year, but for me it's a tradition, not a religious item at all. So it could be argued that really almost any object can be presented as tradition, not a religious object, depending on the individual and how they experience it. Which makes it tough to write a law banning. Which I guess is what the NWC is in play.

European Christianity is a mingling of old pagan traditions with Christian ones. A Christmas tree was a religious symbol, although it's lost its religious symbolism and is now largely just tradition. That being said, I would still consider it a religious tradition, as Christians do it as part of their tradition.

I think this is where we're getting into the danger zone. My guess is that the Menorah would likely be banned but a tree allowed.

Also lighting candles doesn't require a menorah, just a progressive number of candles over the 8 nights. Is the whole candle a symbol?

This is where the bigotry will come in. The traditional "traditions" will all just happen to be Christian, as historically people were just intolerant. This law will likely just solidify historical intolerance.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Acey

No matter what side of this you're on, I'm surprised this isn't bigger news. Province-wide legislation like this in Canada in 2025 is wild.

It’s international news - I’ve seen coverage in the Guardian, BBC, and CNN.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Anytime you start to think that Alberta has the lead on being the most bigoted, Quebec comes in an reminds people that they in fact have always held the crown.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c9-...gion-9.7001891

Looks like the Liberals may be on board.

[Fuzz]

The Criminal Code currently includes an exemption for hate speech, "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text."


The Bloc is expected to introduce the amendment to remove that section of the code as part of Bill C-9 — dubbed the Combatting Hate Act

Sounds good to me. Why should someone get an exemption to be a bigot based on interpretation of some trash some rando dudes wrote 2000 years ago? Is that what we value protecting as a society? The right to be a ####o for those indoctrinated hard enough, but also have an ####### enough heart to behave in a way they may end up running against this law? But please, present an argument why I am wrong.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sorry, gluten was a bad example. It occurred to me after that is more often a medical restriction but I didn’t have time to edit. Maybe vegetarian would be a better comparison. I have Crohn’s and have some dietary restrictions as well, so I can relate.

People who have eaten vegetarian diets for a long time will get sick if they suddenly eat meat again.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Yeah, I don't see why people would have issue with eating Kosher or Halal food - provided that they meet general food standards.

How the animal is killed historically has to do with it.
Sikh's for example, are not supposed to eat Halal, as Sikh's believe in one swift decapitation of an animal vs slitting the throat and letting the animal bleed out like halal.

So for chicken as an example; one method chops the head off immediately, one slits the throat.
Both believe their method is actually giving less suffering to the animal.

[Harry Lime]

I don't know, I'm usually pretty heavily in support of separation of church and state. Any person in public service should fall under that umbrella.

There are parts of some religions, like the covering of faces, that strike me as archaic and simple suppression of women. Not sure if that has a place in public service.

I'm not religious, so luckily I'm not going to hell, though.

My religion is a pamphlet that says, "God and me are buds. Try not to embarrass God."

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sounds good to me. Why should someone get an exemption to be a bigot based on interpretation of some trash some rando dudes wrote 2000 years ago? Is that what we value protecting as a society? The right to be a ####o for those indoctrinated hard enough, but also have an ####### enough heart to behave in a way they may end up running against this law? But please, present an argument why I am wrong.

As long as that amendment doesn't open the door for claims that critique is persecution. You point out what the Quran or the Bible plainly says, and unfailingly, some idiot will shout 'IsLaMoPhObIa!!1!' or cry foul that 'Christians are being persecuted'. My concern is protecting the distinction between criticizing ideas and attacking people, and I wonder if that particular section of the code provides protection for that, because the way I'm reading it could theoretically cut both ways, no?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

As long as that amendment doesn't open the door for claims that critique is persecution. You point out what the Quran or the Bible plainly says, and unfailingly, some idiot will shout 'IsLaMoPhObIa!!1!' or cry foul that 'Christians are being persecuted'. My concern is protecting the distinction between criticizing ideas and attacking people, and I wonder if that particular section of the code provides protection for that, because the way I'm reading it could theoretically cut both ways, no?

I went to a town hall where the Trinity Western was debating that they should be allowed to have an accredited, despite forcing all student to sign an oath stating they would only engage in sexual activity within the confines of a recognized heterosexual marriage. This was problematic, as non-hetero students would either be banned from entering or forced to lie, as their first act towards becoming a lawyer.

The universities main argument was that the Law Society was discriminating against their right to discriminate against non-hetero people. Long story short, the Law Society did not grant them accreditation.

[TorqueDog]

And that is an outcome I'm perfectly okay with, the Law Society did the right thing.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I don't know, I'm usually pretty heavily in support of separation of church and state. Any person in public service should fall under that umbrella.

There are parts of some religions, like the covering of faces, that strike me as archaic and simple suppression of women. Not sure if that has a place in public service.

I'm not religious, so luckily I'm not going to hell, though.

My religion is a pamphlet that says, "God and me are buds. Try not to embarrass God."

Ya I struggle to get worked up on this one. We've made some societal progress in recognizing LQBTQ+ etc rights...do we really need to protect/enable that institutions that have historically driven and continue to drive most of that oppression? We don't have to look very far to see christofascism driving our own government.

I do struggle a bit with forcing someone to ditch their turban if they want to seek employment as a bus driver, but we already limit similar 'freedom of expression' through tattoos/piercings/etc. We limit all of the charter rights in various ways. And AFAIK there is a grandfathering clause, so people aren't really being forced to choose between these expressions and continuing employment.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

We limit b) quite significantly in public service jobs. I also think its interesting that conscience and religion are grouped together, implying internalization (though I'm sure it's not that simple). AFAIK they are not refusing to hire people who attend mosque/temple/church on their own time.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Ahh, I misread.

It says offer ONLY food in those traditions. Yes, that is different.

And as such, pretty much a straw man/rage bait provision. What institution offers only kosher or only halal food?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Ya I struggle to get worked up on this one. We've made some societal progress in recognizing LQBTQ+ etc rights...do we really need to protect/enable that institutions that have historically driven and continue to drive most of that oppression? We don't have to look very far to see christofascism driving our own government.

I do struggle a bit with forcing someone to ditch their turban if they want to seek employment as a bus driver, but we already limit similar 'freedom of expression' through tattoos/piercings/etc. We limit all of the charter rights in various ways. And AFAIK there is a grandfathering clause, so people aren't really being forced to choose between these expressions and continuing employment.



We limit b) quite significantly in public service jobs. I also think its interesting that conscience and religion are grouped together, implying internalization (though I'm sure it's not that simple). AFAIK they are not refusing to hire people who attend mosque/temple/church on their own time.

The problem is that the Sikh religion requires a turban on men, and certain Muslim sects require a hijab on women. So by banning those items you are banning those bpeople from applying and therefore discriminating on the basis of religion. The grandfathering clause doesn't protect them - only present employees. When there's no rational basis for such discrimination or limitation (and thus not saved by s. 1 of the Charter).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The problem is that the Sikh religion requires a turban on men, and certain Muslim sects require a hijab on women. So by banning those items you are banning those bpeople from applying and therefore discriminating on the basis of religion. The grandfathering clause doesn't protect them - only present employees. When there's no rational basis for such discrimination or limitation (and thus not saved by s. 1 of the Charter).

I appreciate the legal reasoning that necessitates the NWC in this case. And I think I'm okay with the NWC in this case (but honestly I'm not fully informed nor do I care enough to have a really strong opinion).

Again, admitting I'm not fully informed on all of the nuance behind the gov'ts reasoning here (maybe I'm naive and they're actually just deplorable racists?), I think I see more rational basis behind their intent for secularism than I do for the religious requirements on specific attire (which is another area I'll admit ignorance). But I'm open to persuasion.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I don't know, I'm usually pretty heavily in support of separation of church and state. Any person in public service should fall under that umbrella.

There are parts of some religions, like the covering of faces, that strike me as archaic and simple suppression of women. Not sure if that has a place in public service.

I'm not religious, so luckily I'm not going to hell, though.

My religion is a pamphlet that says, "God and me are buds. Try not to embarrass God."

Yeah. I don't understand. I would have expected many around here would have supported complete separation of church and state, but apparently they have found religion now?

I'm definitely good with this. No religious symbols of any type, thanks.

[BeltlineFan]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yeah. I don't understand. I would have expected many around here would have supported complete separation of church and state, but apparently they have found religion now?

I'm definitely good with this. No religious symbols of any type, thanks.

One of the core concepts of the separation of church and state, as it exists in the US, is the free exercise clause in the first amendment, stating that the government can't interfere with religious beliefs or actions. You are arguing against separation of church and state by arguing for the banning of personal religious symbols.

As far as I'm aware, Canada doesn't have any codified separation of church and state but I will happily be corrected.

Personally, I'm about as atheist as one can get and despise organized religion, but I also believe if someone wants to wear a religious symbol and it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, the government shouldn't be allowed to stop them.

[calumniate]

It's one of those things that might sound good in practice. However the first sentence in the CBC article is 'for daycare workers'. They're saying the quiet part out loud. I remember a few years ago them speaking about how a gold chain with a cross is simply 'jewlery' (actually that was bill 21).

https://ccla.org/press-release/quebe...saAohMEALw_wcB

Legault has got to go