this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
169 points (97.2% liked)

Canada

7230 readers
357 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  1. Wearing a visible religious symbol while working for the public sector

This one seems reasonable, I'm sure it applies universally and fairly to all religions right?...right?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If it's referencing Bill 21 then yes and it only applies to public servants with power over other people.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

They are asking whether the prohibition affects Christians wearing cross and fish symbols, or only less popular religions' symbols and styles

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Then yes, it does affect them as well, I don't understand how people are so dumbfounded by that fact.

The only way Stats Can manages to make it seem like Quebec is more Christian than most provinces is by asking a biased question.

In the census:

`What is this person's religion?

Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group.`

Well, considering our Catholic history and the fact that children were pretty much all getting baptized until the 90s, what do you think is the answer to that?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 7 months ago

The Australian census has a similar question. "None" is not an option, though I don't think it's a mandatory question (though it's hard to get meaningful data out of blank versus a stated "none")

[–] JustLookingForDigg@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

For this law specifically, it didn't when it was first proposed. I was living in Montreal at the time and there were protests. The provincial government said the cross is "not a religious symbol" or something similar.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So that's a lie...

"I was living in Montreal at the time"

Buddy, I've been living in Quebec longer than the average user on here has been alive and politics is one of my main interests in life.

They didn't want to remove the cross in the national assembly at first but they never considered the cross to not be a religious sign for the public servants mentioned in the law's text.

[–] Hector_McG@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How about wearing a wedding ring on the left hand 3rd finger? Since the 9th century, that’s primarily been a strongly Christian tradition, therefore arguably a symbol of Christianity?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago

I think it's only arguably Christian. Loads of atheists follow that tradition and I would consider it culture not religion

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I...don't get it, are you guys sure (Not from Canada lol) a conservative wrote it? What's the catch?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The catch is that the separation of state and religion is seen differently in Quebec compared to the rest of Canada. In Quebec everyone is made equal by getting religion out of public institutions (ex.: a judge can't wear a religious sign), in Canada everyone is made equal by being allowed to ask for religious exemptions (ex.: turban wearers don't have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle in Alberta).

Quebec passed a law to prevent certain public servants from wearing religious signs (teachers, judges, police officers...) and the rest of Canada didn't agree with them.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

No catch, but some people don't like that it affects women who wear hijabs.

Frankly, I'm not even Quebecois and I agree with the law. If you're going for your driver's test and you're obviously gay, you're going to feel pretty nervous if your tester is wearing some fundie garb, whether it's a hijab or a cross around their neck. Worse still if you're going to apply for welfare.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You used examples where the law doesn't apply, but imagine the same situation in front of a judge and they rule against you...

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca -1 points 7 months ago

Yeah like I said, I'm not from QC, so I don't know the letter of the law. But that's a great example too.

[–] vaccinationviablowdart@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago

Don't talk on behalf of gay people you know nothing.

Hijabs are not "fundie garb". I am not treated badly by hijabi women and have never heard anyone complain of such.

What a vile attempt to insinuate amnosity between groups you have no involvement in.

[–] vaccinationviablowdart@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Yes the nudists finally won a victory. All that garden of eden shame stuff is finally gone. Judges, teachers and cops no longer wear any garment whose purpose is modesty.

Shame and modesty are of course punishment from God because of Eve having eaten the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.