(Please try to avoid the obvious political aspects to this story, to keep within board guidelines. I'm just focusing on the one issue of banning religious symbols in the workplace).

I must confess to not paying too much attention to this type of news story previously until tonight they said that crucifixes were among the proposed banned religious symbols in Quebec (an eastern province in Canada). I've heard of such restrictions on religious clothing in Quebec before but not that included the crucifix.

When you are accustomed to something I guess it loses its "strange" or unknown factor. In my case, that means that I wouldn't have named a crucifix in with religious clothing. The same goes for the Jewish head coverings. These religious items are so prevalent that they become unremarkable to most.

It's good to be shaken up by having one's own familiar symbols included in a list of items that secularists propose to ban as it makes one think of the issue in a new light, at least in my case.

I have never worn a crucifix - it's not my thing - but it did startle me that it would be included in the proposed ban. In particular, who is going to decide which ones are "highly visible" and therefore not acceptable? How can you leave something so subjective to individual decision? It's especially noteworthy that Quebec until relatively recently was known as a religious place (Catholic). (Or maybe that explains everything?!)

Excerpts from the news article (linked at end):

"The government [in Quebec] is preparing to introduce long-awaited legislation that would restrict religious symbols in numerous places.

"A media report Tuesday with leaked details of the Parti Quebecois government's "Charter of Quebec Values" says the proposed policy will prohibit public employees from donning Sikh, Jewish and Muslim headwear in the workplace.

"It appears the PQ hopes to cash in at the ballot box by championing a position on secularism that polls have suggested has considerable support in the province.

"Tuesday's report in the Journal de Montréal says the PQ government is set to prevent employees in public institutions like schools and hospitals from wearing religious symbols such as turbans, niqabs, kippas, hijabs and highly visible crucifixes."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/20/pol-cp-quebec-identity.html


(Edited subject line to include the words "want to", trying to be more precise - they have proposed this change, not put it into place yet - they need a public vote on it. I had to removed the words "in the workplace" due to the dreaded space limitations).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2013 11:30PM by Nightingale.

Fair's fair, you either ban no religious symbols or you ban all religious symbols.

I agree with this quote in the story:

The idea of a blanket ban on the wearing religious symbols "is like something we would see in Putin's Russia," he said.

you'd have to ban them all or be seen as endorsing the religions of the symbols you don't ban.

Seems fair to me.

I can see how it would be a bit of a shock to members of majority and well established religions, however.

Yes, I understand that point. I was surprised at myself that the story only really hit home with me when they included the crucifix. I had heard this debate in Quebec before but hadn't seen them including a crucifix before. When they speak of religious "clothing", I hadn't thought of a crucifix being a part of that. I see a crucifix (necklace) as being quite private and small and unobtrusive. The other day a South Asian friend showed me his kirpan necklace which he wears in place of a larger ceremonial sword at his waist. He finds that it solves a lot of issues for him and it certainly is more inconspicuous while still satisfying the requirements of his faith. I don't really see how such symbols as a kirpan or crucifix necklace could disturb anybody.

I wonder how it would impact such large sectors of employment if such a ban were to be implemented.

I am in favour of a secular workplace (as well as schools) but how far is too far I ask. This seems extreme to me. I think that more freedom, not less, is the better way. Wide-ranging freedoms for all, if kept within reasonable bounds, seems better than widespread restrictions.

While Quebec is a Canadian province, successive governments have expressed a desire to separate from Canada and go their own way. It's interesting to see how these pioneers of such a move are thinking. To date, I've seen repressive language laws (French only signs, for instance) and now a renewed call for more restrictive regulations in public spaces. It will be interesting to watch this ongoing debate and will certainly be precedent-setting if they do implement such regulations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2013 11:22PM by Nightingale.

Yeah but the article is about public employees. This won't affect private-sector workers.

Yeah, but those public sectors (schools and hospitals) are huge. Union workers too, so I wonder if the unions would get involved. In the end, though, if the govt has the will, and especially if the public at large votes for this change, it can become law.

That is somewhat scary to contemplate, especially being accustomed to a lot of freedom and "multiculturalism" here in Canada.

Live and let live is the friendly approach I have always favoured. Especially as we have so much immigration here, that is needed and desired, you'd think we'd want to be welcoming and inclusive. In some religions, there is just no choice about it, if you really believe, or if you just want to be obedient to the dictates of the faith. You must wear the prescribed apparel so really they would be forcing you to quit your job. A wee bit harsh, in my view.

I realize that wearing a crucifix is a personal choice and not an obligation in the Catholic or other Christian circles. It's different, though, for other groups named in this proposed law, such as Sikhs and Jews. Then you get into the area of whether the law is actually aimed at eliminating or otherwise restricting certain groups, which would be racist.

Quebec embraced immigration, as far as I'm aware, as they wanted to beef up their population and preserve their language and culture. This proposed change would not be seen as embracing new immigrants from certain areas. To say nothing of the negative effects on those who are already there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2013 11:40PM by Nightingale.

Well ideally nothing is restricted, but if any religious symbols are restricted, then all should be restricted (speaking of public employees, who already deal with restrictions on their freedom of expression that private sector employees do not have to deal with).

I'm a First Amendment absolutist. I realize this is Canada, but at the same time, the hallmark of a free society is to let people do stupid things of their own volition.

Business owners should be able to put whatever they want in their business (religious or otherwise). If it makes people uncomfortable or offends them, those people should take their business elsewhere or take it up with the owner-- and thus hit the owner where it really hurts, in his wallet.

One clarification here is the Quebec government is looking to do this for public institutions, not private ones.

I don't wear any symbols except Wiccan and Egyptian, but I'll defend everybody's right to wear whatever they please.

This law brings up some real theological conflicts. A Catholic relative wears something called a scapular; she says the Blessed Virgin declared that people who die wearing this won't go to hell. So if she can't wear it and does and goes to hell, can she due the government?

I suspect the sudden interest in passing this law is to curb Islamic dress. They just had to add all the other religions so it wouldn't seem discriminatory.

I really hope this law doesn't get passed. Canada used to be such a cool place.

I agree. People should be allowed to wear what they like within the bounds of decency. Crucifixes, yarmalukes,or Muslim head covering isn't hurting anyone

"So if she can't wear it and does and goes to hell, can she due the government?"

How would this work in real life?

Well, that's where all the lawyers are, so she'll have plenty of choices for representation.

For those of us in the US there are two very important SCOTUS decisions that establish a baseline for how public entities should handle this question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Allegheny_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union

The bottom line is that everyone gets the same right or no one gets the right. Any other arrangement is unacceptable.