
A Canadian Bill Proposes Barring Public Employees from Wearing Head Scarves - t1o5
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/world/canada/quebec-head-scarves.html
======
currymj
adding 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.

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If
the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for
its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because
what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of
all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the
catholic church, or evangelicals, you would be on the barricades by now. But
it is by a supressed minority? Well that minority is not supressed in over 40
countries. In fact its the majority there, and supresses anyone not wearing a
headscarf. Want to see what happens if you do not wear a headscarf there?

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/egypt-women-
ra...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/egypt-women-rape-sexual-
assault-tahrir-square)

That machoism is very real in the middle east- and the headscarf is part of
the dividing and conquering. Nothing less. Cause there is always the mother
and saint who wears it and the "cheap" whores free to hunt who dont.

May be that for some, this clothing has already lost its symbolism, like the
white-wedding dress lost the symbolism of virginity it once held for
christianity. If it has no symbolic value, why make such a fuzz about wearing
it at all?

But in that case, i rather be safe then sorry.

~~~
0815test
> Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the
> voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut".

That's a problem with that religion-dominated subculture, not with the
symbolism itself. The notion that women should be shamed for the mere act of
_wearing_ a particular piece of clothing shuch as a headscarf is just as toxic
as the one you're reacting to in your comment.

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
It shouldnt matter. But that dream is for another paradise edition of earth
yet to come.

Its really difficult to find out wether a piece of clothing was a personal
choice or something chosen/force upon a person to define in and outgroups.
Basically, it boils down to detecting a thought-crime against open society.

So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs
made from hair-extensions? Something like that?

~~~
crooked-v
> So why not agree on some middle ground. Transparent Headscarfs? Headscarfs
> made from hair-extensions? Something like that?

Are you intentionally trying to sound like you're writing a South Park
episode, or is that accidental?

~~~
LifeLiverTransp
You know what - seperation from society, aka the public plaza from any
religion and attempts to impose religion like dogmas/rules/systems.

It really is the most easy way out. Nobody gets to errect his borderwalls of
textile or lack thereof in main street. We vote on a standard, and thats it.
That way all those warmongers steering the soupkitchen of hate cant warm on
the heat of the debate. The only solution is not to play.

~~~
crooked-v
> and attempts to impose religion like dogmas/rules/systems

So why do you want to impose Christian religious standards of bare heads on
Muslims?

~~~
_rutinerad
Bare heads is our default, is it not?

~~~
crooked-v
Bare everything is our default, but you don't see society forcing people to go
around naked.

------
dmode
Weirdly, this bill would end up hurting Sikh men the most. And they are
probably one of the most well integrated communities in Canada.

~~~
richjdsmith
Sikhs are some of my favorite fellow Canadians. The Sikh community puts a lot
of effort into really integrating into the Canadian culture and it shows.

~~~
kjeetgill
It really helps that Sikhism is a relatively young religion that didn't ask
_that_ much of individuals. We're just "below the fold" enough to not have too
many prejudices attached to us. Even the keeping hair / turban stuff isn't
really required unless you want to.

Come to think of it, that's probably true of most Hindus too. I think it's
just the Abrahamic religions that have too deep a history of conflicts within
the western world.

------
knight-of-lambd
Title is a bit misleading. It's a provincial bill. It's like state law vs.
federal law.

~~~
nickelcitymario
Agreed. I thought the title was suggesting the federal government was looking
at a bill similar to the one in Quebec, but it’s actually about the one in
Quebec.

------
danbolt
Other commenters have noted that this is a provincial rather than a federal
bill, but it’s also worth adding context that this was a hot topic in Canada’s
2015 federal election. [1][2]

[1] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-
election-2015-niqab-...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-
election-2015-niqab-neil-macdonald-1.3246179) [2] [http://www.parli.ca/niqab-
debate/](http://www.parli.ca/niqab-debate/)

~~~
jgon
This bill bans every "religious symbol", including a hijab. The niqab is, from
my understanding, a full face and body covering garment, and most people would
consider that different from what this bill targets. I don't think it is fair
to say this exact same thing was a "hot topic" in the Federal election.

~~~
nickelcitymario
How is it not fair to say it was a hot topic? It was one of the biggest and
most controversial stories in Canada at the time. Am I missing something?

~~~
wutbrodo
The claim isn't that the niqab bill wasn't a hot topic, it that this bill is
about hijabs and not niqabs.

~~~
danbolt
Oh wow, you're totally right. I totally should have realized the distinction
there. Thank you for speaking up!

------
jgon
This 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.

------
k_sze
They should ask Her Majesty the Queen to remove the cross on her crown first.

------
anth_anm
This is a Quebec bill.

Would be like talking about an Illinois bill as an "American bill".

------
prolepunk
I'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...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secularism-
bill-1.5075547)

Also the party will invoke Notwithstanding clause, which basically overrides
the courts ever considering it or concluding that this whole thing is totally
unconstitutional.

------
allengeorge
As many other posters have noted this is a Quebec bill, and has (sadly) been a
long time coming.

My personal opinion is that this is making a mountain out a molehill. And, I
don’t think this is the right way to encourage integration (if anything, I
suspect it’ll engender resentment, can’t prove it). I’m disappointed that the
Quebec government pursued this.

------
solitus
The latest poll on this issue showed 64% of Quebec’s population backed the
bill. One of the issue in Quebec is that the French (I’m French Canadian) are
affraid of getting assimilated and fight toe and nails to keep their
traditions which sometimes come off as racist. Quebec feels like it is the
only important Canadian minority.

------
gerbilly
I’m ashamed that so many of my people support such a stupid bill. (I’m French
Canadian)

As far as I’m concerned people can wear whatever they want: hallowe'en
costumes, huge onesies with bunny ears, headscarves whatever...

Ironically, all the teachers at my grade school wore headscarves (nuns) and
that’s not that long ago...

------
ackfoo
How about changing the bill so that men have to wear exactly the same thing
that they force their women to wear? Or else no one gets to wear any religious
symbols.

Because I think, subconsciously, that what makes me bananas about religious
symbols is not the symbols themselves, but the gender-inequality with which
they are applied.

Muslim coverings are a very thinly-disguised misogyny. Same with kippahs and
the stuff they force nuns to wear.

I support very strongly people's right to wear a symbol of any ridiculous,
half-assed, imaginary bullshit that some shithead told them about and they
believed on zero evidence.

But when it is a symbol of unequal treatment of women, of subjugation, of
silent misery, it makes me angry to see it because it is not consistent with
the equal rights that I associate with our country.

That, if only subconsciously, is where this is probably coming from.

------
sys_64738
Will there be religious exemptions to this?

------
devoply
Freedom is a state of mind, not a ban on head coverings.

------
bearcobra
While this is specific to Quebec, I think a lot of Canadians are blind to the
Islamophobia that exists across the country. Looking at some of the comments
by members of the UCP or some of Doug Fords pals, I don’t think Quebec is that
out of step with other provinces.

