Charter of Quebec Values would ban ‘overt’ religious symbols

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Washington Post

Charter of Quebec Values would ban ‘overt’ religious symbols
By Ron Csillag| Religion News Service, Updated: Thursday, September 12, 1:21 PM

RNS () — Quebec’s government this week introduced its much-discussed Charter of Quebec Values, which would ban “overt and conspicuous” religious symbols worn by government employees.

Pushing the twin ideals of secularism and separation from Canada, the Parti Quebecois’ plan would prohibit public employees from wearing large crosses and crucifixes, Islamic headscarves, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes as a way to establish “religious neutrality” in public.

The prohibitions would apply to civil servants, teachers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, doctors, nurses and public day care employees.

Elected officials would be exempt. Universities and municipalities could seek a renewable, five-year exemption.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/charter-of-quebec-values-would-ban-overt-religious-symbols/2013/09/12/1b0cfaa0-1bd8-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html

[CAG]

1. Great example of "tolerance" becoming "intolerance".

Guess they don't like freedom of speech that much in Quebec. How dare someone wear a cross necklace, turbin, or yarmulk!!

[bananas]

9. Agree. It's xenophobic and racist, as mentioned in the article. nt

[Posteritatis]

18. And the cross is just for appearances. The law's obviously aimed at Muslims and Sikhs. (nt)

[snagglepuss]

40. You simply reveal your ignorance about Quebec history and the hositility the large majority of

Quebecers feel towards the Catholic Church. Up until the silent revolution in the 1960s the Church had unquestioned authority in Quebec and exerted it. Having been victimized by the Church, Quebecers are no way favoring Christianity. They are fed up with religion and want secularism enforced across the board.

[Posteritatis]

62. Keep telling yourself downtown Montreal's the rule. It ain't. (nt)

[marshall]

75. The ban on crosses will likely affect far more people

What about beards on men and long hair on women? In some instances those are tokens of religious membership. Should they institute authorized hair styles, like North Korea has done?

[Posteritatis]

77. I doubt that, since those will be more taken for granted

And, as I said, this law is being written by xenophobes to facilitate xenophobia and earn votes from xenophobes. The law is as explicit as it is hypocritical with protecting some really ostentatious provincial endorsement of Christianity in the legislature.

Taking it that extra step to proscribing physical appearances rather than just clothing would be totally in character for the more openly bigoted PQ members.

[KurtNYC]

43. Quebec was governed for 300 years by the Catholic Church which they overthrew in 1960

in a series of events which are now known as 'the Quiet Revolution.' The Catholic Church ran EVERYTHING in Quebec -- schools, hospitals, the government, everything. Abuse was rampant and higher education was of limits for most Catholic Quebec'ers. The French they speak in Quebec would be like us speaking as Shakespeare did, it is old french because that is what the Catholic Church taught in their schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution

After the 'Quiet Revolution' backlash against the church continued and I see this proposed law as yet another echo. The momentum of change has made Montreal one of the top areas in the world for high tech companies including many very lucrative computer game producers.

[valerief]

2. Tres bon! nt

[srican69]

4. non, il n'est pas!!

Je pense qu'ils devraient respecter la diversité religieuse.

[valerief]

6. I don't think religion s/b promoted in state institutions. nt

[Posteritatis]

16. I think you need to check your definitions of "promoting religion." (nt)

[valerief]

21. I think you need to check how to support your definition. nt

[Posteritatis]

23. That makes one of us, I suppose. (nt)

[freedom fighter jh]

7. Moi, je suis d'accord. nt

[MisterP]

3. "You are a true believer, blessings of the State, blessings of the masses"

well, if they can't abolish "the ethnic vote" at least they won't have to be visually reminded of its existence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergonha

[1ProudAtheist]

5. A Great Idea

Some folks just do not get it when it comes to how their "free speech" is totally offensive to others. Xstians are the number one example of this. Every single time that one of them gets sanctioned for imposing their faith upon others, they start shouting about oppression. Religion is not for public consumption. It is a private enterprise that needs to be kept private. Nobody gets persecuted when everyone is forced to comply with regulations such as the ones mentioned above.

As a population, have we learned nothing from centuries of wars over religious beliefs? Nobody is going to give their beliefs up, so why keep poking the sleeping bear with a stick? Keep religious beliefs PERSONAL.........where they belong. Leave others alone, they have their own beliefs, and they are just as adamant and strong as yours are.

[codemoguy]

8. are you serious?

are you saying seeing someone wearing a cross, Star of David, hijab is 'totally offensive'?

and who says religion is not for public consumption...are you the one that gets to decide that?

were you mistreated in the past by someone who was religious?...your hatred is shocking...

on edit: also...so what if you're offended?...we don't have a right to live free of things we don't like...

[snagglepuss]

38. The ban is only for people who work in the public service and I agree with it.

No different than the ban on public servants from wearing t-shirts or buttons with a political message.

[Nye Bevan]

14. So. You want to ban turbans, yarmulkes and headscarves.

And since these items are required by the religions of the wearers, you are effectively banning members of these religions from many occupations.

Do you understand who this stance puts you in common with?

[snagglepuss]

39. None of those are required as many adherents of each of those

faiths don't wear any of those articles. It's a choice.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Incredibly bigoted, and incredibly ignorant.

A Dastar is a mandatory item of headgear for Sikh men. Dastar is very clearly associated with Sikhism and is an important part of the Sikh culture. Wearing a Sikh turban is mandatory for all Amritdhari (baptized) Sikh men (also known as Khalsa).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar

Some DUers are revealing true ugliness in this thread.

[snagglepuss]

44. I've worked with Sikhs who never wore head gear. It's a choice.

[snagglepuss]

45. Your hostility just reveals your ignorance of the matter. The reason a turban was

instituted by the 10th Guru, not the founder who never wore a turban, is that turbans were once the prerogative of the elite. Since Sikhism preached equality, all Sikhs were encouraged to don turbans to assert that equality.

[Nye Bevan]

49. "Oregon Repeals KKK Ban on Religious Clothing for Teachers"

Oregon Repeals KKK Ban on Religious Clothing for Teachers

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the repeal of a Ku Klux Klan-inspired law that forbade Oregon teachers from wearing religious dress in public schools. Under the 87-year old law, which was passed to prevent Catholic nuns from teaching in public schools, Orthodox Jewish teachers could not wear yarmulkes, Sikh teachers could not wear turbans, and Muslim women teachers could not wear headscarves.

The Oregon legislature moved to repeal the law after The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and a coalition of interfaith, civil rights, and bar association organizations urged the immediate repeal of the discriminatory Oregon law in a letter to state legislative leaders.

”The Becket Fund was indispensable in getting this KKK law repealed, especially by discrediting some of the wilder legal claims made by opponents of the repeal,” said Rajdeep Singh, Director of Law and Policy at The Sikh Coalition, a national Sikh civil rights organization. “Sikhs across the country are thankful for The Becket Fund’s stalwart defense of religious freedom for all.”

Led by the Oregon ACLU, many supporters of the ban on religious clothing claimed that allowing public school teachers to wear religious clothing would lead to the indoctrination of children in the classroom. In her Washington Post online column, Becket Fund Legal Fellow Asma Uddin took the ACLU to task for supporting a KKK law by using KKK tactics.

http://catholicexchange.com/oregon-repeals-kkk-ban-on-religious-clothing-for-teachers/

[Posteritatis]

15. "Free speech" != "speech of which I personally approve exclusively." Fuck that. (nt)

[kurtzapril4]

29. I think it's BS

that religious displays of any type are tolerated in any job funded by tax dollars. If you want to display your religious beliefs...display them in your own home. And in your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque, Temple or whatever. But that's never enough for the religionists. Makes me wonder if they're a mite insecure, perhaps? Religious dogma is ridiculous.

[bananas]

32. Thanks for providing a perfect example of religious intolerance.

You even use the word "tolerated".

[kurtzapril4]

48. No, I'm not.

I believe that people need to keep their religious practices to themselves, their families, and their places of worship. I don't care what they do in those places, but I don't understand why that isn't enough. The only thing I'm intolerant of is fundamentalist types of religion, Christian, Judaism, and Islam, that subjugate women.

[4Q2u2]

55. What if that Women

Chooses to put a Cross on her body. "Her Body Her Decision".
Hey but we will allow you to worship where we tell you. You will be equal just "separate, but equal."

[Posteritatis]

64. The Charter has suggestions on where you may shove that argument. (nt)

[1ProudAtheist]

10. Why

Do you find it necessary to push your religion onto someone else? Nothing will ever be gained by such actions, and as I stated above, after centuries of wars over religious beliefs, have we not learned anything?

Your religious beliefs mean nothing to me, as mine do to you. That said, why must you feel the need to push yours while I do not do the same? Why not keep it private, as was intended. Read your big book of lies..........it tells you that very thing.

As for my beliefs, they are based upon sound reasoning and scientific facts. I was never brainwashed into believing in fairy tales and unproven theories. If anyone is angry, it is you. Perhaps you are afraid of those like myself who are able to enjoy life without having to pretend or show face. If you are so sure of your faith, then what I have to say is of no consequence to you.

However, the parading around of religious symbols is very offensive to those who choose to disagree with your chosen faith. How many times are you offended by the sight of symbols of other religions? Your fearless leader in Florida is so concerned that he wants to burn 3000 copies of the Quoran. Oh yeah, now there is some tolerance........and how about all of those screaming to the highest mountaintop about the building of Mosques?

I will stop here and allow you to digest some of what I said, and see what intolerant response you can come up with to try and silence me and my point of view.

[codemoguy]

11. this got posted as a response to the OP...

just wanted to confimr that was your intent...?

[codemoguy]

12. I'm not sure this is a reply to my post, but I'm going to reply to it anyway...

I don't see wearing a piece of jewelry as pushing beliefs on others...

I don't think I've ever been offended by the sight of symbols of a religion I don't share....

the guy in Florida is leader to a very small number of people...but you know that...and how do you know I'm Christian, and not Jewish, Muslim or Hindu?

also, what have I said that is angry or intolerant?

[Nye Bevan]

17. I'm starting to think this poster is posing as an exaggerated, extreme atheist,

and his or her real agenda is to discredit atheism.

[Posteritatis]

19. Wish I could believe that, but past threads on this sort of thing around here make me doubt it.

Some people really are just that cartoonishly hateful.

[bananas]

33. "cartoonishly hateful" is a good description.

It's like trying to get Wiley E. Coyote to stop hating on Road Runner.

Or Elmer Fudd to stop hating on Bugs Bunny.

[Throd]

60. Shhh, I'm hunting wascawy wewigious zeawots.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. 1) OP quoted a news article 2) You have no call to label the OP "intolerant" or trying to silence

1) The OP quoted a news article. The OP did not express an opinion.

2) You have no call to call the OP "intolerant" or wanting to "try and {sic} silence" you.

3) You don't know from this thread or profile the OP's religion or religious beliefs. If you are so vehemently sure of them, post them and your evidence for them.

4) On DU, we don't pre-emptively nuke people's responses the way you did if we adhere to the DU Community Standards.

P.S. The verbal compound form is "try to silence", not "try and silence". The latter means 'try some unspecified action while simultaneously actually silencing somebody where there is no try" (to paraphrase Yoda).

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. 1ObnoxiousAthiest. n/t

[Throd]

52. Dude, you're the reason I don't like a lot of my fellow atheists.

[4Q2u2]

58. So reasoning and Facts

Have brought you to the decision that only your sensibilities or like minded people's are to be deemed fit for public display. If their beliefs mean nothing to you, then why so upset about someone wearing a Cross on a necklace?
Most people arguing with you are based on freedom, and the denial of rights.
Of the 5 Billion people in the world practicing numerous religions you pick some half wit preacher from Florida and list him as a figure head for all. Then talk about reasoning and facts.

[MicaelS]

76. Atheists like you are the next to worst advertisement for Atheism possible.

The worst being Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Atheists like you are why people say they would never vote for an Atheist for public office.

[1ProudAtheist]

13. You Don't See

Because you don't want to see. This is about far more than what you "see". This is about what you don't "see".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. You don't see how a thread works. Let us help you.

1) In a thread, navigate to the post you want to reply to.

2) Click the "Reply to this post" link.
. 2b) If you really intend to reply to the Original Post (OP) then click the "Reply to this thread" link.

3) Type your response and press "Post my reply!".

That way A) your reply gets directed to the person you are replying to; B) your reply is posted with the correct hierarchical linkages to the other posts; and C) Your reply will have a link in its upper right corner linking it to the actual post it is replying to.

Welcome to the Intarwebz.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Scarves and crosses are not mandated by religious scripture. I read it's for votes among the rurals.

Nothing in the Quran says women must wear burkas or niqabs or hijabs or orange pastel flowers. But if they want to, they should be able to. A head scarf is not offensive, per se. It is only offensive to ignorant christians.

Nothing in the Bible says believers must wear crosses. A huge cross is kind of 'in your face', but let it be.

I understand that Quebecois want to promote their culture which is under siege by English language media, music, and arts, especially American culture. But this proposed ban will do nothing for that.

Wouldn't it be great if thousands of people showed up for work with turbans and headscarves and large Darwin amphibian symbols and they were all atheists or of religions not associated with that clothing?

Everybody going to meet the premier should wear a turban or a headscarf or a yarmulke.

The ban is a bunch of nonsense. I read that it is being pushed to appeal to the rural voters in Quebec, but even they should know better.

The only two things (along these lines) that should be prohibited is (1) the wearing of burkas or veils that hide the face; and probably then only for people who have contact with the public or other people outside of their work organization; and (2) Shirts with printed slogans for government jobs that deal with the public. Private employers should be able to veto symbols and slogans printed on shirts if they deal with the public.

[Posteritatis]

22. Rural Quebec is spectacularly, transparently bigoted

Has been for decades, will be for some time. In terms of tolerance the place is Mississippi. Including large crosses is only in the legislation to make it look like they aren't specifically targetting non-Christians, which is exactly the case; the legislation explicitly excludes the legislature itself from the law, on top of the ostentatious Catholic imagery in said legislature, prayers as part of the day-to-day operations, etc.

I work at a Canadian museum that focuses on immigration; the stories of newcomers who end up settling in rural Quebec, especially in the northern towns, are consistently appalling; if they aren't shunned, micromanaging town councils or neighborhood associations go very far out of their way to try to drop a bunch of individual-specific regulations on them, if they aren't doing even dumber stuff like making them sign a pledge to, e.g., not keep slaves or murder Christians.

It's pathetic, but they're still voters, and the PQ's only a little more classy on that front, so they've got no problems abasing themselves like this.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Thanks for the background. It illuminates what I read. nt

[snagglepuss]

46. Before smearing Christians, you should educate yourself about the antipathy the vast majority

of Quebecers feel towards religion, a hatred from having to live under the thumb of priests up until the 1960s. People who support this law are not Christians they are people who are fed up with organized religion across the board. You are ignorant for tryingf to make this CHristian versus every one else.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. You make stuff up. There is no smear. Read my post again and #22. Also, re: educating ...

I made only one reference to christians, and it was only to the minority of christians who are ignorant.

Let me make this crystal clear for you: Most christians are not ignorant. Got it?

You can retract the personal attack calling me "ignorant".

Now with regard to educating myself, I am always ready to learn more and ready to stand to be corrected. So I looked it up and found this information about the religious demographics of Quebec: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Quebec#Religion (2001, which is well after the 1960s)

83.2 % Roman Catholic christian
6.9 % other christian
------
90.1 % christian

5.8 % no religious affiliation

If the vast majority of Quebecers have hatred and antipathy to religion, then the vast majority of Quebecers would choose "no religion" or "atheist" or "agnostic".

Here are some charts from the 2011 census which seems to show the same story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/quebec-religion/index.html

Here is some information that lends some credence to your assertions. However, ...

The majority of Canadian Christians attend church infrequently. Cross-national surveys of religiosity rates such as the Pew Global Attitudes Project indicate that, on average, Canadian Christians are less observant than those of the United States but are still more overtly religious than their counterparts in Western Europe. In 2002, 30% of Canadians reported to Pew researchers that religion was "very important" to them. A 2005 Gallup poll showed that 28% of Canadians consider religion to be "very important" (55% of Americans and 19% of Britons say the same).[42] Regional differences within Canada exist, however, with British Columbia and Quebec reporting especially low metrics of traditional religious observance, as well as a significant urban-rural divide

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Canada#Christianity)
Note the last phrase "significant urban-rural divide", which indicates that in rural areas Catholic church attendance and observance is much higher than Montreal or Quebec.

It is that urban-rural divide that the PQ is appealing to. La charte des valeurs ne passe pas à Montréal

Now, do you have any references to information to back your assertions up? Or are you sticking with the personal attack?

[snagglepuss]

57. I'm not making stuff up. Your exact words "It is only offensive to ignorant christians."

No mention of a minority of Christians. You have now qualified your remark but there is still nothing to back up your claim that any Christians are behind this at all. What rural Quebecers worship is their culture. Any attachment or identification the majority of rural Quebecers have with Catholicism is cultural not religious.

My comment that you don't know what you are talking about in regards to Quebec stands.


http://www.vigile.net/Neither-practising-nor-believing

[Bernardo de La Paz]

59. When we say "orange cats" we do not mean all cats are orange.

This is basic English grammar.

When we say "orange cats" we do not mean all cats are orange. We mean we want to discuss a restricted class, a subset. Thus we attach a qualifying adjective to the now.

When I write that Islamic symbols are "only offensive to ignorant christians", it is clear to most readers that I'm not referring to all christians, but only those who are ignorant enough to be offended by somebody else's religious symbol. A subset of christians.

(That leaves aside the issue of whether a head scarf is actually a religious symbol.)

Please let me know when you are reading a thread so that I may be exceedingly verbose if I post in it so that you will not misunderstand ordinary English.

If it offends you that all cats might be considered orange, you are free to take offense at the phrase "orange cats".

If you are on a hair trigger wishing to be offended at perceived slights against christians it is entirely understandable that you would read an ordinary phrase in the worst possible interpretation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

61. If rural Quebecers are culturally attached to Catholicism, it proves my point.

If rural Quebecers are culturally attached to Catholicism, it proves my point:

The Charter of Values is a divisive attempt to scoop up rural votes.

[Sand Wind]

27. Interesting...

"Pushing the twin ideals of secularism and separation from Canada, the Parti Quebecois’ plan would prohibit public employees from wearing large crosses and crucifixes, Islamic headscarves, Sikh turbans and Jewish yarmulkes as a way to establish “religious neutrality” in public".

Bourguiba and Atatürk did the same.

[snagglepuss]

47. Good point. Didn't hurt Turkey at all.

[JoeyT]

28. I think this crosses the line between preventing state enforced religion

preventing people from practicing their religion. I get the feeling this is a way to crack down on displays from minority religions.

Anyone that thinks someone else wearing a religious symbol is somehow forcing their religion on others has lived a mighty sheltered life.

[Posteritatis]

65. Yep. There's plenty of mighty sheltered people here, clearly.

Plenty who don't have the tiniest shred of a clue about the Canadian constitution either. The ruling from the first judge who gets a challenge of it will be twenty pages of laughter and a request for the Quebec legislature to try again with something less transparently illegal.

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Its very telling

That so many of you on here are so worked up over the possibility of not being able to display your overt religious paraphernalia in peoples faces. My Gawd, what would happen if the State ever actually banned religion (Imagine - no religion)

That's the insidious nature of religion. Even elected representatives such as these putting it out there to make this small step to rid, at the very least, government buildings from your "Look at me...I'm a Believer...I have Faith...I love God.....do you?????" little fairy tale tokens and talismans...makes your heads spin faster than Linda Blair.

Its a tiny tiny step. A tiny tiny request..not to advertise Religion. You are walking billboards. Look at it like they want to ban people from wearing company advertisements on garments. Sure there is no real harm, but its annoying as hell to some of us.

I just applaud ANY government politician that has the balls to stand up to the massive fairy tale industrial complex.

[ConcernedCanuk]

36. "the insidious nature of religion"

.
.
.

yep.

"Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effect"

Wars mostly, - so I have no problem with a tiny law.

Much gentler than missiles and bombs.

CC

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. Tiny laws lead to wars. Ex: Stamp Act 1765. Religious laws worst. 1559 Act of Uniformity.

atheism was punishable by death in ancient Greece, in ancient Israel,[25] in Christian countries during the Middle Ages and in Muslim countries. Today, Atheism is a crime in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia,[26] Pakistan, and some other Muslim countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_%28Plymouth_Colony%29

The Separatists had long been controversial. Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of one shilling (£0.05; about £16 today[3]) for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood were executed for sedition in 1593.

[Throd]

53. I'm an atheist, not a vampire. I can handle seeing a cross.

[Nine]

68. LOL! +1,000,000 (nt)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. What's next? Banning symbols for Metallica? The Anarchist A? She has no balls you sexist.

Marois is a woman. She has ovaries. Sorry that fact disqualifies her in your eyes.

Please do not use sexist language in political debate here. Nobody is required to sport symbols of male dominance and patriarchy.

[Posteritatis]

66. I won't applaud any politician who makes a point of crapping on the Charter to score points. (nt)

[DissidentVoice]

31. Is this going to be enforced by the Office québécois de la langue française?

You know, the agency so obsessed with maintaining "pure laine" French culture in Quebec, which requires signage to carry French lettering larger than English?

It is this kind of lawmaking in Quebec that has caused many, many people and businesses to relocate to other provinces, especially Ontario.

What are they going to do...measure crucifix/cross/Star of David necklaces for size, and forcibly remove the cited Muslim, Sikh and Jewish headwear?

The Canadian military allows Sikhs to wear turbans...as shown by this RCAF officer...

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. Not a big ban fan.

[greymattermom]

37. orthodox Jews in Montreal

Many orthodox women in Montreal wear wigs. Can they ban wigs? They view them as a form of head covering.

[snagglepuss]

41. The ban is only for those who work in the public sector. Wigs would

be exempt because they are not overtly religious.

[DissidentVoice]

50. But who defines "overtly religious?"

Where do you draw the line?

What about a Rastafarian wearing jewellery with a marijuana leaf?

[Posteritatis]

63. The line's drawn at "whatever they don't like, unless it's the government at which point it's okay."

The whole point of the law is its arbitrariness.

[DissidentVoice]

72. Kind of like their "language police"

I live within walking distance of the Canadian border (with Ontario).

I have never been to Quebec.

However, I have a lot of friends and relatives in Ontario who have been there.

One friend, born in the UK but in Canada since 1962, bluntly says "fuck them."

An acupuncturist my grandmother used to see in Ontario emigrated from China to Montreal, became a Canadian citizen and built a successful practice. He moved to Windsor, Ontario. I went with her once to see him and he said he did so because the language police tried to force him to practice in French. He said "it was hard enough learning one language without having another imposed on me."

Some of my extended family from Ontario came to visit in 1990, right after the whole Meech Lake thing. They said "if Quebec wants to go, just LET THEM GO! However, they need to know that they will no longer have any funding from Ottawa, they will not be Canadian citizens, they will not have free movement or employment in the rest of Canada, and they will not get any of the Canadian military hardware currently there."

I don't see them ever seceding...they couldn't make it on their own.

[Indi Guy]

56. The article raises a few of questions...

"--the Parti Quebecois’ plan would prohibit public employees from wearing large crosses and crucifixes, Islamic headscarves"...

• How large is large? Is 1" too large for a cross? ...or will the size be measured in centimeters?
  
  
• How is one to distinguish between an Islamic headscarf and your average bad weather or bad hair day headscarf?
  
  
• Under who's authority are these kind of things decided?

[Nine]

70. This again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

Anyone who truly thinks this is motivated by anything other than anti-Muslim sentiment is simply naive. In France, "for many years school administrators have accepted, or tolerated, that schoolchildren wear symbols of their various religions, such as a Christian student wearing a cross, or a Jewish boy wearing a kippah." People didn't start getting their panties in a wad until the Muslims moved in next door. I believe it is the same in Quebec as in France. These laws are not being pushed by progressives.

[Posteritatis]

71. That's exactly right.

There's probably also a cynical "drive the ethnics out so we have a more pure laine electorate" aspect, too, especially since other provinces are already doing job recruiting in Quebec based on the idea that what's in peoples' heads is more important than what's on them.

[Indi Guy]

73. Whether or not you are correct...

...this relates to my post in what way?

I simply asked who's going to be the arbiter(s) of the parameters of the of this decision going forward.

[Nine]

74. I meant to reply to the original post, not to you.

I deleted my mistake and reposted here in the correct spot.