The Danger of Banning Religious Garb

[cbayer]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/01/the-danger-of-banning-religious-garb/283272/

The Canadian province of Quebec is debating whether to prohibit public employees from wearing clothing with "overt" spiritual symbolism.
JAKE FLANAGINJAN 23 2014, 11:54 AM ET


norhafydzah mahfodz/Flickr

“That’s it, I’m moving to Canada.” It’s probably one of the most consulted entries in the modern American liberal’s phrasebook. That, or, “I’m moving to France.” Although it’s far easier said than done (visas can be tricky), it’s not hard to see why the sentiment is so popular among fed-up Democrats. Canada and France, home to universal healthcare, state-funded arts, and rigorous gun control, are generally havens of progressive values. One would think the province of Quebec, which stands at the cultural intersection of French and Canadian progressivism, would be the ideal liberal locale.

But Quebec could soon follow France's lead on government-enforced secularism and depart even more than it has previously from the policies of tolerance and multiculturalism that Canada is known for, all in the name of “values.”

The Quebec Charter of Values (Bill 60) was originally proposed in May 2013 by Bernard Drainville, Quebec’s minister of democratic institutions and active citizenship and a member of the nationalist-separatist Parti Québécois, which won a minority mandate in the 2012 general election. Among other things, the legislation seeks to prohibit public-sector employees from wearing “objects such as headgear, clothing, jewelry or other adornments which, by their conspicuous nature, overtly indicate a religious affiliation”—items like kippahs, turbans, hijabs, and even larger-than-average crucifixes. The ban would apply to all civil servants, including teachers, doctors, nurses, and police officers. It remains unclear whether the bill will pass and withstand legal challenges, but 60 percent of Quebecers now support the charter’s ban on religious symbols.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Drainville attempted to defend the controversial measure: “From a historical perspective, Quebec was a very religious society for a very long time. In the 1960s we decided as a society to separate the Catholic Church from the state. We basically decided to become a secular state. And I suppose what we are doing with the charter is the logical extension of this decision made in the 1960s.”

more at link

[Cleita]

1. Kind of off topic but when I worked at a local university in the early eighties,

I worked in a department that had about fifty percent Muslim women from the ME and our manager was also a Muslim man from the ME. Not a single woman wore religious garb or a head scarf. All dressed fashionably and wore makeup. They all thought women who wore religious garb were backwards and wouldn't be caught dead in anything resembling a veil. When did it become a requirement for them to dress this way?

That being said, I really don't think the law should tell women how to dress as long as it's appropriate for the workplace. By that I mean that it's safe to work in depending what they are doing. A nation that has western culture like Canada should be progressive enough to be tolerant of other peoples social mores.

[cbayer]

2. Outside of certain cultural demands, I'm not sure there is any requirement.

Many muslim women in North America choose not to wear religious headwear, but some do choose to wear it.

And, imo, they should be permitted to wear whatever they want.

I worked with a Sikh for a few years. I can't even imagine him without his turban. It was an essential part of his identity.

I think this law is more about Quebec wanting to keep out "others" than anything. I doubt very much that they are going to outlaw nun's habits or priests collars.

[pinto]

4. Agree, I think there's an ethnic / religious undercurrent to this beyond support of secularism.

[Cleita]

6. I think you are right about keeping the others out. n/t

[pinto]

3. Interesting comments both pro and con Bill 60 in the article.

I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian constitution but in US 1st Amendment terms I'd ask this - does an individual in the public sector who simply wears a hijab, turban, cross or Star of David represent a state supported establishment of religion?

I think not. It's a quixotic stand in for a larger issue - state funded institutional / legislative support for advocating religion in the public sector. The glaring example is the move to legislate faith based school texts in public schools.

That's where secularists can really address the bigger point.

A PA in our public health clinic wearing a turban is a non-issue to me.

[cbayer]

5. For me, secularism doesn't mean erasing religion, it means separation of religion.

And that includes allowing individuals the right to express their religious beliefs as long as they don't impinge on others.

I think the promoters of this want to keep Quebec catholic, not make it more secular.