Canadian Muslims outraged as Quebec moves to ban religious symbols at schools, including hijab
Canadian Muslims outraged as Quebec moves to ban religious symbols at schools, including hijab
21 March 2025 Canada’s largest Muslim organisation is outraged over a bill introduced by the Quebec government that would ban headscarves for school support staff and students. Bill 94, tabled on Thursday, would cover not just teachers, as is now the case under the existing secularism law, but suppo...
Canada’s largest Muslim organisation is outraged over a bill introduced by the Quebec government that would ban headscarves for school support staff and students.
“In Quebec, we made the decision that state and the religion are separate,” said Education Minister Bernard Drainville, CBC News reported. “And today, we say the public schools are separate from religion.”
But the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), who are challenging in the Supreme Court the original bill that forbids religious symbols being worn by teachers, say the new bill is another infringement on their rights and unfairly targets hijab-wearing Muslims.
“This renewed attack on the fundamental rights of our community is just one of several recent actions taken by this historically unpopular government to bolster their poll numbers by attacking the rights of Muslim Canadians,” the NCCM said in a social media post.
By banning religious signs you do the opposite of separating religion from the state, since the state is forcing people to hide any sign that the person is from a religious group.
There is also the problem that there is thousands of religions that may have their own signs how can you known all the religion signs and ban them? Also beards can be considered a religious sign should we also ban it or require a certain beard length limit just like peoole used to measure how short a women skirt is?
I hope this don't make more visible divisions between canadian. Right know most of the separation is shiwn online.
I heard arguments about it in other spaces that made a lot of sense to me. Like a judge who ought to be able to visibly set their religion aside while exercising their authority, rather than signaling possible conflicts of interest in the very office such would compromise. I think I'm even on board with that reasoning. By that same reasoning, maybe it's appropriate to also restrict displays of religious affiliation by school staff.
But why students?
That's blatant cultural suppression and I cannot conceive a remotely coherent justification for it. And why the focus specifically on people showing their faces? Can you imagine if we mandated a certain amount of cleavage? How the fuck is this anybody's business?
This just has me re-evaluating the cultural protectionism/outgroup suppression I'd previously deemed adequately justified.
I think it's a good move that Christians aren't allowed to wear crosses in public anymore. Always reminds me of pedophiles and that makes me feel uncomfortable.
Well done. 👏😂
They're not, the CAQ is nothing but hypocrites on the subject. They excluded Christians symbols from the get go.
They excluded religious items that didn't shove oppressive symbolism in people's faces. Get your facts straight.
I thought as much.
That report is made by these guys.
You, know, the guys behind Reaganomics and push for the privatization of everything
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research
I don't think this law bans all hijab but just the niqab which is the one that also covers the face and is generally seen as fundamentalist in most Muslim countries. The bill itself says face and not head covering. Not to say that this entire bill isn't driven by some level of xenophobia (Christian symbols and holidays are seen as heritage/culture while non-Christian ones are seen purely as religious etc)
Most articles spefically mention hijabs even though the word face keeps getting mentioned which is indeed strange. Assuming the ban is all religious symbols and not only face veils it would include the Hijab.
The reporting in French I saw said "voile integral" which is niqab/burqa and I checked the bill itself and it just said face covering (excluding medical purposes)
I think this is wrong. I get that the hijab is complicated ethically, as it's expected of Muslim women. Wether or not it's consensual is debatable, sure.
I've also spoken to Muslim women who claim to be wearing it voluntarily, because it makes them feel less objectified and more comfortable in their own skin. It's also a connection to their cultural and religious background, which is important. As a non-Muslim, I don't really think I'm qualified to argue. I don't think it should be the provincial government's decision either. At the end of the day, it's a piece of cloth... What does it really hurt?
When I lived in Quebec, I saw plenty of Christian religious symbols. Will removing those be enforced as well?
apparently, yes. crosses, anyways:
The ban, meant to separate the state from religion, also outlaws Christian crosses, Jewish kippahs and Sikh turbans.
I'm happy that Quebec has finally decided to include Christian symbols in these laws (they started targeting Muslim women around 2012/2013 but didn't end up passing any laws banning religious symbols until Bill 62 in 2017), but I don't believe that they will be enforced equally. Also, a cross is easily hidden whereas a head or face covering is not.
I saw that, but I'm very skeptical it will be enforced with the same frequency as hijabs. In my experience, Quebec is obsessed with promoting it's own culture. Christianity is a big part of French Canadian culture, so I expect it will get a pass. It's very much a "rules for thee, not for me" sort of place.
If I'm wrong and it's enforced equally for everyone, that's better. I still don't think the government has any business making laws around peaceful religious expression, however.
The social implications of veiling are an interesting and complex topic. Unfortunately, public discourse tends to be pretty bad at handling complex topics. But there are occasional moments of lucidity. To wit:
Sometime around 2015 or so we had a big political debate in Germany. Some politicians were floating the idea of a "burqa ban" (= a flat ban on all forms of Islamic face veiling). For a while it was seriously debated but it ultimately failed as most Germans considered it to violate freedom of religion.
The media were actually helpful – at least the publicly funded ones were. One particularly interesting report I saw was when a female reporter put on full veils (and correctly identified what she was wearing as a niqab, not a burqa) and went out in public. First with a hidden camera to see how she was treated, then with a camera team to get vox pops.
Opinions were actually fairly divided even among Muslims. One male Muslim argued that face veils always are inherently oppressive and have no place in society. A young woman (who was wearing nothing indicating her religion) expressed admiration for those who fully veil and hoped that one day she'd be able to as well. An old woman wearing a headscarf who was carrying groceries said that she did wear the niqab "but not right now; I have things to do".
That diversity of views has stuck with me, especially that last statement. I never expected someone who observes such full veiling to be so pragmatic about it. (Yes, that does go against the reasons for wearing them in the first place but everybody tailors their religion to themself.) If wearing any kind of veils can be something you can just decide not to do, then it becomes an expression of agency, not one of lack thereof. I respect that.
Of course it's not respectable when someone is forced to wear a headscarf/a niqab/whatever. But a ban isn't going to fix that; people who oppress their wives aren't going to stop doing so. If they feel that nobody outside the house is allowed to see their wife's face then the wife will simply no longer be allowed to leave the house.
Ultimately, in my opinion, people should be allowed to wear any religious garment they want, provided it's their own desire to do so and there's no overriding reason to disallow it. (E.g., no matter how religious you are, you do not wear a kaftan or a cross necklace or anything else that dangles while operating industrial machinery.) Anything else is useless at best.
Wrapping women up is the tool of oppression, so good for Canada.
Personally, I think all religions can go fuck themselfes and I also think that you are right, wrapping up women is a tool of oppression.
But this is exactly the same: Forcing women what (not) to wear. This is bad for those who want to wrap themselfes up and this is bad for those who get problems with their shitty families who don't want them to go to such places. So fuck that shit, too.
Women can make that decision for themselves, individually, based on what they are comfortable with.
These can't. Ask their owner, i mean dad.
Just like the women in Iran/Afghanistan. They can do whatever they want there. Put on a bikini, shorts etc. Totally free to do what their husbands tell them to. Maybe I'll send my two daughters.
Eliminate tax free status of ALL religions. Fine and charge all public displays of religion that are outside of their own properties, be it private or congregations. So sick and tired of seeing our laws bend to include or exclude religions. It’s a wonder that after 3000 some years that the Abrahamics still have this much pull.
The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees freedom of religion. That means freedom to worship in private or public. Unless you're planning on bending the constitution, you can't remove public display of religion in Canada.
“In Quebec, we made the decision that state and the religion are separate,” said Education Minister Bernard Drainville
What is religion anyway? Worshiping men (politicians) is okay, but worshiping Allah is not?
As someone else pointed out, even from a liberal pov, this is wrong as it is anti-freedom and anti-personal autonomy. Women should have the right to choose what to wear according such a philosophy. Using the unconvincing loophole of "but they were forced to wear hijab" to turn this into something pro-freedom/pro-autonomy hardly changes that fact.
It's a dangerous path to take, as these politicians will not only step on Muslims' rights, but also set a precedent that the government (a few elites) can dictate when people are wearing too much. It also undermines the entire notion of protecting women's rights.
Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) should have been a red flag that Canada's rulers are mildly deranged along with being morally bankrupt.
Can the fucking French stop trying to take cloth off Muslim women for one fucking second?
Nobody is stopping them to wear whatever they want in school ... they just have to choose another country if they are so brainwashed.
Nobody is stopping people protest against Israel in the USA. They just have to choose another country or stop protesting? This is how stupid your argument is
You sound just like conservatives saying "if you don't like it you can just leave".
i agree conservatives and Nazi are bad. Thankfully, you and i are not like them 😁👍
It’s literally a piece of cloth. How is that a fundamental right? I was forced to take my cap off at school back in the day. What about my rights?
I have nothing against Muslims. But I have a problem with people emigrating to other countries and then crying about having to follow rules and scream DISCRIMINATION!
Go somewhere else then. Omg… it’s not like they’re forbidding Islam or something. Just practice it at home instead.
In Germany, pork is banned in school cafeterias and during Ramadan, SOME teachers ask ALL students not to eat during recess/breaks out of respect for fasting Muslims. Fuck that. This is Europe, not the Middle East.
It’s like moving to china and then demanding that chopsticks need to be replaced by forks, otherwise they’re literally nazis lol.
With your logic, western countries should stop talking about lack of human right in certain countries.
Yes, you’re right. It’s not our business. Let these places deal with their issues and stop wasting funds on them.
It’s literally a piece of cloth.
Right...
Damn, I was hoping we wouldn't have your type around here.
Edit: I really should have quoted the other part, I think you softened the wording (slightly). I just hate the attitude of "blend in or stay out".
In Germany, pork is banned in school cafeterias and during Ramadan, SOME teachers ask ALL students not to eat during recess/breaks out of respect for fasting Muslims. Fuck that. This is Europe, not the Middle East.
Irrelevant to this issue. I don't care if you have schoolboy trauma from not eating pork, get it out of this conversation. This is about Muslim women in Quebec, not snowflake Germans who want to spread conservative racist ideology.