Quebec Religious Symbols Ban

[The Intransigent Faction]

Ni6W0bZlrdY

I wonder if the PQ is just confusing state Atheism for secularism.

As much as I'd love to see religion and religious symbols gone, this is (obviously) an ineffective, and worse, undemocratic approach. Anyway, of all things worth worrying over about religion, this is probably the least. It's not hurting anyone and it's nobody's business whether a person chooses to wear a hijab, kippah, cross (though I was surprised this was included), turban, etc.

Thoughts?

[Spruce]

I support the ban. Government should be free from the influence of religion, and serve the public without recognizing or privileging a faith. While they are representing the public in their duties, public servants shouldn't wear overt religious symbols or clothing, otherwise their ability to serve a member of the public without recognition of religion is compromised.

The fact is individuals are already not free to do whatever they want when they are employed as public servants. For example, the habits of religious orders are not allowed to be worn by public school teachers because they are employed as teachers in a secular education system, not as nuns or monks, whatever they do in their private lives. It would be a different matter if the Quebec government wanted to ban all religious symbols everywhere.

Accusations that secularism is bigoted or racist have become very tiresome. It's not secular society's fault that certain groups insist on unreasonable accommodations for their superstitions. They are free to find new jobs or emigrate if it's so terribly burdensome.

[Orange Juche]

I support the ban. Government should be free from the influence of religion, and serve the public without recognizing or privileging a faith. While they are representing the public in their duties, public servants shouldn't wear overt religious symbols or clothing, otherwise their ability to serve a member of the public without recognition of religion is compromised.

I tend to think if you're within reason, you shouldn't have to compromise yourself as a human being to fit in with some kind of generic, static drove of workers. I loathe the idea of any employment being a trade-off as a means to live for trading who you are and how you want to freely express yourself.

I can understand, and even agree with, banning things that hinder identification in certain circumstances (particularly if working with children or hospital patients, for example). But this seems overreaching to the point of absurdity.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Doesn't Quebec have a very nasty history of christian church despots? I heard that most of the insults in Quebecan French relate to the clergy.

[Devrim]

It's not secular society's fault that certain groups insist on unreasonable accommodations for their superstitions. They are free to find new jobs or emigrate if it's so terribly burdensome.

So just to be clear here what you are saying is that religious minorities because that is whom this is aimed at should leave the country if they don't like it.

Effectively this means 'Darkies go home'. Who needs a right wing when we have a left like this.

Devrim

[Flying Purple People Eater]

They are free to find new jobs or emigrate if it's so terribly burdensome.

That's some capitalism apologia you've got there, buddy.

"They are free to find a new job or migrate if they don't like working conditions" why the hell are you even on a leftist forum?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Now, to be fair, not all restrictions on workers are "capitalist" and to be opposed - for example, I think it makes sense to say that, for example, if someone does not wish to sell contraception or "morning after pills", they shouldn't work as a pharmacist, and shouldn't be surprised when their employment is terminated. An argument could be made that the state should not promote any specific religion through its agents, and certainly most religious symbols are symbols of oppression and backwardness.

But that argument is perfectly irrelevant, in the present society at least, because this is obviously not about laicity, but about repressing certain ethnic groups that are associated with religions such as Islams and Sikhism. That is why only "very visible" crosses are banned, for example.

[Bostana]

Let me translate this:
"Muslim people can practice their religion, but if you want to wear a kippah, or a cross it's ok. Just as long as you aren't one of them"

[Consistent.Surprise]

But that argument is perfectly irrelevant, in the present society at least, because this is obviously not about laicity, but about repressing certain ethnic groups that are associated with religions such as Islams and Sikhism. That is why only "very visible" crosses are banned, for example.

The "visible cross" got me.

Sorry, this is bullshit since a crucifix or cross can easily be out of sight. Why do Christians get to keep their faith through a piece of something (jewelry mostly) yet the Jew or the Muslim must conform to the governments standards? All of the people of public employment should be qualified for their jobs, so why does anyone care about a hijab? I care more that people are qualified. So long as these employees aren't pushing their religion, should anyone really give a fuck over a hijab, turban, yarmulke, etc.?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So context:
Post-Quiet Revolution most white Québécois (esp. in the urban centres) are pretty goddless (on paper the province is overwhelmingly Catholic, but on paper I'm a Catholic, so . . . ). In reality, this is a some good old fashioned knee-jerk Québécois xenophobia, directed primarily against recent immigrants.

[Art Vandelay]

So context:
Post-Quiet Revolution most white Québécois (esp. in the urban centres) are pretty goddless (on paper the province is overwhelmingly Catholic, but on paper I'm a Catholic, so . . . ). In reality, this is a some good old fashioned knee-jerk Québécois xenophobia, directed primarily against recent immigrants.

Its quite sad that the province in Cananda, which for all intents and purposes is the forefront of the anti-capitalist struggle in this country, also has so much latent reactionary nationalism built up. Offers an interesting task for Quebecois leftists (which I may become soon enough).

[Spruce]

I tend to think if you're within reason, you shouldn't have to compromise yourself as a human being to fit in with some kind of generic, static drove of workers. I loathe the idea of any employment being a trade-off as a means to live for trading who you are and how you want to freely express yourself.

I can understand, and even agree with, banning things that hinder identification in certain circumstances (particularly if working with children or hospital patients, for example). But this seems overreaching to the point of absurdity.
Seems weird to me that you think people who are told what they have to wear by their religion, with the intent of separating themselves from the nonbelievers, are the ones freely expressing themselves, and the rest of us are just drones. Something tells me that if I show up at work from now on wearing an unbuttoned Hawaiian shirt, they aren’t going to buy my excuse that God told me so – so why are we letting people get away with the ‘my religion told me so’ excuse when they are supposed to be the face of a secular institution?

So just to be clear here what you are saying is that religious minorities because that is whom this is aimed at should leave the country if they don't like it.

Effectively this means 'Darkies go home'. Who needs a right wing when we have a left like this.

Devrim
Aren’t you quick with that race card. Must be a lot of Justin Trudeau supporters on this forum. Sorry, religion is not race, and this is a debate about where religion is appropriate and where it isn’t. I want to see real evidence, not conjecture, that this has xenophobic intent; that this isn’t exactly what it looks like: an attempt to define what the rules are for displaying religious symbols in the public service. If Jews, Muslims or Sikhs can’t play by the rules everyone else does, and demand special religious privileges in areas that were intended to be secular, maybe the problem doesn’t lie here, with secular society, but rather with those religions.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I like how they decided not to remove the cross from the legislature because "it's part of the provinces heritage".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aren’t you quick with that race card. Must be a lot of Justin Trudeau supporters on this forum. Sorry, religion is not race, and this is a debate about where religion is appropriate and where it isn’t. I want to see real evidence, not conjecture, that this has xenophobic intent; that this isn’t exactly what it looks like: an attempt to define what the rules are for displaying religious symbols in the public service. If Jews, Muslims or Sikhs can’t play by the rules everyone else does, and demand special religious privileges in areas that were intended to be secular, maybe the problem doesn’t lie here, with secular society, but rather with those religions.

Sorry, in real world terms, this is about race; those affected will be almost exclusively racialized. What you're saying is akin to "The drug war isn't about race: it's about drugs!" Funny, who gets locked up?

If you think otherwise, you're wildly unaware of the political reality on the ground in Québec, not to mention towing the line of the bourgeois nationalist PQ. Opposing xenophobic bourgeois nationalists does not put one in the Trudeau camp. Case in point, even the left wing of the parliamentary sovreigntists, Québec Solidaire, denounce the charter as racist and sexist.

[Red_Banner]

Isn't the ban just on state officals, not on everyone?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Isn't the ban just on state officals, not on everyone?

Public employees: In a province where the provincial government is the largest employer.

[Spruce]

Sorry, in real world terms, this is about race; those affected will be almost exclusively racialized. What you're saying is akin to "The drug war isn't about race: it's about drugs!" Funny, who gets locked up?

Why is the comparison here relevant? In my opinion, the drug war was unjustified on its own terms to begin with, do you think the same thing about state secularism?

Besides, whether something affects some races more than others is not a litmus test of whether it’s racist or not. If female circumcision is illegal, and this concerns those from the Middle East and African almost exclusively, I’m okay with its prosecution falling almost entirely on Africans and Middle Easterners because the practice is wrong, and it doesn’t matter who does it.

I would be more willing to entertain the idea that this was motivated by something other than protecting secularism if, say, the government arbitrarily decided that it would no longer allow public servants to wear brimless pieces of clothing on their heads.


If you think otherwise, you're wildly unaware of the political reality on the ground in Québec, not to mention towing the line of the bourgeois nationalist PQ. Opposing xenophobic bourgeois nationalists does not put one in the Trudeau camp. Case in point, even the left wing of the parliamentary sovreigntists, Québec Solidaire, denounce the charter as racist and sexist.
Again repeating the accusation of widespread xenophobia without evidence, the Quebec is racist and anti-Semitic slander that you read a million times in the Globe & Mail, National Post, Ottawa Citizen, etc. I don’t buy it, and I don’t trust most left wing groups on this issue either since most have bought into the racial identity politics racket (Made in USA).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I want to see real evidence, not conjecture, that this has xenophobic intent; that this isn’t exactly what it looks like: an attempt to define what the rules are for displaying religious symbols in the public service.

How about the fact that the charter would only prohibit "very visible" - and note how vague the expression is - crosses, whereas other religious symbols are prohibited, full stop. And that the legislature of the secular province of Quebec will continue to display a large cross.

[Devrim]

Aren’t you quick with that race card. Must be a lot of Justin Trudeau supporters on this forum. Sorry, religion is not race, and this is a debate about where religion is appropriate and where it isn’t. I want to see real evidence, not conjecture, that this has xenophobic intent; that this isn’t exactly what it looks like: an attempt to define what the rules are for displaying religious symbols in the public service. If Jews, Muslims or Sikhs can’t play by the rules everyone else does, and demand special religious privileges in areas that were intended to be secular, maybe the problem doesn’t lie here, with secular society, but rather with those religions.

I don't think that I am 'quick to play the race card' nor do I have any idea whatsoever who Justin Trudeau is.

I think that it is clearly a racist law. The fact that the cross in the symbol isn't effected just adds to the obviousness of this. It is something that is aimed specifically at religious minorities. Christians are not obliged by their religion to wear a cross, and people who want to wear a cross can do so with it under their shirt. Many Muslim women feel that they have a religious obligation to wear a headscarf. It is not like they can wear it under their hair or something.

Religion is often directly connected to race. Racism has also become a lot more subtle in recent years. It is not possible to say 'kick the darkies out' anymore. It is possible to target exactly the same people by talking about their religion.

I don't think that your views on this mean that you are a racist. I think lots of people are pulled along unwittingly behind the mass campaign against Muslims, which is a racist campaign.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think that I am 'quick to play the race card' nor do I have any idea whatsoever who Justin Trudeau is.

I think that it is clearly a racist law. The fact that the cross in the symbol isn't effected just adds to the obviousness of this. It is something that is aimed specifically at religious minorities. Christians are not obliged by their religion to wear a cross, and people who want to wear a cross can do so with it under their shirt. Many Muslim women feel that they have a religious obligation to wear a headscarf. It is not like they can wear it under their hair or something.

Religion is often directly connected to race. Racism has also become a lot more subtle in recent years. It is not possible to say 'kick the darkies out' anymore. It is possible to target exactly the same people by talking about their religion.

I don't think that your views on this mean that you are a racist. I think lots of people are pulled along unwittingly behind the mass campaign against Muslims, which is a racist campaign.

Devrim

I think you bent the stick too far.

Obviously, the present campaign is racist in inspiration - that is, it targets certain clearly visible national and ethnic minorities. That said, surely it is better for the agents of public power to appear religiously neutral? (It would, of course, be even better for that power to actually be religiously neutral, but that is impossible in the bourgeois state.) So why should religious individuals receive special accommodation? I think society accommodates them enough as it is.

[Devrim]

I think you bent the stick too far.

Obviously, the present campaign is racist in inspiration - that is, it targets certain clearly visible national and ethnic minorities. That said, surely it is better for the agents of public power to appear religiously neutral? (It would, of course, be even better for that power to actually be religiously neutral, but that is impossible in the bourgeois state.) So why should religious individuals receive special accommodation? I think society accommodates them enough as it is.

I am not sure what you mean here. I don't think that 'religious individuals should receive special accommodation' nor do I think that they should be specifically discriminated against as in this case.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am not sure what you mean here. I don't think that 'religious individuals should receive special accommodation' nor do I think that they should be specifically discriminated against as in this case.

It seems to me that, in principle, people should access public services without being confronted with religious, cultural, or political propaganda, particularly given the nature of certain public services (medicine etc.). Why should (certain) religions be an exception to this? I imagine that in the transitional society and lower phases of the communist society all religious symbols would be excluded from public services, particularly those of dominant religions such as Christianity (in Canada, of course).

[Devrim]

It seems to me that, in principle, people should access public services without being confronted with religious, cultural, or political propaganda, particularly given the nature of certain public services (medicine etc.). Why should (certain) religions be an exception to this?

Do you really think that wearing a headscarf is religious propaganda?

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do you really think that wearing a headscarf is religious propaganda?

Devrim

Well, yes, at least to the same extent as painting your face in the colours of "your" flag is nationalist propaganda, or a hammer, sickle and four tattoo is political propaganda. Headscarves are partially cultural, of course, but things like crosses are definitely religious propaganda.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Okay, so it's pretty clear that as in the Quebec Soccer Federation case, this is an issue of xenophobia disguised as freedom of (or from) religion.

Certain religious symbols are definitely symbols of historical oppression. That said, I don't give a damn if my doctor wears a cross, or a kippah, or a hijab, or a turban, etc. as long as he or she does his/her job well. To those that wear them, they are expressions of faith, and we shouldn't compromise freedom of expression or people's employment over something that isn't really much to 'put up with' as an Atheist.

I suppose the attractiveness or unattractiveness of government bans will predictably vary across tendencies here.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Certain religious symbols are definitely symbols of historical oppression. That said, I don't give a damn if my doctor wears a cross, or a kippah, or a hijab, or a turban, etc. as long as he or she does his/her job well. To those that wear them, they are expressions of faith, and we shouldn't compromise freedom of expression or people's employment over something that isn't really much to 'put up with' as an Atheist.

I imagine that a woman wanting to have an abortion, or an LGBT person wanting to test for HIV, would be intimidated by such symbolism, at least some of them, and they certainly create a toxic atmosphere for such people, driving them away from public services.

[Consistent.Surprise]

I imagine that a woman wanting to have an abortion, or an LGBT person wanting to test for HIV, would be intimidated by such symbolism, at least some of them, and they certainly create a toxic atmosphere for such people, driving them away from public services.

I can see your point but I also just thought that even without the indicators that might create suspicion of judgement, there is still a possibility of the then verbal toxicity. So might the absence of such religious expressions also drive people away? Just a thought.

[Devrim]

Well, yes, at least to the same extent as painting your face in the colours of "your" flag is nationalist propaganda, or a hammer, sickle and four tattoo is political propaganda. Headscarves are partially cultural, of course, but things like crosses are definitely religious propaganda.

OK, I don't think that wearing a headscarf is some form of propaganda for a start. The difference between it and the other things you mention is that people who paint national flags onto their faces don't believe that they have to wear this face paint every day. Women who wear headscarves (or Sikh men) do believe this. If you ban workers from wearing these things you are effectively forcing these people out of their jobs.

You do realise as you said in an earlier post that this is essentially a racist campaign:


Obviously, the present campaign is racist in inspiration - that is, it targets certain clearly visible national and ethnic minorities.

Yet you still seem to support it.

To look at it another way though, do you support the idea of the state telling people what to wear?


I imagine that a woman wanting to have an abortion, or an LGBT person wanting to test for HIV, would be intimidated by such symbolism, at least some of them, and they certainly create a toxic atmosphere for such people, driving them away from public services.

What sort of HIV test do you have where you live?

The last time I had one, it was like a factory, show identity card, have blood taken, pick up results in sealed envelope the next day. I think nobody said more than three words to me. If I remember correctly the woman who gave me the envelope containing the results was actually wearing a headscarf too.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You do realise as you said in an earlier post that this is essentially a racist campaign:

[...]

Yet you still seem to support it.

No. I oppose this campaign, and all similar campaigns in bourgeois states, due to their racist character. But I do not think that we should dismiss the possibility of similar laws being enacted in a proletarian state - of course such laws should also target the majority religion, instead of making special allowances for it.


To look at it another way though, do you support the idea of the state telling people what to wear?

In general, no. Yet there are obviously situations in which some public concern can override the right of individuals to wear whatever they want - for example, as much as I support the right to public nudity, I think it should be prohibited in hospital waiting rooms for reasons of hygiene.


What sort of HIV test do you have where you live?

The last time I had one, it was like a factory, show identity card, have blood taken, pick up results in sealed envelope the next day. I think nobody said more than three words to me. If I remember correctly the woman who gave me the envelope containing the results was actually wearing a headscarf too.

Devrim

Here, the staff is more chatty - or at least they used to be. But surely you can see how prominent religious symbols could create an atmosphere that is toxic to certain groups?

[Brotto Rühle]

Semendyaev, it seems you are concerned with appearances, and not with the fact that, even if you strip a Muslim woman of her hijab...that she remains a Muslim. Your attitude is: It's okay if you're one of "them", so long as I do not know it. To be honest, do you really think the motives of this are to protect people from "being intimidated".

[Sea]

It seems to me that, in principle, people should access public services without being confronted with religious, cultural, or political propaganda, particularly given the nature of certain public services (medicine etc.). Why should (certain) religions be an exception to this? I imagine that in the transitional society and lower phases of the communist society all religious symbols would be excluded from public services, particularly those of dominant religions such as Christianity (in Canada, of course).Are there any special symbols for Christian Scientists? I could have a lot of fun with this...

[The Intransigent Faction]

No. I oppose this campaign, and all similar campaigns in bourgeois states, due to their racist character. But I do not think that we should dismiss the possibility of similar laws being enacted in a proletarian state - of course such laws should also target the majority religion, instead of making special allowances for it.

If an act is xenophobic, how is it any less xenophobic simply by being done by a proletarian state?


In general, no. Yet there are obviously situations in which some public concern can override the right of individuals to wear whatever they want - for example, as much as I support the right to public nudity, I think it should be prohibited in hospital waiting rooms for reasons of hygiene.

Which is in no way analogous to this legislation.


Here, the staff is more chatty - or at least they used to be. But surely you can see how prominent religious symbols could create an atmosphere that is toxic to certain groups?

Nope. I can see how this kind of xenophobic legislation would create a toxic atmosphere in Quebec, though.

[Devrim]

No. I oppose this campaign, and all similar campaigns in bourgeois states, due to their racist character. But I do not think that we should dismiss the possibility of similar laws being enacted in a proletarian state - of course such laws should also target the majority religion, instead of making special allowances for it.

I am not busy planning the dress code policy for post revolutionary public services. I would imagine though that direct suppression of a religion would not be a very constructive policy.


In general, no. Yet there are obviously situations in which some public concern can override the right of individuals to wear whatever they want - for example, as much as I support the right to public nudity, I think it should be prohibited in hospital waiting rooms for reasons of hygiene.

As has been pointed out this isn't relevant in anyway.


Here, the staff is more chatty - or at least they used to be. But surely you can see how prominent religious symbols could create an atmosphere that is toxic to certain groups?

I imagine that it could upset people who have prejudices against Muslims, yes.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Semendyaev, it seems you are concerned with appearances, and not with the fact that, even if you strip a Muslim woman of her hijab...that she remains a Muslim. Your attitude is: It's okay if you're one of "them", so long as I do not know it. To be honest, do you really think the motives of this are to protect people from "being intimidated".

No? Which is why I explicitly said, several times, that I do not support this prohibition? Perhaps I need to repeat myself an additional three or four times.

As for the hypothetical prohibition I was discussing, the point was not to save the souls of the religious, but to prevent an atmosphere that is hostile to certain specially oppressed groups from forming, thus preventing effective access to public services.


Are there any special symbols for Christian Scientists? I could have a lot of fun with this...

And do you think I support private medical institutions, let alone those run by religious groups? I don't understand your objection, to be honest.


If an act is xenophobic, how is it any less xenophobic simply by being done by a proletarian state?

It doesn't. I never suggested anything like that, however. What I said was that we should not discount the possibility of similar laws being enacted in a workers' state - and that these states should target the dominant religion, which is in every state the greatest repository of reactionary sentiment, obscurantism and bigotry. Would you call restrictions on Protestantism in Canada or Catholicism in Italy xenophobic?


Which is in no way analogous to this legislation.

Perhaps it is, to a degree. Hygienic conditions improve ease of access to public services - unhygienic conditions would, well, apart from being dangerous they would turn away a significant number of people. Likewise, prominent religious, national and ideological symbols would turn away members of specially oppressed groups.


Nope.

But surely you can see how hanging big Canadian or Quebecois banners on everything would turn away certain national and racial minorities, or how decorating a hospital with the symbols of the Orange Order would turn away the Irish? How is it that religion always gets a free pass?


I am not busy planning the dress code policy for post revolutionary public services.

Neither am I. I am simply presenting a hypothetical situation in order to (1) argue against the notion that religious (or nationalist or...) people have a right to wear whatever they please if they are in direct state service, and (2) raise some questions about the relation of the workers' state to religion. Talking about how things might develop in the next social epoch is not plan-mongering.


I would imagine though that direct suppression of a religion would not be a very constructive policy.

Surely, that depends on the circumstances, but I don't see how the direct suppression of religious expression in the state service would be counterproductive.


I imagine that it could upset people who have prejudices against Muslims, yes.

And what prejudice might that be? That Islam is somehow specially backwards or problematic? I never said anything similar. In fact, I specifically said that the focus on Islam was racist, and that such prohibitions in a hypothetical Canadian workers' state should focus on Protestantism as the dominant religion. It really depresses me that you are not above dismissing any sort of criticism of religion with charges of Islamophobia.

Or the prejudice that Islam, like all religions, contributes to discrimination and violence against specially oppressed groups, particularly women and LGBT people? That is not a prejudice but a fact.

[servusmoderni]

Doesn't Quebec have a very nasty history of christian church despots? I heard that most of the insults in Quebecan French relate to the clergy.

Yes it does, Tabarnak!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

-

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But surely you can see how hanging big Canadian or Quebecois banners on everything would turn away certain national and racial minorities, or how decorating a hospital with the symbols of the Orange Order would turn away the Irish? How is it that religion always gets a free pass?

"Religion" doesn't always get a free pass. Unlike you, we're not dealing with hypothetical situations - we're dealing with a real piece of racist legislation set to be rolled out in a province where some of us live. The fact of the matter is, the religious minorities targeted by said legislation don't have the power to hang giant banners on public institutions. And in fact, many hospitals, for instance, already have Christian symbolism all over them, and/or in their goddamn names. The notable example to the contrary that I can think of is the Jewish General Hospital in Côte-des-Neiges (which, as far as I know, will not be required to change its name or affiliations).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Religion" doesn't always get a free pass. Unlike you, we're not dealing with hypothetical situations - we're dealing with a real piece of racist legislation set to be rolled out in a province where some of us live. The fact of the matter is, the religious minorities targeted by said legislation don't have the power to hang giant banners on public institutions. And in fact, many hospitals, for instance, already have Christian symbolism all over them, and/or in their goddamn names. The notable example to the contrary that I can think of is the Jewish General Hospital in Côte-des-Neiges (which, as far as I know, will not be required to change its name or affiliations).

I know - and in fact I have already addressed this particular situation, in my first posts on this thread, noting the racist character of the legislation, and I have already registered my opposition to this particular regulation. My subsequent posts were a reaction to Devrim's insinuation that religious people have some sort of right to wear the symbols of their religion wherever they please. I pointed out that the public power actually has a legitimate reason for restricting the display of such symbols - but I am not so naive as to suppose that the bourgeois state will act on those legitimate reasons and enact non-racist regulation.

If it did, the crosses would be the first to go since, as I already noted, in every region it is the dominant religion which is the greatest problem. But, hey, if pigs could fly going outside would be much harder, wouldn't it? The present bourgeois states are structurally racist.

That said, religion does often get a free pass, from tax exemptions to exemptions from anti-bullying regulation. Even ostensible revolutionary groups will slavishly tail popular religious sentiment - consider the IST's behaviour w/r/t religious courts for Muslims.

[Spruce]

It looks as though the values charter will go ahead, and the Canadian establishment has worked itself into a lather over it. Liberal and Conservative politicians, big business, and the media are usually only this eager to out do one another when it comes to support for Israel or free trade. Predictably, we're hearing a lot about how Quebec society is horribly xenophobic and prejudiced, still asserted without a shred of evidence, and now how this minor change in the public service will, in fact, doom the province's economy. Of course, the loudest opponents of the values charter also want to privatize and fire most of the public servants anyway, so their sudden keen interest in religious diversity in order to supposedly save them looks a bit deceitful. Other interest groups like to get their piece in about how this is going to keep skilled workers out, or negatively affect the province's birth rate, as if any of this has to do with immigration other than the possibility than some fundies could be discouraged – which is probably a net bonus considering the burdens their lifestyle adds, though no one wants to say it.

If it's okay to oppose the ban on religious symbols because it's supported by bourgeois nationalists and this proves it's racist by implication, does that mean it's okay to dismiss opposition to the ban on the basis that its opponents are right-wing neoliberals and religious traditionalists?

[Spruce]

How about the fact that the charter would only prohibit "very visible" - and note how vague the expression is - crosses, whereas other religious symbols are prohibited, full stop. And that the legislature of the secular province of Quebec will continue to display a large cross.
Sikh kacchera undergarments are basically hidden, and I can't imagine how to object to that on the grounds of overt religious symbolism. The very visible clothing of Christian religious orders is already prohibited. Now it's true that there aren't many Christians walking around with large, visible crosses in Quebec today, but Quebec is also more non-religious than it was in the past. Religious beliefs and cultures change. Why then are you assuming that religious minorities don't change, that because currently some religions require more overt religious symbolism from their adherents, that they should be accepted as part of an immutable ethno-religious identity, and that secular government should recognize and extend special exemptions or privileges to these groups, i.e. 'accommodation', but really communitarianism. Communitarianism is, in my opinion, a threat to political equality because equality is only really possible when every individual is seen as having the same rights or duties, which isn't possible when you start enforcing the rules differently based on peoples group identity (religious or ethnic or whatever). Of course, the PQ is guilty of this to when it comes to the French language in Quebec, but I'm not a Quebec nationalist and I'm not invested in the outcome of sovereignty.

Christian symbolism on public buildings is historical in Quebec. It's not as if the religious impartiality of a government means society has to go full iconoclasm. If the Quebec government wanted to baptize new public buildings, schools or parks with the names of saints and erect crosses on them, then we could say no, that's over the line of impartiality and clear promotion of religious symbolism where it doesn't belong.