Religious symbols: reactions
Various entities are determined not to obey the new religious symbol law. Québec solidaire has resolved against the law. Montreal West mayor Beny Masella says no, Westmount says no and various other towns have also done so. Bill sponsor Simon Jolin-Barrette has denied the request that Montreal should be made an exception to the law – I mean, why should it, when the whole point of the law is to make Montreal more blandly normative to the rest of Quebec? It would take all the fun out of the exercise for the CAQ.
Update: Martin Patriquin on the new law in the Guardian.
Brett 11:01 on 2019-03-31 Permalink
No need for the exception; quite the opposite in fact : Montreal’s already got a head start on the law by removing the crucifix from city hall.
Kevin 11:16 on 2019-03-31 Permalink
It is one thing for a legislature to remove a religious symbol.
It is another for people to think that only those wearing religious symbols are biased.
Does a priest stop being a priest when he removes his collar? For Quebecers the answer is somehow yes.
Blork 14:43 on 2019-03-31 Permalink
Similarly, is a random person on the street unbiased just because they’re not wearing a hijab or a kippa or a turban? (Or a cross.)
If I wear a wide-lapelled suit and a fat tie to my job at the Régie du whatever, does that mean I’ll discriminate against anyone who doesn’t like 1970s fashion? If a gay judge has a rainbow tattoo on his arm, does that mean he is biased against straight people? What if he had the tattoo removed, or covered. Does that change his bias? If a police officer is female and wears the female police uniform, does that mean she’s prejudiced against men? And even if she is, does imposing a gender-neutral uniform remove her prejudice?
JP 21:19 on 2019-03-31 Permalink
Are bindis allowed? They can be purely for fashion, or cultural, or religious…
Would a necklace with a pendant of my zodiac sign be ok?
Is my tanned skin permitted or is that also too foreign and exotic/scary as well?
Brett 21:21 on 2019-03-31 Permalink
Blork’s question regarding a piece of male clothing nicely illustrates the problem about this bill’s purported intention to affirm the religious neutrality of the state but which instead moves the topic of the debate into what people should and should not wear. The question should be about religion and not about fashion. Although certain religions do prescribe a dress code, and some are more strict about it than others, the reality is that it’s an oversimplification to claim that religion has only to do with one’s fashion choice when religions are far more complex than that. Certain religions do prescribe a dress code, so the real debate should be whether or not employees who work for a religion-free state should have their right to display a religious symbol trumped by the right of the state to impose a uniform to all of its employees.
By removing the crucifix the Government at City Hall has demonstrated that displaying an ostentatious religious symbol flies in the face of the idea that the state is truly non religious. Therefore I see it as being hypocritical for some Councillors to then claim that representatives of this neutrally religious state should be permitted to wear religious symbols.
As for the bias argument, I say sure, we all have bias and there are probably cases where we might have a tatooed skinhead judge or a police officer who is anti-Chinese. But likewise there’s no quick way to prove that someone who wears an ostentatious religious symbol isn’t automatically a religous fundamentalist. But our legal system which treats everyone equal before the law will deal with those cases accordingly. Moreover, the fact that such overt racism is frowned upon in society is testament to our tolerance and also to the fact that such incidences are rare.
jeather 10:54 on 2019-04-01 Permalink
There is not a “female police uniform” and a “gender neural police uniform”, putting in darts does not change the uniform.
Blork 11:37 on 2019-04-01 Permalink
Until fairly recently the hats were different.
jeather 12:09 on 2019-04-01 Permalink
In which case surely there was a female hat and a male hat.
Blork 12:17 on 2019-04-01 Permalink
Not sure why you’re so bothered by a minor detail, but yes, there was a female hat and a male hat.
jeather 12:23 on 2019-04-01 Permalink
I’m objecting to calling one uniform female, specifically, as the male uniform is not gender neutral
qatzelok 12:47 on 2019-04-01 Permalink
@Blork: “If a police officer is female and wears the female police uniform, does that mean she’s prejudiced against men? And even if she is, does imposing a gender-neutral uniform remove her prejudice?”
If the female uniform consists of a black leather bikini with badges on the nipples (ostentatious), then yes, moving towards gender-neutral uniforms will help remove the stigmatism of being female (and of being male) from that job, and help ensure that her position is purely about maintaining law and order.