City to debate police and religious symbols
While Bill 21 hearings proceed in Quebec City – Montreal gets a princely 45 minutes to make its case – city council will be holding a debate on Marvin Rotrand’s motion that police should be allowed to wear religious symbols, a resolution that other Canadian cities and the RCMP have made. Interesting sidelights: the police brotherhood favours a ban; the SPVM says the question is theoretical, since no one who wears one has applied.
Hijab wearers have reported facing increased hostility from harassment to assault since Bill 21 was tabled.
Chris 09:57 on 2019-05-14 Permalink
Meanwhile, just yesterday at Tehran University, there were scuffles at an anti-mandatory-hijab protest. And earlier this month they tossed a lawyer defending the anti-hijab protesters into prison for 7 years. So it could be worse here. I suspect a lot of the (misguided) support for Bill 21 comes from fear of the old “give an inch and they’ll take a mile” saying. But in fact I suspect the opposite. It’ll create a ‘forbidden fruit’ effect and actually encourage more to wear hijab in defiance, like how Iranians defy their rulers by refusing to wear it.
dhomas 04:59 on 2019-05-15 Permalink
Though it seems contradictory, the “fashion” laws in Iran and Bill 21 are actually quite similar. They both limit individual freedoms by dictating what citizens can and cannot wear.
Ian 12:39 on 2019-05-15 Permalink
It’s a proud moment for our nation that we finally have a law against funny hats to preserve and protect our culture. /s
Chris 18:47 on 2019-05-15 Permalink
Ian, well, despite this blemish on our nation’s opinion, I’m sure we’d score better on the question “Is it up to a women to dress as she wishes in public?” In many Muslim-majority countries, a *minority* thinks so, or only very slim majorities. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/08/what-is-appropriate-attire-for-women-in-muslim-countries/
Ian 18:52 on 2019-05-15 Permalink
Well apparently a large majority support Bill 21…
Sixty-six per cent of Quebecers answered “somewhat in favour” or “totally in favour” when asked: “Are you in favour of or against banning the wearing of visible religious symbols for public sector employees in positions of authority (police officers, judges and primary and secondary school teachers) in your province?”
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bill-21-canadians-divided-on-religious-symbols-ban-poll-shows
…which effectively prevents women (and men for that matter) from dressing how they wish in public if they work in the public sector.
Chris 22:46 on 2019-05-15 Permalink
Ian, that’s an entirely different question from “Is it up to a women to dress as she wishes in public?” Even if the effect is similar, wording makes a huge difference in polling results.
Ian 07:58 on 2019-05-16 Permalink
If the effect is similar, what does the wording matter? Whether it’s dogwhistle racism in the guise of secularism or religious fundamentalists it still comes down to the same thing – women being told how to dress not only for their own good, but for the good of cultural conservativism.
Chris 11:30 on 2019-05-16 Permalink
Wording of polling questions makes a big difference to the answers you get, see for example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/methods/u-s-survey-research/questionnaire-design/
We each cited polls that are presumably accurate, but it’s comparing apples and oranges as the questions are very different. The Gazette poll is in tight circumstances, the Pew poll is in broad circumstances. Point being: despite this Bill 21 blemish, Quebeckers are still more liberal than others.