Good Friday runs into the Loi sur la laïcité
Will the newly minted Loi sur la laïcité stifle the Procession du Chemin de croix, wonders La Presse. (Actually, it’s a CP story by Morgan Lowrie, also available in English.)
The law also contains a ban on religious signs at daycares, so I suspect some parents may find themselves without a repository for their small kids, after the long weekend, given that hijabi daycare workers have to be fired.
jeather 11:48 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
I saw one article saying they would be allowed to keep current jobs but never change position.
I’m curious if you could say it’s just fashion, though.
Kate 12:25 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
Probably if your name is Marianne Tremblay or Jennifer Smith you could get away with fashion statement, not so much if it’s Layla Al-Hassan.
Ian 12:28 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
I’m wondering what the law would have to say about hair – does the wig on a Hassidic woman count as a religious symbol, or is it the shaved head? For that matter, if a Jewish man can’t wear a kippah can he still have payot? If turbans are banned for Sikhs, how about the uncut hair? What’s up with Santa hats at Christmas? Will my role as a teacher be compromised by my white beard?
In terms of fashion, it wasn’t that long ago that western women commonly wore headscarves – a silk headscarf was widely known as Jackie O’s favourite accessory. The Chanel headscarf is a fashion classic, for that matter.
Ian 12:32 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
@Kate Hermès and Hormuz do sound suspicioulsy similar now that you mention it haha
Kate 12:38 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
Queen Elizabeth was often photographed in a headscarf, too. I also saw a photo from the early 1960s not long ago, a group of random women waiting at a traffic light on Ste‑Catherine. Half of them wore hats, but the ones without hats all had headscarves on. And it wasn’t a winter scene.
Nicholas 14:30 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
When Montreal tried to ban cops wearing camo pants, saying there was a uniform and that was a work requirement, the courts said that freedom of expression Trump’s the uniform. So presumably this would apply to any fashion accoutrement, unless they used the notwithstanding clause on it specifically.
steph 16:19 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
“Do you guys know where I can get one of those gold necklaces with a “T” on it?”
“That’s a cross.”
“Across from where?”
H. John 20:55 on 2026-04-03 Permalink
“unless they used the notwithstanding clause”
Of course, they used it.
Bill 9
An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Québec
CHAPTER V
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
14. This Act has effect notwithstanding the provisions of sections 2 and 7
to 15 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Schedule B to the Canada Act, chapter 11
in the 1982 volume of the Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom).