Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just find it to be a slippery slope when government bans a person from wearing a religious garment or symbol. It seems like something that can be easily abused.
But I guess now that government is forcing people to wear face coverings and take vaccine injections, people don't really own their bodies anyway. All these fine details about 'rights' are interesting debates we had before Covid.
You're barking up the wrong tree with me if you're looking to make this drift towards vaccine mandates.
Are there any Roman Catholic/Church of England nuns still wearing full habit?
Very few these days, I take it.
Though in most cases a pretty visible cross or some other sign is still worn. This is also prohibited by this law for public employees in positions of authority.
If they can, many religions do like to have their beliefs on public display, either via some type of symbol or clothing worn by their "personnel" or even "the flock", or in other ways like having a tall steeple towering over a town, the ringing of the bells, or the call to prayer from a muezzin in a minaret.
Over time, all of this stuff has proven to be pretty effective "marketing" for them.
And in case you were going there, I and also many Muslims would pretty strongly disagree with the notion than in order to be a "good Muslim" a woman needs to cover up her hair (or face) to hide it from the male gaze and not provoke the opposite sex.
Quebec can use the "Not Withstanding" clause because they have special status.
No. Any province in Canada can use the notwithstanding clause, as can the federal government. It wasn't even put in the Constitution at Quebec's request, but rather at the insistence of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Quebec doesn't really have special status, at least not legally. Though it arguably does in a de facto way, for certain things.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,989,189 times
Reputation: 50679
What could the purpose of this action possibly be, except to bar Muslims from positions of authority and respect?
According to the article, this was passed in 2019.
Other than people being irritated/frightened that Muslims are doing well, why bar them from succeeding?
And anyone who says well, they can just wear their hijab privately but not when out in public. No, they can't. Exactly the opposite.
If you're going to pass a law like this, and defend it, best to just own it. They are afraid of the growing Muslim population and want to nip it in the bud. Make their community unwelcoming, so hopefully the Muslims will go away.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 11 days ago)
35,637 posts, read 17,989,189 times
Reputation: 50679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
She's deliberately trying to challenge the law, make herself a symbol and trigger a public crapstorm.
She even said so herself.
Well, somebody has to. That's how change occurs. Someone steps forward and challenges the status quo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
