The Quebec government says it will ban religious symbols in the province’s daycare centres.
Secularism Minister Jean-François Roberge says there is a “broad consensus” that Quebecers want secularism to be strengthened.
The announcement follows a recommendation made this summer by a committee tasked with advising the province on how to enhance secularism. The committee had called for the ban to be extended to daycares.
Quebec has already banned public sector workers in positions of authority, such as teachers and judges, from wearing religious symbols on the job.
What next remove religious names or part of people name like the word st aka saint?
I’m not sure I follow your attempt to paint this as a slippery slope given that one thing is a person’s personal name, a part of their person, and the other is the state brandishing elements of religion.
I am showing how ridiculous this law is. It serve no benefits just hate and more division
Seperation of church and state is so obviously different than the state infringing on your personhood.
Its a wildly incongruent comparison.
deleted by creator
The argument for it is to remove hate and division. The purpose of them is to act as a shibboleth, to identify yourself as part of an in-group. That necessarily requires division. If you make it harder for people to show their affiliation with exclusive groups then it makes it more inclusive.
This doesn’t make them not allowed to follow a religion. It just makes them not allowed to share identifiers of that religion to children. Children are easily influenced, and having authority figures identities with religion lends that authority and authenticity to that religion, influencing the children.
Canada has religious harmony for long time there were little to no division. Those restrictions of the right to wear a sign that mean someone to a person but is not used to convert other to a religion will only cause more hate since those people will feel discriminated. Being able to display a sign with no one telling you that you shouldn’t wear it is a show of tolerance The idea that a kid will be influenced by a hijab or a cross is also total bullshit .
The real issues that should be addressed in extremist messages in places of cult like a imam who would support terrorism or a synagogues that sell occupied land in the west bank
https://www.laconverse.com/en/articles/les-coulisses-dun-salon-de-limmobilier-offrant-des-biens-en-terre-palestinienne
Those stupid laws remind me of the law to protect French by telling businesses that they can’t use an english name as if this is the reason that french usage decline. All those millions could have been used to boost French cultural projects budgets
Do you think no kid has really liked a teacher and done things to get them to like them? I promise you, there are children who got into a religion, a hobby, etc. because a teacher they wanted to impress was into it.
I mostly disagree with this. Which definition of terrorism are we using? The problem is the state gets to define whatever they want as terrorism, so they can target dissidents. Why does the state get a monopoly on terrorism/violence? (As proof of the term being bullshit to target people, why did use use an Imam for your example? Biased?)
People should be allowed to do and say what they want in private. If they’re a public official, they shouldn’t use that platform to lend credibility to other organizations/faiths. That’s not the place for it.
Kids like nice teachers and no they do not copy the teachers faith . You are using the same rhetoric that conservatives use like claiming that trans people would influence kids badly
Lol, try again.