Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
Thu Oct 19, 2017, 09:07 AM Oct 2017

Quebec lawmakers pass religious neutrality bill banning face coverings [View all]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/18/quebec-lawmakers-vote-in-favour-of-religious-neutrality-bill-banning-face-coverings.html

MONTREAL—Calling it a North American first, the Quebec government passed legislation Wednesday forbidding anyone from receiving or giving a public service with their face covered — and even while riding the bus.

The opposition said the law doesn’t go far enough, while members of the province’s Islamic community said it targets Muslim women and violates their fundamental right to express their religion as they see fit.

...

Andre Lamoureux, political scientist and spokesman for a Quebec-based movement for secularism, said the niqab or burka “has no place — not even on the bus.”

...“(The niqab) is not a religious sign,” Lamoureux said. “It’s a political symbol of the enslavement and de-empowerment of women that is supported by the most repressive regimes on the planet.”


Lots of strong opinions on the matter. Under what circumstances is one allowed to conceal their identity? And should religion grant special rights in that regard?
94 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laicite in action. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #1
But if a non-state institute did it Lordquinton Oct 2017 #3
What does the law in Quebec say about this? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #4
What? Lordquinton Oct 2017 #5
If you read the title of the post, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #6
I asked about non-state institutions Lordquinton Oct 2017 #15
Please elaborate. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #17
I literally did in my first post. Lordquinton Oct 2017 #18
It's not religion, it's suppression of a gender Merlot Oct 2017 #52
The intent of the law, in my view, is to target Islam. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #55
I think there are justifiable time and place restrictions one could put on face coverings. Act_of_Reparation Oct 2017 #2
Can anyone here say:Islamophobie? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #7
Thanks for your input! trotsky Oct 2017 #8
Is there a compelling reason for the state to ban all types of face coverings? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #9
Please answer my questions, and I'll answer yours! trotsky Oct 2017 #10
I did. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #11
Nope, I thought it was clear I don't play your games. trotsky Oct 2017 #12
Conceal identity? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #13
So in answer to my first question, trotsky Oct 2017 #14
Your question was answered. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #16
So are you saying that's the only time someone is allowed to conceal their identity? trotsky Oct 2017 #23
"Conceal their identity" presumes a motive not proven. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #25
No it doesn't. trotsky Oct 2017 #29
So far, 3 people who responded agree that it is an example of intolerance. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #34
That's nice. I do not dispute that this is a controversial subject. trotsky Oct 2017 #38
Many people ahve different opinions. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #42
Despite your unwarranted slanderous attacks, I don't actually have a fully formed one. trotsky Oct 2017 #46
So what is your, so far unsolidified, opinion? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #49
It is my opinion that simply allowing anyone to conceal their identity for any reason, trotsky Oct 2017 #51
Concealing one's identity in public is not illegal in the US. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #54
Try walking into a bank in any one of those masks and see what happens. trotsky Oct 2017 #57
You only responded to one of my places. What of the others? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #58
My questions were asked first. trotsky Oct 2017 #63
That one again? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #65
No, it's not a trick. I understand why you are desperate to want it to seem that way. trotsky Oct 2017 #68
I did answer them, but not to your needs. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #69
As I have stated, I'm not interested in playing your games. trotsky Oct 2017 #70
Again, demonstrating your refusal to answer questions. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #71
I've answered your questions. trotsky Oct 2017 #72
Where are your answers to my questions? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #73
well that is just nonsense Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #60
Links? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #66
Google anti-mask laws. Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #80
A bad move on your part: guillaumeb Oct 2017 #81
Canada? Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #83
Ridiculous? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #84
"Concealing one's identity in public is not illegal in the US." Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #87
If you look at the title of the post, the part at the very beginning, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #88
You made this claim: "Concealing one's identity in public is not illegal in the US." Voltaire2 Oct 2017 #89
Wearing a veil is a religious practice. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #90
A question is not an answer, by definition. Mariana Oct 2017 #19
Questions in #9, #11, and #13 have not been answered. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #21
Islamophobia thinly disguised as reasonable request. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #20
Suppression thinly disguised as religon. Merlot Oct 2017 #53
We must disagree in our opinions as to the intent of the law. eom guillaumeb Oct 2017 #56
Doesn't sound very neutral to me. Iggo Oct 2017 #22
Are there other religions that require full face coverings? trotsky Oct 2017 #24
There are 2 factors prominent here: guillaumeb Oct 2017 #27
Unproven and unproven. trotsky Oct 2017 #30
Still waiting for your answers to my questions. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #35
BWAH HA HA HA trotsky Oct 2017 #39
Couillard follows Marois in demonstrating Liberal intolerance for Islam. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #26
"to express their religion as they see fit" trotsky Oct 2017 #32
Responses like this from you do make me wonder. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #36
The discrimination is not "obvious" to everyone. trotsky Oct 2017 #40
Caught in your own words Lordquinton Oct 2017 #44
Which words exactly? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #45
If by "misreading" Lordquinton Oct 2017 #48
Feel free to quote the claimed inconsistencies. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #50
They have been, several times Lordquinton Oct 2017 #59
Your refusal to support your claims is also noted. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #64
Oh boy, here we go again Lordquinton Oct 2017 #74
Justin Trudeau agrees with me that this law is clearly intolerant. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #28
That's nice. trotsky Oct 2017 #31
Post not going as you had hoped? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #37
With the exception of your (lack of sincere) participation, it's going fine. trotsky Oct 2017 #41
So what is your personal opinion? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #43
See #46. n/t trotsky Oct 2017 #47
He's wrong. EvilAL Oct 2017 #62
Tell the Canadian Federal Prime Minister that his interpretation is incorrect, guillaumeb Oct 2017 #67
Well since I actually live in Quebec. EvilAL Oct 2017 #75
And I was born there, and most of my family still live there. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #76
yes and anti-franco over most the rest of Canada. EvilAL Oct 2017 #77
I am not calling you, or any, anti-Muslim. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #78
Well it didn't help her and EvilAL Oct 2017 #82
You make a great point about face coverings and changing of the political power. trotsky Oct 2017 #85
They were never told they couldn't EvilAL Oct 2017 #86
Freedom for women to wear slave clothing? Irish_Dem Oct 2017 #33
I live in Quebec. EvilAL Oct 2017 #61
The law has so many exceptions that it is obvious that discrimination is the object. guillaumeb Oct 2017 #91
equality is discrimination to some religious types. EvilAL Oct 2017 #92
Which thus excuses discrimination on the part of government? guillaumeb Oct 2017 #93
what discrimination? EvilAL Oct 2017 #94
Not a unique law. MarvinGardens Oct 2017 #79
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Quebec lawmakers pass rel...»Reply #0