this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
123 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10682 readers
653 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Caliss que l’on est gourverné par des envies de chier

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] UnrefinedChihuahua@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I'm conflicted on this one. It seems to be framed as hateful against Middle-eastsrn religions in particular, but doesn't it restrict ALL religious symbols? I'm all for less religion in public places, regardless of the religion.

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The giant cross on the top of Mount Royal is a religious symbol too so they should remove it asap.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not a daycare though. Neither is the oratory.

There’s a bunch of cross on school outer wall troughs out Quebec. The CAQ didn’t see it important to rip them out because « they’re patrimoine »

Hypocritical fuckers

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago

The moment the satanic church notices their under-reresentation and fixes it, you'll see everyone on-board for purely secular daycares.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This image released in September 2013 by a minority PQ government shows a proposal for types of religious clothing allowed and not allowed for public workers under Quebec's proposed 'charter of values.' (The Associated Press/Quebec government)

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you have additional information that contradicts it, I'd happy to see it. I don't live in Quebec, and only know what I know.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't, and i don't live in canada, nor i care about the politics too much, that's why i'm here to see what's up, and i find taking an 2013 image from the government proposal at the time and without context is a bit disingenuous.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I took it from a news article from last week, which suggests pretty strongly that that proposal is exactly what was implemented, and they never produced an updated graphic.

But again, I'd welcome a genuine correction.

[–] k_rol@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Just underneath that picture it says it was not implemented.

In 2013, a minority PQ government proposed the notorious "charter of Quebec values," aiming to ban religious symbols for public servants, but it went nowhere after the PQ lost the 2014 election.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Again, i don't really care, i'm providing context you purposely left out.

[–] Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

More like annoying_attitude. ValueSub deserves better.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Provide immediate context is bad. Got it.

[–] ValueSubtracted@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

Yes but i have to scroll waaaaay down to the picture only to find it is a picture from waaaay back. I'm not saying you are, but i often find people who have the intention to mislead tend to post it this way.

[–] Icytrees@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The bill is still being debated in the supreme court. A timeline with more details and updates can be found here: https://ccla.org/major-cases-and-reports/bill-21/

That said, the Quebec government has been pretty fucking hostile to people who wear religious symbols. The original article frames it as residual tensions from the French Catholic chuch but a big part of it is definitely xenophobia and racism. Montreal and Quebec City are progressive havens in a land of very small, very white, very religious towns.

Thank you - this is what I'm here for.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How's this going to fly for indigenous symbols?

[–] Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Their cultural symbols and practices are protected under Federal Law.

Right up until the not withstanding clause is invoked....

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Freedom of expression is also protected under federal law.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Is a Christmas decoration a religious symbol? Or is Christmas now entirely commercial.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

🌏🧑‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

[–] Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago

I’m sure the seed of it was stolen from a different set of beliefs originally anyways.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

No, Christmas is a archeological festival from before religions existed /s

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I couldn't care less about any organized religion and IMO they all do more harm than good; however, being Quebec, this is 100% a poke to flame hatred towards Muslims.... entirely hypocritical

[–] 007ace@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It is very interesting to see the pendulum swing. I do find the title misleading as the article appears to only apply to wearing religious symbols and it only applying to new employees as already employed are exempt.

It also doesn't seem to differentiate between public, private or subsidized daycares. Lots of open air in this article.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can I ask what pendulum? Because Quebec has been doing this for decades.

Quebec Soccer Federation rever... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-soccer-federation-reverses-turban-ban-1.1319350

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IndridCold@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm an anti-theist and believe religion does untold damage to society. In my perfect world I'm completely for the removal of all religion iconography in publicly funded institutions. This includes clothing, jewellery, and gaudy John 3:16 t-shirts.

If it's private, do whatever you want. If you want a grotesque image of your dead god on a cross hanging on your wall, you do you. I just don't want to pay for that out of my tax dollars.

That said, I understand people wear a bunch of stupid shit for their gods, and that is a freedom of expression that should be protected. If someone wears a magic cross, bulletproof underwear of protection, or has to hide their hair because their god hates hairdos, then whatever. That in itself probably isn't going to hang black people, start an ethnic genocide, or fly planes into buildings.

As long as these religious kooks don't spout their hateful superstitious bullshit to the kids, I'm fine with it.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Religion is social cancer, and religiously indoctrinating children should count as abuse

It should be illegal for children to practice religion, let them grow into adults, and then they can make their own decisions.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Invisibilising women will only create more hatred and discension. This is not how what you want will work.

And nobodies is practicing religion into a CPE it goes against law already

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Cool, then if it isn't allowed to be practiced in schools, then there's no problem with this, it's just a continuation of existing policy.

There is no world where children being religiously indoctrinated creates LESS hatred and division.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem is not practicing, the problem is some faith ask their people to clothe in a certain way.

Invisibilising this people will not bring what the government search

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›