this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
130 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

9064 readers
1943 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Canada’s largest Muslim organisation is outraged over a bill introduced by the Quebec government that would ban headscarves for school support staff and students.

“In Quebec, we made the decision that state and the religion are separate,” said Education Minister Bernard Drainville, CBC News reported. “And today, we say the public schools are separate from religion.”

But the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), who are challenging in the Supreme Court the original bill that forbids religious symbols being worn by teachers, say the new bill is another infringement on their rights and unfairly targets hijab-wearing Muslims.

“This renewed attack on the fundamental rights of our community is just one of several recent actions taken by this historically unpopular government to bolster their poll numbers by attacking the rights of Muslim Canadians,” the NCCM said in a social media post.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zutti@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Women can make that decision for themselves, individually, based on what they are comfortable with.

[–] rylock@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Ah yes, because muslim family units are beacons of freedom, self-expression and feminism. No threats of shunning or violence, ever.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How this going to fix things the women may just start wearing it outside of schools?

[–] rylock@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It gives them a secular place to grow interpersonally and develop their critical thinking skills without a literal shroud of dogma over their eyes.

[–] Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 hours ago

Where's your critical thinking gone? If racist wankers like you are gonna take it as a given that the typical Muslim household in Canada is extremely controlling, would it not be logically consistent of you to conclude that this sort of policy will just force women out of those "secular places" where they interact with the broader community and isolate them in religious spaces which you consider to be harmful?

[–] small44@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A hijab or any other religious signs do not prevent critical thinking.

[–] rylock@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Religious dogma does prevent critical thinking, actually. Secular places of learning are critical for the young and easily influenced to be able to develop their own belief structure, or lack thereof, without the influence of family or community exerting often overwhelming social pressure.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trying to moral high ground about violence in 2025

https://youtu.be/16QCQU-jp4Q

[–] rylock@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Great non-sequitor. You're clearly not obsessed with a certain topic and shoving it into every unrelated conversation, are you?

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Where did your moral high ground go?

[–] rylock@lemm.ee -1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

You're arguing with yourself, no one said anything about moral high ground but you. Get a life.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Why are you trying to dodge your stereotype? You were so gladly using those a few comments ago.

[–] Sektor@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

These can't. Ask their owner, i mean dad.

[–] Brotherinsatan@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

Just like the women in Iran/Afghanistan. They can do whatever they want there. Put on a bikini, shorts etc. Totally free to do what their husbands tell them to. Maybe I'll send my two daughters.

[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Or if they want to get dragged back to a country where they can be stoned to death.

What does this even mean? A woman whose family is going to bring her back to their native country for punishment often does so because she won't wear a covering, which this law will support by forcing women not to cover. A woman who does wear a covering (forced or otherwise) probably won't be, so your argument doesn't even make sense.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Bombed to death by American planes you mean?