[Amadaun]

Er...THIS.

What.

Okay, summary: It's a law put forth by the leading (leftist) party in Quebec that wants to ban all government employees from wearing obvious signs of their religion. Small necklaces, earrings, and rings are allowed. Large jewelry, headscarves, burka, and turbans are not allowed. Time off for religious reasons is not allowed. The large crucifix in the assembly is allowed for "cultural reasons." Elected officials are exempt.

...

WHAT.

Okay, I'm a fairly devout Catholic. I have Quebecois family. This is not the way most Canadians or Quebecois or Catholics think. Seriously...did they look at the way France attempted to ban headscarves and think: "That's a brilliant idea!"

Also: If you're deeply insulted by someone wearing a headscarf or a large cross or a pentagram or whatever, you probably need to relax. Governments do not need dress codes.

...

Theory: The Leading party of Quebec are all vampires, and religious symbols BURN THEM.

This post has been edited by Amadaun: 18 September 2013 - 03:47 AM

[Silencer]

*ahem* You successfully linked to Google's main page there, Ama.

[Cause]

Strikes me as a very pro christian racist bullshit proposal. Christians were crosses on necklaces so that is allowed. Muslims wear headscarves or skullcaps and Jews wear Yamulkas and both of those are banned. Also if you cant realize your canadian Muslim teacher is not teaching the sharia just because she is wearing a headscarf you need more time in school anyway.

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state, I'm firmly anti religion even but this law is stupid, uneven and pointless.

[Abyss]

Amadaun, on 16 September 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

... This is not the way most ... Quebecois ... think. ...

I hate to break it to you A, but while the numbers took a slight dip today, there's a significant chunk of Quebecois, mostly outside of Montreal, who have never met a Muslim, Jew or Hindu in their lives, are lapping this up and ready to click heels and give Pauline and co a serious seig heil for this idea.

The backlash is starting and hopefully we'll see the numbers drop majorly, but don't think for a moment that the PQ didn't knowingly tap into something they knew was lurking. It didn't work when they tried it with soccer, so they went with the 'public service' approach, downplaying the minor detail that 'public service' includes the majority of day care and health care workers.

On a realistic level i suspect this would never survive a Court challenge, but its frightening that it's gone as far as it has.

[Una]

Amadaun, on 16 September 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

Seriously...did they look at the way France attempted to ban headscarves and think: "That's a brilliant idea!"

In all seriousness, yes.

Quebec likes to make a big deal about how they are a minorities in a largely anglophone country, but they have a tendency to react to it by picking on other minorities. Like the language police going after signage in Chinatown. Go right ahead, I say. There's a chronic health care worker shortage in the country and Quebec already pays at the lower end of the scale. We poach quite a few of our doctors from places like Iran. From my experience in medical school, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asians make up a respectable portion of the trainee population. Never figured out why, but nearly all the cardiologists I've worked with were either Brown and or Jewish. Good luck attracting and keeping these people in the province. Wouldn't surprise me if the same applies to other professions. I expect to see the newspaper articles lamenting why Quebec can't attract talented workers soon enough.

[Darkwatch]

Nothing but a cynical and despicable attempt to leverage votes out of the more isolated and less tolerant rural regions by manufacturing a problem that does not exist.
This was designed to be a scandal the moment it was conceived, designed to polarize and divide the province while just begging Ottawa to step in so the PQ can cry out that the federal government is again meddling in the province's affairs (with just cause). Though the Québec Superior Court may see the challenge first if some lawyers have any say since this bill violates the provincial Charter of Rights. Simultaneously it is also part of the Parizeau separatist strategy of doing everything possible to insult and antagonize the rest of the country to make Québec unwanted in the federation, even after losing both referendums and separatism being at an all time low. It is underhanded, inconsistent, dirty and very much an American State strategy (see voter suppression laws).
Which just makes the non-separatists look bad which is profoundly infuriating.

Good news is the backlash has begun in earnest and there's a manifest up with petition that is starting to gain support from more prominent members of the province's personalities, notably Richard Desjardins. http://quebecinclusi...este-2/english/
Hopefully this will lead to the PQ getting demolished at the next provincial election. They've lost the student vote, they lost basically the majority of votes in Montreal area, the eastern Townships will divide and we can only hope that Québec city doesn't lead the charge for the rural voters. It could still get a minority but lets hope that those who normally vote PQ look to other parties (who knows, Québec Solidaire may just steal some votes) and hope that either the CAQ and the provincial Liberals don't mutually prevent themselves from forming the government.

Interesting side note, a Bloc MP (the federal level separatists) was expelled from the caucus for being against the charter. Considering how few seats they have it seems silly. It gets sad as she was also the only woman and the only person who wasn't white. Now the Bloc is composed entirely of white men.

@Una:
You're right, Québec is in desperate need of medical professionals. This will not help the province.
Also, there's actually a Toronto hospital that has capitalized on this.
They're running this add:

[Amadaun]

Silencer, on 16 September 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

*ahem* You successfully linked to Google's main page there, Ama.

DAMMIT.

*changes*

Okay, better now. Ama needs to not write discussion posts after no sleep.

Abyss, on 16 September 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Amadaun, on 16 September 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

... This is not the way most ... Quebecois ... think. ...

I hate to break it to you A, but while the numbers took a slight dip today, there's a significant chunk of Quebecois, mostly outside of Montreal, who have never met a Muslim, Jew or Hindu in their lives, are lapping this up and ready to click heels and give Pauline and co a serious seig heil for this idea.

Okay, I'll admit that I'm speaking for the Quebecois that I've met and am related to. Perhaps I'm just lucky?

[D'rek]

Listening to interviews with the PQ's "Minister of Values" or something like that, it really does sound sometimes like he truly believes in this, that it's not just a political move. I can understand his viewpoint, but I really do think they're taking the opposite approach from what they should. If you have people from a wide variety of cultures working together but need to establish a level playing field for everyone, the solution is to accept the diversity and structure your workplace rules and values so that they are the same for everyone and can flexibly accomodate all your workers as much as possible, not by forcing them all to conform to a "neutral" common basis that accomodates no one. ie, if you have problems that some of your employees want important Islamic religious days off from work in addition to the usual vacations, then instead of giving everyone Easter and other christian holidays off, just give everyone the provincial/national holidays as well as 5 or so "flex days" that they can use on the religious or culturally significant days of their choosing - it's a "level playing field" that accomodates differing cultural and religious beliefs.

Going as far as to moderating the dress code of public servants to stamp out any sort of diversity is an even more extreme move in the wrong direction than something basic like the above, IMO, and I'm interested about where exactly the PQ is planning to draw the line? So the PQ has decided that turbans, headscarves, kippahs, etc are all too "conspicuous", but does the PQ recognize Jedi as a religion? Will a pulic servant who identifies as a Jedi get fired for having a plastic lightsabre hanging off their belt? Are we going to see an agnostic college intern get fired because those trendy beads she was wearing can be mistaken as a rosary? Once we're done with "religious neutrality" should "gender neutrality" be targeted next - public servants, including daycare workers, will only be allowed to wear unisex clothes and must have their heads shaven to remove any male/female/trans bias a given representative of the government could convey?

That's hyperbolic, obviously, but that is the extreme that this philosophy they're pushing with the new proposed charter leads to. IMO, part of what has often made Canada a great country has been accepting variety and diversity, not trying to shape everyone into a common mold. Even then, I wouldn't find this new charter proposal so offensive (I'd still think it is wrong, but not as offensive) if they were well and truly trying to hide all religions equally, but as Amadaun pointed out above they're making all sorts of exceptions for the people that are proposing this charter in the first place and for Christian symbols versus other religions, so their intentions are obviously not very pure.

[Abyss]

Darkwatch, on 17 September 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

...Good news is the backlash has begun in earnest...

It has but the approval rating outside Mtl is still closer to %50+, which is the complete opposite of surprising but still immensely frustrating. It's like the entire rural mass of the province are a bunch of close minded xenophibic idiots who don't have access to tv or the internet... and i could crack any number of jokes here but this is Canada in the year 2013 and that's just not the reality so WTF?

Fear of the Muslim, mostly... they immigrate in, have piles of kids, live in an insular way and put scads of money into building conspicuous mosques while their women wear burquahs... it freaked France right out and the PQ is only to happy to jump on it and disregard the reality that most Muslims in Canada are happy peaceful taxpayers whose kids are only going to become more integrated and open if the provincial government stops telling them they're unwelcome terrorists!

Quote

Hopefully this will lead to the PQ getting demolished at the next provincial election. They've lost the student vote, they lost basically the majority of votes in Montreal area, the eastern Townships will divide and we can only hope that Québec city doesn't lead the charge for the rural voters. It could still get a minority but lets hope that those who normally vote PQ look to other parties (who knows, Québec Solidaire may just steal some votes) and hope that either the CAQ and the provincial Liberals don't mutually prevent themselves from forming the government.

I want to believe, but the Libs are such an aimless mess lately that it's actually sort of frightening.

Quote

...@Una:
You're right, Québec is in desperate need of medical professionals. This will not help the province.
Also, there's actually a Toronto hospital that has capitalized on this.
They're running this add:

I love that ad. I love that they even thought of it and how quickly it went up.

I'm acutely conscious of how this will raze the health care in QC, but even so, it's a lovely dose of 'fuck you, if you don't want them we'll welcome them'

Amadaun, on 18 September 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

..., I'll admit that I'm speaking for the Quebecois that I've met and am related to. Perhaps I'm just lucky?

Maybe, or maybe you're educated, informed and at least reasonably intelligent and surround yourself with similar people, which places you and yours outside of the idiots who are supporting this. Just based on the fact that you're here on this board I'd guess that you're either anglo or an educated francophone, living in Mtl, Sherbrooke, Gatineau or possibly just maybe QC. No need to confirm, just my point that it's unlikely you're among the people the PQ are massaging with this. I deal daily with Quebecois, many of them quite pure laine, but they're educated professionals and they're shaking their head at this, and most of them admit they have some uncle out in the Gaspesie or wherever who thinks it's the greatest idea since poutine.

[Una]

D, on 18 September 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Going as far as to moderating the dress code of public servants to stamp out any sort of diversity is an even more extreme move in the wrong direction than something basic like the above, IMO, and I'm interested about where exactly the PQ is planning to draw the line? So the PQ has decided that turbans, headscarves, kippahs, etc are all too "conspicuous", but does the PQ recognize Jedi as a religion? Will a pulic servant who identifies as a Jedi get fired for having a plastic lightsabre hanging off their belt? Are we going to see an agnostic college intern get fired because those trendy beads she was wearing can be mistaken as a rosary? Once we're done with "religious neutrality" should "gender neutrality" be targeted next - public servants, including daycare workers, will only be allowed to wear unisex clothes and must have their heads shaven to remove any male/female/trans bias a given representative of the government could convey?

I was reading one of the petitions going around on the internet. It made the point that, for some religions (Sikh, Orthodox Jews), even the beard or hair is a symbol of the faith. Are we going to have to get out the rulers and decide how long the beard is before it's not ok? Is a beard ok on a white man, but not ok on a Sikh? Besides, many of the items there are articles of clothing. To me, it can be a bit fuzzy what a religious symbol is when it is clothing, and that's a problem. I been told that for many Muslim women, part of the reason they wear the headscarf is because it is part of their CULTURAL identity and they feel connected with their culture when they wear it. It's just the way a respectable woman dresses, to them. As in, you just aren't fully dressed and ready to go out the door unless you've got it on. There was a time in North America when men and women weren't considered fully dressed unless they had a hat on. Go and watch some old movies. Everyone is wearing a hat outdoors. The houses all had hatracks by the door so you could take it off when you got inside. I'm sure there's a religious origin for the custom. I think the letters of St. Paul have a section in them about how women should cover their hair and not braid it because of vanity or somesuch. But even people who were not practicing still wouldn't dream of going about out of doors without a hat.

[Amadaun]

Abyss, on 18 September 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Amadaun, on 18 September 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

..., I'll admit that I'm speaking for the Quebecois that I've met and am related to. Perhaps I'm just lucky?

Maybe, or maybe you're educated, informed and at least reasonably intelligent and surround yourself with similar people, which places you and yours outside of the idiots who are supporting this. Just based on the fact that you're here on this board I'd guess that you're either anglo or an educated francophone, living in Mtl, Sherbrooke, Gatineau or possibly just maybe QC. No need to confirm, just my point that it's unlikely you're among the people the PQ are massaging with this. I deal daily with Quebecois, many of them quite pure laine, but they're educated professionals and they're shaking their head at this, and most of them admit they have some uncle out in the Gaspesie or wherever who thinks it's the greatest idea since poutine.

Actually, I'm an American. *gasp* But I have Quebecois family, and I used to live in Maine, which is heavily influenced by Quebec (which is why I do really love the culture, even if I haven't been there for a while.) But I did grow up in a good family. I'm probably one of the few cradle Catholics whose parents happily bought her a bookshelf full of books that covered everything from Maxwell's equations to the Koran.

I guess this is why this upsets me. For one: Saying that the giant crucifix in the assembly ins "cultural" (true, but...), and headscarves and yarmulkes are not. And the stupidness that is "Oh, I can't look at other people's religions! That's insulting/marginalizing/wa, wa, wa, my feelings are hurt."

If seeing that other people have a different belief system from yours shakes you so deeply...well, I'd say that the problem is with you, not them.

[Kanubis]

Una, on 18 September 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

D, on 18 September 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Going as far as to moderating the dress code of public servants to stamp out any sort of diversity is an even more extreme move in the wrong direction than something basic like the above, IMO, and I'm interested about where exactly the PQ is planning to draw the line? So the PQ has decided that turbans, headscarves, kippahs, etc are all too "conspicuous", but does the PQ recognize Jedi as a religion? Will a pulic servant who identifies as a Jedi get fired for having a plastic lightsabre hanging off their belt? Are we going to see an agnostic college intern get fired because those trendy beads she was wearing can be mistaken as a rosary? Once we're done with "religious neutrality" should "gender neutrality" be targeted next - public servants, including daycare workers, will only be allowed to wear unisex clothes and must have their heads shaven to remove any male/female/trans bias a given representative of the government could convey?

I was reading one of the petitions going around on the internet. It made the point that, for some religions (Sikh, Orthodox Jews), even the beard or hair is a symbol of the faith. Are we going to have to get out the rulers and decide how long the beard is before it's not ok? Is a beard ok on a white man, but not ok on a Sikh? Besides, many of the items there are articles of clothing. To me, it can be a bit fuzzy what a religious symbol is when it is clothing, and that's a problem. I been told that for many Muslim women, part of the reason they wear the headscarf is because it is part of their CULTURAL identity and they feel connected with their culture when they wear it. It's just the way a respectable woman dresses, to them. As in, you just aren't fully dressed and ready to go out the door unless you've got it on. There was a time in North America when men and women weren't considered fully dressed unless they had a hat on. Go and watch some old movies. Everyone is wearing a hat outdoors. The houses all had hatracks by the door so you could take it off when you got inside. I'm sure there's a religious origin for the custom. I think the letters of St. Paul have a section in them about how women should cover their hair and not braid it because of vanity or somesuch. But even people who were not practicing still wouldn't dream of going about out of doors without a hat.

Totally, a lot of the muslim girls round here seem to treat their headscarf as a fashion accessory more than anything else - lots of bright colours and patterns. There's certainly a big psychological stretch between a colourful scarf and a plain burka,

Have to feel for the Sikhs, they're definitely getting the raw deal out of this - if I recall correctly there's five different religious items they're meant have on them. Admittedly one of them is an offensive weapon, so maybe I can understand a bit of negotiation on that one...

This post has been edited by Kanubis: 19 September 2013 - 07:30 AM

[Abyss]

The Sikh knife thing is an issue that's been thrown around across Canada. i vaguely recall there may be a ceremonial version that's just a hilt and sheath but i could be making that up

What's not made up is that there is a vocal and educated element in society who are offended when served in some public capacity by someone wearing religious whatever. These are the same people who oppose Christmas trees btw. They're loving this.

That's not the same group who make up the bulk of the PQ's support for this tho'. The support is coming from under-educated, unsophisticated white francophones all over the province who think it's totally fine to ban niquabs, turbans and kippahs but keep the big-ass cross in the National Assembly and lightthe up the six story Christmas tree out front so it's visible from low orbit.

This isn't separatism... the separatists are right in there (praying that the fed gov will become involved so they can scream 'oppression'), make no mistake, but at rootrot this is xenophobia under a thin and unconvincing veneer of 'equality'.

[Una]

The Sikh knife thing is a problem because it's a knife. It must be a pain in the butt! Anywhere where you can't walk around with sharp implements (airplanes) or weapons (schools), you're going to run into problems, and it's not unjustified to have those rules. You're right, there's 5 things they have to keep on their person at all times and the ones that cause the most problem is the turban and that knife. The bracelet and comb never seem to come up as a problem. The way I've seen it, there are different interpretations and varying levels of strictness on how much knife is necessary. For some people, it's just a symbol or reminder to defend the faith and even a little necklace pendant in the shape of a knife is good enough. Others won't be satisfied with anything less than a fully functional knife that you could whip out of the sheath and cut someone with at a moment's notice. I've read some schools that eventually allowed the kirpan as long as it was blunted and sewn into the sheath. To me, that sounds reasonable for school and I'm glad that both sides were able to come to a sensible compromise instead of digging in their heels. Does anyone know what they do about airplanes? I mean, if I can't bring knitting needles on a plane and metal butter knives aren't allowed, I don't see why a ceremonial knife would be allowed, even if it were about as sharp as a letter opener. I'm pretty sure I would be pulled aside for a letter opener. There's a lot of airplanes flying around to and from India, after all. What does security do about all those kirpans? I've always wondered about that.

And does anyone know how we deal with turbans when there's a legitimate safety risk? I'm not talking about the lame Quebec soccer league thing. I'm talking about places like construction sites where hardhats are mandatory.

[Studlock]

Actually had a Muslim phd come in the other day in Social Inequality in Canada class whose work is on the hijab and who women of Islamic faith wear it and how that affects them in society. It was a really good discussion and there was a few points I'd like to bring up: I, and she, felt like this law is bent towards Christians. How many Christians wear huge crosses? Not many. They can still visibly practice their faith without modification but if it's a women in a hijab or a Sikh man with a turban they are required to do so. Second, is the failure of multiculturalism and how that is connected to this. While I don't necessarily agree (I've argued, in the major cities at least, with the increase of POC being brought up with white people there be less racism in pretty much every level of society but I digress) she argued that this another example of the 'invisible' majority subjecting the 'visible' minority to assimilate through the gaze of secularism and multiculturalism, and I can definitely see that POV.

On a personal level I find it be incredibly hypocritical of Quebec, a province who has for so long tried to protect it's own identity, to erase a important part of person's identity. It's not like letting people wear their selected religious wear (which oftens is cultural as well) is going to significantly change Quebec's identity. If anything it will add to it.

[Kanubis]

'Required' is a slightly interesting one though isn't it? My understanding is that the hijab isn't commanded by scripture (either the Quran or other texts.) There are some general commands in the Quran regarding modesty in genera. although, for instance, covering the hair is never mentioned explicitly.

This doesn't counter the fact that it is a strong cultural feature, of course, but in that respect I don't find much to differentiate between crosses and hijabs - there's no scripture commanding them anywhere but they're obviously very important to the individual and culture.

The turban is a different matter - Sikhism is very strong on their Articles of Faith and the carrying/wearing of them is a scriptural command.

[Una]

Studlock, on 21 September 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

I, and she, felt like this law is bent towards Christians....she argued that this another example of the 'invisible' majority subjecting the 'visible' minority to assimilate through the gaze of secularism and multiculturalism, and I can definitely see that POV.

This is so obvious it's not even funny.

What annoying as well is all this misdirected effort to force assimilation. People, it happens on its own. An example I think of is the latest wave of Chinese immigration coming from the Mainland, where in the last few decades, it was coming from HK and Taiwan. My parents are from the Hong Kong wave. Mainland Chinese are very, very different. Because of restrictions in their comings and goings in the last few decades, they've been cut off culturally from the rest of us and their outlook and behaviour has been shaped by some of their...unique challenges. When they come to Canada and interact with Canadians, they often come across as pushy, rude, and dirty. I've certainly had them come and act crazy at me at work. Like, screaming at me because I won't give them special treatment. But if you step back, you realize it's ok, because they are having their own kids here now and sending them to daycare and school here. And I'm starting to see these kids go through exactly the same thing I and every second generation kid has gone through. They'll pick up English at school and start talking to their siblings in English, which will cause no end of fretting for the parents who want them to remember some of their ancestral language. They'll see what all the other kids are doing at home and school and want to fit in by watching the same TV shows or listening to the same music or playing with the same toys or dressing the same way or eating the same food. Heck, I remember my mom would give me home cooked lunches in elementary school and I didn't want them because everyone else was eating PBJ sandwiches. What the heck was I thinking? I hate sandwiches. But I just wanted to be like everybody else. They'll start butting heads with their parents over what they are allowed or not allowed to do, many of these things having a lot to do with culture (e.g. dating, school and career expectations). From their preteen years onward, everything their parents do or want them to do, including maintaining their cultural identity, will seem embarrassing, because that's the way kids are. Just like every generation and every wave of immigrants in the history of the world. The best thing you can do to encourage assimilation is actually just to let people be what they are and cut the hostility. The hostility is the one thing that will make them think that they don't belong, which will cause them to stick together in their ghettos and make them cling to their old ways. Everyone wants to belong. Offer services to help them integrate and make them feel welcome. Free English/French classes. Seminars on how to navigate society, like job interview skills, or how to get car insurance, or how to open a bank account, or how to access healthcare, or what sort of things you can go to the police for. Then be patient, because it usually takes a generation.

Studlock, on 21 September 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

It's not like letting people wear their selected religious wear (which oftens is cultural as well) is going to significantly change Quebec's identity. If anything it will add to it.

I have the distinct feeling that there is a powerful contingent of Quebecers who don't want anything added to it.

[Cause]

Kanubis, on 22 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

'Required' is a slightly interesting one though isn't it? My understanding is that the hijab isn't commanded by scripture (either the Quran or other texts.) There are some general commands in the Quran regarding modesty in genera. although, for instance, covering the hair is never mentioned explicitly.

This doesn't counter the fact that it is a strong cultural feature, of course, but in that respect I don't find much to differentiate between crosses and hijabs - there's no scripture commanding them anywhere but they're obviously very important to the individual and culture.

The turban is a different matter - Sikhism is very strong on their Articles of Faith and the carrying/wearing of them is a scriptural command.

Religion is a complicated beast though. In Judaism Jews are required to obey the laws of the land in which they live. Jews can be polygamists but are not because it clashes with to many secular laws. An oath was sworn on behalf of all jews and today orthodox jews consider polygamy illegal (I dont know if there is a better religious term for this).

Conversely the wearing of a Yamulka in Judaism is only a custom. A custom that has become so strong, and so strongly associated with judaism both by jews and non jews that it carries the force of law. The idea is that a religious Jew not wearing his Yamulka must be up to no good. Appearance is as important as action. A religious Jew cant allow himself to be seen in a non-kosher butchery for example. Lest others be swayed by his bad example. They cant know just by looking that he is only stopping in to say hello to his neighbor.

A person far more knowledgeable than I would have to explain how serious a 'sin' it would be for a jew to be a polygamist (allowed by scripture forbidden by custom) or not to wear a yamulka (law by custom not by gods decree).

At the end though what the hell does it matter. LAW or just law Jews consider it part of their religion to wear a yamulka. I dont but I certainly don't care when others do. Same for Sikhs or Muslims. When I go the bank and have a Muslim in a headscarf help me it does not effect the service I receive. There are some religious practices that maybe should be banned or curtailed but the clothes people wear is not one of them.

[Kanubis]

Cause, on 23 September 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

Kanubis, on 22 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

'Required' is a slightly interesting one though isn't it? My understanding is that the hijab isn't commanded by scripture (either the Quran or other texts.) There are some general commands in the Quran regarding modesty in genera. although, for instance, covering the hair is never mentioned explicitly.

This doesn't counter the fact that it is a strong cultural feature, of course, but in that respect I don't find much to differentiate between crosses and hijabs - there's no scripture commanding them anywhere but they're obviously very important to the individual and culture.

The turban is a different matter - Sikhism is very strong on their Articles of Faith and the carrying/wearing of them is a scriptural command.

There are some religious practices that maybe should be banned or curtailed but the clothes people wear is not one of them.

Oh yes, I went off the topic a bit sorry. I enjoy discussing religion.

Regarding your last sentence, I agree mostly. But if a country's laws demand that, for instance, a face remains uncovered in banks for the purpose of preventing crime, I think the country should be able to hold that law above any religious practice. If no specific law already rules out a piece of religious/cultural wear and a new law seeks to target it specifically, then I'm opposed to it. And yes, that includes being opposed (perhaps even more so!) to sneaky laws that pretend to have another motive but are blatantly for the purpose of discrimination.

This post has been edited by Kanubis: 23 September 2013 - 02:21 PM

[Morgoth]

I agree with the gist of what is being said here, but I just had to point out that France did ban the hijab (and all other religious symbols), but only from government operated primary and secondary schools.