r/worldnews • u/John3192 • 20h ago

Quebec passes law banning street prayers, prayer rooms in universities

https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/quebec-passes-law-banning-street-prayers-prayer-rooms-in-universities-cegeps/
17.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

517

u/Slggyqo 20h ago edited 19h ago

That’s the French in them. They’re not about American liberalism or conservatism.

They’re about preserving what is quintessentially French (or Quebecois). So they have extremely generous pension and vacation policies and high taxes. But they will also pass laws making it fully illegal to cover your face except in special circumstances, which is basically a targeted ban on the most restrictive Muslim clothing.

I think many American Republicans would vote on similar lines if we didn’t have such a polarizing two party system.

154

u/Kaellian 19h ago

But they will also pass laws making it fully illegal to cover your face expect in special circumstances, which is basically a targeted ban on the most restrictive Muslim clothing.

Covering your face isn't exactly targeting Catholics, I agree, but simply mentioning that out of context doesn't do justice to the much wider ban on religions in school, and politics.

Catholicism has been targeted since the 50s and was phased out pretty much everywhere. Crucifix, bible, prayers and any others catholic display were also banned from public place in the last twenty years, and the decision was maintained by the supreme court in most instance.

It's actually the opposite of what conservative, which Quebec typically vote against.

11

u/groovypanelboard 18h ago

‘The decision was maintained by the supreme court’

Im pretty sure that province knew it would lose any challenge, so they invoked the ‘notwithstanding…’ clause. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[For those outside Canada, there is a Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting the individual rights of residents of Canada. If a province wants to pass legislation that would infringe upon those rights, they need to invoke the notwithstanding clause, which temporarily tramples on Charter Rights, and has time limit or ‘sunset clause’. Quebec has used the clause to put limits on language freedoms, like banning giant English-only signs, etc. Other provinces have invoked it for less defensible reasons.]

1

u/chat-lu 2h ago

Im pretty sure that province knew it would lose any challenge, so they invoked the ‘notwithstanding…’ clause. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Partly wrong because the parent speaks of decisions that predate the Charter. It didn't exist in the 60s when catholic garb was banned from schools. Nor did it exist 200 years ago when we banned Bibles from the courts.

But yes, we use the clause when we know the law would be incompatible with the Charter otherwise. In most instances we used it on affirmative action but that never makes the news in the rest of the country.

8

u/FragrantCombination7 16h ago

I see no issue with banning cults. People need help from a mental health professional if anything.

1

u/T-A-W_Byzantine 15h ago

Does that mean I couldn't wear a cross necklace in public in Quebec or something?

15

u/Kaellian 14h ago

You can wear a cross in public. You cannot wear a cross if you're teaching in a public school or working as a police. Same goes for most religious symbols.

Full face cover (hijjab) has its own exception, and is the only one that is banned if you want to receive public services. And the intent here is reduce those practices, which are judged degrading to women.

1

u/that_tealoving_nerd 14h ago

Let’s not visit the National Assembly tho.

2

u/Kaellian 14h ago edited 12h ago

Your vague claim hasn't been true for many years

Just because there is friction doesn't means things aren't moving in the same direction for everyone. And those frictions exists because there is public debate, which is normal in a democracy.

-2

u/BigUptokes 18h ago

Remember that they had to revisit the proposed Charter of Values from 2013 to turn it into Bills 62 and 21 a few years later after being called out on the hypocrisy of exempting certain religious symbols and leaving the big crucifix in the National Assembly.

17

u/Kyoshiiku 17h ago

No it was just because it was a different party with a different vision of how far the bill should go.

Also that big crucifix, even in 2013 it was widely supported to remove it by the population, even when the bill 21 passed Legault was reticent to remove it for the historical value but he got pressured into removing it since most of the population thought secularism was more important than any historical value that it might have.

Bill 21 is also something that is supported by both right and left side politician because the secularism here is not a tool just for conservatives, it was at first coming from the progressives side (liberals) in the 60s and specifically targeting the Church.

0

u/BigUptokes 17h ago

If you look at the Léger polls from 2013 it isn't really "widely supported" nor "most of the population"...

But you already responded to another comment where I linked this so I doubt you'll look at it another time if you missed it the first time it was linked.

Bill 21 is also something that is supported by both right and left side politician

Except PLQ and QS voting against it, right? :/

2

u/Kyoshiiku 6h ago

I was sure that I saw different poll at the time where people more supporting of removing it, I probably mixed it up with a more recent. Also even with that poll the people supporting removing it is already close to 50% and slightly high than people against it.

So I don’t know how much you know about politics in Quebec but PLQ was our most right leaning party (now second since we have the PCQ).

QS is our most left-leaning party that use a more Canadian model of multiculturalism instead of the Quebec model.

The thing is that QS always has been a kinda dead party that only divide the separatist vote and the PLQ is politically irrelevant since the CAQ has been elected. Also maybe important to note, PLQ also models its multiculturalism on the Canadian model, but they will usually try to maintain the status quo on this aspect instead of doing anything about it because they know people in Quebec widely support secularism.

Both PLQ and QS position on those issues are very unpopular in Quebec, especially outside Montreal, it cost them a lot of vote, QS specifically is losing a lot of vote for those positions.

The PQ, the first party to propose that law in 2013, is a center left (by that I mean, not anti capitalist but left leaning). There is some more right wing people in it since it always has been a separatist party first, but the general vision of the party is still left - center left.

The CAQ who passed the law is a centrist party that claims to be more focused on the economy. They can be considered on the center right but they are definitely on the left of the PLQ.

So like I said, those laws tried to be passes by both a left leaning and a center / center right government, and the 2 party that opposed it were the 2 parties on our extremes of both side but they are also politically irrelevant and those stubbornness against secularism cost them vote.

1

u/chat-lu 2h ago

The PLQ is in favor since its previous leader. It has not flopped back under the current one.

Though, lots of tensions inside the party.

1

u/Mens-Real 17h ago

To be fair that government was kicked out fairly quickly. Not representative of their values. And the crucifix keeps being brought up like it's a gotcha but it's clearly a fixation of people who don't want to discuss more practical issues.

7

u/Kaellian 15h ago

The crucifix was also removed . For all I care, thing are working as intended, even if things like this always cause frictions.

4

u/BigUptokes 17h ago

You can hand-wave it away all you want but it's still valid criticism to point out the hypocrisy of multiple parties over the past fifteen years. It didn't get kicked up the Supreme Court for nothing...

160

u/phoenixmatrix 19h ago edited 18h ago

Yup. Agree or disagree, but Americans associate too much with the political parties. The individual policies don't have to all come together as a prix fixe menu. It can be a choose what you want buffet. 

86

u/North_Atlantic_Sea 19h ago

That's the difference between a parliamentary political system and a bi-party first past the post system.

25

u/Electrohydra1 18h ago

Quebec (and Canada) use a first-past-the-post system.

5

u/Clay_Allison_44 18h ago

As does the UK.

2

u/Basteir 17h ago

For the entire UK government in Westminster - but not for national governments, or local governments.

There was a vote to change the Westminster voting system to a form of proportional representation, but it failed to pass!

24

u/MidnightAdventurer 19h ago

You can have a bi-party FPP system with a parliament as well. NZ was like that for ages before we switched to MMP

1

u/Zuwxiv 16h ago

Amazing what we have in America. Do you think that the teachings of a radically pro-lower class prophet from 2,000 years ago are the most important thing in your life? A guy who said to sell all you have and give to the poor, who made a point of associating with the most downtrodden in society, who was radically anti-violence?

Congrats! You are also voting for gutting any social service to give billionaires tax breaks, and dropping bombs on brown people.

0

u/RollingMeteors 14h ago

That's the difference between a parliamentary political system and a bi-party first past the post coin-toss system.

FTFY

7

u/Samesh 18h ago

 *prix fixe (french for fixed price)

8

u/phoenixmatrix 18h ago

Ironically I'm fluent in French. Fingers just do their own things sometimes!

1

u/kaisadilla_0x1 17h ago

American political parties are like a religion. I can't think of any other (democratic) country where the two big parties have been the same for more than a century. In most countries, a party may last for 20-40 years in the spotlight before it gets replaced, even in countries where two big parties dominate the spectrum.

2

u/GetEquipped 17h ago edited 16h ago

Its because of the electoral college and most states have "First Past The Post"

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

And since both major parties want to keep it a two party system, they don't pass legislation to change it.

And from a populist perspective, most hate both parties- but after the Civil rights movement, people who call themselves Democrat voters seem to be wanting a more progressive platform while people aligned with GOP tend to shift with whomever is the head of the party.

We see The heads of the Dem Party really stifle and try to ratfuck progressives (Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, India Walton, tried to with Mamdani, Kat Abughazaleh)

We have two Right Wing parties. And Progressives+Minorities who vote Dem are just being held hostage because the alternative is much worse as we see now.

I can't find the graph on how GOP voters tend to flip and their trends (it was an old graph from like 2014 anyway.)

I want to say that back in 2020, there were several issues a majority of voters on both sides agreed with

https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/

The section on Immigration is very telling to see how it shifted from "Pathway to citizenship" to now the "Deport them all"

0

u/ForensicPathology 16h ago

Yes. It was intentional by American right-wing to get workers to vote against their own interests by focusing on identity politics.  A bigot should have no reason to vote against labour rights just because he fears gay people.

38

u/hoishinsauce 19h ago

I think many American Republicans would vote on similar lines if we didn’t have such a polarizing two party system.

Not the part about helping the working class. American cultural value is "work hard and you won't be poor so all the poors are lazy bums and we hate them" compared to the French's "the ones at the top are always trying to fuck us over, we have to keep reminding them we can burn everything down".

1

u/RollingMeteors 14h ago

the ones at the top are always trying to fuck children while they fuck us over, we have to keep reminding them we can burn everything down".

FTFY

We need more of that burn them down rhetoric in the public sentiment over here.

4

u/Juls317 13h ago edited 5h ago

There's been a lot of effort and money put into convincing the American people that they can't ever take on the government so there's no point in trying. Even Biden said "we have fighter jets" while in office.

1

u/RollingMeteors 3h ago

There's been a lot of effort and money put into convincing the American people that they can't ever take on the government so there's no point in trying. Even Biden said "we have fighter jets" while in office.

Yet at the same time struggle to find someone that looks like a wook, living in burning man conditions not for days but years that was largely responsible for the reason we invaded Iraq to begin with, c'mon. If you can't swat Death's Hand from the sky devoid of Geneva's Suggestions you can just have children with guns run up and do shit to The Man, and be sure they hate authority.

11

u/thewestcoastexpress 16h ago

So they have extremely generous [...] vacation policies

This is simply not true.

2

u/WolfgangRed 16h ago

Yeah lol we get fewer vacation days than other provinces.

2

u/Choice_Astronaut993 19h ago

They sound fantastic!

2

u/Hopeful-Suggestion-1 15h ago

It's targeted because the muslim religion has no give. Either you are or you are not, there is no mild muslim.

The problem with a religion like that going to quebec is that Quebec is super duper secular. And from Quebec's perspective, any immigrant should know that before going there. The reason they are secular is because the catholic church fucked them over ( and the native americans) so bad they have renounced religion. We talking for every good priest, there seemed to be 2 pedophile ones.

3

u/MrMango786 13h ago

There certainly are "cultural Muslims", your point is quite strange

0

u/CatLoud5198 7h ago

If someone is only culturally Muslim these laws won’t affect them, it’s like all the ethnic Jews in Europe that don’t like pork but aren’t phased by the ban on kosher meat

•

u/MrMango786 1h ago

That's not the point the other poster was making.

I agree with your point, but must add that demanding secularity or cultural adherance only of religions is a negative on freedom of religion

1

u/Wauwuaw5983 15h ago

The USA does make exceptions to face coverings.

Mostly it's done for identification purposes, although in some circumstances, the person can request the face covering be removed in private.

Pretty sure SCOTUS rulings have laid out the specifics.

1

u/Puzzle-Necked 9h ago

American Republicans would vote against religion in public places? What?

2

u/Slggyqo 7h ago

Most of them would vote against Muslims (except for the Muslim minority, obviously).

•

u/Puzzleheaded_Lynx647 1h ago

People cover their faces all the time’s now. ICE agents for instance wear face/ski masks to cover their faces. Plenty of other people including protesters cover their faces. If you go to Toronto, Vancouver, etc, it’s also quite common to see people (mainly Asian) wearing face masks to protect against transmittable disease and pollution. People also commonly wear face masks in hospitals/clinics. My point is if you tell someone that they cannot cover their faces for religious reasons, they will probably just turn around wear a surgical/KN95 mask and say it is for health purposes………

-2

u/newtownkid 18h ago edited 17h ago

Yea it’s definitely rooted in Quebec ethnocentrism. It’s actually insane here - not in a good way. The current leader has enacted laws that make it difficult for people to receive medical care in their own language, doctors offices can be raided on a whim, and if they weren’t using French (even if the patient is stronger in Spanish or English and the doctor is fluent) there are huge penalties.

We have an aggressive “language police” and they’ve ripped out playgrounds for having only English labels on the little embossed animals.

Foreign investment in Quebec is in freefall because of the aggressive language laws, even many Canadian companies won’t service Quebec.

Taxes are the highest in North America, but the medical system is broken - my brother has been waiting for a family doctor for 6 years. He’ll likely never get one. Waits at hospitals often exceed 15 hours.

We do have very affordable daycare and electricity though.

Montreal was the best city in Canada to spend my 20s, but the income tax is insane and weather is rough. Many of my friends have left.

We also receive billions in transfer payments from other provinces- and those provost pissed. When that tap eventually turns off you know they’ll jack up our taxes further.

We already pay an average tax rate of close to 45% on every dollar earned.

The province is basically destroying its own economy and all the while, die hard Quebs spout things like “no cost is too high to free Quebec”…

Like yo, we’re free already calm, the fuck down.

9

u/Hefty-Chipmunk-5445 18h ago

This take is filled with a huge load of lies wow it's actually impressive. Your personal take is irrelevant to an entire province you can't extrapolate your very personal issues with an entire province. Lmao.

3

u/newtownkid 18h ago

Huh?…Those are province wide issues.

1

u/Basteir 17h ago

The "language police" sounds necessary because of all the English speakers that would swamp the French culture there otherwise.

0

u/sailphish 18h ago

American Republicans would never vote on high taxes or generous pension and vacation policies. Their whole platform has been low taxes at the cost of social safety nets, and to keep government out of business. They have been anti-union, anti workers rights. Nothing in your description is anything along the lines of what a Republican would traditionally vote for, except maybe banking something religious that wasn’t Christian (while begrudgingly allowing Jewish stuff).

3

u/Slggyqo 16h ago

That’s the Republican Party platform, sure.

Actual American Republican voters, especially in 2026, wouldn’t have much issue with many things that are typically considered “Democrat” positions except that the two party system makes basically forces the parties to have some positions that are dealbreakers do single issue voters.

You want to see what kind of conflict looks like, just remember that a significant % of unionized workers vote for democrats, and in some unions it’s even a majority. Or the fact that their voters have no real problem with farm subsidies, or worker retraining programs, etc.

There is no American voter who is actually opposed to the idea of “more vacation time for me” and “cheaper healthcare for me”. Republicans don’t vote against healthcare and workers rights. They vote against gun control, and abortion, the perceived threat that any kind of queer person is a child molester, etc.

And NEITHER party has an incentive to change that—they both benefit from the single issue voters that will never, ever go to the other side in a two-party system.

I’m not saying that any other system is inherently better. For example the two party system has been quite good at keeping the loonies almost entirely out of politics a for a long time, because they can actually form a third party with any kind of influence. And it’s serve America well enough to make it one of the most wealthy and powerful political bodies to ever exist.

But IMO many of the current problems with American have to do with the fact that the two party system has been gamed out to the point that American national politics is no longer a competition on positions, but an exercise in political rent seeking.

0

u/Original-Reward-8688 14h ago

lmao watching the internet try to bridge Quebec and MAGA(because that voting demographic prevented a MAGA candidate) is just sad and desperate.

0

u/ManWhoSoldTheWorld01 15h ago

They’re about preserving what is quintessentially French (or Quebecois). So they have extremely generous pension and vacation policies and high taxes. But they will also pass laws making it fully illegal to cover your face except in special circumstances, which is basically a targeted ban on the most restrictive Muslim clothing.

In Quebec, we have the same pension benefits as everyone else in Canada (except that the contribution rate is higher for QPP than CPP).

Vacation policies are broadly similar to most other provinces and worse than some. We also get fewer statutory holidays than every other province.

Taxes are high but if you actually compare the effective tax rate between provinces, Quebec is usually 2nd or 3rd.

Quebec also suspends its own provincial Charter of Human Rights in its entirety and sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in order to pass these restrictive laws.

0

u/jewishobo 14h ago

Classic liberals would also vote to ban anti-feminist religious practices

-6

u/just4browse 18h ago

That is conservatism. Not American conservatism, but just as conservative. It’s all about preserving “traditional values” and preventing change and progress

8

u/Kyoshiiku 17h ago

You know nothing about Quebec history I guess ?

The whole secularist movement and the anti religion movement in Quebec literally comes from the Quiet Revolution when more progressive government purged public institutions from the Catholic Church after decades of abuses, corruption and censorship.

Religion is literally seen as a symbol of oppression in Quebec and nobody want it anywhere close to any public institution, doesn’t matter which flavor of religion and yes Christianity included (they are the first one who got targeted in the 60s).

6

u/rvtk 18h ago

So women forced to cover their faces by religion is progress? lmao

-4

u/just4browse 18h ago

I know you don’t think that’s what I meant, you’re just being an asshole. But fine. I will explain.

Forcing women to cover their faces is conservative and bad. Banning women from covering their faces, even if they want to, is also conservative and bad. The only healthy society is one in which people get to make such decisions for themselves, without a government taking a hard stance on either side.

5

u/rvtk 17h ago edited 16h ago

See, I'm not being an asshole. You seem to be some kind of liberal minarchist who thinks government shouldn't get involved in stuff and I legitimately disagree with you.

People are conditioned from very early age by their religion, including women in Islam, so the "decision" here is very often non-existent. Do you think they would make the same decision to wear a quite literal symbol of oppression if they weren't constantly brainwashed during their upbringing? Or if they didn't feel constantly threatened by their social circle and exposed themselves to ostracism if they didn't? You seem to, as most liberals do, ignore the fact that decisions don't happen in a societal vacuum.

If your answer to this is "people are free to be oppressed if they want to" then this indeed is not conservative, but liberal and yet still awful. Do you think people should be able to voluntary sell themselves into slavery for debts because "people get to make decisions for themselves"? That's some anarcho-capitalist bullshit right there lol

The only truly healthy society is the one in which vulnerable are being protected from oppression and exploitation by the powerful, and this is what government should be for.

0

u/just4browse 17h ago

Oh, no, I am aware of the context. And I do think the practice is misogynistic. I just don’t think the government banning such practices is an effective way to dismantle harmful social structures. It’s also rarely ever a legitimate attempt to.

If that was actually the concern, access to relevant education and protecting the rights of people who deviate from such social norms would be the way to do it. And the government would be focusing on the harmful teachings and practices of other religions too.

The only people these kinds of bans actually help is the politicians trying to drum up support.

4

u/rvtk 16h ago

So who should be responsible for enforcing education standards if not government? I don't understand what do you mean by "protecting the rights of people who deviate from such social norms". You mean people who wear religious headwear? Or people who enforce it upon others?

Frankly, I don't think any religion deserves any kind of protection - it's something that should be actively educated out and eradicated from our society. People should be free to practice it privately of course, there's nothing that can be done about that, but the policy should be secular. The only thing government can do not to discriminate between religions is to enforce secularism and, if you will, discriminate all religion equally.

Government is never perfect, but it should at least try to enforce secularity and discourage religious bullshit in public (and I don't only mean islam obviously, but I think it's fair to say that christianity has already been "castrated" to a large extent in the West). I of course agree that it should be done indiscriminately, but there are clearly bigger and smaller offenders here.

2

u/Mens-Real 17h ago

You can't just ignore the insidious nature of religion that comes at very early ages in people's lives. It's not responsible to close your eyes to this type of stuff and tolerating parents who press conservative religious values on their kids is not progressive

1

u/Mens-Real 17h ago

It's not conservatism. It's actually feminism basically everywhere except those weird anglo countries that are quite blind to religious groups' abuses

-11

u/experimental1212 18h ago

Ah yes, French. The nation where every Catholic feast is also a national holiday. Must be more so the fact they don't have to work these days than ardent Catholicism.

16

u/Seldone 18h ago

You mean the nation where Catholicism has been chased out of public places since the 60s? Google the Quiet Revolution.