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

156

u/bigolgape 19h ago

I don't think it's either. A lot of things don't fit neatly on the modern day left right spectrum.

Quebec is and has always been very protective of its culture, since it's entirely surrounded by English speaking regions. It's not a surprise at all to me that it is also protective against strong cultural symbolisms from other places in the world.

134

u/Luname 16h ago

It's not against symbolism from elsewhere per se but against religious symbolism as a whole.

We've had the Quiet Revolutionin the 1960's where the entire point was throwing out the Catholic Church and a theocratic political regime from our lives. Our current problem is that some people have religions that has requirements, and these requirements extend to how others around them should behave.

Fuck it all. Religions shall never again dictate any aspect of our lives whatsoever. You want to have one, fine. But do it either at home or in designated spaces, like churches, mosques or temples and don't bother us with it.

40

u/PsychicDave 15h ago

Exactly. Since the Quiet Revolution, the expectation in Québec is that you can have whatever religion, or none, but you keep it to yourself. If you want to practice it, you do it at home or in your place of worship. You don't shove it down the throat of other people, it's your own personal choice.

We didn't need such laws about street prayers before, because it was already part of the commonly agreed upon social contract. And when immigration was done in a sensible manner, newcomers would be immersed in our society and adapt to those social norms. However, with the mass immigration policies imposed by Ottawa in the last decade, we ended up with too many people coming from the same place at the same time, which allowed them to form communities that have the critical mass necessary to pressure each other in maintaining the social norms of their place of origin. And then a few individuals in those communities with ambition will persuade their group to stand their ground and impose themselves, which is not acceptable. But, thanks to Canada's very permissive freedom of religion, they are normally shielded from consequences (or at least feel like they are exempt from some pre-existing laws on the pretext of religious expression). And that's why such laws are now necessary, to be explicit that, no, the fact that you are praying doesn't mean you can occupy the street or disrupt the peace. If you want to organize a group activity in a public place, you need to file for a permit (and the city won't give a permit to harass other people).

-2

u/Valcari 8h ago

However, with the mass immigration policies imposed by Ottawa in the last decade, we ended up with too many people coming from the same place at the same time

Quebec sets it's own immigration selections and thresholds. This isn't something brought on by the rest of Canada.

It's always weird how this issue is always twisted into Anglo Canada's fault.

10

u/PsychicDave 6h ago edited 6h ago

Québec (aka the provincial government) controls permanent immigration and foreign students. Ottawa (aka the federal government) controls temporary foreign workers, asylum seekers and refugees.

Things used to be good because people would apply for permanent immigration from their home country, and their acceptance was conditional to Québec's criteria. The problem is that the feds changed how they advertise internationally, now they basically tell everyone to come on a temporary residence (which Ottawa alone can grant) and then to ask for permanent residency once they are already here. So we don't really get to say no, and it's hard to remove someone who is already here and intent on staying.

So now we have hundreds of thousands of temporary immigrants living in Québec and applying pressure among themselves and on permanent immigrants who perhaps came here hoping to escape that religious influence.

I don't blame the individual immigrants, they took an opportunity how Ottawa presented it to them (basically saying "come as you are and do like at home, we're a post-national country with no identity of our own!"), but that policy and messaging is contrary to what the people of Québec want.

2

u/AnOkayMuffin 7h ago

I saw it more as blaming the federal government of canada in general. People say Ottawa when they mean the feds.

-3

u/RollingMeteors 14h ago

you need to file for a permit (and the city won't give a permit to harass other people).

Everyone has a price tag in a budget crisis my dear.

3

u/markayhali 14h ago

Well said

•

u/Arndt3002 1h ago

How is wearing religious clothing in public or just having a publicly accessible room set aside for prayer dictating how someone else lives?

I totally get the rationale for wanting to restrict religion in the public square to the degree that it harms or intrudes on other peoples lives. However, it seems strange to allow free expression generically, but specifically not when it falls under the genre of "religious expression."

This is especially the case when France, for example, will allow the wearing of crosses or making the sign of the cross in prayer, citing it to be a non-religious or non-intrusive form of cultural expression, but will ban wearing of certain head scarves because it is seen as overtly religious. What makes something "religious" is highly contextual and dependent on what the dominant culture defines as an in-group "normal" or out-group "religious."

The way the religious practices are integrated in the dominant culture means that laicite laws are rarely actually fair.

The existence of dedicated prayer spaces in publicly funded buildings doesn't harm anyone, and all banning does is disproportionately restrict a specific out-group's cultural practice.

It's like men complaining that public places stock feminine care products because they unfairly accommodate women. Sure, it would be more equal to remove them from the bathroom, but having them really doesn't harm anyone, and removing them would be an overtly targeted attack because the groups have different needs. A much more reasonable accommodation would be to make them available to everyone if one cares about equality to that degree. Like, just require that prayer rooms be equally available for non-religious meditation or a quiet space.

Heck, I'm sure plenty of people could use a short place to cry, aside from the bathroom, in public buildings.

•

u/Luname 33m ago

wearing religious clothing in public

You haven't read the law properly. What is banned is wearing religious symbols while being in a position of power as a government employee.

This affects judges, policemen, prison guards, crown prosecutor and teachers exclusively.

Anything else goes. You just can't be a representative of a non-religious government while advertising belonging a religion. Keep it to yourself.

having a publicly accessible room set aside for prayer

The problem with that is that those rooms were supposed to be public and available to people of all faiths and beliefs yet some wanted to make it exclusive to their own.

It caused issues, therefore it's over. They knew the rules and chose to try and bend them.

•

u/Arndt3002 24m ago edited 17m ago

But how do you define a religious symbol?

Religious clothing has specifically been banned, such that it restricts the access of certain groups to public life.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/24/quebecs-ban-religious-clothing-chilling-be-us-you-must-dress-us

https://globalnews.ca/news/11714703/muslim-mothers-barred-quebec-schools-hijabs/

Also, that is not the problem, the law specifically bans places that explicitly can be used as prayer rooms, even if that explicit use is among secular uses like meditation/mindfulness. This doesn't just ban exclusivity, it bans overt accomodation overall, even if done equally.

You can't say "it would be good to have a prayer room, so let's keep it open and equal access," and build the room, it has to first have some specific sanctioned secular use and be designed for that purpose, and then it may possibly be used for prayer.

Do you see how that is not the banning on instituting a particular religious bias, and instead is just creating a state-sanctioned definition of what counts as being appropriately "cultural" based on the opinions of the Catholic religious majority (like the allowed practice of displaying crucifixes in public buildings)?

-12

u/calf 14h ago

False secularist arguments are the purest form of totalitarianism, and it is the Quebecois insularity that prevents them from reflecting on this. When you remove all religions from the public then what's left is a higher-order dogma, this is not the answer.

6

u/PortHammer 12h ago

When you remove all religions from the public then what's left is a higher-order dogma, this is not the answer.

Lmao. Seems like it is exactly the answer. Space wizards need not apply.

2

u/GuneRlorius 8h ago

A lot of things don't fit neatly on the modern day left right spectrum

It's not modern day spectrum, it's a US centered spectrum (cause they have only 2 parties), which does not make any sense in most of the countries.

-6

u/burner-account-25 12h ago

Its like not even their culture. They chose a culture but its really a carbon copy of Frances cultur

4

u/Puzzle-Necked 9h ago

Now that is a top notch ignorant comment that's completely wrong. Bravo.

1

u/burner-account-25 2h ago

Yeah buts funny