against_bill_21 epitome of incomprehensibility Just reread my 2014 blathering under "vote" - I forgot I talked about that Quebec election in so much detail! So, bad news about the whole "Charter of Quebec Values" thing. The party that proposed it didn't get in, but the 2018 Quebec election brought in a new-ish party called the CAQ (conservative, non-separatist but pretty inward-focused), and THEY resurrected the charter's main idea, bringing it into law as "Bill 21". So now people in some public jobs aren't supposed to wear "ostentatious religious symbols" (cough cough mostly hijabs cough cough). Even George W. Bush wouldn't...eh, who knows. It screws over at least two of my former students who want to be teachers in Quebec. As part of the run-up to today's national (Canadian) election, people were blaming the English debate moderator for mentioning Bill 21 in negative terms, thus offending the poor Bloc Quebecois guy, but jeez, are you supposed to say nice things about it?? I don't care about the English/French conflict - it's overblown, as usual - but Bill 21 is blatantly unfair. Even from a "secular" perspective (the excuse is to make the Quebec government "secular"), why imbue religious symbols with that much power? If you're really secular, you won't bother about stuff like that unless it actually does infringe on other rights, like if someone forces people to wear religious clothing. And that has happened. But how is forcing people NOT to wear this stuff any different? Simply put, I don't want a provincial government that's Taliban-lite. To my mind, telling women (and it's mostly women) what to wear isn't particularly feminist. 210920 ... e_o_i Friend of a friend published an article about it, explaining things more calmly: https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/the-invisible-victims-of-quebecs-law-21/ One small quibble: I'd add that not every Muslim woman believes wearing a hijab all the time is a spiritual necessity. Now, I'm not Muslim myself so I'm not some authority here; that's just been my experience with at least two former colleagues, plus an Eng-Lit classmate back in 2010 (she did wear a head covering to pray, as I saw when the Muslim student club was on the same floor as I was for a lunch event; I thought she seemed a little embarrassed to see me there, which made me think of the Intervarsity Bible studies I sometimes went to. Even though my agnostic personality didn't let them absorb me fully, I thought that I shouldn't anyway feel ashamed to be there. But it was weirdly heartwarming to see or at least imagine that this other girl felt the same way, that many people might feel awkward when different aspects of their lives meet unexpectedly.) Anyway! My point was SUPPOSED to be that things don't have to be considered religious necessities for them to be protected by law. People should be able to wear what they want as long as it doesn't pose a danger or undue disturbance others. Of course, what that is could vary, but I see no logical reason to limit things like hijabs, turbans, or kippahs. And the argument that Islam oppresses women is disingenuous. Cynically, yes - most religions do to some extent, because they've been influenced by misogynist societies. So, what's the Quebec government's response - to take away women's (mostly women's) choices? That's not what I think of as feminism. It's hypocritical, arguably racist, and definitely unfair. 220106 what's it to you? who go blather from