That headscarf is there for one and one reason only. To shame other women. If the catholic church jumped out of the history books to demand the right for its believers to wear it in office- you would rightfully tell them no. Because what that scarf yells at all those who do not wear it, through the voice of all the "believers" is "harlet, wrench, slut". If that thing was pushed by the catholic church, or evangelicals, you would be on the barricades by now. But it is by a supressed minority? Well that minority is not supressed in over 40 countries. In fact its the majority there, and supresses anyone not wearing a headscarf. Want to see what happens if you do not wear a headscarf there?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/05/egypt-women-ra...

That machoism is very real in the middle east- and the headscarf is part of the dividing and conquering. Nothing less. Cause there is always the mother and saint who wears it and the "cheap" whores free to hunt who dont.

May be that for some, this clothing has already lost its symbolism, like the white-wedding dress lost the symbolism of virginity it once held for christianity. If it has no symbolic value, why make such a fuzz about wearing it at all?

But in that case, i rather be safe then sorry.

A Yarmulke/Kippah is not large by any reasonable standard.

Seems like the bill is just trying to justify the headscarf ban.

What about nuns? In Québec, education was a religious matter until the early 60s. Which meant some catholic schools required teachers to be nuns. When schooling became government-run back then, many nuns left their congregation when they could now teach in civilian clothes. This left a profound mark on Quebec's catholic population and its perception of itself.

I'm not saying it excuses or changes anything. But the fact of the matter is that at least in Quebec, there was a large group of Catholic women who abandoned their religious garbs to teach because they didn't have to be nuns to do so.

You forgot to mention Mormon underwear, although that would be difficult to enforce anyway.

This is how I see it as well...

I'm more hesitant to say it's targeting any group in particular outside of the "other".

There's sadly a lot of fear floating through various circles perpetuated and amplified by online social groups. If those didn't exist I wonder if this pandering bill would have been tabled.

No enormous crucifix? I've seen Christian Orthodox priests that wear them. Like 25 cm long, and either the normal cross or the double cross.

Why add the word 'enormous'?

> there is clearly an actual obligation to wear a kippah, headscarf, or turban

There is no obligation to wear anything. There is an "obligation" for some sects of Islam. But that does not mean anything in the domain of secular government.

The truth is, most Muslims do NOT wear any special clothing. And even those that feel obligated to are not obligated to really; they are obligated to try, if possible. If they are not permitted to do it, they are spiritually off the hook. If it's a choice between wearing a headscarf and not providing for your family, you are most likely a bad muslim for not providing for your family. So, by banning it explicitly, we are actually making things easier for them by giving them an excuse not to do it.

> there's no obligation to wear an enormous crucifix in any Christian sect that I know of.

Who are you to say that I can't wear a giant pope-hat to work? I'm "obligated" to by my obscure sect of Catholicism. Perhaps I can carry around some lit incense and clanking metal jewelry. We have to draw the line somewhere.

Sikhs are some of my favorite fellow Canadians. The Sikh community puts a lot of effort into really integrating into the Canadian culture and it shows.

Agreed. I thought the title was suggesting the federal government was looking at a bill similar to the one in Quebec, but it’s actually about the one in Quebec.

This bill bans every "religious symbol", including a hijab. The niqab is, from my understanding, a full face and body covering garment, and most people would consider that different from what this bill targets. I don't think it is fair to say this exact same thing was a "hot topic" in the Federal election.