Majority of Québécois want crucifix displayed in National Assembly, religious headgear banned in public sector

During September's provincial election campaign, the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) vowed, if elected, to end once and for all the pandering to minorities that kept both the Liberals and the Parti Québécois from passing lawas to prohibit the display in public places of religious objects, including religious clothing, such as the Jewish kippah, Sikh turban and Muslim burqa/niqab/hijab. Banning such things was, they said, the will of the majority of Québécois, and sure enough, the people of la belle province gave the CAQ a strong mandate.

Ever since, the usual NPCs, SJWs and liberal chattering classes -- not your typical francophone Québeckers, but English speakers -- have been pissing and moaning about "minority rights", Islamophobia, and (of course) racism. Such discriminatory legislation, they whine, is not in keeping with real Québec values, and the election result didn't really reflect the will of the people.

The lamestream meeja and others hired a couple of pollsters to give Québeckers another chance to come up with the politically correct answers to a couple of decades-old questions:
Do you support a ban on the wearing of religious symbols by public-sector workers? and
Should the crucifix be removed from its place of honour above the Speaker's throne in the Assemblée Nationale?
You'll never guess how the real people responded...

Or maybe you will. A CROP poll taken from the 14th to 19th of November estimated that 72% of Québécois supported banning visible religious symbols for judges, 71% supported banning them for prosecutors and police officers, and 65% backed extending the ban to public-school teachers. CROP also found widespread support (55%) for leaving the crucifix in its place in the National Assembly; only 28% wanted to see it removed.

CROP's president told Radio-Canada (the French-language state broadcaster) that the results indicated unprecedentedly high levels of support for banning religious symbols. "I think we can conclude that the average Quebecer really wants to remove religion from the public sphere," he said, "especially for people who hold positions of authority.... The numbers are high but they are the product of a public discussion that has lasted since Bouchard-Taylor," he said, referring to the public commission into reasonable accommodation that wrapped up in 2008.

In the month after the October 1st election, Vox Pop, which polls for the CBC and Radio-Canada, surveyed 4000 people about identity issues. Respondents were shown images of various types of religious clothing and symbols and asked to choose different situations where they should be banned. The results suggested no less than 87% (!) in favour of preventing police officers and judges from wearing the burqa. If you're not sure what that is, check out "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.

The number in favour of a ban dropped to only 65% for the turban and kippa. The Vox Pop findings also suggested Québeckers are divided about what religious symbols teachers should be allowed to wear in the classroom. The kippah was opposed by 49%, the turban by 51%, the hijab by 52% a large cross by 53%. Vox Pop summarized its findings by noting that a majority of survey participants -- 55% -- backed the Bouchard-Taylor consensus referred to above.

Tomorrow, the National Assembly begins its first session. The CAQ government has indicated that introducing a bill to replace the previous government's Bill 62 (which was never enforced) would not be its first order of business, but that it would tackle the issue early in the new year, confident that it is doing the will of the people of Québec.

Footnote: The burqa and other Islamic attire has already been banned in the Netherlands, Denmark and even Muslim-majority Morocco. The Québec government is behind the curve of public opinion on this one, but not so much as the government of Canada, which refuses to discuss the issue, let alone admit that the majority of Canadians would support such legislation. M-103.

Mass stabbing at Indiana Sikh temple

For those who don't know much about Sikhism -- an offshoot of Hinduism -- is that it has strict dress requirements, particularly for the male members. All observant Sikhs are required to wear turbans, which is why Sikhs don't play hockey. They also wear special underpants, but we need not concern ourselves with that.

The requirement which you should know about, if you find yourself in the company of Sikhs, is that they must carry a kirpan -- a ceremonial dagger such as that being shown off by the young man in the picture.

That's something that you should bear in mind if you live in the Greater Toronto or Vancouver areas of Canada, or any part of North America which has a sizeable Sikh community. Like, for instance, Greenwood, Indiana. As in any place inhabited by a colony of Sikhs, Greenwood boasts a Sikh gurdwara, or temple. The one on South Graham Road in Greenwood is called the Gurdwara Shri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji Sikh Temple.

The gurdwara is the site of many activities, including the occasional knife fight -- make that kirpan fight -- between various groups of Singhs. (All Sikhs are Singhs, but not all Singhs are Sikhs [like cognac and brandy. Ed.]) According to Fox 59 News, one such took place this afternoon, when some 150 worshippers were involved in which local police described as a "brawl", which apparently broke out during a "transition of power ceremony".

The Greenwood Mayor's Office reported that six to twelve people were stabbed, but the number actually injured seems to have been no more than three or four. Police investigations into the extent of damage suffered by victims, and who exactly was involved in the attacks, have been stymied by the fact that all of the victims as well as their assailants were named "Singh". Local sherlocks have, however, figured out that the cause of the brawl was that those in power did not wish to step down.

Québec enacts law banning face coverings in public places

If they live in Québec, these women might well start looking over their shoulders, keeping their eyes (only) open for the long arm of the law, for starting soon they will be in violation of a law requiring Québec people who give or receive any public service to uncover their faces.

Bill 62, which Walt thinks might well be called the Open Face Law, was passed by the National Assembly (legislature) last week. It applies to all provincial ministries, school boards, universities, public health care institutions, subsidized day care centres, municipalities, and public transit authorities.

Also covered (or uncovered, if you'll forgive the pun) are doctors, dentists and midwives. So if you're in a doctor's office, no matter whether you're the doctor or the patient, take off that veil! Walt wonders if there's an exception for surgical masks. There should be no problem for dental patients, though. How could you get your teeth cleaned with your face covered? [I've always wondered about that too. Maybe Muslim women don't go to the dentist? Ed.]

Bill 62 details under what circumstances employers and schools should refuse requests for time off for religious reasons. It would also bar taxpayer-subsidized daycares from teaching children specific religious beliefs.

The fundamental principle of Bill 62 is the duty of religious neutrality which is considered necessary in a society which is determined to be an exemplar of secular humanism. This is a 180-degree turn from the Québec of old, of the days before the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, when the teachings of the (pre-Vatican II) Church established the norms of morality and propriety for Canada's most Catholic province.

The secular values of the New Québec were set out back in 2013 in the Charter of Québec Values proposed by the Parti Québecois, which was then in power, in response to the anger of old stock Québecois over religious accommodation -- the PC notion that Canadians should had to adapt to the social and religious customs of non-Christian (read: Muslim) immigrants. The PQ was defeated in the next provincial election, but in 2015 similar legislation was introduced by the new Liberal government as Bill 62.

Although Bill 62 doesn't mention the niqab or burqa specifically, Justice Minister Stéphanie Vallée said that, since the law will apply to municipalities, metropolitan communities and public transit organizations. anyone who rides a bus or the Métro (subway) must be unveiled. Mme Vallée told CBC Montreal's Daybreak yesterday that a woman who normally wears a burqa or niqab would have to show her face for the duration of her ride, "as long as the service is being rendered."

Beyond the face-covering ban, the Bill 62 sets out broad limits for all requests for religious accommodation. It says a request has to be "serious", respect the right to equality between men and women and "the right of every person to be treated without discrimination." Opposition to the legislation has come chiefly from the members of one religious group. Walt will leave you to guess which religion that is. Hint: It's one of the three Abrahamic religions... the newest one of the three... Geddit?

Further reading:
"Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", WWW 28/7/10.
"Nobody likes the Charter of Québec Values...except the people!", WWW 23/1/14.