this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2025
56 points (88.9% liked)

Canada

9313 readers
1397 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grte@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Last fall, city officials confirmed the image would be removed in the name of secularism following complaints that it was offensive.

Oh?

collapsed inline media

Please, Montreal City Hall, share with the class what's offensive about that image.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Any religious representation [on govermental buildings] is offensive to secularism. A cross is just two over lapping lines but it would also be offensive in this context. Although the word offensive is a bit much, I'll give you that, I can understand why they want it gone.

It is a shame that secularism seems to disproportionately target Muslim women but it's either a religious symbol or it isn't.

Edit: Clarified first sentence.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Any religious representation is offensive to secularism.

No, I don't agree. Making laws with religious justification is offensive to secularism. A drawing that depicts a person wearing a piece of clothing traditionally associated with a religion is not offensive to secularism.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I think it goes deeper then that. Secularism means complete disconnection of church and state. Having religious symbols on state buildings goes against that. Religious symbols are a form of propaganda in the end.

I would be okay with making an exception for the head scarf. Tbh I don't really consider it much of a symbol but I understand their reaction to it. I wish we had similar laws where I am, instead my kids get to learn about creationism (I'm just guessing it's still taught, I don't actually have kids).

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And it should be taken down as well. Unfortunately, secularism is applied unevenly.

[–] nearhat@lemm.ee 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

“Unevenly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

Yeah, I should have said that politicians use secularism laws to be racist fucking pieces of shit.

With that said, I still believe that our different level of public services should be secular, and we should start with Christianity symbols first.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Any religious representation is offensive to secularism.

That sounds more like China and USSR-style state atheism than secularism.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It only seems extreme because we live in a christo-fascist state. I'm also only talking about when the state is involved. This would be fine on a private building, sorry if I wasn't clear.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It only seems extreme because we live in a christo-fascist state.

Uh... Canada is christofascist? What? You have to be kidding me. That aside this is a welcome sign not Sharia law; this sort of "the state can't acknowledge religion ever" logic benefits no one and excludes people who don't fit the state ideal of Christianity/atheism—and that's the thing: A secular state shouldn't have an ideal when it comes to people's religious beliefs. It's just another way to indirectly assert nationalist beliefs and exclude minorities with a vague appeal to secularism to make it more palatable.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

No, canada is definitely not christofascist, I just assume everyone lives within ten miles of me at all times, sorry.

That aside this is a welcome sign not Sharia law.

That is true. It does seem a bit petty in a way. I'm not really ready to criticize but I wouldn't have seen them as going against their own laws if they would have kept it. I sorely dislike all religions but this is the definition of inoffensif.