this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
126 points (98.5% liked)

Canada

10705 readers
440 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit assumption that everyone who thinks that public displays of religion should be banned is actually motivated by racism, rather than recognising that somebody can be against this for non-racist reasons.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is not push on a non-racism way in Quebec. Like I said they don’t want to use the law equally, they want to use it specifically against Muslim.

And so far, from my perspective (that is a confirmation biais), no one debate the idea without a racist undertone

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

That's my issue as well with the bill. Just look at the crucifix at the Assembly. They didn't remove it, they just moved it outside the room. If the intent of the law was really to remove religion from the public space, it wouldn't have been a debate about keeping the crucifix in the Assembly.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It just so happens that it always boils down to policing what Muslims do. Just one big coincidence.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

That's very fair yes. But how can you tell those who are anti-religion for racist reasons from those who are for not?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

There are two hazards in our discussion:

  1. someone being called racist
  2. someone suffering from systemic racism

I prioritize hazard 1 as having a lower consequence than hazard 2.

In other words, I care much more about eradicating systemic racism than the hurt feelings of someone whose motives are misunderstood.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago

OK that's a good argument. It's perhaps a flaw of the word "racist" that it can include systemic racism, when it connotes individual racism.

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Sure, you can be against it for authoritarian reasons as well. Disturbing.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't really see how that's related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that'd be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn't matter what the motivation for that is.

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Fair enough: regardless of whether racism is involved or not, there is an authoritarian bent to this law. In my opinion.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago

Religion has been used time and time again to justify committing atrocities and still used as such today.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the religion's place in a society.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

The context made it so that people conflates the two.

Medias and public debates pretty much always framed the issue of religion in public as a racist thing (in order to get more views) instead of only talking how the CAQ government targetted non-christian religions with their bill.