I may not be the wisest move.

My views mirrored entirely,

Who gets to decide what’s neutral?

@skado ...and that's why they need dress codes.
Left to individuals, there might be too much room for misinterpretation of the word 'neutral'.
The definition sounds a bit bland, but basically what I had in mind.
Easily Googleable:

neu·tral

adjective

1. not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.
   "during the Second World War, Portugal was neutral"
   synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, objective, without favoritism, open-minded, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, disinterested, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, unemotional, clinical, indifferent...

2. having no strongly marked or positive characteristics or features.
   "the tone was neutral, devoid of sentiment"

noun

1. an impartial or unbiased country or person.
   "Sweden and its fellow neutrals"

2. a neutral color or shade, especially light gray or beige.

Be who you want on your own time...

@scurry
I know what the definition of neutral is. But what’s neutral from one perspective is not from another. Jeans and T-shirt looks neutral to me but looks disrespectful to some. Whose neutral gets to set the standard? Should every public employee have the same hair color, or be bleached white? How about skin color? There are certain aspects of “you” that are intrinsic to your sense of self. Why should religious identy be expunged? How about style of eyeglasses? Should all marks of personal identity be erased in order to be a public servant, or is this just an excuse for religious oppression?

@skado ....
"...and that's why they need dress codes.
Left to individuals, there might be too much room for misinterpretation of the word 'neutral'."
....
" The bill passed 73 - 35 and was supported by the majority of Québécers"

.....
Seems that the province in question decided on this case.

Jeans & tshirt don't offend me, but I wouldn't wear that to meet the Queen.
"Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans and Catholic crosses" also don't offend me, but now, according to Quebec, these should not be worn to work if you work in the public sector.

They have drafted it up and drawn the line, no doubt after the proper legal and governmental process.
I'm sure there will be some figuring out still to do, and time will tell how it plays out.

And yes I'm sure they will mandate that everyone's hair have to be the same colour, wear the same glasses, and everyone has to be the same height; platform shoes for the shorter employees, while the taller ones will likely have to get some sort of leg-cutting surgery to cut them down to size.
Yes, that was sarcasm.

If you're looking to poke holes in the system, go ahead. No system is perfect.

I agree with separation of Church and State. I have given this a lot of thought, and I am very familiar with Quebec. I don't agree with everything Quebec does or stands for, but they seem to be taking a hard stand to keeping the separation of Church & State.

Be whoever you want to be, let your freak flag fly high and proud... I am all for that. 100%. I encourage it!! ... When appropriate and on your own time.

@altschmerz LOL. Nothing is wrong for it, but there's a time and place for novelty tees.
Thankfully I can wear them at work.

My own views are pretty much the same. The workplace should be neutral, secular and non discriminatory, in order to make it so all emblems and religious symbols need to be excluded.

Agreed.

Agree.

Talking about full face covering... I saw a baby's reaction on the bus recently : poor thing was so scared ! Another time at the doctor's office, a kid was staring so much at the lady she went for a walk.

Thank you for bringing a Canadian perspective to this news item. At face value it seems a good move...but look closely and there may be a more self serving motivation.

@Marionville The previous incarnation of this bill, if I can remember, was meant to ban things like hijabs, burkas, and similar items citing security and safety issues. It was not supported and I thought that whole thing was dead. Then they came back with this revision of the bill with a more wide-ranging ban.

The original Quebec act (from the 1700s) protected the French in Canada by allowing them to keep their French language and Catholic religion (of course, the English were Anglican/Protestant). With immigration from other provinces and other countries, Quebec fears the dilution or disappearance of their French Catholic culture. Immigrants from other countries coming into Quebec must enroll their children in French schools (not given the choice to enroll in either French or English). I have a doctor friend in Montreal who told me his parents came from Italy and they had to enroll their children in a French speaking school. On the one hand, I understand the need to preserve one's culture, but sometimes it goes a bit too far.

I can agree with not displaying religious symbols in public secular buildings like courts, government offices, hospitals, etc. But personal items worn by a person, as long as it doesn't interfere with the work, who cares. I mean, seriously, who's going to be enforcing the law when you see someone in public service wearing a cross. Call the police? Call management and human resources to deal with the offender? Fire the person? What a waste of time and resources. It would be divisive in the workplace and encourage hate. More people have caused fear, injury, damage, and death without wearing or showing religious clothing or symbols.

@graceylou I want to persuade people through reason and logic, not through imposing laws and persecution. It worries me when laws suppress religious freedoms that we, atheists, are just as intolerant as the religious. As long as they don't use their position as a teacher to promote their personal beliefs

@MsDemeanour Exactly.

Not sure what laws other provinces have in this respect.

@Marionville none do or would do. Many in Quebec see themselves as a french minority (which is true) in an ocean of North American English and it needs to be protected at all costs. This allows them to justify any action against internal minorities to protect their Quebec/Pure lan culture .

@bookofmoron I totally agree. You have to know the history of Quebec in order to understand where this bill came from.

I live in Ontario since 4 years and I miss my Quebec. What you get is what you see.

@graceylou @bookofmoron I agreenwith most of this thread...
Your last statement is also true, but I would add...
"You have to know the history of Quebec in order to understand where this bill came from."... and how they are getting away with it.

(legalization of marijuana)

Precisely.

YES!! Exactly!

I have some sympathy for that argument, although the Koran doesn’t prescribe any head covering it’s purely a cultural custom and manmade. It is sad that women think that they must cover their heads...and even worse, their faces, because of the dictats of males. It has been mentioned by others that it’s probably why this law has been introduced...in order to keep Muslims and others out of civil service jobs.

I feel that your reasoning is sound, and so is your conclusion that it would effect Muslim women more than any others... however, that is exactly why I feel it is a good law. It will make it impossible for Muslim women to have positions of influence while wearing a burka or hijab, and if said effected Muslim women wish to have those positions, they will either have to take off their burkas and hijabs to obtain or keep them or give up the absurd practice entirely.Forced progress is still progress.The longer we let backward thinking cultures remain that way, the longer they hold all of us back as a species.

Thanks for that insight into the regulations and how they are enforced by the US Army and other federal employers. I think it’s right to have complete neutrality in any workplace, especially in the public sector.

Did it apply to chaplains and padres while in uniform?

@NoPlanetB Presumably there would have to be evidence of the disruption and it could be taken to court. The problem with education in the south (and in much of the country) is far, far deeper than this issue. There is a deep anti-intellectual, anti-education culture in this country, and often in the reddest states, the best people they can get to work and live and teach in these areas don't know very much. And the best and brightest that make it through the system there with a head on their shoulders...leave. Why would you stay, with little pay, no respect, and no support for actual education. (A variation of all of those things are true throughout the country, though.)

Well...Agnosticism isn’t a religion...so maybe you could!

Yeah, a level playing field, imagine that.

Nor would I.
It's not the place.

@scurry I’m not saying that I would either, it wouldn’t be good judgement to do so .

Not always an easy balance to strike. It does seem to be supported by the majority of the population though.

@Marionville It's not an easy subject with a lot of grey area. There is not only the principle but also how it plays out to be taken into consideration. That the majority of the population supports it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't think there is a need to make the old slavery/nazi germany/... arguments here.

@Dietl I feel sure that there must have been some incident which was the impetus for this legislation, although I have no information on this. I am neutral in my remarks when I mention the population being in support, I only mention them as commentary and am not making the argument either for or against. Nobody, especially me, is making any “old slavery/Nazi Germany.....argument”.... cannot understand that inference.

@Marionville I didn't want to put any words into your mouth. I just wanted to make the point that what the majority thinks is irrelevant when we want to judge if it is a good or a bad law.
The arguments I was refering to were about the majority in the past supporting slavery, secregation etc. We wouldn't say putting people into concentrations camps was okay because the majority thought it was.

Perhaps counterproductive.

@Marionville Yes indeed. One thing against it might be ruling out some good teachers etc. On the other hand, I really like the idea that the public arena, as the public manifestation of a secular government and a secular society, is seen to be a secular place for everybody.

@brentan We, in N.I have a huge problem with symbols as you probably know. Flags and emblems, both religious and political!

@Marionville It will be interesting to see if or how the macro-political situation around N.I. will affect the identity politics there.

@brentan No idea...but things had really improved here greatly....until Brexit reared it’s head. There is a tension back again, and of course no Stormont govt. for two years!

I think we are pretty evenly split in either agreeing with the Quebec authorities or believing they are overstepping the mark.

Me too.

They are slaves to their own lack of reason.

Thank you ...nice to get the opinion of someone directly affected.

It seems to have divided opinion here...and it has provoked some discussion, which is always good.

Time will be the only judge of that .

@Marionville yes, 9 generations as a Canadian is enough time for me to know exactly how this will play out. Much like you would realize what a train wreck having that merchant banker as the new PM will play out for England.

@Surfpirate I bow to your superior knowledge of all things Canadian. By England I presume you actually mean The United Kingdom...! I live in Northern Ireland and we have had wars over flags, emblems and religious symbols here for centuries, and have had similar legislation as Quebec in place here for some time. The only way to ensure a neutral working environment in the public sector is to ban all religious symbols. The motivation in Quebec may be as you say, but the principle of neutrality is correct.

@Marionville I agree completely, the principle is excellent and I support it but unfortunately I understand the motivation of the Far Right French. My wife is a Montrealer so I get the gist of where this will be going and why it was so widely supported. Quebecers have a strong Vichy French undercurrent that should not be ignored.

@Marionville When my ancestors sailed away from the British Isles it was just England.

@Surfpirate Must have been before 1603 then...that was when we had the Union of the Crowns and we became the United Kingdom!

@Marionville On paper yes but let's be honest about it, Scotland never fully bent the knee, Wales claims that it was never conquered and as for the Irish; well let's just say that hard fighting, hard drinking bunch of buggers never bent a knee to anybody for real.
If it makes the Queen happy to think she is in charge of that rag tag bunch of islands then so be it. lol

But there isn't a catholic majority in Quebec !! They don't practice, they believe in god...or not. As a Quebecois he/she will say " I've been baptized but I'm not a believer. So it won't be catholics against others. People rarely get married, some don't even baptize their child ! They let them choose for themselves. It's really different.

@Surfpirate I think I need to give you a history lesson. The Union of the Crowns was when our King James VI of Scotland became James I of the United Kingdom, Wales had already been incorporated into part of England since since annexation by Edward I in 1283. Ireland is a completely different matter altogether and only the part I live in was colonised properly by the British after 1690 and the Battle of the Boyne. The Queen is as Scottish as she is English, and she is only a figurehead anyway, as head of State, as we are now a Parliamentary Democracy as well as a Monarchy. I am a proud Scot, but my nationality is British and Scotland hasn’t been an independent nation since 1603... not by conquest but by union. The Queen is also your Head of State as she is Queen of Canada too. Anyway...do you know where in England your ancestors were from prior to departing for Canada?

@Marionville It's such a tiny place and it was so long ago that it really doesn't matter, we have lakes in Canada that are bigger than England. As for the rest of it, I can only relate what more recent arrivals to Canada have to say about the UK, I try not to see what is in the Daily Mail as that is just embarrassing.

@Nathalie_Quebec I agree with you for the majority of Quebecers but these right wing people are throw backs to another time and their credo is hate.

@Surfpirate. The Daily Mail is an absolute right-wing rag,..nothing in it should be taken as representative of what’s actually happening in the UK. I know how vast Canada is...I’ve visited it...but only managed it see a very small proportion of it.

Everything that the right does is not necessarily bad. I think in view of the fact that they are trying to make the working environment in the public sector more neutral and secular is a good thing....religious symbols and emblems are not usually obligatory in any religion, but are designed mainly to show how devout that believer is. Their religion is a private matter and should have no bearing on their ability to do their job, therefore an unnecessary distraction.

@Marionville agree but they can be hiding real purpose

D’accord!

Possibly so. I feel there may have been some incident used as a catalyst for this move, but without any specific information cannot be definite.