Montreal’s largest school board has lost more than 100 support staff because they refused to remove religious symbols to comply with the province’s new secularism law.

The law, known as Bill 94, expanded a ban on wearing religious symbols, like crosses and hijabs, to include support staff workers in schools — lunchroom monitors and special education technicians, for example.

Several school service centres told Radio-Canada in February that dozens of staff had already been fired, suspended or decided to resign because of Bill 94.

Now, the Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM), says it, too, has had to let staff go.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 hours ago

The proper national lawsuit against this would be any woman from the middle east who feels a headscarf is appropriate, but happens to be an atheist.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 23 points 18 hours ago

Fucking CAQ (and their voters). They thought they can impose bullshit law without consequence

Some CPEs are now offering broken service because they cannot function anymore. Some éducatrices resign because of the hijab ban and now they cannot stay open past 16h.

Bien joué, champions/championnes

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 12 points 15 hours ago

Laicite should be a loanword, instead of getting translated to secularism. Keeping your religion private is not the same as keeping it a secret.

I understand the motivation. And for a little necklace, meh, tuck it in. But other cultural indicators create bizarre demands - like 'You can't serve school lunch unless we see your hair.'

[–] MakingWork@lemmy.ca 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

My understanding of Ontario law is that it prevents discrimination on protected grounds, like religion.

How did Quebec pass this law?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Quebec is allowed do discriminate for whatever reasaon and would probably use the not withstanding clause on this if it came to it.

Edit: My bad, they per-emptivly used the notwithstanding clause on this bill so they could discriminate. But they've discriminated before as well.

[–] MakingWork@lemmy.ca 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's wild.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's why some MPs are pushing for the notwithstanding clause to either be removed or extremely limited.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 hours ago

Ford used it to trample over workers rights in Ontario. I was shocked the charter can be suspended just like that. The clause has to go.