Quebec to ban public prayer in sweeping new secularism law(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Quebec to ban public prayer in sweeping new secularism law
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/28/quebec-prayer-law-canada
48 comments
> It also bans communal prayer on public roads and in parks, with the threat of fines of C$1,125 for groups in contravention of the prohibition.
I'm a stoopid American but I thought Canadians enjoyed freedom of speech. Since they remind us they have Charter that protects speech. I'd like to know how they differentiate between public speaking and public prayer?
I'm a stoopid American but I thought Canadians enjoyed freedom of speech. Since they remind us they have Charter that protects speech. I'd like to know how they differentiate between public speaking and public prayer?
>I'm a stoopid American but I thought Canadians enjoyed freedom of speech. Since they remind us they have Charter that protects speech.
American levels of free speech is unrivaled, so to expect it to apply to other liberal democracies with "free speech" is indeed "stoopid American" thinking.
American levels of free speech is unrivaled, so to expect it to apply to other liberal democracies with "free speech" is indeed "stoopid American" thinking.
Possibly as an American you haven't seen the prayer protests blocking streets in Montreal and elsewhere yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1n3608j/leslie_robe...
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1jfbsvl/warmington_...
Note the comments.
It is disingenuous of The Guardian to run an article without posting photos of what everyone is annoyed enough about to make new laws regarding.
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1n3608j/leslie_robe...
https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1jfbsvl/warmington_...
Note the comments.
It is disingenuous of The Guardian to run an article without posting photos of what everyone is annoyed enough about to make new laws regarding.
Thank you for the Reddit links. Why only men join the prayers?
As a casual observer of Canada it would seem that the average Canadian only has the right to lie down and let their rights get stripped away one at a time…as long as they pay taxes or don’t protest/tweet too hard/mean.
Otherwise they will watch their rights get stripped away from inside a prison cell with their bank accounts promptly closed.
Canada has nothing like the free speech laws the US has. What they have is a cruel illusion of free speech.
Otherwise they will watch their rights get stripped away from inside a prison cell with their bank accounts promptly closed.
Canada has nothing like the free speech laws the US has. What they have is a cruel illusion of free speech.
We dont have anything. The canadian constitution is a lesson in sounding nice while being mostly useless because there are outs for every clause to allow the government to do what it wants.canadians who think it is good are one of stupid, ignorant, or very politically aligned eith curtent government biases and too stupid, naive, or ignorant to realizes tides turn.
Since this contravenes the UHDR which Canada does subscribe to, it likely won't survive court scrutiny.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
> Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Its called Quebec. They have their own laws. Quebec is Canada in name only. Its a country within a country. They can even ban Canadian citizens from entering Quebec which in the past they have done so.
Québécois and Canadians only loosely associate with each other.
I think the concept of banning prayer in public is bonkers, but I see the logic in banning non permited, short notice prayer in the middle of the street that blocks traffic.
If people want to have a large gathering in the park to pray, they should, but with the permit because your occupying a large portion of a public space.
But as it pertains to suddenly kneeling in traffic and praying, I'm in full agreement. That should not happen. I'm open to people praying wherever they want, but it should not and it cannot arbitrarily inconvenience others specifically to block a road.
Why can't they step across to the sidewalk? Why must they be in the center of the road. This is not a rare occurrence, but I think it's the heart of what is being addressed. Even though they may be going at it badly.
If people want to have a large gathering in the park to pray, they should, but with the permit because your occupying a large portion of a public space.
But as it pertains to suddenly kneeling in traffic and praying, I'm in full agreement. That should not happen. I'm open to people praying wherever they want, but it should not and it cannot arbitrarily inconvenience others specifically to block a road.
Why can't they step across to the sidewalk? Why must they be in the center of the road. This is not a rare occurrence, but I think it's the heart of what is being addressed. Even though they may be going at it badly.
I agree that there is no right to arbitrarily block traffic for prayer. But this does not require a ban on public prayer, it requires a law saying that one must allow traffic to flow (which I suspect already exists), and a clarification that prayer is not an exception. Prayer need not be specifically targeted more than board games, or bike protests, or just parking in the middle of the street.
This reminds us that America isn't the only place with ridiculous and problematic laws despite getting all the attention. I don't pray in public or private, but I think others should have the right to do so.
> Quebec’s secularism minister, Jean-François Roberge, said the controversial new provisions were the latest steps in a province working towards full secularization. He criticized previous accommodations by post-secondary institutions, including prayer rooms, telling reporters the schools “are not temples or churches or those kinds of places”. The ban on public prayer comes after the group Montreal4Palestine organized Sunday protests outside the city’s Notre-Dame Basilica that included prayers.
> The province will also limit the offering of kosher and halal meals in public institutions. “We think that when the state is neutral, Quebecers are free,” said Roberge, rejecting allegations the law disproportionately affects minorities. “We have the same rules applying to everyone,” he said.
TIL: Quebec has a secularization minister.
This is all pretty horrific stuff. Does accommodating someone's diet really offend you this much? This is squarely an anti-diversity and anti-inclusion movement with a scoundrel's veneer of equality.
> The province will also limit the offering of kosher and halal meals in public institutions. “We think that when the state is neutral, Quebecers are free,” said Roberge, rejecting allegations the law disproportionately affects minorities. “We have the same rules applying to everyone,” he said.
TIL: Quebec has a secularization minister.
This is all pretty horrific stuff. Does accommodating someone's diet really offend you this much? This is squarely an anti-diversity and anti-inclusion movement with a scoundrel's veneer of equality.
Why is that horrific? To me it sounds like something desirable. Religion is a personal matter, as such it should not infringe on public spaces.
Let's say I have a religion that, as part of practicing it, restricts my diet.
If I try to make you - a non-practitioner - eat that diet, then your reply makes sense. It's a personal matter; I don't get to force it on you or anyone else.
But if you try to remove the option of me being able to get food that fits my diet out in public? Don't try to justify that by saying "religion is a personal matter". That's an absurd rationale.
If I try to make you - a non-practitioner - eat that diet, then your reply makes sense. It's a personal matter; I don't get to force it on you or anyone else.
But if you try to remove the option of me being able to get food that fits my diet out in public? Don't try to justify that by saying "religion is a personal matter". That's an absurd rationale.
> Let's say I have a religion that, as part of practicing it, restricts my diet.
> If I try to make you - a non-practitioner - eat that diet, then your reply makes sense. It's a personal matter; I don't get to force it on you or anyone else.
In the UK, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find restaurants whose meat is not halal. One could argue that a religious diet is in fact being forced upon those who do not practise Islam.
In the UK, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find restaurants whose meat is not halal. One could argue that a religious diet is in fact being forced upon those who do not practise Islam.
Have you seen any stats? I'm surprised to hear this.
How does praying infringe on a public space? Does it leave behind wrappers? Hurt the local wildlife? Ruin the watershed?
Should we ban people quietly playing musical instruments in public spaces to? Perhaps people walking? Certainly people reading books - they could be religious books or even, gasp, depict sex.
Should we ban people quietly playing musical instruments in public spaces to? Perhaps people walking? Certainly people reading books - they could be religious books or even, gasp, depict sex.
> How does praying infringe on a public space?
Out of memory, it is often times Muslims praying in the middle of a road or pathway to block other people for no reason than being obnoxious. And then as a reaction they will get this stupid law.
Out of memory, it is often times Muslims praying in the middle of a road or pathway to block other people for no reason than being obnoxious. And then as a reaction they will get this stupid law.
Is a prayer ban really needed here? Seems like a lack of enforcing existing laws, such as blocking traffic, is the issue here. Seeing people pray in public is weird to me, but if they aren't obstructing, what's the harm?
In the US, we have a "See you at the pole" prayer event every year where people gather around American flag poles and pray, which seems like a nice way to gather together as a community to meditate and reflect.
In the US, we have a "See you at the pole" prayer event every year where people gather around American flag poles and pray, which seems like a nice way to gather together as a community to meditate and reflect.
Under this law, if my family sets up a picnic at a local park and we pray before our meal, have we violated the law?
[deleted]
Stop spreading uncertainty and just read the aeticle. Your picnic is not communal prayer. And it's neither of public unless you invite everyone in the park around you to take a bite. And even then, your prayer isn't the reason for the gathering, so no, you're in no risk to violate the law.
I'm not sure about that, I went and read the bill[0], the law states:
“2. No public road, within the meaning of the third paragraph of section 66 of the Municipal Powers Act (chapter C-47.1), or public park may be used for the purposes of collective religious practice unless a municipality authorizes, exceptionally and on a case-by-case basis, such a use in its public domain by resolution of the municipal council. For the purposes of this Act, “religious practice” has the meaning assigned by section 10.1 of the Act respecting the laicity of the State (chapter L-0.3)."
But going and reading the older Act respecting the laicity of the State[1] it doesn't actually have a section 10.1, so I'm not sure what that means.
[0] https://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-l...
[1]https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/L-0.3?lang...
“2. No public road, within the meaning of the third paragraph of section 66 of the Municipal Powers Act (chapter C-47.1), or public park may be used for the purposes of collective religious practice unless a municipality authorizes, exceptionally and on a case-by-case basis, such a use in its public domain by resolution of the municipal council. For the purposes of this Act, “religious practice” has the meaning assigned by section 10.1 of the Act respecting the laicity of the State (chapter L-0.3)."
But going and reading the older Act respecting the laicity of the State[1] it doesn't actually have a section 10.1, so I'm not sure what that means.
[0] https://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-l...
[1]https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/L-0.3?lang...
I did read the article, and it doesn’t define communal. Public is based on where it happens, not who I invite to participate.
This is fantastic. Religion is a personal thing - and those who are unaffiliated should not have to walk on eggshells to appease those who choose to practice in public.
>and those who are unaffiliated should not have to walk on eggshells to appease those who choose to practice in public.
How does praying in public cause others to "walk on eggshells"?
How does praying in public cause others to "walk on eggshells"?
If you want to pray before your meal, that doesn’t affect me. If we’re eating together and you want to pray before your meal, I can stay respectfully silent for 30 seconds, because it’s not that much to ask. If you insist I join you in prayer, or that I must kneel, etc. then yes, we have a problem. I have never found the latter case to exist.
Remember - tolerance only goes one way. They will not accommodate you.
[deleted]
baiac(1)
> “It’s shocking to see people blocking traffic, taking possession of the public space without a permit, without warning, and then turning our streets, our parks, our public squares into places of worship,” said Roberge.
It is fucking insane that the response to people blocking traffic in prayer is to outlaw prayer.
Secularism is giving equal treatment to all religions; this isn't Secularism, this is a thinly veiled, fanatical, Crusade against religion.
It is fucking insane that the response to people blocking traffic in prayer is to outlaw prayer.
Secularism is giving equal treatment to all religions; this isn't Secularism, this is a thinly veiled, fanatical, Crusade against religion.
A quick search of the definition of secularism shows that it's the opposite of what you're saying.
It’s likewise a dirty trick to target a harmless cultural practice for a disfavored group and ban it for “everyone”.