The Minister of Education wants to extend the ban on religious signs to all school staff.
It is obviously the hijab, the only rapidly growing sign, which is at the center of the debate.
Inevitably, there are objections. What are they worth?
Apartheid
first, it is objected that women can wear the veil for lots of reasons other than religion.
We knew it, but thank you anyway for the open door pressed.
This objection contains two problems.
The first is not to see that a person can innocently playing a movement not at all innocent.
“All women who wear the veil are not Islamists, but you will not find a single Islamist who does not want women to wear the veil.”
It is the Minister of the Interior of France, Bruno Retailleau, in charge of the security of the territory, which is expressed.
Unlike academics and journalists, he does not have the luxury of angelism.
In other words, a young woman can certainly veil herself to piss off her parents or imitate her friends, but she involuntarily makes the game of Islamists who want to gradually trivialize clothing apartheid.
The second problem is that it is too short to say that each woman gives the veil the meaning she wants.
If young people began to make Hitler’s salvation, it would be said that they have the right to be the only ones to decide on its meaning?
Second, it is objected that religious proselytism in the schools of Montreal having been the subject of investigations was carried out by men and did not relate to the veil.
-We pinch ourselves in front of such a degree of naivety.
By definition, it is always the men who lead the charge, since they believe themselves superiors and, as these worked in a school environment, they had the intelligence to understand that it was the school program that had to be diverted.
I bet what you want these men to approve and vigorously defend the veil.
Third, we object that we are not in Iran, but in Quebec.
The Islamist does not reason like this.
His logic is expansionist. He wants to standardize all contexts by important here the practices elsewhere.
The veil, which is not a Koranic obligation, is often the first milestone of Islamist entrism.
The strategy has four well -documented stages: evacuating the meaning of the veil, denying its symbolic violence, victimizing itself by pleading to be relentless, gradually forging segregation.
Heaps of women who lived it warn us in all tones.
Intolerance
Fourth, it is objected that our society has chosen religious freedom.
Yes, but it is never unlimited. This is the whole dilemma of liberal societies: how far to tolerate intolerants?
In the dynamics of reasonable accommodation, it is always the accommodating who gives in the field and the accommodation that wins.
This dynamic is no longer operating when the accommodation is not satisfied with its latest gain.
In Quebec, we already have enough stupidity draped in good feelings.
