{"id":215917,"date":"2019-05-26T04:01:19","date_gmt":"2019-05-26T08:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=215917"},"modified":"2019-05-26T04:01:19","modified_gmt":"2019-05-26T08:01:19","slug":"new-poll-suggests-one-third-dont-want-politicians-to-wear-religious-symbols","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/05\/26\/new-poll-suggests-one-third-dont-want-politicians-to-wear-religious-symbols\/","title":{"rendered":"New poll suggests one third don’t want politicians to wear religious symbols"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FILE: First rally today against bill 21 and for a progressive and inclusive Quebec! (Photo<\/a>: @MarcMiller\/Twitter<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

OTTAWA \u2014 While most Canadians firmly back the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and strongly support the idea of diversity, a new poll suggests a third of Canadians would ban their elected officials from wearing religious symbols.<\/p>\n

A majority of Quebecers canvassed in the survey agreed that federal, provincial and local politicians shouldn’t be allowed to wear hijabs, crucifixes or turbans on the job.<\/p>\n

Nationally, 49 per cent of respondents said they would not favour such a ban, but 37 per cent said they would support it.<\/p>\n

The proposed ban would not extend to elected officials, but a question about whether it should was included among questions about how Canadians in different provinces feel about religions and religious signs.<\/p>\n

The Leger Marketing poll was done to gauge public sentiment in light of a proposed secularism law in Quebec that would ban public servants in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols.<\/p>\n

The survey of respondents, drawn from an online panel, canvassed the opinions of 2,215 adults across Canada between May 3 and 7. Because online panels aren’t fully random samples of the population, no margin of error for the results can be calculated.<\/p>\n

Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, which commissioned the survey, says a deeper dive into the numbers shows the strongest supporters of such a ban for politicians are those more likely to feel threatened by religious minorities. They also expressed negative feelings toward Islam, Muslims and react negatively to hijabs.<\/p>\n

Respondents who said they interact more with and are comfortable around religious minorities are less likely to support banning religious symbols for elected officials, the data suggests.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, more than 80 per cent of all of those surveyed said they have positive views of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also said they favour multiculturalism.<\/p>\n

The results indicate what Jedwab calls a \u201cstriking paradox\u201d among Canadians.<\/p>\n

\u201c(People) express broad appreciation of diversity and say that our society is tolerant and accepting of religious-minority customs and traditions, yet at the same time … we, to a significant degree, don’t like the idea of politicians wearing religious symbols or signs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The results of this survey suggest federal leaders will have to approach issues of religious symbolism carefully in seat-rich Quebec as the province moves to enact its secularism law while federal parties gear up for a fall federal election.<\/p>\n

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, a practising Sikh who sports a brightly coloured turban, will have an especially challenging time in Quebec, Jedwab says.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe’s going to probably encounter some challenges that people probably will not express publicly, but that they feel privately,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose feelings are out there … Is it going to affect his chances of getting elected? It’s difficult to say. It creates a new layer that is out there.\u201d<\/p>\n

During the last federal election campaign, religious symbolism became a flashpoint after the Federal Court of Canada upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down the former Conservative government’s ban on wearing niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.<\/p>\n

Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair took a firm stance against the ban \u2014 a move he later said he believes cost him the election, as support for the ban was strong in Quebec, where his party base was strongest.<\/p>\n

Jedwab says he believes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau successfully skirted backlash on the niqab issue in 2015 because Mulcair took the brunt of Quebecers’ concerns.<\/p>\n

This time, Trudeau \u2014 who has spoken against the secularism bill and who has taken a strong stance in favour of welcoming immigrants and minorities \u2014 could have a more turbulent ride.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt’s going to be challenging for him because he needs to build and\/or strengthen his base in Quebec. The challenge will be that there is a lot of support for these types of restrictions,\u201d Jedwab said.<\/p>\n

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer will also have to walk a fine line on issues of religious symbolism and immigration, Jedwab added.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe polling numbers in this poll nationally suggest (Scheer) may be able to find a line through this thing where he says, ‘We understand people’s fears and insecurities, but we need to respect the Charter of Rights.’ I don’t think Mr. Trudeau will be saying he understands people’s fears and insecurities, because that will validate them,\u201d Jedwab said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OTTAWA \u2014 While most Canadians firmly back the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and strongly support the idea of diversity, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":210004,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news-ca","category-news","mauthors-teresa-wright","mauthors-the-canadian-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215917"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215917\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":215918,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215917\/revisions\/215918"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/210004"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}