Woman exempted from union membership due to religious beliefs

[The Brain]

grows almost solely through biological reproduction.

You know that a lot of Amish porn is fake, right?

[crazy canuck]

I would posit it is pretty damn hard to meet the criteria of the Amish--they are an incredibly small group that grows almost solely through biological reproduction. There aren't really people casually becoming Amish, and many people leave the community in early adulthood.

Ok, but establishing that a community is a closed club does not mean they get special treatment - unless the law provides for it (ie indigenous communities are given special status under our constitution). The closed club members still need to comply with the general law of the land unless expressly exempted by the law.

From your description the Amish have made a constitutional rights argument which would likely not be accepted by a Canadian court.  But again, I might have to eat my words depending on what our CA has to say about it in the coming months.

[crazy canuck]

grows almost solely through biological reproduction.

You know that a lot of Amish porn is fake, right?

There is some that isn't?

[The Brain]

grows almost solely through biological reproduction.

You know that a lot of Amish porn is fake, right?

There is some that isn't?

I like not to give up completely on humanity.

[viper37]

No, they are not. *One* religious person has been given an exemption. To get this exemption, one needs to show reasonably that their religious views, held honestly and in good faith, make such an exemption reasonable, and in the balance, not significantly harmful.

There is a precedent set for any religious people to follow, if they wish.

This is the first case.  If it is not overturned, there will be others.

Either everyone is allowed to not join a union for their personal convictions, or no everyone follows the rules.

I think not being forced to join the union in 99% of the sectors and paying your dues is enough to calm moral convictions and still protect the work of the unions.  But this case is simply silly.  Why make an exemption for dubious religious beliefs?

[grumbler]

There is a precedent set for any religious people to follow, if they wish.

This is the first case.  If it is not overturned, there will be others.

Either everyone is allowed to not join a union for their personal convictions, or no everyone follows the rules.

I think not being forced to join the union in 99% of the sectors and paying your dues is enough to calm moral convictions and still protect the work of the unions.  But this case is simply silly.  Why make an exemption for dubious religious beliefs?

Black and white thinking isn't particularly useful in a world of grey.  The concept that "everyone must follow the exact same rules in the exact same way without exception" is called Legalism, and hasn't been successful when implemented  (notably in the Qin dynasty of China). 

All beliefs are dubious in the eyes of non-believers.  What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.

[crazy canuck]

There is a precedent set for any religious people to follow, if they wish.

This is the first case.  If it is not overturned, there will be others.

Either everyone is allowed to not join a union for their personal convictions, or no everyone follows the rules.

I think not being forced to join the union in 99% of the sectors and paying your dues is enough to calm moral convictions and still protect the work of the unions.  But this case is simply silly.  Why make an exemption for dubious religious beliefs?

Black and white thinking isn't particularly useful in a world of grey.  The concept that "everyone must follow the exact same rules in the exact same way without exception" is called Legalism, and hasn't been successful when implemented  (notably in the Qin dynasty of China). 

All beliefs are dubious in the eyes of non-believers.  What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.

And under Canadian law at least, that is only the start of the analysis.

There are many occasions on which a religious freedom conflicts with other rights or laws and where, despite a sincere belief, the religious right does not prevail.

A good example is an observant Sikh, who wears a turban, employed on a job site which requires wearing a hard hat.  The religious right does not automatically prevail even though it is sincerely held.  Instead, there is an analysis of whether the hard hat rule is a bona fide safety requirement.  And that will vary depending on the circumstances of the worksite.

 

[Sheilbh]

There are many occasions on which a religious freedom conflicts with other rights or laws and where, despite a sincere belief, the religious right does not prevail.

A good example is an observant Sikh, who wears a turban, employed on a job site which requires wearing a hard hat.  The religious right does not automatically prevail even though it is sincerely held.  Instead, there is an analysis of whether the hard hat rule is a bona fide safety requirement.  And that will vary depending on the circumstances of the worksite.

Yeah - in Europe it'd be the principle of proportionality. And it also applies to sincerely held political or philosophical beliefs.

But this case seems clearly to me on the side of that individual. It's not like a health and safety requirement and it doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of others.

[crazy canuck]

There are many occasions on which a religious freedom conflicts with other rights or laws and where, despite a sincere belief, the religious right does not prevail.

A good example is an observant Sikh, who wears a turban, employed on a job site which requires wearing a hard hat.  The religious right does not automatically prevail even though it is sincerely held.  Instead, there is an analysis of whether the hard hat rule is a bona fide safety requirement.  And that will vary depending on the circumstances of the worksite.

Yeah - in Europe it'd be the principle of proportionality. And it also applies to sincerely held political or philosophical beliefs.

But this case seems clearly to me on the side of that individual. It's not like a health and safety requirement and it doesn't affect the rights and freedoms of others.

Yes, but occupational health and safety is not the issue being balanced in the case in this thread.  The balancing in this case is the degree to which her religious freedom is actually being interfered with by simply being required to pay dues.  That is something the Labour Board  assumed in its decision, and where I would argue they went wrong.

[viper37]

What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.

A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.

B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion.  See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination.  People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded.  Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people.  Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.

[Valmy]

What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.

A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.

B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion.  See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination.  People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded.  Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people.  Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.

That is how it works in the US. Religion gives you special privileges. In WWII you had to have religious grounds to be a conscientious objector, whereas in the UK it could also be for other non-religious reasons. If you believe in religious magic you get special rights that believing in other magic does not.

[Razgovory]

Otherwise it would make persecuting people for their religion easy.

[Valmy]

Otherwise it would make persecuting people for their religion easy.

Well I thought it was because in the 18th century the church had special rights and privileges and we decided to make things more equal by just giving all religions that same status. In the 21st century though, it does seem a little weird that just religions and not other types of philosophical considerations get those rights.

But maybe it is better this way. If you want to persecute people for their religion, I guess it is better to make it more challenging. Explain your thinking about this. Does the UK persecute people for their religion more than we do?

Or is this some kind of cheap shot at Quebec and Viper and I am taking you too seriously here 

[Sheilbh]

That is how it works in the US. Religion gives you special privileges. In WWII you had to have religious grounds to be a conscientious objector, whereas in the UK it could also be for other non-religious reasons. If you believe in religious magic you get special rights that believing in other magic does not.

Yeah in the UK equalities and anti-discrimination law applies to religion as well as political and philosophical beliefs (for example, ethical veganism).

The exception is for beliefs that are basically not worthy of respect in a democratic society - for example racism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism.

[crazy canuck]

What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.

A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.

B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion.  See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination.  People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded.  Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people.  Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.

That is how it works in the US. Religion gives you special privileges. In WWII you had to have religious grounds to be a conscientious objector, whereas in the UK it could also be for other non-religious reasons. If you believe in religious magic you get special rights that believing in other magic does not.

Maybe, but this case happened in Canada, and as I tried to explain a few times, the law is a bit different here.

Sincerity of belief is just the star of the analysis