Scandinavian Thread

[Barrister]

No, not at all.  You could not have read the case very carefully in the short time since I told you about it.  I suggest you read it a bit more carefully.  You will find the factual allegation of the parent was rejected by the court. 

Paragraph 66 sums up succinctly what I have been saying.

CC, if you want to make a counter-argument please feel free to do so, but you can't just say "read it a bit more carefully".

There's a single passing reference to "separation of church and state", but 43 references to "neutrality".

As for the "factual allegation" - the facts don't seem to generally in dispute here (looks like some debate about whether the child was "fanned in smoke"), but in the end the court found the child was not compelled to participate in the ceremony, and instead only observed.

[Barrister]

Just because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

And since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

So you're confusing the responsibilities of the state, with your responsibilities.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to governments, not individuals.  You can shout from the rooftops how much Islam (or Christianity) sucks to your heart's content.  The government, however, does have to treat religious beliefs with some degree of respect.

Whether that should extend to banning the burning of religious holy texts is a matter of debate.  I'm of two minds on the topic.  But government doesn't have the option of saying "I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever".  And we have quite a lot of caselaw about the extent to which governments should, or should not, accommodate various religious beliefs.  Such accommodations are absolutely not without limit, but they certainly do exist.

[crazy canuck]

No, not at all.  You could not have read the case very carefully in the short time since I told you about it.  I suggest you read it a bit more carefully.  You will find the factual allegation of the parent was rejected by the court. 

Paragraph 66 sums up succinctly what I have been saying.

CC, if you want to make a counter-argument please feel free to do so, but you can't just say "read it a bit more carefully".

There's a single passing reference to "separation of church and state", but 43 references to "neutrality".

As for the "factual allegation" - the facts don't seem to generally in dispute here (looks like some debate about whether the child was "fanned in smoke"), but in the end the court found the child was not compelled to participate in the ceremony, and instead only observed.

I dont have the time or patience to read the case for you.  You are a lawyer.  Read it yourself.

You made an assertion based on a couple of minutes of reading a lengthy judgment.  Your assertion is factually wrong.   The family's factual assertions were rejected both at the BCSC and no error was found at the BCCA.

It's not an argument.  Its what happened.

[crazy canuck]

Just because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

And since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

So you're confusing the responsibilities of the state, with your responsibilities.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to governments, not individuals.  You can shout from the rooftops how much Islam (or Christianity) sucks to your heart's content.  The government, however, does have to treat religious beliefs with some degree of respect.

Whether that should extend to banning the burning of religious holy texts is a matter of debate.  I'm of two minds on the topic.  But government doesn't have the option of saying "I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever".  And we have quite a lot of caselaw about the extent to which governments should, or should not, accommodate various religious beliefs.  Such accommodations are absolutely not without limit, but they certainly do exist.

Yes, I don't know of any case decided in Canada which requires citizens to respect the religious beliefs of others.  Quite the contrary.  Our expressive rights give provide the right to express views that are disrespectful and even odious to those who practice that religious faith so long as the speech does not cross the line into hate speech.

But you were the one confusing the issue when you said our Charter requires respect for religious beliefs.  In fact the law requires neutrality.  Not respect.

[Zoupa]

Just because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

And since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.

So you're confusing the responsibilities of the state, with your responsibilities.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to governments, not individuals.  You can shout from the rooftops how much Islam (or Christianity) sucks to your heart's content.  The government, however, does have to treat religious beliefs with some degree of respect.

Whether that should extend to banning the burning of religious holy texts is a matter of debate.  I'm of two minds on the topic.  But government doesn't have the option of saying "I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever".  And we have quite a lot of caselaw about the extent to which governments should, or should not, accommodate various religious beliefs.  Such accommodations are absolutely not without limit, but they certainly do exist.

I wasn't specifically talking about the Charter, more like an aspirational goal. You won't find it surprising that what's closest to my ideals is France's laicity concepts and practices.

[Barrister]

I dont have the time or patience to read the case for you.  You are a lawyer.  Read it yourself.

You made an assertion based on a couple of minutes of reading a lengthy judgment.  Your assertion is factually wrong.   The family's factual assertions were rejected both at the BCSC and no error was found at the BCCA.

It's not an argument.  Its what happened.

Hey man, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time.  I know I'm certainly know ponying up to pay your hourly rate to argue on Languish.

But I've gone through the case.  There was no doubt a first nations ceremony happened at a public school and that in involved smudging and a prayer.  The trial judge did make certain findings of fact against the applicant, but not to the extent that the whole ceremony didn't happen.

But you'll perhaps forgive me when I say "just read the case" is not a particularly persuasive argument.

[Barrister]

Yes, I don't know of any case decided in Canada which requires citizens to respect the religious beliefs of others.  Quite the contrary.  Our expressive rights give provide the right to express views that are disrespectful and even odious to those who practice that religious faith so long as the speech does not cross the line into hate speech.

But you were the one confusing the issue when you said our Charter requires respect for religious beliefs.  In fact the law requires neutrality.  Not respect.

I think "respect" is actually a pretty good term to the various accommodations we make to religious life and belief, and is a part of that sense of religious neutrality.

Outside of Quebec (which explicitly violated the Charter via the notwithstanding clause) you can not prohibit someone from wearing a religious face-covering while working for the government.  Wearing a hat is generally prohibited in certain circumstances (like for photo ID or in a courtroom), except for religious headcoverings.  You can choose what holy book to use in swearing an oath (or a sacred eagle feather).

How is that not "respect"?  It's not slavish adherence, and it's not without limit, but that all sounds like we try to respect the religious beliefs of our citizens.

[crazy canuck]

I dont have the time or patience to read the case for you.  You are a lawyer.  Read it yourself.

You made an assertion based on a couple of minutes of reading a lengthy judgment.  Your assertion is factually wrong.   The family's factual assertions were rejected both at the BCSC and no error was found at the BCCA.

It's not an argument.  Its what happened.

Hey man, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time.  I know I'm certainly know ponying up to pay your hourly rate to argue on Languish.

But I've gone through the case.  There was no doubt a first nations ceremony happened at a public school and that in involved smudging and a prayer.  The trial judge did make certain findings of fact against the applicant, but not to the extent that the whole ceremony didn't happen.

But you'll perhaps forgive me when I say "just read the case" is not a particularly persuasive argument.

If you read the case of it more carefully, you will see that the whole factual foundation turned on whether what occurred in the classroom was, in fact that religious ceremony in which the children were required to participate, or whether it was merely a demonstration of a cultural practice


The Chambers judge did not accept the evidence of the family that would have occurred was a religious ceremony.

That finding a fact was not overturned on appeal.

I am not particularly trying to persuade you. Rather, I am posting for the benefit of others, who might be astray from the characterization you gave to the facts.

[Sheilbh]

Can Canadian appeal courts overturn findings of fact?

[Barrister]

If you read the case of it more carefully, you will see that the whole factual foundation turned on whether what occurred in the classroom was, in fact that religious ceremony in which the children were required to participate, or whether it was merely a demonstration of a cultural practice


The Chambers judge did not accept the evidence of the family that would have occurred was a religious ceremony.

That finding a fact was not overturned on appeal.

I am not particularly trying to persuade you. Rather, I am posting for the benefit of others, who might be astray from the characterization you gave to the facts.

Well then again, in the interest of not wanting anyone to be led astray from your characterization...

It wasn't that it was or was not a "religious ceremony".  It clearly was a cultural ceremony that had a religious aspect to it (the prayer and the smudging).  The legal conclusion however was that the children were not compelled to participate, and instead merely observed.

[Barrister]

Can Canadian appeal courts overturn findings of fact?

They could order a new hearing, but the appeal court can not make their own findings of fact.

[Sheilbh]

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Roman empire, but this and related topic is frequently top of mind.... 

Every man has his Roman Empire.

So... I agree that harrying the neighbours (and farther afield) with sword & brand is pretty universal and I absolutely agree that - papal blessings notwithstanding - can easily be understood in that context.

Conversely, I'd also argue that the viking raids have gotten a little more PR than average and are considered more unique than maybe they should due to the authorial inclinations of the monks who wrote about them.

On a different tangent - while I find the idea of "the lads getting together for a bit of looting and pillage" very appealing, I'm reasonably sure that viking raids (and their equivalents in most other cultures) were typically endeavours organized by the magnate class.

This all makes sense - but presumably there is also an element of the magnates organising but it also being a route to social advancement? Either domestically coming home with a share of the loot or in the land you've raided.

I seem to remember that's a big theory on the Normans exploding and taking over everywhere, including the Crusades - and ties to that family structure of Europe still shapes social structure today theory. Lots of young men without a role or access to a role, but who had been trained in violence and had access to funding.

And it definitely doesn't help the Vikings' reputation that they raided England and Ireland as both of those societies were very, very keen on chronicle keeping. So we have a lot of written records which isn't true for, say, the Saxons or the Baltic peoples.

[crazy canuck]

If you read the case of it more carefully, you will see that the whole factual foundation turned on whether what occurred in the classroom was, in fact that religious ceremony in which the children were required to participate, or whether it was merely a demonstration of a cultural practice


The Chambers judge did not accept the evidence of the family that would have occurred was a religious ceremony.

That finding a fact was not overturned on appeal.

I am not particularly trying to persuade you. Rather, I am posting for the benefit of others, who might be astray from the characterization you gave to the facts.

Well then again, in the interest of not wanting anyone to be led astray from your characterization...

It wasn't that it was or was not a "religious ceremony".  It clearly was a cultural ceremony that had a religious aspect to it (the prayer and the smudging).  The legal conclusion however was that the children were not compelled to participate, and instead merely observed.

Not so long ago you observed that you should not stray into my area. This is one of those times.

[Duque de Bragança]

Language wise Norwegian is easy to understand, they have dialects close to Swedish and dialects closer to Danish. Danish can be understood with difficulty. We had a job meeting the other day with some Danes involved and we spoke English, that wouldn't happen with Norwegians. Icelandic is unintelligible for everyone.

So, the Icelanders are like the Quebecers, they kept the purer language form?  
(Duque, are you reading this? )

Nope.    Icelandic is sometimes called the "Latin of Scandinavian" yet I don't believe Québécois even kept cas sujet et cas régime. 

[Legbiter]

Nope.    Icelandic is sometimes called the "Latin of Scandinavian" yet I don't believe Québécois even kept cas sujet et cas régime. 

Yeah Icelandic is the odd one out in how hyper-conservative it's grammar has remained.