[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

I'm halfway with the frogs on this one, religion is a choice, what you wear is a choice. I do not believe that a teacher wearing a niqab can do the job properly, facial expressions is an important part of teaching, at least to kids. Nor do I believe that wearing a turban instead of a safety helmet on a construction site is ok. There are lots of work circumstances that require or is done better with special clothes. In the private I imagine that an abaya or hijab in the swimming pool is unhygienic for example, so there should be rules about that. Religion is after all just some dudes deciding to live by special rules, the state should not bend over backwards to empower that.

On the other hand I do believe that people have a right to dress as they want, so unless circumstances require it I don't think clothing should be regulated by law.

That's the whole point: this law isn't about enforcing safety standards or functionality. In fact, it only applies to people in responsible authority-figure like positions, and it will prohibit visible religious symbols regardless of whether they obscure the features or not. 

So it would have no effect on (say) whether a Sikh constriction worker wears a turban or a hard-hat, since a construction worker isn't an authority figure.

What it would prohibit, is someone in authority like a judge wearing a turban - something that has nothing whatever to do with safety or his ability to do his job.   

Edit: the proposed legislation does in fact contain previsions requiring that the face be uncovered to receive or give government services, but those are not the provisions causing the controversy. Full text of the bill is here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secularism-bill-1.5075547

[Threviel]

Well, I wouldn't want to deal with any state official wearing a face mask, in my mind that's unacceptable.

[Malthus]

Well, I wouldn't want to deal with any state official wearing a face mask, in my mind that's unacceptable.

As I said, those aren't the provisions that are causing the controversy.

The controversial provisions are those that prohibit certain persons in authority from wearing any religious symbolism (such as a turban, or a kipah - the little skullcap some sects of Jews wear). Those provisions have nothing to do with whether the symbolic clothing in question covers the face or not.

[Threviel]

Could it not be an attempt to outlaw niqabs by outlawing anything religious and therefore lessen the risk of seeming anti-islam?

Otherwise I don't care, if people want to display some religious article it's no concern of mine, as long as their religion does not interfere with their decisions.

[Valmy]

as long as their religion does not interfere with their decisions.

Well I don't see how we could ensure that.

[Threviel]

That is of course impossible. The borderlands between culture, philosophy and religion are large and gray and we are all influenced by religion. I was more thinking that a judge shouldn't use the bible as a basis for punishment or other such obvious religious references. And I imagine such cases to be exceedingly rare in the western world and the issue a non-issue.

[Grey Fox]

It is impossible to reconcile the francosphere cultural position & the anglosphere cultural position on this matter. The divide is present here, it's present in my workplace, it's present in RoC/Quebec media. We just don't understand each other.

I don't think that's a cultural position, it's an ideological position.  There are certainly native English speakers who would agree with what you refer to as the "francosphere cultural position" and I'm fairly sure the reverse is true as well.  And for the most part, we understand the "francosphere cultural position" perfectly--we understand repression--we just don't agree with it;  OTOH, those who hold the "francosphere cultural position" clearly don't understand freedom.

A very narrowed definition of personal freedom.

[Malthus]

That is of course impossible. The borderlands between culture, philosophy and religion are large and gray and we are all influenced by religion. I was more thinking that a judge shouldn't use the bible as a basis for punishment or other such obvious religious references. And I imagine such cases to be exceedingly rare in the western world and the issue a non-issue.

A secular Sikh judge would be affected by the proposed law, but a virulently Bible-thumping Christian judge would not - as Sikhs wear visible religious symbols (the turban), but most Christians do not (and it's not a requirement of Christianity that they do).   

[Valmy]

They should require judges to wear silly wigs that Sikhs can easily wear over their turbans.

[HVC]

but that means state can't interfere in the practice of a religion

Like having a 10 commandment poster in your court room.  That does not affect anything, and as an atheist, I would feel totally confident this judge would treat me fairly.

Or a civil clerk refusing to deliver a mariage certificate to a gay couple because it is against her religion.  That too would be fine, it is a simple exercise of religious freedom, just like bakers refusing to make cake for a lesbian couple, or a Tim Horton refusing to serve muslims because the manager believes they are tools of Satan.  Religious freedom is totally fine.  It does not lead to any excesses.

Then fire those people, or prosecute them. Wearing a turban does not affect anyone els ein anyway. If and when a sikh (for example) discriminates then take action at that point. Putting an undue burden on someone because of their religion is unnecessary. how does a someone wearing a turban effect you? why deny them that right?

[viper37]

I don't think that's a cultural position,

It is.

Alberta is fine with letting Sikh drive a motorcycle without a helmet, for cultural reasons.

In Quebec, it is still not ok, but there aren't that many Sikhs here.  Problems should be solved before they happen.

Freedom is constrained in many ways.  There is no true societal libertarian society out there.  Religious zeal&fanatism needs to be curbed.  Otherwise, we end up like the US, with religion creeping into politics.  Just like the 50s here.

[viper37]

but that means state can't interfere in the practice of a religion

Like having a 10 commandment poster in your court room.  That does not affect anything, and as an atheist, I would feel totally confident this judge would treat me fairly.

Or a civil clerk refusing to deliver a mariage certificate to a gay couple because it is against her religion.  That too would be fine, it is a simple exercise of religious freedom, just like bakers refusing to make cake for a lesbian couple, or a Tim Horton refusing to serve muslims because the manager believes they are tools of Satan.  Religious freedom is totally fine.  It does not lead to any excesses.

Then fire those people, or prosecute them. Wearing a turban does not affect anyone els ein anyway. If and when a sikh (for example) discriminates then take action at that point. Putting an undue burden on someone because of their religion is unnecessary. how does a someone wearing a turban effect you? why deny them that right?

Solve problems before they appear.  Avoid any and all possible conflict of interests.

The State must appear to be neutral in every possible ways.

I agree that forcing a Sikh to remove his turban while in office is excessive.  But in the courtroom, he should apply by all the standards others are expected to follow.  You can't have a crown prosecutor with a maga cap, or any kind of hat while in court.  Religion is a choice, adhering to all tenets of one's religion is also a choice.

If a Sikh, or a muslim woman, or anyone else is unable to set aside his/her religion for a few hours a day, then that means that person is not neutral.

If a judge has a Ten Commandment plate in his courtroom, and I refuse to swear on the Bible because I am an atheist, how am I supposed to believe this judge will be impartial toward me?

The State is and should be neutral toward everyone.  A society should not bend over to accomodate "new" arrivals, those who come here should respect our values.  They can dress all they want in most circumstances, but sometimes, there is a compromise to be made.

[Grey Fox]

CAQ government should spend more time thinking about fixing the Uber problem than this thing.

There is not much to do about Uber.  They may be an evil tax cheating multinational (like taxi drivers are models of honesty and never take undeclared tax payments...), but they agressively pushed a new business model.

Before Uber, not many taxis accepted debit or credit card.  Now nearly everyone does.
Before Uber, there was no way you could "call" a taxi with a cellphone app.  Now, many taxis of Montreal use an app, just like Uber.

I never took Uber in a city, and I have always received good service from a taxi driver, but I understand the convenience of using an app to call a ride, and prepay the amount on your credit card.

I understand the frustration of the taxi drivers.  Maybe the bill does not compensate them enough, I don't know.  I know that, just like agriculture, it is very, very hard, to push for changes while there is a quota system.  I can see, since we first put a dent in the quota system, that milk producers are really pushing to close the technological gap.  Uber did just that.  Despite the blatant disregard for our laws, yes.  And they have been fined, documents were seized.  But taxis started to adapt, to avoid losing shares to Uber.

Now they compete on equal footing.  No special license plate, no license&quotas, unregulated fees, etc, etc.

That's kind of true but we need to make sure the local Taxi industry survives for when the inevitable happen & Uber goes bankrupt.

[crazy canuck]

One note, the legislation does not affect judges.

But it is an interesting thought to explore.  In this province, and I assume across the country, counsel are not permitted to wear anything that indicates an affiliation with any cause group.  So, for example,  justice of the Supreme Court of BC, once admonished counsel for wearing a poppy to court in early November.  Judges themselves also do not where anything that indicates any affiliation with anything other than their judicial role.

The reason for all of this formality - justice is supposed to be blind and the judges only decide a case based on the evidence and applicable legal principles.

Religious symbols are an exception to this principle.  They are a clear identification of belonging to a particular group and adhering to a particular view but we look past that. 

[Barrister]

One note, the legislation does not affect judges.

But it is an interesting thought to explore.  In this province, and I assume across the country, counsel are not permitted to wear anything that indicates an affiliation with any cause group.  So, for example,  justice of the Supreme Court of BC, once admonished counsel for wearing a poppy to court in early November.

That's outrageous.   Wearing a poppy memorializes those who died in war - nothing more.