[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[PRC]

Sure, this law would not fly in the US.  But I'm wondering out loud if this law is reasonable in a place without a similar religious protection.

Like Canada...

[Barrister]

Sure, this law would not fly in the US.  But I'm wondering out loud if this law is reasonable in a place without a similar religious protection.

Like Canada...

Canada has a law protecting religious freedom...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

[Barrister]

It's just a private thing and I think most French/Qc folks feel the same way. Oex could probably write a better distillation than I can.

But that's fine Zoups.  I understand exactly what you mean.

But what about the people (often immigrants) who don't feel that way?  To whom belonging to a religion is important?  Must they be forced to hide their religion just so the majority feels more comfortable?

Yeah, in certain cases. But it's more than comfort, it's also that any state official should abstain from showing religious signs. It'd feel doubly weird to get stopped by a cop wearing a kippa or a judge wearing a cross. It doesn't belong there.

But is that reason enough to violate someone's right to practice their religion (as guaranteed in the Charter)?  That it would feel "doubly weird"?

[Zoupa]

It's just a private thing and I think most French/Qc folks feel the same way. Oex could probably write a better distillation than I can.

But that's fine Zoups.  I understand exactly what you mean.

But what about the people (often immigrants) who don't feel that way?  To whom belonging to a religion is important?  Must they be forced to hide their religion just so the majority feels more comfortable?

Yeah, in certain cases. But it's more than comfort, it's also that any state official should abstain from showing religious signs. It'd feel doubly weird to get stopped by a cop wearing a kippa or a judge wearing a cross. It doesn't belong there.

But is that reason enough to violate someone's right to practice their religion (as guaranteed in the Charter)?  That it would feel "doubly weird"?

I'm probably using the wrong language. Doubly weird as in inappropriate and silly. You know about the pastafarians? What's to prevent a teacher or cop from wearing a pasta strainer on their head then?

[PRC]

Sure, this law would not fly in the US.  But I'm wondering out loud if this law is reasonable in a place without a similar religious protection.

Like Canada...

Canada has a law protecting religious freedom...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

No shit.  Quebec though is a nation within Canada, so the same protections do not apply as evidenced by this banning of religious symbols.  Next they will want to ban poppies!

[Malthus]

Actually, Quebec has its own provincial charter of rights and freedoms, including the freedom of religion.

http://www.cdpdj.qc.ca/Publications/Charte_simplifiee_EN.pdf


The new law proposes to rewrite part of that - in effect, changing a freedom that Quebec people enjoyed up to now. See he last part of this article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-laicity-secularism-bill-1.5075547

[PRC]

State interests will be placed before the well being of the citizens of Quebec. 

[Barrister]

It's just a private thing and I think most French/Qc folks feel the same way. Oex could probably write a better distillation than I can.

But that's fine Zoups.  I understand exactly what you mean.

But what about the people (often immigrants) who don't feel that way?  To whom belonging to a religion is important?  Must they be forced to hide their religion just so the majority feels more comfortable?

Yeah, in certain cases. But it's more than comfort, it's also that any state official should abstain from showing religious signs. It'd feel doubly weird to get stopped by a cop wearing a kippa or a judge wearing a cross. It doesn't belong there.

But is that reason enough to violate someone's right to practice their religion (as guaranteed in the Charter)?  That it would feel "doubly weird"?

I'm probably using the wrong language. Doubly weird as in inappropriate and silly. You know about the pastafarians? What's to prevent a teacher or cop from wearing a pasta strainer on their head then?

I am well aware about pastafarians.

The issue with pastafarians is are they being legitimate - is their belief in His Noodly Supremacy legitimate, or just trying to make a joke of the whole thing.  It's a fair question.  But I think the very strong evidence is that nobody actually believes in pastafarianism - it's all meant as a joke to make fun of other religions.  If there is any real doubt as to that: well then I'd give pastafarians the benefit of the doubt, and let them wear a colander on their head as long as they want.

[Valmy]

At least they are a funny joke instead of a rather non-funny and disturbing one like Scientology where they seemed to take the joke way too far.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, this law would not fly in the US.  But I'm wondering out loud if this law is reasonable in a place without a similar religious protection.

Like Canada...

Canada has a law protecting religious freedom...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

No shit.  Quebec though is a nation within Canada, so the same protections do not apply as evidenced by this banning of religious symbols.  Next they will want to ban poppies!

No, the Charter applies in Quebec.  Quebec has invoked section 33 of the Charter.  The same thing that any other province (or the feds) could do.

[grumbler]

I suppose building a rational for a law on the fact that an act makes others uncomfortable is not totally unreasonable.  Hate speech laws for example are similarly justified.

I don't know of any hate speech laws justified on the grounds that such speech "makes others uncomfortable."  A quick google search indicates that such speech is only banned when it includes incitement to violence or the like.  In fact, such incitement is generally used as the definition of hate speech.  Maybe you can find examples of your type of hate speech laws, though, in which case I will stand corrected.

[grumbler]

State interests will be placed before the well being of the citizens of Quebec.

Except that the law claims that in doing this is it protecting "the collective rights of the Quebec nation."  Talk of "collective rights" always seems to me like a step down a very dark path.

[Zoupa]

State interests will be placed before the well being of the citizens of Quebec.

Right. Les deux solitudes. Aren't you guys a tad overreacting?

[dps]

Sure, this law would not fly in the US.  But I'm wondering out loud if this law is reasonable in a place without a similar religious protection.

Like Canada...

Canada has a law protecting religious freedom...

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

No shit.  Quebec though is a nation within Canada, so the same protections do not apply as evidenced by this banning of religious symbols.  Next they will want to ban poppies!

No, the Charter applies in Quebec.  Quebec has invoked section 33 of the Charter.  The same thing that any other province (or the feds) could do.

What is the point of having a constitutionally protected right if it can be overridden by a legislature?

[Barrister]

What is the point of having a constitutionally protected right if it can be overridden by a legislature?

What's the point of having an elected legislature if it can't enact the laws it wants to?