CANADA: Freedom of Religion?

[Josiah]

The freedom to exercise one's religion has become one of the keystone values of modern civilization. The USA was the first to make it a fundamental human right and place such in the constitution, but this is today accepted (very fundamentally) all over the world. But it is under attack. And in some places we'd not expect!

Canada - generally accepted as a nation of high human rights - recently gave an example. Late on Sunday (note: their legislature met on Sunday!) a bill was passed by the Province of Quebec making it illegal for any public employee on the job to wear any religious symbol (in clothing or jewerly, etc.). Specifically mentioned by the lawmakers were: Christian crosses, Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, etc. This is limited to people working for some level of government and only applies when they are working. This was opposed by a large group of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who insisted it was a clear violation of religious freedom. The bill passed 73-35.

Is this an example of secularism denying religious freedom? Or is it a defense of people being offended ("freedom FROM religion") or simply an employer stating clothing rules for their employees?





.

 

[JRT]

Let us be a bit more accurate ---- this law was passed not by Canada but by the Province of Quebec. It is extremely controversial and has yet to be tested in the courts. Until just 50 to 60 years ago the entire province was controlled by the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing could be accomplished politically without the church. Sort of remind me of the situation of some American states even today.The people threw this off and like elsewhere in the world the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme --- they are trying to create a purely secular province. It will be interesting to see how this works out.[

 

[ValleyGal]

I don't know this will hold up in courts. Years ago, the RCMP took to the courts to argue about turbans versus traditional police hats. Turbans won. The RCMP officers who require a turban, have a special one designed with police colours and logo so that they can be identified as police. We are supposed to have freedom of religious expression, but I know that federal employees who are Christian are not to wear crosses on necklaces. I'm not sure why cross necklaces were banned while turbans were allowed. But considering end times, it would not surprise me if Quebec's new laws influence the rest of Canada - after all, all provinces are required to have bilingual access, but Quebec is not required to have English... Amazing that one province can have that much power over the rest of the provinces and territories.

Until I bought my new car, I had a "Jesus fish" on the back of my car, which I use for transporting my clients. No employer or client ever made a fuss about it, and the program I work in is funded by the government (I'm an indirect employee).

 

[tango]

The freedom to exercise one's religion has become one of the keystone values of modern civilization. The USA was the first to make it a fundamental human right and place such in the constitution, but this is today accepted (very fundamentally) all over the world. But it is under attack. And in some places we'd not expect!

Canada - generally accepted as a nation of high human rights - recently gave an example. Late on Sunday (note: their legislature met on Sunday!) a bill was passed by the Province of Quebec making it illegal for any public employee on the job to wear any religious symbol (in clothing or jewerly, etc.). Specifically mentioned by the lawmakers were: Christian crosses, Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, etc. This is limited to people working for some level of government and only applies when they are working. This was opposed by a large group of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who insisted it was a clear violation of religious freedom. The bill passed 73-35.

Is this an example of secularism denying religious freedom? Or is it a defense of people being offended ("freedom FROM religion") or simply an employer stating clothing rules for their employees?





.

This is a tricky one because whichever way a court leans leaves it vulnerable to suspicions of abuse, if not outright abuse.

On the face of it there seems nothing wrong with followers of a religion peacefully exercising that religion. A person wearing a turban, or a cross, or an Islamic headscarf, represents no threat to anyone. If you really have an issue with seeing someone with a cross around their neck, or a turban or headscarf on their head, the issue is with you rather than with them. Legislating to prevent the kind of faux "offense" experienced by people who are so full of hatred of others they can't allow them to just go about their lives in their own way is a slippery slope to absurdity.

On the other hand, if one group is allowed to publicly exhibit their religion where does it stop? In the UK at the time of the last census a group was trying to get "Jedi" recognised as an official national religion, based on the theory (which I don't think is true, but when did that stop anything?) that if enough people claimed to be a follower then it would automatically gain recognition. But let's say Jedi became a national religion and people who claimed to be Jedi could wear deep cowled robes that left them almost entirely anonymous. How well would that work in areas where some form of identification is required? Probably about as well as Muslim women who wear the burqa or the niqab (a female Asian comedian in the UK commented on how her family wears the burqa and six of them share a bus pass).

Let's take it a little further. With totally free and unimpeded religious expression, what would stop a fringe satanist group from wearing things soaked in pigs blood or some such and claiming that it was something that Lucifer required of them? You can't allow one religion to wear its symbols while denying another religion the same thing, and as soon as the concept of offense is introduce the question then becomes one of who has to be offended before something is prohibited.

Things are slightly complicated by the notion that some of what might be called religious symbols are requirements of faith (e.g. a turban) while others are not (e.g. a cross on a necklace). If anything there's probably a stronger case to be made to allow a Sikh to wear a turban than there is to allow a Christian to wear a cross, if personal choice isn't an adequate reason.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The freedom to exercise one's religion has become one of the keystone values of modern civilization. The USA was the first to make it a fundamental human right and place such in the constitution, but this is today accepted (very fundamentally) all over the world. But it is under attack. And in some places we'd not expect!

Canada - generally accepted as a nation of high human rights - recently gave an example. Late on Sunday (note: their legislature met on Sunday!) a bill was passed by the Province of Quebec making it illegal for any public employee on the job to wear any religious symbol (in clothing or jewerly, etc.). Specifically mentioned by the lawmakers were: Christian crosses, Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, etc. This is limited to people working for some level of government and only applies when they are working. This was opposed by a large group of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who insisted it was a clear violation of religious freedom. The bill passed 73-35.

Is this an example of secularism denying religious freedom? Or is it a defense of people being offended ("freedom FROM religion") or simply an employer stating clothing rules for their employees?

What if a religion wants to psychologically abuse its members - including children - should it have the freedom to do it?

 

[psalms 91]

MC good to see you! Are you back?

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC good to see you! Are you back?

I visit every now and then. Not every day.

Good to see you psalms 91

 

[Jason76]

A big problem is brewing because Muslim fundamentalists (Muslim immigrants) would want religious intolerance - but the western world is generally secular.

 

[psalms 91]

We must always gaurd against intolorance and those trying to force thier intolorant views on everyone