According to many sources, including the CBC article below (click on screenshot), Quebec has proposed a bill (“Bill 21,” which I can’t seem to find on the Internet) that, designed enforce secularity, bans all public servants, including teachers, judges, police officers, and other government officials, from wearing religious symbols. These banned symbols include hijabs, turbans, yarmulkes, and crosses. The bill also requires citizens to uncover their faces when their use public services like municipal transit and the courts (and presumably, though I don’t know for sure, banks). Bill 21 hasn’t yet been passed.
This bill has not yet been enacted, but there’s been substantial protest, with, according to the Montreal Gazette, many more groups against it than for it, even though the Quebecois (is that the plural?) seem more evenly divided. On the plus side one can argue that it helps preserve a secular society, so that religion isn’t entangled with the government. Certainly a policewoman in a hijab would not conform to uniform standards, though I don’t have strong objections to a hijab or a yarmulke hidden under a uniform hat. In this view, government officials must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s: a secular dress on the job.
On the negative side, it’s possible that a lot of the sentiment behind this bill is based on bigotry against Muslims, and there are many of them in the province who migrated to Canada from Islamic, French-speaking countries. Religious people are also objecting to the bill on the general grounds that it shows bias against religion, though I don’t pay as much attention to those objections as to ones that suggest it’s singling out just one faith. The Gazette link above details all the various objections, and there were big protests in Montreal (largely Muslims but also some Jews) denouncing Bill 21.
In general, I think the bill is pretty good but not perfect, and I can think of some quibbles. Should teachers also doff their religious symbols in class? I’m pretty much neutral on that one, though leaning in favor of “yes.” I also think it’s more important to have your face uncovered in banks and courts than on buses. To the objection, “People should be able to wear what they want,” I respond, “There are uniforms mandated for some jobs.” To those who say, “Well, teachers and judges don’t have uniforms mandated except for robes on the judges,” I respond, “But should a child or a defendant worry that they’ll get a fair trial or a bias-free education if the authority figure is flaunting their religion?”
Finally, if religious symbols/clothing can be completely hidden on government officials, I don’t see any problem with it. That allows people to still sport symbols of their faith but not make the public worry that they may be biased, and this solution still effects a separation of one’s job from one’s faith.
The bill is obviously controversial, so I’ll put up a poll with an alternative to the ban with is a “modified ban”, and if you favor that you can explain in the comments. But I’d appreciate comment on this whatever your view.
h/t: Stephen
The best outcome would for the state to allow religious symbols/clothing, then successfully petitioning religious authorities to recommend against it. It seems like a ban is inviting cries of persecution.
They will not recommend against it, because they secretly dreak to take over (or retake) the state.
If a teacher wants to wear a crucifix under their shirt, I don’t have a problem with that. However if there is a secular dress code, then one should abide by it. Why do you need to flout your religion at work?
I could certainly see someone feeling uncomfortable if the person serving them is openly displaying a religious symbol that identifies them as belonging to a religious group that is historically hostile to theirs. One might not expect fair or unbiased treatment.
Jeez, sounds like all official Canada would turn into Ray Liotta hiding his crucifix under his shirt the first time he meets his Jewish future in-laws in Goodfellas. 🙂
I vote yes but also note this would never pass in this country. First Amendment would scream religious freedom even though it should not. This has been proven many times already. Good grief, you can’t even make a guy, who is a baker, do a cake for a gay couple. We subsidize housing for all the religious professionals in this country. It is sickening.
First Amendment would scream religious freedom even though it should not.
Do not forget that the freedom of religion clause also protects the rights of atheists to express our beliefs.
We don’t have any beliefs.
Sure we do. But unlike religious beliefs, we have compelling reasons for ours.
This has been an ongoing debate in Quebec for some time. Having lived in Montreal when the debate first began I’m of the opinion that Quebec’s Bill 21 is prejudicial.
Throughout the debate, and only recently has this changed, the cross has been designated a historical symbol. The Quebec Legislature has a cross placed quite prominently.
This current government, unlike previous governments who have proposed similar legislation, is willing to consider moving the cross. However, the cross, if moved, would only be placed elsewhere on the premise and still displayed.
The irony is that Canada has traditionally done a terrific job in integrating religious minorities by ignoring the religious symbols people bring with them and allowing them to integrate at their own pace. This usually takes a couple of generations, but has worked well.
Religious symbols that require people cover their faces, in my opinion, do cause a degree of unease. And whether people should be allowed to access public services is a tricky subject, worthy of discussion and debate.
But I will always object to the idea that Quebec is trying to preserve a secular society when Christian symbols are prominently displayed by the government and called historical artifacts.
If the Quebec government were serious about banning all religious symbols from the public square, instead of singling out symbols that are foreign to their own experience, then they would have already settled the question of whether the cross should stay in the assembly or be removed because it would’ve been remmoved.
They took down the cross from the Quebec council chambers and they are not going to put it back up.
Montreal City Council is not the Quebec Legislature.
The Quebec’s Provincial Government have not yet removed the cross in their Assembly.
And when it is moved it will still be displayed by the CAQ government just not in the Assembly room.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/should-the-crucifix-in-quebec-s-national-assembly-come-down-1.5076077
Yes, that’s why I specified “council chambers” and not “legislature.
Well, this one is tough. I think it is wrong to ban the wearing of religious clothing that is actual called for by the religion, like headcoverings for Jews and Sikhs. Crosses are a different matter, as they are not actually required by the Christianity (at least not in any sect I can think of except for priests). I don’t think truly religious clothing should be banned, because that does tread on religious freedom. On the other hand, I am fine with face coverings being banned, as my understand is that although some groups call for them, they are not generally considered as required by the tenets of Islam. I am an atheist, and don’t like religion, but in the spirt of ‘I may be wrong’, I believe we have to let each person find their own path to heaven.
I don’t think the state should get involved in theological matters, and so should not care whether or not something is “called for by a religion”.
But that requires the state to have a view on which are the “true” versions of the religion, and whether those do or do not require face coverings.
A better policy is to pass laws for secular reasons, and then require the religious to abide by them whatever.
It occurs to me that any sect could “call for” any adornment, even if the mainline church does not. There’s a fuzzy line between – my group of 20 observers who meet regularly in my attic “calls for” wearing the Kazoo Stapler on our top hats, and – my spouse and I have decided to “call for” the showing the Kazoo Stapler at all times, and – I “call for” wearing a locked and loaded Kazoo Stapler prominently for all to see, so there!
In considering claims asserted under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, US courts will not inquire into the truth or falsity of any religious beliefs (inasmuch as that would open a hornets’ nest, and the truth claims of all religions would fare poorly).
The courts will, however, consider evidence that the religious beliefs asserted are not actually held sincerely — that those beliefs have been asserted as some type of pretext or goof.
In some cases, held sincerely, might have to be determined by fMRI.
I don’t know why people enjoy wearing an ancient torturing device to show-off their faith. It doesn’t offend me, but it certainly isn’t endearing. I once had a boss who wore this honking gold ichthus ring. Whenever I saw it, I imagined the imprint it would make if he hit someone; don’t know why this thought always popped up. Maybe because I see a large swathe of religious people as fearful and violent.
I voted Yes.
“honking gold ichthus ring”
It took me a minute to work out that wasn’t some sort of kinky sex toy. 😉
Which just shows where my mind is most of the time…
cr
Ok, now I can’t get that image out of my head.
IIRC an exchange between Yossarian and Doc Daneeka, “Catch-22” wasn’t exactly written down anywhere either. 🙂
1) I have no problem with religious dress or symbols in general.
2) I think that government workers should have to show their faces which would eliminate the niqab and borka.
3) If a uniform is required, the workers should have to wear it. They should allowed to also have symbols (turbans, yarmulkes, and crosses) that can be worn with uniforms.
4) If the uniform precludes the religious symbol (e.g. helmet and yarmulke or turban), the symbol should not be worn.
5) All safety issues need to take precedence. For example, I have worked in factories where neck ties and loose hair were banned. Similar rules should apply to religious symbols.
https://i.chzbgr.com/full/2990310912/h739DC48F/
🙂
cr
I vehemently oppose this bill. It not only violates the rights of all Canadian citizens as stated in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it also invokes the ‘not withstanding’ clause blocking citizens from legally challenging these restrictions in court. Imagine not being able to challenge a bill restricting your First Amendment rights. Well, that is what this bill does. I am an atheist but, more importantly, I oppose gratuitous restrictions on people’s fundamental freedoms, religious or otherwise. No compelling case has been made for over-riding Canada’s Bill of Rights.
Is asking an employee to adopt a uniform code a violation of their fundamental freedoms?
It may or may not be. That is why the affected person should be allowed to challenge the restriction in court, as they can in the U.S. If the State can provide a compelling reason for the restriction for employment purposes, then fine.
For all customer-facing employees, a “company ethos” is surely sufficient reason for a dress code.
It would be no reason to single out religious symbols, if other adornments or uniform exceptions are allowed.
That someone an official comes into contact might be offended by the official’s religion provides no justification for making the official hide his or her religion — in the US anyway.
I agree with darwinwins. It is offensive, regressive, and repressive for governments to prevent their employees from wearing otherwise decent clothing or symbols for no other reason than the presence of a religious motivation. Some beliefs are offensive, and wearing symbols to communicate offensive beliefs can also a problem, but this is the a who decides dilemma. A recognition that the clothing is an employees individual expression, not the expression of the government, eliminates all establishment of religion concerns. There can be general restrictions, such as no text, no depictions of animals, etc., but any such restrictions should have secular justification and not single out religious practices for different treatment.
Imagine this – you’re a Jew who is seeking help from a government employee who is wearing a burka and the circumstances are that it is critical that this employee assists (you can come up with any number of hypotheticals that fit).
Do you trust that that employee will assist you?
Is that the problem of the person wearing the burqa or you? If someone doesn’t trust atheists and meets me and judges me solely on my self-identification of being an atheist regardless of how I act toward them as an individual, is that the problem of me and the state or the individual who is making bigoted assumptions?
How you identify yourself should not matter. What is important is how you affect other people. That is why I think this law is missing the point.
Imagine you are a white skin head seeking help from a government employee wearing a yarmulke. Do you trust that that employee will assist you? Should it matter?
Astonishing. Did you and Diana really think I was advocating bigotry? The issue of religious influence in any government interaction is a legitimate concern and it’s one reason why the laicity of secular governments is critical – it must not even appear to be partial.
You don’t like the example, make up your own with an acceptable bigot in place of the Jew.
So you really think someone, in your words, would exact “religious influence in any government interaction” while wearing a crucifix but upon removing it would act in a completely different way? Are you really ascribing this type of magical powers to your symbols? We’re talking about individuals not states.
I didn’t accuse you of advocating bigotry. I was trying to vary your example to show that we can’t have rules based on the fact that someone might be discomfited.
(New here and don’t understand threading – I’m replying to my post because there isn’t a “reply” under either Diana’s or darwinwins’ comments)
I get both of your points and this is not an easy subject to parse, but I will leave you with this comment – the example I gave puts constraints on government agents not the public*. Neither a skinhead nor a Jew nor any other member of the public is so constrained (with exceptions noted below). In this sense it is like the American First Amendment in that it constrains government actors.
Diana – take away the crucifix and(s)he could still act in a discriminatory way. So could a non-burka wearing Muslim or a bare-headed Jew. The point is the public must have trust that a secular government will not discriminate against them because their religion differs; it ought not have even the appearance of partiality, even though no one know what evil lurks in the hearts of (wo)men.
My example above was an attempt to illustrate the issue as many see it (I am rather on the fence and I see merits in the arguments on both sides).
*Parts of this legistation do affect the public by limiting the covering one’s face in certain circumstances. I hope you will accept that I was talking about a limited part of the legislation.
Your conflating citizens with governments. The state remains neutral in keeping religious symbols out of its documents and institutions. No praying, no crosses on documents, no Amens, no jesi on the walls. People wearing something religious does not change the neutrality of the state. People don’t have to hide their beliefs; that’s a horrible thing to ask someone to do. The state should have no religious beliefs to hide.
Do you think a Jew can insist that they be assisted by someone other than a Muslim, or a Muslim by someone other than a Jew? Can they insist that they be assisted only by someone of their own faith?
If not, what’s the difference, except that one can determine the government employee’s religion from his or her dress?
+1
Supposing that I am a government employee and my beliefs impel me to wear a black armband with a swastika on it? What then?
Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere.
(For the record, I always personally disliked to wearing a tie and usually managed to get away with not doing so. Totally useless piece of nuisance clothing IMO. I hate most uniforms and ‘dress codes’).
cr
In the US the constitution’s First Amendment (like it or not) singles out religion for special protection (just as it singles out free speech and a free press for special protection). It does not single out political or social beliefs for such protection.
To my knowledge, there’s no sincerely held religious belief that requires (or is even connected with) the wearing of black armbands and swastikas.
Hmmm, okay, well the swastika was just a f’rinstance to demonstrate that there’s always a line to be drawn somewhere.
Incidentally, I could probably claim, with some verity, that it’s a genuine Hindu religious symbol. This is a little off the point, though.
cr
I agree completely and I hate that notwithstanding clause. I wish PET had just rammed through the constitution without listening to the provinces.
The text of the bill can be found here:
http://www.assnat.qc.ca/Media/Process.aspx?MediaId=ANQ.Vigie.Bll.DocumentGenerique_143925en&process=Default&token=ZyMoxNwUn8ikQ+TRKYwPCjWrKwg+vIv9rjij7p3xLGTZDmLVSmJLoqe/vG7/YWzz
Down here below the 49th, such a blanket ban on religious symbols would so clearly run afoul of the “Free Exercise” clause of the First Amendment, I can’t imagine such a bill ever even being introduced.
Fortunately, the Framers did not include a disgraceful ‘not withstanding’ clause for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Many states have laws banning the wearing of masks in public. The laws were passed decades ago to prevent the KKK from wearing masks over their faces during their marches and rallies.
I support those laws, not matter who they may affect.
The laws are not enforced on Halloween and I believe one state has an exception in the law that the law goes not apply on Halloween.
Such laws are facially neutral; they do not single out religion for special treatment, and they have a valid secular purpose. Accordingly, unless there is legislative history demonstrating that such laws were enacted with the intent to disadvantage a particular religion, they would not implicate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I see no harm when government employees who are not required to wear uniforms brandish religious symbols and therefore see no proper justification for forbidding them to do so. It is unfair to religious people to require that they do not dress according to their religious beliefs when there are no conflicts with secular based clothing restrictions. What France, and some other countries are doing is banning out religious symbols for the sake of targeting religious symbols which is discriminatory in a negative sense and antagonistic to free expression.
This has been going on for some time in Canada and I voted No. I don’t want religious symbols in places like courts, like a big honking crucifix on the wall of a courtroom, but I have no issue with people wearing crucifixes or other religious garb. I think that is part of their freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion, as well as their freedom of thought, believe and expression – all guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I especially don’t like to see things like this from the state because it was horrible to be forced to say the Lords Prayer as a non-believer in my public school and I’d hate to force someone to conform to my idea of expression. The state is neutral and the business of the state is neutral, but its citizens are not.
+1
I don’t think people on this forum would vote yes in a poll for a bill that over-rides the First Amendment.
I think they just did. When I voted the yes votes had a substantial lead.
But this is not a poll on a bill violating the First Amendment rights of Americans. It is a poll on a bill violating the equivalent rights of Canadians.
Some people seem to think so. I thought you thought it was.
I think it does. It overrides the first amendment to the extent it applies to restricting the free exercise of religion that violates the law. This is an overriding exception to the first amendment.
I agree 100% with what Diana says here. But she possibly might disagree with my longer paragraph below on face covering.
Note that I am Canadian, in fact born and raised for 15 years in Quebec province, though north in mining country with a larger Anglo proportion than average in Quebec.
Something which relates to several remarks, so I know some here will disagree (maybe Diana?), is that I think, despite present Canadian law, that face covering in public should be illegal, with only the few obvious exceptions like kids at halloween, walking into a stiff wind at many degrees below freezing, etc. So my ban would not just be to do with working for the government, though any such workplace should be regarded as a public place for the purposes of such a law. My reasoning is based simply on natural human reactions and predictions when interacting with other humans, and receiving non-verbal signals from their eyes and mouth. This is an absolutely fundamental human matter. It has nothing to do with religion other than the obvious fact that some fundamentalist Muslims clearly regard women as less than fully human. So I do agree with France, in its ban in public of extreme Muslim female dress requirements.
While I’m at it, I happen to own a green t-shirt which many here are likely familiar with: It pictures Darwin’s face, but he is wearing Che Guevara’s hat and upper clothing. The caption reads:
VIVA LA EVOLUCION !
with appropriate accent on the ‘O’. It is surely hypocritical for a government to allow me to wear that while producing Jacques Public’s driver’s licence, but to ban the guy working beside me from wearing a crucifix in a visible manner.
I’m not sure how I feel about face covering being illegal in public other than when identification is required….the reason is this….I follow Jan Böhmermann on Twitter and one day he included an Austrian article with the comment “hahaha Österreich, hahahaha”. Reading the article, it was about police fining people for covering their faces. This meant a mascot had to hold his mask beside him. Further, commenters on the article complained that police were making them take off their scarves while riding their bikes even when it was super cold outside. This type of legislation tends to get away from the intended purpose. I think often it’s best to use other means of discouraging face covering.
The bill is embedded here with links to PDF and text, etc. Scroll to the bottom of the article.
I wonder the requirements for me would be if I were Canadian and such a law passed. I’m a Buddhist layman who has done the precepts ceremony, and thus have a shaved head. Would I have to grow my hair back? 😉
Keep in mind it’s Quebec only so only that province not Canada. I don’t think this would pass in Canada as Quebec is using the Notwithstanding Clause to override the Canadian constitution’s freedoms.
Banning baldness would cause problems for a lot of old men.
I think it is a fascinating subject:
To what extent can a secular country require that the public square be secular, while still respecting full religious freedom?
Is it not enough that religionists have no restrictions on their religious expression when on private property – at their homes, their places of worship, at clubs, at camps, etc?
What, exactly, is wrong with a secular society respecting the rights of everyone not to be subjected to religious symbology, dress, proselytizing in public?
There are already laws which prohibit people from walking along public streets with a megaphone loudly broadcasting their religious views.
The government has already said that a drug’s illegality supersedes the 1st Amendment rights of individuals to use peyote, etc in religious practice.
Other 1st Amendments rights are not allowed in public – swearing, spitting, drinking, fighting, nudity, pornography, yelling, loitering etc. All these things you can do on private property, but not in public.
Why should religious expression be more privileged than any other 1st Amendment right?
Remember – the “nones” are now the largest single religious denomination. Why do we not have the right to a secular public square as a religious right?
Being subjected to religious symbols in public is part of the cost of living in a pluralistic society. You may find these symbols offensive but if you want to uphold rights like freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, etc. then you’re going to run the risk of being offended sometimes. Furthermore, these people do, in a secular society, have the right to practice religion in public – they simply don’t have the right to force the rest of us to practice their religion.
Well said.
Thanks 😀
Thank you for standing up for the Constitutional rights of Canadians. I hope those who claim to love the First Amendment in the U.S. will appreciate the importance of this to Canadians.
I support any moves the government makes to separate religion from state. The Bill may be motivated towards Muslims but I think overall it will be beneficial to a secular society.
I have seen the Human Rights Code regarding “religious accommodation” be taken to extremes. In schools where there is a large Muslim population, gyms and cafeterias have been provided for prayers. During prayers, muslim girls in public schools are separated from boys and menstruating girls forced to the back. I’m not sure you can even say that Muslim children in these public schools are given a “choice” about whether they go and pray. They carry with them to school the pressure from their religious communities. Also, non-Muslim children may not be forced to partake in these activities but they certainly witness this gender inequality.
https://torontolife.com/city/allah-in-the-cafeteria/
In my opinion, banning the wearing of religious symbols in state institutions is a good thing. Of course each individual carries their own beliefs with them but it makes a statement that they are to remain neutral as an employee of the government.
@Roger:
Spitting, drinking, fighting, nudity, and loitering are not activities protected by the First Amendment.
Pornography, swearing, and yelling are within the ambit of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. But they are subject to reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions. (You can no more scream or swear in someone’s face than you can hold a brass-band parade in a residential neighborhood at 3 sm — all would be punishable as a disturbance of the peace.)
By analogy, one could not run around shoving a crucifix or Star of David in people’s faces — that would constitute a disturbance of the peace, too. But the government can no more ban the simple wearing of them in public than it can ban swearing in a private, moderate-voiced conversation in public or than it could ban someone from reading Playboy magazine while sitting on a bench in a public park.
I’m split on this one. On the one hand, banning all religious symbolism in official public buildings appeals for the reasons outlined in the post and in some comments above. On the other, it risks excluding people from occupations in those buildings on the basis of their religion if they happen to believe that such symbolism forms an essential part of their faith.
Do Christians prepared to wear a discreet cross under their clothing get a free pass that a turban-wearing Sikh doesn’t? In any case, there is no scriptural necessity for Christians to wear crosses (as the old joke goes, when the Second Coming arrives Jesus won’t necessarily be too appreciative of his acolytes displaying miniature versions of the very instrument used to torture him). It can be less clear cut when it comes to other religions and especially their various sub-sects. And if we were to try to draw a distinction between “religiously mandated” symbols and “optional” ones I suspect we’d really be joining Alice down the rabbit hole, since even religious scholars within the various branches of, say, Islam can’t agree on them.
Speaking personally, the most logical rules would be: i) To restrict anything covering the face in situations where facial recognition or the reading of facial expressions is important (for example, in public justice scenarios like giving evidence in court). This would be similar to the insistence by supermarkets and banks that motorcyclists must remove their helmets. ii) To prevent the wearing of religious symbols in cases where doing so could give the possible appearance of partiality (for example, an immigration official of one religion interviewing an asylum seeker of another).
Immigration officers are law enforcement and I think they wear uniforms. Employees who are required to wear uniforms are restricted in what they wear.
Keep all religious ‘statements’ out of public, governmental positions, what you do in your own time, no problem. e.g. you are not a RELIGIOUS police officer and of the law, you are a police officer of the laws of the land you reside and that does not need any added symbolism.
Wearing what one’s religion dictates is not a “statement,” but a mere fact of life for someone who is religious. They should not be making religious statements in government positions, but they should be able to dress in the manner their religion dictates, or else they are excluded from such work.
It could be said they preclude themselves for some jobs by insisting on having to wear any garment, ‘statement’ etc.
Also for me, you should seem, deemed to be neutral and conduct yourself as such in any public job.
People should not be deemed non-neutral because of their dress. It is doing their jobs impartially that matters. At my hospital there is a young nurse who wears a hijab. She does her job well and treats her patients with compassion. If some takes her hijab as being not neutral then that is his problem not hers.
Well said.
There is nothing I’ve said that wearing anything makes people less competent at doing theirjobs. Wearing a hjjab IS her problem not mine i don’t have to wear it or bow to it’s code for so long as a job is done, i have no problem… shaping any policy for this type of thing is problematic. I like the sound of neutrality for public, government types but I doubt it’s a thing.
Singling out religious symbols hardly constitutes “neutrality”; it is its opposite.
Sure it is but it would be nice if it were gone, they would still be the same person with or without.
Once again lets give religion a special pass, like taxes. By all means wear your stuff to work, religion is special.
What are you talking about? If their religion is influencing nothing but their clothes, singling religion out would be banning religious garb. Your arguments and analogies are completely fallacious. There is no “pass” to give in this case.
It would be nice if it were gone? Sure. But it’s not. You live in a world where religion exists. Deal with it. It’s your problem if you can’t deal with the site of someone wearing their religious garb, not their’s.
” You live in a world where religion exists. Deal with it. It’s your problem if you can’t deal with the site of someone wearing their religious garb, not theirs”
No, again it’s not my problem.
1. I don’t have to wash, care, iron, fret over losing or delude myself as to why i wear ANY symbol of religion.
2. If you care to see what i wrote you will see i don’t give a fig what you wear as long as you can do the job.
3. I don’t need a pompous lecture on reality either, my vision is a world free of religious fairytale influence and we have to start somewhere, nothing more, nothing less.
Much as I may have a distaste for religion and an absolute loathing for its marriage with government in any way, I do not think it’s fair to exclude people from government work because they are religious, and that is what such a bill would do. Laws aren’t just about their immediate impact, but their externalities.
Whether or not an employee can wear a religious garment or ornament should depend on whether it impedes their ability to do their job. A surgery nurse could not do her job properly dressed in a burka. Earlier, Sikh RCMP officers in another part of Canada were not allowed to wear their turbans on the job. They sued under the Charter and won because the government could not prove it impeded their ability to their jobs. They wear turbans in uniform now and guess what—they can do their jobs.
I agree with that. I don’t think you should be able to wear anything that impedes your ability to do your job, religious or otherwise.
Laicism is not secularism. In my opinion, every teacher, bus driver and government clerk should — with co-operation and permission of a religious acquaintance — adopt a hijab or a turban for the day.
Can I wear a hijab as an atheist, since that would make it not religious wear? Can I wear a ski mask? How about if I am a judge? Can I wear a cross if I attach a second cross piece so it is not officially Christian anymore. That’s not a yarmulke, it’s a beanie…
It seems okay to ask people to show their face to a security camera, but a minute should be enough. Otherwise it seems like a difficult thing to do completely fairly.
There is a crucial legal distinction between a neutral law that says no one can cover his or her face under particular circumstances where security concerns are implicated and a law that says no one can cover his or her face for religious purposes under any circumstances.
In the US, the former would be constitutional, the latter would not.
I voted ‘yes’. Let’s listen to the people who have escaped the restrictive religious countries such as Iran. They know what they are talking about. From Davoodi in the article above:
“He says many native-born Canadians now defending the hijab have never seen its negative effects up close.”
Normalizing the wearing of the hijab is dangerous and I don’t think school girls should have to see it on their teachers in the classroom. It has no place there.
That’s a false equivalency. This isn’t about defending the hijab. It’s much broader than that. It’s asking citizens to hide who they are. Have you seen who our defence minister is? If he were in Quebec he wouldn’t be allowed to wear his turban. He probably wouldn’t have been able to serve in the military if this law were a federal one. That seems really wrong to me.
The hijab is a symbol of repression aimed specifically at women, including little girls. The turban is not.
But this law includes the turban, and the crucifix and the yarmulke. It isn’t about the hijab no matter how many times you say it is. It also isn’t the problem of the person wearing the hijab that you find it offensive. The state trying to say you have to hide your religion is almost as repressive as the state forcing you to wear a hijab.
This is an interesting line of thought. Maybe if we get a radical feminist government one day, they can decree that extremely revealing clothing is a symbol of oppression by the patriarchy and outlaw it.
Yeah, this is a road you don’t want to go down unless you’re an authoritarian and confident that the people who represent all your personal views will always remain in power.
So basically you want to install the authoritarian regime of Iran (telling people what they must wear) in reverse in Canada (telling people what they cannot wear.) Thankfully you are not a full authoritarian—that which is not forbidden is required.
To the extent that it prevents regular performance of the job, yes. The fire department banning turbans makes sense; you must be willing and able to don protective equipment at a moment’s notice. The local school doing it? Not as much sense (at least to me). Similarly, a police officer being allowed to hide their face? Really bad idea. A DMV worker with a prominent name tag hiding their face? Probably much less of an issue.
Personally I’m okay with people like teachers wearing some reasonably limited visible symbols of their faith, if they think it’s required (a Sikh’s turban, for example). Frankly, the students are going to assume, guess at, or even just plain out ask their teachers’ about their religious beliefs. They’re going to make a religious assessment (right or wrong) from conversation (‘what are you doing this Sunday Ms. Jennsen?’), background (‘so you send money back to your family in Iran?’), heck even one’s name can give clues. Co-religionist students may see their teachers at services…and will happily let other kids know about it. I think state resources are better spent focusing on preventing discriminatory conduct by teachers rather than trying to keep secret information that is likely to be obvious, already known, or easily and publicly accessible.
So, there should also be no stricture against public nudity, spitting, hitting your children with a Biblically-approved rod, defecation, loudspeaker prosylization, smoking, etc?
All of these things you can do to your heart’s content on your own private property, all things that are part of the interpretation of Constitutional (privacy) rights.
As far as I can tell, you didn’t address the idea of how secular the public square should or might be, but merely asserted the status quo as inherently self-righteous. IOW, we already regulate the expression of Constitutional rights – including religious 1st Amendment rights – in the public square. So, the argument is not about kind, but about degree. You say the degree is obviously perfect. But why should not the public square be more secular?
I hope that didn’t come off as too aggressive, I didn’t mean it that way.
Aarghh – this was supposed to be in reply to Diana. 🙂
Interesting question in regards to how secular should the public square be. This is where I support the ban on full face coverings in the public square but otherwise wear whatever religious, political or ideological garments you would like. However, in Canada wearing a swastika would probably land you in jail for committing a hate crime.
No, it wouldn’t. Are you Canadian? If so you need to brush up on hate crimes. If not, you’re repeating an oft repeated white supremicist talking point. You are allowed to wear all the swatstikas you want in Canada. You may find others have something to say about that but you won’t go to jail for a hate crime.
Religion-clause constitutional jurisprudence in the US is hardly a model of clarity or consistency. Bu the general heuristic in First Amendment cases is that government can neither promote nor inhibit religious practice — a law cannot single out religion for special treatment, pro or con.
Facially neutral laws that happen to have an incidental adverse (or favorable) impact on religious practice are generally held to be constitutionally valid, in the absence of evidence (such as in a statute’s legislative history or in the contemporaneous statements by legislators) that the law (even if facially neutral) wasn’t enacted for the principal purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion.
Thus, for example, a law that required that people’s faces remain uncovered under certain security protocols would be constitutional — unless there was evidence that the legislators enacted it because they were sick of Muslim women wearing hijab.
These are all false equivalencies and a fallacious reductio ad absurdum. You cannot say someone crapping on the sidewalk is exactly the same thing as wearing a crucifix to work. There is a reason we don’t allow sidewalk shitting but allow people the right to free expression and conscience.
But, we don’t allow free unfettered religious expression. No Constitutional right is unregulated. Lots of freedoms of conscience and religion and expression are already regulated.
The question is where does one draw the line. Is religious expression unduly fettered if it can be expressed fully and freely basically everywhere but the public square? Just like 100 other activities?
Right now in the US, you can not see an edition of Playboy without a blocked cover on a newstand, because religionists object to nudity for moral (religious) reasons. Women can not walk around in public with bare breasts for exactly the same religious-based reason – the religious objections of a minority are deemed worthy enough to prevent the view of a woman’s body in the public square.
Well, let’s say I have a religious objection, as an atheist, to religious inculcation and symbolatry in the public square. Even though we “nones” are now the largest single religious denomination, the status quo says religious prudes have the right to not see what they find religiously objectionable, but atheists do not.
I think we need to re-examine the status quo.
No one is arguing we allow “unfettered religious expression” because we simply don’t allow unfettered freedoms of any sort. Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
All the things you have listed are irrelevant to this discussion and also don’t apply to Canada since we don’t have these restrictions. You may feel that the laws of the US are puritanical. That’s nothing to do with restricting someone working in a court wearing a crucifix in Quebec.
As far as the demonym goes, I see “Quebecers” used most frequently to refer to residents of the province. Quebecois generally refers to the descendants of the original French settlers, but is also used to refer to Quebecers whose mother tongue is French.
I don’t think governments should be telling people what to wear if what they’re wearing is as harmless as a yarmulke, necklace with a cross or a hijab. Freedom of expression is far more important than any harm caused by the above. Of course, something like a niqab, that hides the face, is an entirely different thing. Besides, i love when people wear their religious beliefs. That way i know whose software needs an update.
Based on Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s take on Voltaire:
“I disapprove of your symbol of stupidity, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.”