It still has a long way to go, but it's a good way to change the political agenda and pit rural areas and cities against each other.

The worst thing about this charter is not that it makes a clear separation between church and state (like in France), but rather that some religions are "more equal" than others (for example, the crucifix will remain in the legislative chamber).

So yeah, it's more of a "let's get everybody in the province riled up and angry at each other instead of creating jobs and fixing real problems." And since the separatist option is stuck at 30%, that's pretty much the best the Parti Québecois can do to please their troops.

They should simply require all religious jewellery to be hidden/covered up for employees, and not allow covered faces. The ban on turbans and head-scarves is too much though.

It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right...

Our Charter clearly states a person can't be judged bases off of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you call it, it's fucking wrong. I also don't care where you are from, in Canada, you don't judge people based off those things. Everyone has a right to those jobs, and to all jobs, unless they don't have the skills.

My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face, nor does any of her family, most of whom have been to Hajj and are quite religious. My wife's face wasn't covered when we were married by a Sunni Imam in a Muslim ceremony.

So is requiring someone's face to be visible a religious issue? A racism issue? What is it? How about tucking in a chain? Does that infringe on someone's religious beliefs?

Should government employees have no dress code? Come in to work wearing a baseball cap?

This is an issue regarding The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It is explicit. No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them.

I don't really see how this is hard to understand. Be accepting, and don't judge people. It has the happy side effect of making you a better person, too.

(Note, I'm not religious at all. I'm here advocating based entirely on my belief that we have an amazing Charter of Rights)

So police and government officials shouldn't be able to identify someone wearing a Niqab? Hiding one's identity is a safety issue, and harm could follow...

I fully agree with the rest BTW, but you do need to realize, there are unsavoury practices around the world that are justified by 'religious' belief...

the unsavory things you speak of around the world, well, they aren't here.

> Should government employees have no dress code?

Except insofar as dress is actually related to the performance of the substantive duties of the job, probably.

Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional, including many Sunni scholars, and every moderate Islamic sect.

Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?

In November, 2011 the court released its 335 pages long decision, which was that the polygamy abolition law is indeed constitutional, but that it should not be used to persecute minors for having taken part of a polygamous marriage.[21] Chief Justice Robert Bauman conceded that there is a conflict between this law and some civil right principles, but stated that there are other and "more important" issues which in this case takes precedence. He wrote (as quoted by CBC news[21]):

    "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. More specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage".

The decision was welcomed by the attorney general of British Columbia, and by a representative for the group Stop Polygamy in Canada. Likewise, according to the CBC news,[21] some polyamorous groups in Canada expressed their relief, since Bauman had stated that the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.

===

reference [21] is a broken link on wikipedia, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy... so i offer this one instead: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/568/B.C.-court-u... it is more focused on the harm aspect and does not notice the polyamorous angle.

Which doesn't stop it from being a religious issue.

> Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?

Whether something is a bona fide religious issue is not, alone, dispositive of the treatment it should have by the State. So pointing out that other religious practices are prohibited by the State is irrelevant when the discussion at hand was over whether the issue was really a religious issue.

For the religious definition of marriage, there are no laws saying you can't be married in your religion to multiple people. The only stipulation is that you can only be legally married to one person because of the aforementioned legal and tax benefits. There's no law prohibiting me from having six female roommates who are exclusively in a relationship with me. There is a law saying I can only be legally married to one of them at a time. The rest of the women would be legally single and religiously married.

How does this behavior of your wife say anything about what is or is not a religious issue for others?

Plenty of questionable behaviour gets glossed over as a 'religious' belief. Carrying weapons, polygamy, subjecting women and minorities, violence, etc... There absolutely has to be a line in the sand concerning what we as a society are willing to accept.

Some fundamentalist Christians think they should burn witches and homosexuals, and in the past, did. Yet our society no longer considers that acceptable.

Instead, it's usually both mixed-age and arranged: effectively, families coercing their daughters to join the harem of a rich man. (There may also be a dowry, in which case the family is selling their daughter into the harem of a rich man.)

This is a pretty bad thing, but it's hard to write a fully-general (e.g. gender-neutral) legal definition of it that doesn't also cause problems for regular poly people.

Polygamy is accepted by many religions, and we have no problem trouncing those rights, yet we will bend over backwards for other questionable 'rights' (like the Burqa/Niqab, which is not 'required' except by extremist sects - and is nearly universally regarded as a tool of oppression).

I mean, every everyone is a consenting adult, what does it matter?

The proposal forbids a variety of religious adornments, for more than those involving face covering. I have no problem identifying someone in a hijab (headscarf), for example, which would also be outlawed for government employees under this proposal.

It's still wrong to lose your government job because of religious descrimination.

France did this ten years ago, there's not much analysis.

I mean I am an Indian who emigrated here, athiest now.

But honestly what difference does it make. Do we want to live in a society where we have to concious about what religious symbol offended who.

I find incredibly hypocritical that Quebec doesn't want a "Canadian" identity, they want their own. Yet they will prevent you from having our own identity. Since when was the state responsible for culture and identity. I thought that was for the people.....

Maybe you have to live here, to see the scope of how much the government thinks that it is their business.

I received mail from the government, touting "Nos Valeurs", a pamphlet that was printed and then mailed to me using my tax money. This is just plain old propaganda. The government has decided that these are "our" values, and it will use the power of the State to enforce it.

not racist.

it only affects people in government, and doesn't affect your household. If you work for the government, and don't like it move out.

it's a simple social contract. If you don't like what the government is doing, or what the citizens and government value more than your religious convictions, move somewhere else.

yes, i'm canadian

Can you edit/modify/respond to my post in a way that shows that choosing to limit what certain people who work in the government wear is not racist?

I don't want to start a flame war, but want to understand your opinion, which I honestly don't understand. The only way to have meaningful political dialogue is to understand each other.

Many feel it's targeted at immigrants like Muslims and Sikhs.

If you work for the government, and don't like it move out.

People would be FORCED to move out on the account of something that was not a problem until the PQ decided it was (for political gain too).

yes, i'm canadian

What an embarrassment.

An embarrassment? Hardly. You don't agree with me and therefore I am an embarrassment? How convenient of you.

Values can change. PQ are doing that. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else.

Great bait. I took it.

Have you read the Charter of Rights of Freedom, you know that law the entire country including Quebec is suppose to follow. I mean your to busy undermining the values of the country so you can have your own crappy value system. Why don't you people go live somewhere else like France where this sorta thing is so popular and productive.

Doesn't seem like the rest of Canada agrees with you. And I'd argue letting Quebec do whatever the fuck they want is the reason this is an issue in the first place.

Cognitive dissonance to the max.

I don't think you understand cognitive dissonance at all. Do you presume to know how all of Canada feels? Perhaps the majority of people nearest you do share the same thoughts on the subject, and that you don't feel it's right. Just because someone happens to offer a different viewpoint than you, and you happen to disagree with it, doesn't mean that I have cognitive dissonance. I'm more than capable of accepting new ideas. This idea in particular is different than the one I grew up with and I happen to see value it in.

You clearly do not understand what I'm saying. I don't care what people practice, or how they are in their own homes or out in public. I don't feel untoward or speak ill of anyone who is religious or wants to wear things they consider to be part of whatever it is they consider to be their identity. What I do think is fair is that anyone representing government not display their beliefs. It's not fair that quebec has made distinctions between what is acceptable and not. Nothing should be worn by individuals. It doesn't matter nor does it help to perform your job. If you work somewhere, it'll most likely have a dress code. Consider this an extension of that.

I don't mind that many canadians feel this is a violation of the charter; maybe they should be thinking about what they value more: how government represents and polices itself or social identity. This has nothing to do with how the government treats citizens. Yes, citizens make up the government; but guess what - you're not representing segments and races: you're representing canada.

But isn't canada made up of many races? Am I seriously suggesting people not represent things they cannot change, which is skin colour or whatnot. no. but what are you really trying to accomplish in government? represent canada or whatever background you happened to be born into without choice.

you don't like my thoughts since it doesn't fit your ideal and initial world view: that's cognitive dissonance. I can accept people for who they are, and I really don't care about this issue as much as it may seem, despite replying to your bait and various others. At the end of the day, Quebec isn't going to get what they want, and canada is going to keep on rolling; you'll have your way, and I won't care what Quebec's decision is.

Still want me to leave? I bet you'd relish the thought. I'll stick around long enough to challenge your views though. enjoy.