News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

The charter bans public workers from wearing religious symbols, but it stops short of banning those who use these institutions from wearing religious symbols while they're there. Why? Why not ban everyone from wearing everything that might leave an impression on someone else? Why stop at public institutions? Why not ban people from wearing these symbols in other public areas, say, sidewalks? Why have any freedom of expression at all?

Also, Quebec separatism is offensive to me, and yet its symbols are displayed all over Quebec. Can we have that banned as well, or is it only ideas that Marois doesn't agree with that are banned? I can already see Charter 2.0: Banning any display of negativity towards Bloc Quebecois.
 
DtTO said:
The charter bans public workers from wearing religious symbols, but it stops short of banning those who use these institutions from wearing religious symbols while they're there. Why? Why not ban everyone from wearing everything that might leave an impression on someone else? Why stop at public institutions? Why not ban people from wearing these symbols in other public areas, say, sidewalks? Why have any freedom of expression at all?
Click to expand...

Ah but you raise a very important issue... the spirit behind the separation of state and church is to protect freedom of religion (or atheism), not undermine it (in fact, it is intended to work both ways: it is to protect religion from government but equally to protect government from religion). In other words, secularism here is not equal to religious intolerance, it is equal to religious neutrality.

We all agree that freedom of thought and (non)religion are fundamental rights. The issue is really whether the infringement of this right, within the specific context of the public service work place and as a public servant, and within the larger societal context of state secularism (i.e. religious neutrality as a means to promote inclusivity) is a reasonable infringement. I guess this will be a debate for the legal experts.
 
Tewder:

Except it is quite unclear how banning government workers from wearing religious symbols and garments protect government from religion, given individuals with religious convictions are still employed. To use a rather liberal analogy - you don't ban racism by eliminating race from government employees.

AoD
 
Tewder said:
Ah but you raise a very important issue... the spirit behind the separation of state and church is to protect freedom of religion (or atheism), not undermine it (in fact, it is intended to work both ways: it is to protect religion from government but equally to protect government from religion). In other words, secularism here is not equal to religious intolerance, it is equal to religious neutrality.

We all agree that freedom of thought and (non)religion are fundamental rights. The issue is really whether the infringement of this right, within the specific context of the public service work place and as a public servant, and within the larger societal context of state secularism (i.e. religious neutrality as a means to promote inclusivity) is a reasonable infringement. I guess this will be a debate for the legal experts.
Click to expand...

Technically, there is no separation of Church and State in Canada, not the way we understand it in the US.

Here's a succinct explanation:

...section 2 of the Charter does guarantee "freedom of religion", and the courts have interpreted this to include a right to be free from religion.

But this right to be free from religion is subtly, yet significantly, different from a separation of church and state. Freedom of religion under the Charter means that Canadians are free to practice their religions in a non-harmful fashion (e.g. the Multani case), while freedom from religion means that Canadians cannot be forced to adopt a religious practice (e.g. the Big M Drug Mart case).
Click to expand...
 
Johnny Au said:
This is why Catholic schools are taxpayer-funded in Ontario.
Click to expand...

No I don't think so. I am pretty sure Catholic schools are funded because of a deal at Confederation that had nothing to do with the Charter or even the BNA Act.

As I say earlier in this thread, the British were very intent on keeping the French-Canadians onboard after the Conquest and so allowed them to keep their Church and Civil Code. I believe the separate school funding is an outgrowth of that.
 
Ex-Montreal Girl said:
Technically, there is no separation of Church and State in Canada, not the way we understand it in the US.
Click to expand...

Yes, which i totally see outside of Quebec, which is another debate all together (that maybe we should be more 'officially' secular)...

My only point is that within Quebec it is not without precedence to use the Notwithstanding clause in order to preserve cultural values, as with language. I just don't necessarily know that this automatically makes people there intolerant or racist, as Canadians outside of Quebec - arguably somewhat hypocritically - are quick to perceive it to be?
 
Ex-Montreal Girl said:
No I don't think so. I am pretty sure Catholic schools are funded because of a deal at Confederation that had nothing to do with the Charter or even the BNA Act.

As I say earlier in this thread, the British were very intent on keeping the French-Canadians onboard after the Conquest and so allowed them to keep their Church and Civil Code. I believe the separate school funding is an outgrowth of that.
Click to expand...
The second line of this is correct. It was a deal, but it actually was written into the BNA Act, in section 93. There is already some case law from the Supreme Court that because it is in there it is immune to challenge using the Charter. They said Ontario's right to offer a separate education system based only on the Catholic Church, and to not give such opportunity to any other religion is a "plenary power", which basically means it is out of the scope of the Charter.
 
Jonny5 said:
The second line of this is correct. It was a deal, but it actually was written into the BNA Act, in section 93. There is already some case law from the Supreme Court that because it is in there it is immune to challenge using the Charter. They said Ontario's right to offer a separate education system based only on the Catholic Church, and to not give such opportunity to any other religion is a "plenary power", which basically means it is out of the scope of the Charter.
Click to expand...
It cannot be challenged, but Ontario could do as Québec did in 1997 and ask for a constitutional amendment to allow for purely language-based school boards. All they needed was a vote of the National Assembly, and another vote of the House of Commons.
 
Bayer said:
It cannot be challenged, but Ontario could do as Québec did in 1997 and ask for a constitutional amendment to allow for purely language-based school boards. All they needed was a vote of the National Assembly, and another vote of the House of Commons.
Click to expand...
I find it curious when people are so upset with what happened to the teacher in hijab in Quebec. We, in Ontario, have an entire school system that bans anyone wearing a hijab (or any other symbol other than the cross) from being employed. A teacher in Ontario in Hijab has about 35% fewer opportunities as a teacher. On the Francophone side, non-Catholic teachers have 80% fewer opportunities (French catholic system still dominates, French public schools are a relatively new thing in Ontario). We aren't much better here, in fact, I think it's worse.
 
Xenophobia still alive and well in Quebec. First the religious symbols ban aka the "Hijab ban" now this. The future of Quebec is unemployed white people. Immigrants, young people, anglophones will move to the GTA and the rest of Ontario, because they are “threat” to the French culture.

Quebec legislature adopts controversial Bill 96 language reform​


https://www.cp24.com/news/quebec-legislature-adopts-controversial-bill-96-language-reform-1.5916507


www.thestar.com

Supriya Dwivedi: Quebec runs roughshod over Charter rights while feds stay largely silent — again

The fact we’re not having a serious conversation about the casual use of the notwithstanding clause to undermine fundamental rights is just bonkers.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com


ottawacitizen.com

Bill 96 will impede access to health care in English, legal experts warn

The main issue with the bill is that "for the first time, it prohibits certain communications," said Montreal lawyer Eric Maldoff.
ottawacitizen.com ottawacitizen.com



https://twitter.com/x/status/1528395368412631042
 
There's some glitches in Bill 96 that won't do what was intended, and a lack of consultation with indigenous communities on how this will negatively impact them - but in my opinion it's a tempest in a tea cup compared to the very prejudicial law that pretty much eliminates many jobs for male Sikhs and some female Muslims.

Or her majesty.

1653684077665.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top