[Newsbot]

Title: Teacher removed from post in Quebec elementary school for wearing a hijab | Montreal Gazette
Category: Provincial Politics
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2021-12-09 09:59:02
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

The Federales are treading lightly on Bill 21, especially MPs from Quebec.

But I bet they would have a different tune if this law were passed in Alberta.

[raydan]

But is it a religious symbol?

[DrCaleb]

Is it right for a government to tell people what they can wear, even if it is a religious symbol? Does being secular mean you have to actively reject religion, instead of ignore it?

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Is it right for a government to tell people what they can wear, even if it is a religious symbol? Does being secular mean you have to actively reject religion, instead of ignore it?

The Constitution grants special rights to religions that are unavailable to those who don't subscribe to one. I've never particularly agreed with freedom of religion. What does it add to our existing rights to thought, conscience, belief, opinion, expression, etc. The cynic in me would say that the right to religion, in practice, is the right to wear funny headgear. it's amazing how often it comes down to that, something the Pastafarians have seized upon.

That said, having withered into wisdom in my dotage, I know that as much I as I wish, I can't wave away people's beliefs and traditions that I deem irrational. It ends up being a matter of tact. Being intolerant prevents social cohesion and encourages radicalization. Being too tolerant does the same thing.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Is it right for a government to tell people what they can wear, even if it is a religious symbol? Does being secular mean you have to actively reject religion, instead of ignore it?

The Constitution grants special rights to religions that are unavailable to those who don't subscribe to one. I've never particularly agreed with freedom of religion. What does it add to our existing rights to thought, conscience, belief, opinion, expression, etc. The cynic in me would say that the right to religion, in practice, is the right to wear funny headgear. it's amazing how often it comes down to that, something the Pastafarians have seized upon.

Yes, that is exactly the riff that Pastafarianism plays. How can a secular society give so many exemptions to religion? But 'Religion' is in the constitution because it over our history, has been the reason so many have faced discrimination. And it's usually been one religion versus another, not atheists vs. religion. But those rights are only for those practitioners of religion, because they are the only ones that need them. "Freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference." The rest of us already have the freedom to peacefully assemble, regardless of that clause, so it's not really giving them rights the rest of us don't have.

The Constitution also grants special rights to people who are First Nations, for the same reason. If Quebec made wearing First Nations symbols as a public servant also illegal, how well would that go over? But because the law mostly affects brown people, Quebecers keep the Crosses around their neck under their sweater, and ignore the law.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That said, having withered into wisdom in my dotage, I know that as much I as I wish, I can't wave away people's beliefs and traditions that I deem irrational. It ends up being a matter of tact. Being intolerant prevents social cohesion and encourages radicalization. Being too tolerant does the same thing.

Agreed. Which is why I asked if government excluding certain religions from public service is really secular.

[raydan]

Women dressing modestly is also a religious thing. Do we start telling female teachers to dress slutty now?

[DrCaleb]

raydan raydan:

Women dressing modestly is also a religious thing. Do we start telling female teachers to dress slutty now?

Don't tell them anything. It's not the government's job to tell people how to dress.

Dress codes can be worked out by school boards.

[raydan]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

raydan raydan:

Women dressing modestly is also a religious thing. Do we start telling female teachers to dress slutty now?

Don't tell them anything. It's not the government's job to tell people how to dress.

Dress codes can be worked out by school boards.

Exactly, I have zero problems with the Hijab. I'm sure that students don't either. Parents and government are another thing though.

[DrCaleb]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Dress codes can be worked out by school boards.

Your question got me thinking.

Quebec funds the Catholic School board. They are government employees. Are they forbidden from wearing crosses, and nuns from wearing Habits?

The Supreme Court has something to say:

$1:

"Although the state's purpose is secular, this amounts to requiring a Catholic institution to speak about its own religion in terms defined by the state rather than by its own understanding," she wrote. Telling Loyola how to explain Catholicism to its students "seriously interferes with freedom of religion."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e23533643/

IANAL, but I think that not allowing a woman to teach because she wears a headscarf might be on the wrong side of the constitution.

[DrCaleb]

raydan raydan:

Exactly, I have zero problems with the Hijab. I'm sure that students don't either. Parents and government are another thing though.

Parents and Students apparently love her.

[Zipperfish]

raydan raydan:

Women dressing modestly is also a religious thing. Do we start telling female teachers to dress slutty now?

And Raydan weighs in on this important subject.

[DrCaleb]

He likes the Library best.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The Constitution also grants special rights to people who are First Nations, for the same reason. If Quebec made wearing First Nations symbols as a public servant also illegal, how well would that go over? But because the law mostly affects brown people, Quebecers keep the Crosses around their neck under their sweater, and ignore the law.

This isn't quite accurate. The Charter, and S35 of the Constitution Act, state that the nothing in the Act will affect existing rights and freedoms granted to aboriginal people, either through treaty or English common law. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is specifically mentioned.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The Constitution also grants special rights to people who are First Nations, for the same reason. If Quebec made wearing First Nations symbols as a public servant also illegal, how well would that go over? But because the law mostly affects brown people, Quebecers keep the Crosses around their neck under their sweater, and ignore the law.

This isn't quite accurate. The Charter, and S35 of the Constitution Act, state that the nothing in the Act will affect existing rights and freedoms granted to aboriginal people, either through treaty or English common law. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is specifically mentioned.

It is a bit of interpretation, but through court decisions based on that section, they have rights like hunting and fishing, and self government based on traditional laws. Rights that the courts say existed before the constitution was proclaimed, and because some territories were never ceded nor conquered.