Religious Dress ban in Canada

Religious-dress ban may force Quebecois to choose God or career | Al Jazeera America

Wow, just wow

The people of this province should stand up and demand a Canadian equivalent of freedom of religion.

What a shame.

What is it with Francophones and wanting to ban Muslim religious dress?

Dusky Mouse said:

The people of this province should stand up and demand a Canadian equivalent of freedom of religion.

What a shame.

Click to expand...

We already have one. It's Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, outlining Fundamental Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Now, technically, Quebec never signed on to the Charter, but they are subject to it. Even so, their provincial Charter also has freedom of religion listed as a fundamental freedom.

abdAlSalam said:

What is it with Francophones and wanting to ban Muslim religious dress?

Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing when I read the article.

I see no reason to ban the dress, as long as you can see the persons face. It seems like a strange thing to try to ban.

I thought Canada was the country that bragged about diversity...?

sniperelite7 said:

I thought Canada was the country that bragged about diversity...?

Click to expand...

As did I. What changed?

Skaloop said:

We already have one. It's Section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, outlining Fundamental Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Now, technically, Quebec never signed on to the Charter, but they are subject to it. Even so, their provincial Charter also has freedom of religion listed as a fundamental freedom.

Click to expand...

If so then how can this proposal stand a whisker of a chance?

Lovely Jar said:

As did I. What changed?

Click to expand...

It is Quebec, the black sheep of the provinces.

If so then how can this proposal stand a whisker of a chance?

Click to expand...

It doesn't, in the long term. However, as I mentioned, Quebec never signed on to the Charter. Technically, they have to abide by it. But there is a clause called the notwithstanding clause, which allows going against the Charter for a period of up to five years, at which time it is revisited. The notwithstanding clause has not been used by the federal government, however the Quebec provincial government has used it several times to do things that are technically unconstitutional. They could do that in this case.

I can't personally see any serious justification for this. If a particular religious dress causes serious issues, that should be dealt with on a case by case basis. For the overwhelming majority of cases, though, there should be no problem.

They should ban Islam altogether. Why should they tolerate a "religion" that encourages pedophilia and religious persecution?

Crypto said:

They should ban Islam altogether. Why should they tolerate a "religion" that encourages pedophilia and religious persecution?

Click to expand...

Another irony meter bites the dust.

ebia said:

Another irony meter bites the dust.

Click to expand...

Didn't you know that Islam encourages pedophilia and religious persecution? Muslims like to complaint because they feel persecuted or restricted in non-Muslim countries. However, how many churches are there in the Arabian peninsula? What would happen to someone who owns a Bible in Iran? Why are Christian orphans being targeted in Egypt? Why the non-Muslim population of Pakistan decreased from 19% to 1% in just a few decades? It is obvious that Muslims DO NOT believe in religious freedom. Why are they complaining?

Crypto said:

Didn't you know that Islam encourages pedophilia and religious persecution? Muslims like to complaint because they feel persecuted or restricted in non-Muslim countries. However, how many churches are there in the Arabian peninsula? What would happen to someone who owns a Bible in Iran? Why are Christian orphans being targeted in Egypt? Why the non-Muslim population of Pakistan decreased from 19% to 1% in just a few decades? It is obvious that Muslims DO NOT believe in religious freedom. Why are they complaining?

Click to expand...

Don't you understand irony?

ebia said:

Don't you understand irony?

Click to expand...

Oh, now I understand what you meant to say. Sorry.

abdAlSalam said:

What is it with Francophones and wanting to ban Muslim religious dress?

Click to expand...

Hey Pa! Who was that masked stranger.

That son is a lady in a burka just trying to make a living and get by like the rest of us.

But Pa! Why are they treating her that way?

Because son ..... umm

I know the answer Pa! Is it because they speak French?

Hi Ho Silver away.

Skaloop said:

It doesn't, in the long term. However, as I mentioned, Quebec never signed on to the Charter. Technically, they have to abide by it. But there is a clause called the notwithstanding clause, which allows going against the Charter for a period of up to five years, at which time it is revisited. The notwithstanding clause has not been used by the federal government, however the Quebec provincial government has used it several times to due things that are technically unconstitutional. They could do that in this case.

Click to expand...

More important than a technical non-signature would be the operation of either s. 1 or s. 33.

Section 1 applies limits on rights as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. However, I cannot imagine such a law passing the Oakes test. I don't see anything even close to a rational State objective, and this certainly seems like it would not be minimally invasive either.

However, Quebec has, in the past, invoked the notwithstanding clause (s. 33). This allows a Province to pass a law that would violate certain Charter rights (including those of section 2), lose in court, but then trump the court judgment by express declaration.

This power lasts only five years, but can be re-enacted. It's only been used twice in the past 30 years (both times by Quebec IIRC), but it is there.

Skaloop said:

It is Quebec, the black sheep of the provinces.

Click to expand...

I remember there was a poster on here with the name Felix. I wish he were around to weigh in because he was a proud Quebecker.

Isn't the title of this thread a bit misleading?

Paradoxum said:

I see no reason to ban the dress, as long as you can see the persons face. It seems like a strange thing to try to ban.

Click to expand...

Exactly my sentiments.