Quebec proposes banning religious headwear for public workers

[KevanG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24041497

Quebec mulls religious headwear ban for public workers
The Canadian province of Quebec has proposed banning public workers from wearing religious headwear, including Muslim scarves and Jewish skullcaps.


The proposed measure was unveiled on Tuesday by the minority Parti Quebecois, a separatist party which controls the provincial government.
Supporters say the ban, which would apply to teachers, police officers and others, would promote secular society. But opponents say it would violate public workers' religious freedom.The government of the mainly French-speaking province says the proposed Charter of Quebec Values, as the law is named, promotes state neutrality on religion, including among those who work in the public sector.
"That's why the government of Quebec is proposing to ban public employees from wearing ostentatious religious symbols during work hours," Bernard Drainville, the Quebec minister of democratic institutions, said in a new conference on Tuesday.
Those include "very obvious symbols" which "send a clear message: 'I am a believer and this is my religion,'" he said.


Legal challenge expected

The proposed law would ban prominent crucifixes, all manner of Islamic covering, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps but would allow public workers to wear discreet religious symbols including small crucifixes or a Jewish Star of David.
The ban would not apply to elected officials because people have a right to choose their representation, Mr Drainville said.
The minority Parti Quebecois government must win support from another party in order to enact the measure, and officials say it will be introduced for debate later in the year.
Political leaders and religious groups have already voiced opposition to the measure.
"They're trying to remove religious freedoms. They're trying to impose rules on religious values," Harvey Levine, president of the Quebec branch of the Jewish organization B'nai Brith, told Reuters.
The federal government has said it will seek the advice of the Department of Justice and suggested the measure could face legal challenges should it be approved.

I'd like to say this was a joke but knowing Quebec it isn't. From what I've heard around here it's supposed to be a gathering point for Seperatists so they can say "See? They won't let us do what we want so we should seperate from Canada!"

Anyone else weirded out about this?

 

[Teelie]

Quebec always seems to be the province that wants to start **** up in Canada. Requiring bi-lingual English and French, constantly trying to seperate and now religious intolerance.

 

[Duran Man]

I'm not bothered by this.

 

[Pink Ranger]

It's basically the equivalent of the North Carolina law banning sharia law. It's meant to incite public sentiment against Muslims and, to a lesser extent, Jews and Indians as well.

Like any good extremist movement, the separatists are using this law to distract the general public from the fact that they drive business out of Quebec every time they take power. Classic left-wing racism.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

The classic questions regarding the relevancy of a law.

Does it happen THAT often?
Is this affecting many people?
How much is it affecting people?
Will the law inconvenience an equal or larger amount of people that it purports to help?

 

[Pink Ranger]

The classic questions regarding the relevancy of a law.

Does it happen THAT often?
Is this affecting many people?
How much is it affecting people?
Will the law inconvenience an equal or larger amount of people that it purports to help?

Good list. And this law fails all four tests.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I'm all for freedom of religious expression, on the other hand, I can see the argument that the headwear is a form of oppression, which has no place in a free liberal democracy.

 

[Teelie]

It's only oppressive if it is forced on them, which is not always the case despite the reports.

 

[Figs]

It's basically the equivalent of the North Carolina law banning sharia law. It's meant to incite public sentiment against Muslims and, to a lesser extent, Jews and Indians as well.

Like any good extremist movement, the separatists are using this law to distract the general public from the fact that they drive business out of Quebec every time they take power. Classic left-wing racism.

Which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Look up some of the places in the UK that have allowed sharia law and what's been going on.

 

[Destructus86]

You know...if someone wants to wear a headband or a turban or a cross to work. I'm fine with it. It's not hurting me.

 

[Pink Ranger]

You know...if someone wants to wear a headband or a turban or a cross to work. I'm fine with it. It's not hurting me.

Except you have to put yourself in a position of being a purebred Aryan French-Canadian, who constantly feels their culture is under seige.

 

[chamber-music]

You guys have started banning everything. What happened Canada you used to be cool

[BBC NEWS] - Canada 'orders Briton to stop selling Marmite and Irn Bru

Canada 'orders Briton to stop selling Marmite and Irn Bru'

The owner of a British food shop in Canada says he has been ordered to stop selling Marmite, Ovaltine and Irn Bru because they contain illegal additives.

Tony Badger, who owns Brit Foods in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, told local media that food safety officials had removed the foods from his shelves.

Other affected products include Lucozade, Penguin Bars and Bovril.

Mr Badger said he had been selling the items since 1997, and had never had problems in the past.

"We've been bringing Irn-Bru in since the very beginning," he told CKOM. The bright orange caffeinated drink is particularly popular in Scotland, but sold in countries around the world.

"My understanding was we were importing legally. We've been declaring it through a customs broker and we've never had an issue until now," said Mr Badger.

Expensive delays

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is reportedly cracking down on the sale of such goods and increasing its inspections of suppliers.

Irn Bru contains at least one additive - Ponceau 4R - which has been linked to hyperactivity and does not appear on the approved food list in Canada.

The other products are banned because they are "enriched with vitamins and mineral" while some canned foods and soup contained too much animal product.

The CFIA could not be reached for comment.

Mr Badger said he first ran into trouble in October when his Christmas stock was seized as it was imported from Britain. Then last week, officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency came to his shop to confiscate the remaining produce.

"The concern now is, with the next shipment, if it gets held there may be new issues with new products, so it somewhat paralyses our ability to bring new product in," he said, adding the delays had already cost him thousands of dollars.

But he said the agency was now conducting a health assessment on the foods to determine whether they were fit for sale.

"I haven't heard of anyone dying from consuming Irn-Bru in Britain," he said. "So hopefully we will get a favourable decision."

One customer, Briton Nigel Westwick, told the Star Phoenix newspaper that he "couldn't understand the insanity" of preventing Irn Bru from entering Canada.

"For a country that allows one to buy firearms, guns, bullets... stopping a soft drink suitable for all ages seems a little ludicrous."

You might destroy Scotland's economy banning Irn-Bru. Irn-Bru and Whiskey are the only drinks Scotland has

 

[The Question]

I'm conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I'm all for freedom of religious expression, on the other hand, I can see the argument that the headwear is a form of oppression, which has no place in a free liberal democracy.

"There's nothing wrong with a religion whose laws say a man's got to wear a beard or cover his head or wear a collar. It's when violation of these laws become a crime against the state and not your parents that we're talking about lack of choice." - Aaron Sorkin

 

[KevanG]

My thread came back from oblivion. Yay.

 

[Manic]

Isn't it a tad presumptive to think people who wear religious headwear are being oppressed? I mean, have you ever talked to someone who wears a turban/hijab/yarmulke/etc. and asked why? Most of the time, it's out of choice and respect for their (respective) gods, not a fear that their families or co-worshipers will punish them.

That's not to deny horrible things and actual oppression happen in regards to this kind of stuff, but you don't hear about it happening very often in North America.

 

[Teelie]

It's cultural I think. We see these people of another culture wearing obscuring clothing and see it as a kind of censorship which is almost always without fail forced on the censored.

Instead we miss that some people are willing and able to self-censor. Or in this case, follow a cultural edict voluntarily. In some cases it is forced but that is not all cases.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Isn't it a tad presumptive to think people who wear religious headwear are being oppressed? I mean, have you ever talked to someone who wears a turban/hijab/yarmulke/etc. and asked why? Most of the time, it's out of choice and respect for their (respective) gods, not a fear that their families or co-worshipers will punish them.

That's not to deny horrible things and actual oppression happen in regards to this kind of stuff, but you don't hear about it happening very often in North America.

Yes. I have, actually. I have known women who had no choice.

Even in Western countries. Even in North America.

Have you ever been to a country where it is state mandated for women to cover themselves?

 

[Manic]

And I've talked to people who wear religious covering purely by choice. I even said I won't deny that it does get forced on people. It's not clear cut, is what I'm saying.

 

[Thundercrack85]

And being an atheist, I admittedly don't much care.

 

[Pink Ranger]

And being an atheist, I admittedly don't much care.

You should, actually. The proposed ban conspicuously does not cover Christian symbols, like the crucifix hanging in the legislative assembly.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You should, actually. The proposed ban conspicuously does not cover Christian symbols, like the crucifix hanging in the legislative assembly.

Well, I meant the people saying it's a choice.

The crucifix hanging from the legislative assembly would be a different issue (which I am against as well).

Forced covering is a separate issue for me.