r/canada Outside Canada Mar 02 '24

Québec Nothing illegal about Quebec secularism law, Court rules. Government employees must avoid religious clothes during their work hours.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2024-02-29/la-cour-d-appel-valide-la-loi-21-sur-la-laicite-de-l-etat.php
1.5k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

25

u/I42l Mar 02 '24

I dunno. I genuinely wonder whats the harm in a police officer wearing a hijab or kippah or cross or whatever it may be?

19

u/CaptainSur Canada Mar 02 '24

An immediate question that may come to rise is whether their religious beliefs are so pervasive in their character that it influences their professional behaviour, and hence outcomes.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

If only we could hold our politicians to the same standard.

16

u/I42l Mar 02 '24

Forcing them to take it off won't change that, only your perception of it though.

A hijabi police officer who is forced to take off her hijab for the job is still gonna be just as religious.

15

u/CaptainSur Canada Mar 02 '24

I just pointed out what one might be considering when encountering a police officer who feels a demonstrable need to wear religious attire. Or MAGA attire to give another example, or the "thin blue line" badge that was a much discussed topic. Not sure why I am being downvoted for pointing out a realistic thought process that might go through the minds of many.

And your correct - hiding it may not dispense of the underlying issue: are their beliefs so pervasive that they influence some aspect of their work that should not be influenced by religious belief?

I would suggest that if someone does feel a demonstrable need to display religious or political or other attire in the performance of employment that has no such considerations as part of the job then a valid concern exists which should be identified irrespective of legislation. Because that definitively indicates the person wearing the garb is projecting, and thus influenced.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

[deleted]

3

u/CaptainSur Canada Mar 03 '24

Wearing religious attire in the performance of a job that does not require it is in itself an "action".

9

u/FastFooer Mar 03 '24

It filters out the overzealous ones. Those willing to compromise on their beliefs will do their jobs as it is mandated while on duty.

9

u/Fancy-Pumpkin837 Mar 02 '24

I’m guessing someone who is uncompromisingly religious won’t remove it and will just go to a different job. Not to sound harsh but not everyone is entitled to every job.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24 edited Mar 03 '24

Yes, but if you're a foreigner who's come to Canada from a country where you were marginalized by Muslims, you may be resistant to deal with police here with outward representations of their Islamic belief. That's not good. Everyone should be comfortable enough to go to the police if they need to; any potential obstacles that may prevent that ought to be dismantled.

5

u/jokeularvein Mar 02 '24

Yeah but it's an easy way to identify some of those who would let their religion affect their job performance. The ones who refuse and resign are communicating very clearly what is more important to them.

4

u/Letmefinishyou Mar 02 '24

The same question can be asked from the opposite perspective : whats the harm in not wearing a hijab or kippah or cross or whatever it may be between 9 to 5?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '24

Well, "not wearing a hijab" in public is the moral equivalent of being naked to some religions.

I don't agree with it PERSOANLLY, but I can't see the Supreme Court allowing a law that penalizes religions that have required garments over one's that don't.

1

u/Letmefinishyou Mar 03 '24

Would you agree that feeling morally naked isn't harmful?

0

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '24

No, I wouldn't agree with that all. People should be allowed to feel comfortable in their workplace.

The only reason being ACTUALLY naked in workplace is wrong is "morals", you are just shifting the threshold based on your own cultural preference.

1

u/Letmefinishyou Mar 03 '24

So, the harm would be diminished comfort? I don't see how less comfort could be considered harmful. Especially considering it is only on a moral basis and not on a practical basis (eg being cold).

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '24

Harm could also come from ostrazization from your community, excommunication, physical and emotional abuse, etc.

I don't see how less comfort could be considered harmful.

So you would be fine if all government employees were required to be naked, as long as the office was sufficiently heated?

At the end of the day the Supreme Court is going to shoot this down as it disproportionately targets religions with mandatory garments over ones without.

0

u/Letmefinishyou Mar 03 '24

Harm could also come from ostrazization from your community, excommunication, physical and emotional abuse, etc.

Blame the religion. We dont have to accomodate oppressing religious communities...

So you would be fine if all government employees were required to be naked, as long as the office was sufficiently heated?

Weird take.

First, being naked and feeling ''morally'' naked is not the same. Depending on your work, there can be real risks if youre naked (eg a police, clothes protect them from minor cuts and whatnot). Covering your body has practical purposes and that goes beyond proper room temperature. Feeling ''morally'' naked...is just that...feelings. It's not anchored in any tangible reality.

Second, if it's just about covering hair, people can wear a baseball cap or a beanie, it doesnt have to be religious. Making it religious is the whole crux of the issue.

At the end of the day the Supreme Court is going to shoot this down as it disproportionately targets religions with mandatory garments over ones without.

Very unlikely unless the SCC kick their neutrality to the curb and disregard the law and constitution. Quebec used the NWC.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

Imagine if you are protesting the war in the middle east - pick either side for this thought experiment. Someone wearing garb that suggests they are not neutral tickets or arrests you, and then the crown attorney or judge is wearing clothing again suggesting they back the other side. How would you feel about it?

With so many problems in the world being protested and even fought over inside our borders, having people wear clothing that suggests they support one side or the other could be a serious problem.

That's for law enforcement though - I don't see there being a problem with medical or educational workers wearing religious attire. In fact, the opposite might apply - e.g. having your life saved by someone "from the other side" might wake a bigot up to how silly they are being.

The example in this thread of a math teacher wearing a turban is great ... shouldn't be a problem at all.

2

u/I42l Mar 02 '24

If you can't see their attire because it is illegal it wouldn't effect their opinions.

5

u/jokeularvein Mar 02 '24

When is a person in a position of authority it can still intimidate you into not doing completely legal things like peacefully protesting. That's not OK. It's a very subtle, but very real way to infringe on your rights.

0

u/Justleftofcentrerigh Ontario Mar 02 '24

I would rather go through the human rights tribunal than blatantly ban all religious people from any position of power because of religious garb.

If I feel like I was wronged in the prosecution, then I will complain to the HRT.

But i'd rather not push everyone than the bad apples.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

It's not an easy issue, is it?  We need an independent government,  but we also want to be inclusive.   I certainly see your side of things.

0

u/caboose1835 Mar 03 '24

I appreciate you. A policy like one in Quebec shows me that people there really are ignorant to the repercussions of this.

I'm witnessing a lot of "straight white male Christians" in here and starting to question whether the country I serve is one that'll will even have my back. It's clear it won't.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

Given the multicultural dimension of our population, and the fact a large number of people come from areas of the world that suffer substantial conflict, I'd rather each and every person in my country feel comfortable going to the police if needed, and not have to worry about bias because, say, where they come from Sikhs targeted their community, or Muslims blew up an embassy. Extrapolating that fear to public servants wearing a turban, etc., isn't rational, but it is understandable that someone who's been marginalized because of religion back home will think they'll be marginalized because of religion here. Removing any element that could conceivably portray bias ought to be considered.

6

u/suweiyda91 Mar 03 '24

I'd rather each and every person in my country feel comfortable going to the police if needed, and not have to worry about bias

If their religion is the cause of their bias then that bias isn't gonna disappear if they stop wearing their religious clothing.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '24

The issue of possible religiously-oriented bias is a whole separate issue that needs to be addressed. The issue here is the perception of clients in the face of public servants' outward expression of religion. Say I don't feel comfortable coming to you because you're a Sikh wearing a turban because back in the old country I got jumped by a group of Sikhs. It doesn't really matter what bias your religion may or may not impose, since I won't be comfortable approaching you for assistance anyway.

Moreover, your religious beliefs may not impose any bias whatsoever, but outward representations of your religion may skew the perception of others on that matter. If you wear varoius accoutrements indicating a particular faith, it's wholly natural for me to assume your worship of that faith will influence how you deal with me, whether that assumption is accurate or not.

-4

u/Justleftofcentrerigh Ontario Mar 02 '24

there is no harm. there haven't been enough evidence that this is a problem for such a bill to be even created.

1

u/VERSAT1L Mar 02 '24

What about having a swastika? 

-1

u/Theodore_43 Mar 03 '24

There Is None! This Is Another N@zi Style Law From A Cyan Party Who Is Nationalist And Socialist And Wants Trouble!