Quebec's Religious Wear Ban! Federal Party Leader Says He Wants To Defy It

[Economy 52,861]

5 minutes ago, Gabe said:

They don't *really*- I studied judicial politics- its a bit complicated but ill explain quickly. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the notwithstanding clause allows any province to overrule a court ruling (even on human rights grounds). Its very rarely used and frowned upon. Quebec is the culprit usually- the current government straight up said they were going to use it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

I didn't know that

 

I thought the Supreme Court always overruled Provincial autonomy 

[Gabe 2,587]

Just now, Economy said:

I didn't know that

 

I thought the Supreme Court always overruled Provincial autonomy 

They DOOOOO, and SHOULDDDD. but theres a loophole 😂

[Economy 52,861]

Just now, Gabe said:

They DOOOOO, and SHOULDDDD. but theres a loophole 😂

Laws and loopholes

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

Just now, DeanWinchester said:

First I must thank you for actually taking time to explain it to me. I appreciate that I got an answer.

Back on topic, I recall France having the same law several years back. Was something ever done to resolve the dispute on that? Maybe it can provide some way in addressing this? Because I don't come from a religion/culture that must wear specific items, I do not feel as strong about it as others do. I feel like this is the classic case of religion vs patriotism conflicts that are common in many scenarios. As a government official, your role is to serve and enact the law regardless of your ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. so I could see what the law is aiming for, but I suppose in hindsight it does affect certain communities much more.

To my knowledge, comparatively very few Sikhs live in France (around 10 thousand), and considering the ban, understandably so. As a result they aren't in office or government positions to the level they would be in Canada, Australia, or the UK. It did affect young Sikh boys in elementary public schools who were expelled because they refused to take off their turbans. The UN found the law that required Sikhs to remove their turbans for Govt. IDs to be in violation of human rights https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16547479 and since then apparently Sikhs are still discriminated against but I'm not completely sure. And no nothing was ever done to resolve the issue. I do know there was a slight exodus of Sikhs from France to the UK because of the issue and there is a recommendation issued from the religious order of Sikhism to not settle in France.

Tbh I don't know why one's turban, hijab, yamaka, or cross necklace should hinder someone from doing anything. It's not relevant towards one's job as a government official in the same way that someone getting a tattoo or certain hairdo is. I think those who think otherwise tend to be less culturally aware or open minded. It simply stems from ignorance 

 

[DeanWinchester 41,390]

1 minute ago, Gov Hooka said:

To my knowledge, comparatively very few Sikhs live in France (around 10 thousand), and considering the ban, understandably so. As a result they aren't in office or government positions to the level they would be in Canada, Australia, or the UK. It did affect young Sikh boys in elementary public schools who were expelled because they refused to take off their turbans. The UN found the law that required Sikhs to remove their turbans for Govt. IDs to be in violation of human rights https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16547479 and since then apparently Sikhs are still discriminated against but I'm not completely sure. And no nothing was ever done to resolve the issue. I do know there was a slight exodus of Sikhs from France to the UK because of the issue and there is a recommendation issued from the religious order of Sikhism to not settle in France.

I brought up the France thing not directly for Sikhism, but because it created an uproar with the hijab. I should have clarified.

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

2 minutes ago, DeanWinchester said:

I brought up the France thing not directly for Sikhism, but because it created an uproar with the hijab. I should have clarified.

tbh I'm not sure if it's been resolved regarding the hijab either. Though the hijab is still allowed I think because it's very different from the burqa obviously which I think is banned. I'm not too sure though

[Economy 52,861]

5 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

tbh I'm not sure if it's been resolved regarding the hijab either. Though the hijab is still allowed I think because it's very different from the burqa obviously which I think is banned. I'm not too sure though

The burqua I can at least understand the Governments point if view...

 

It can be problematic safety wise if ppl can hide their faces. Criminals could use this as a way to avoid camera detection

 

It would also be unsettling for me to get certain services like getting a document renewed and I can't see who I'm talking to

 

But for the majority of religious wear, there's nothing problematic about them

[Guest]

7 hours ago, DeanWinchester said:

I mean if it applies to all religious clothing it shouldn't be a big deal. There is no discrimination in theory 

Thats like saying if we deny everyone the right to use free speech, it shouldnt be a big deal. There is no discrimination in theory.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Economy said:

The burqua I can at least understand the Governments point if view...

 

It can be problematic safety wise if ppl can hide their faces. Criminals could use this as a way to avoid camera detection

 

It would also be unsettling for me to get certain services like getting a document renewed and I can't see who I'm talking to

 

But for the majority of religious wear, there's nothing problematic about them

I agree with you, this is a different case than religious symbols.

The Burqa is not even a religious thing. Its a cultural thing in the gulf countries. In Islam, if you want to go to Mecca, women have to uncover their faces.