Does wearing a religious symbol prevent someone from doing their (public service) job?

Mycroft said:

I'd say it depends on the job...and mainly for safety considerations.

Does Canada have a 1st Amendment type of thing in their Constitution?

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

I am not talking about a Kim Davis situation letting her religion prevent her doing her job but literally just wearing a religious symbol like a hijab or kippah. Does wearing a hijab make it inappropriate for teachers to teach children? Does wearing a kippah make it impossible for judges to make fair judgments? Does wearing a turban make it impossible for doctors to effectively treat patients?

The CAQ, the government of Quebec sure thinks so. They want to ban all public servants from wearing religious symbols like the the hijab, kippah, or turban. Why? Something, something secular values and preserving culture. Even the philosopher and the historian/sociologist (not public policy experts) who did the report making the "recommendation" for the measure to the government in 2008 on this subject do not support this bill with one denouncing the bill and the report entirely and the other saying it should exclude teachers. Representatives from all three levels of government and minority communities are decrying the discrimination in this bill this including Anglophones, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc. Many saying they will refuse to enforce it. Sure people currently in the public service are grandfathered in, which just proves the action has literally no point, but current students in law, education, medicine, social work, or others are being told find new jobs or give up their religious identity even if they are only a few months away from graduation or looking for work in their field. I would imagine it also applies to MLAs, just imagine your elected representative not not allowed to sit in the legislature and represent you just because of their religious identity. Just imagine you spend a decade in school to become a doctor or lawyer just to be told you now need to find a new line of work because of your religious identity.

What is next? Banning Anglophones from the public service? Revoking work permits of immigrants who wear religious symbols? I am sure Quebec would be angry if other provinces started banning French being spoken in the public service, in the name of preserving culture. They even decided to invoke the notwithstanding which means that the law can infringe upon constitutional rights for at least 5 years, making it a permanent election issue until it is revoked.

All the CAQ has done since taking power is undermine and with this measure discriminate against any group who did not vote for them but for the Liberals instead whether that be religious minorities (Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc.), Anglophones, immigrants, or Montrealers. Unbelievably the majority of Quebecois support this bill, choosing to ignore all the problems and the blatant discrimination because they are not affected.

So do you support the CAQ in saying wearing a religious symbol prevents someone from doing their (public service) job?

Click to expand...

Grand Mal said:

I don't know what's wrong with those people. Wasn't there a big kefuffle awhile ago about it becoming illegal to cover your face in Quebec? Whatever happened around that?
I guess if this passes through it'll disqualify Jagmeet Singh from Parliament, in the eyes of the Quebec government.
Half the Catholics I know wear a cross around their necks. How does that work in French Canada?

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

Yes religious discrimination is not allowed according to our constitution but the use of the notwithstanding clause allows provinces to ignore that for five years, with having to be renewed at that point.

This is not for safety considerations, that is a settled issue, this is banning religious symbols being worn by public employees purely because of the symbolism and what the CAQ thinks is "secularism".

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

I hope Catholics don't show up at work on a particular Wed wearing their ashes.

Click to expand...

Risky Thicket said:

Why is that?

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

I am not talking about a Kim Davis situation letting her religion prevent her doing her job but literally just wearing a religious symbol like a hijab or kippah. Does wearing a hijab make it inappropriate for teachers to teach children? Does wearing a kippah make it impossible for judges to make fair judgments? Does wearing a turban make it impossible for doctors to effectively treat patients?

The CAQ, the government of Quebec sure thinks so. They want to ban all public servants from wearing religious symbols like the the hijab, kippah, or turban. Why? Something, something secular values and preserving culture. Even the philosopher and the historian/sociologist (not public policy experts) who did the report making the "recommendation" for the measure to the government in 2008 on this subject do not support this bill with one denouncing the bill and the report entirely and the other saying it should exclude teachers. Representatives from all three levels of government and minority communities are decrying the discrimination in this bill this including Anglophones, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc. Many saying they will refuse to enforce it. Sure people currently in the public service are grandfathered in, which just proves the action has literally no point, but current students in law, education, medicine, social work, or others are being told find new jobs or give up their religious identity even if they are only a few months away from graduation or looking for work in their field. I would imagine it also applies to MLAs, just imagine your elected representative not not allowed to sit in the legislature and represent you just because of their religious identity. Just imagine you spend a decade in school to become a doctor or lawyer just to be told you now need to find a new line of work because of your religious identity.

What is next? Banning Anglophones from the public service? Revoking work permits of immigrants who wear religious symbols? I am sure Quebec would be angry if other provinces started banning French being spoken in the public service, in the name of preserving culture. They even decided to invoke the notwithstanding which means that the law can infringe upon constitutional rights for at least 5 years, making it a permanent election issue until it is revoked.

All the CAQ has done since taking power is undermine and with this measure discriminate against any group who did not vote for them but for the Liberals instead whether that be religious minorities (Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc.), Anglophones, immigrants, or Montrealers. Unbelievably the majority of Quebecois support this bill, choosing to ignore all the problems and the blatant discrimination because they are not affected.

So do you support the CAQ in saying wearing a religious symbol prevents someone from doing their (public service) job?

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

Does this law apply to Christian symbols as well?

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

Does this law apply to Christian symbols as well?

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

I am not talking about a Kim Davis situation letting her religion prevent her doing her job but literally just wearing a religious symbol like a hijab or kippah. Does wearing a hijab make it inappropriate for teachers to teach children? Does wearing a kippah make it impossible for judges to make fair judgments? Does wearing a turban make it impossible for doctors to effectively treat patients?

The CAQ, the government of Quebec sure thinks so. They want to ban all public servants from wearing religious symbols like the the hijab, kippah, or turban. Why? Something, something secular values and preserving culture. Even the philosopher and the historian/sociologist (not public policy experts) who did the report making the "recommendation" for the measure to the government in 2008 on this subject do not support this bill with one denouncing the bill and the report entirely and the other saying it should exclude teachers. Representatives from all three levels of government and minority communities are decrying the discrimination in this bill this including Anglophones, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc. Many saying they will refuse to enforce it. Sure people currently in the public service are grandfathered in, which just proves the action has literally no point, but current students in law, education, medicine, social work, or others are being told find new jobs or give up their religious identity even if they are only a few months away from graduation or looking for work in their field. I would imagine it also applies to MLAs, just imagine your elected representative not not allowed to sit in the legislature and represent you just because of their religious identity. Just imagine you spend a decade in school to become a doctor or lawyer just to be told you now need to find a new line of work because of your religious identity.

What is next? Banning Anglophones from the public service? Revoking work permits of immigrants who wear religious symbols? I am sure Quebec would be angry if other provinces started banning French being spoken in the public service, in the name of preserving culture. They even decided to invoke the notwithstanding which means that the law can infringe upon constitutional rights for at least 5 years, making it a permanent election issue until it is revoked.

All the CAQ has done since taking power is undermine and with this measure discriminate against any group who did not vote for them but for the Liberals instead whether that be religious minorities (Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc.), Anglophones, immigrants, or Montrealers. Unbelievably the majority of Quebecois support this bill, choosing to ignore all the problems and the blatant discrimination because they are not affected.

So do you support the CAQ in saying wearing a religious symbol prevents someone from doing their (public service) job?

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

Yes but I am not aware of anything mainline Christians wear that is not optional and fundamental to their religious identity. The CAQ has made it quite clear this is about hijabs, kippahs, turbans, etc.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

Your mention of “mainline Christians” makes me suspicious that you would have no issue with this if it affected primarily Christians.

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

I voted "other" so I'll explain. My vote has less to do with the employee who wears religious dress than the possible reaction of the public they serve. A Jewish child might be intimidated by a teacher wearing hijab, for example. This doesn't mean that the teacher couldn't be effective, but it would be an issue that the teacher would have to work to overcome.

Click to expand...

X Factor said:

I don’t know. Is this any worse than a member of the military having their clothing strictly controlled? Certainly a private business can set out its own dress code or uniform and proscribe anything that doesn’t go with it.

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

That is no reason to restrict the wearing of religious symbols in the public service. In that case the child can learn that Muslims are not there to hurt them and maybe it is the parents that need an education in religious tolerance. And if that child wears a kippah he could no longer become doctor lawyer, teacher, social worker, etc. in Quebec.

Click to expand...

bearpoker said:

Are doctors and lawyers all government employees in Quebec?
I do agree that the situation I posed could have a positive outcome. I don't think that it's a reason to ban religious dress, just that religious dress may place an additional burden on the employee.

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

I am not talking about a Kim Davis situation letting her religion prevent her doing her job but literally just wearing a religious symbol like a hijab or kippah. Does wearing a hijab make it inappropriate for teachers to teach children? Does wearing a kippah make it impossible for judges to make fair judgments? Does wearing a turban make it impossible for doctors to effectively treat patients?

The CAQ, the government of Quebec sure thinks so. They want to ban all public servants from wearing religious symbols like the the hijab, kippah, or turban. Why? Something, something secular values and preserving culture. Even the philosopher and the historian/sociologist (not public policy experts) who did the report making the "recommendation" for the measure to the government in 2008 on this subject do not support this bill with one denouncing the bill and the report entirely and the other saying it should exclude teachers. Representatives from all three levels of government and minority communities are decrying the discrimination in this bill this including Anglophones, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc. Many saying they will refuse to enforce it. Sure people currently in the public service are grandfathered in, which just proves the action has literally no point, but current students in law, education, medicine, social work, or others are being told find new jobs or give up their religious identity even if they are only a few months away from graduation or looking for work in their field. I would imagine it also applies to MLAs, just imagine your elected representative not not allowed to sit in the legislature and represent you just because of their religious identity. Just imagine you spend a decade in school to become a doctor or lawyer just to be told you now need to find a new line of work because of your religious identity.

What is next? Banning Anglophones from the public service? Revoking work permits of immigrants who wear religious symbols? I am sure Quebec would be angry if other provinces started banning French being spoken in the public service, in the name of preserving culture. They even decided to invoke the notwithstanding which means that the law can infringe upon constitutional rights for at least 5 years, making it a permanent election issue until it is revoked.

All the CAQ has done since taking power is undermine and with this measure discriminate against any group who did not vote for them but for the Liberals instead whether that be religious minorities (Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc.), Anglophones, immigrants, or Montrealers. Unbelievably the majority of Quebecois support this bill, choosing to ignore all the problems and the blatant discrimination because they are not affected.

So do you support the CAQ in saying wearing a religious symbol prevents someone from doing their (public service) job?

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Personally, I haven't seen any reference to the CAQ claiming that "wearing a religious symbol prevents someone from doing their public service job". All I've heard or seen is that many in Quebec, perhaps the majority, agreed with the CAQ before the election regarding this legislation and they are fulfilling their promise.

It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of a secular society providing services to a multicultural, multireligious, and/or nonreligious public. Those of one religion may feel, rightly or wrongly, that they will receive lesser service from someone of a different religion is that person is such a strident person of faith or the norms of that religion that they demand they wear such obvious symbols. If a Jewish person, as an example, seeks to get a driver's license and the person giving the test is an obvious Muslim in oppressive garb, and they fail the test on a subjective basis, they may feel they failed because of the Muslim's hatred of Jewish people. That's not to say that feeling would be valid or rational, but it's not impossible, and as such the government should not allow that to happen.

It's unfortunate, but divisiveness is a major part of politics in today's society - hopefully, one day, we'll get past it.

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

Why does it matter what a public employee wears though? If you think a public employee is not treating you fairly for any reason, for religious reasons or otherwise, report it. What they wear has literally nothing to do with the serviced they provide. Banning a public employee form wearing a religious symbol does literally nothing expect discriminate against that employee. For this ban to actually have an effect on anything the wearing of religious symbols must be impacting how public employees do their jobs.

Why do you defend blatant discrimination just because the majority supports it?

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

I don't consider it "blatant discrimination". No one is being forced to abandon their religion in order to hold a public service job. They're simply required to keep their religion out of the public square.

I consider it more of a discrimination that someone who doesn't speak French, particularly outside of Quebec, can be disqualified largely from, if not the vast majority, of federal public service jobs even in areas where French speaking people are a marginal part of the population.

Personally, religious garb/symbols are irrelevant to me - I'm not the slightest bit religious at this point in my life, having abandon the faith of my childhood and having no respect for any organized religion. But that doesn't change who I am and how I treat other people. I've experienced in life that many people who are adamant about their religious beliefs are some of the least respectful of others in our society.

Click to expand...

Carjosse said:

This is what I mean, you don't care about the rights of others because it does not affect you. If it was not violating peoples rights it would not need the notwithstanding clause. They are being asked to abandon their religious identity to hold a public service job, it has no effect on the job they are doing.

French is a requirement for federal jobs because they need to be able to speak French if needed to do their jobs. You are not asking someone to change their identity and violate their constitutional rights, just learn French.

Click to expand...