3 ms·
This is exactly how it works in the UK and has been since the 70s. Likewise Sikh officers in the police and military are exempt from wearing regular helmets als
by seanhunter 8y ago
This is exactly how it works in the UK and has been since the 70s. Likewise Sikh officers in the police and military are exempt from wearing regular helmets also. It's really not that big a deal, and a good example of how the balancing of different considerations around religious tolerance can occur in a liberal democracy.
- sneak 8y agoThere is nothing democratic about unequal application of the law.
- cafard 8y agoNor is there anything undemocratic, is there?
- writepub 8y agoIt's discriminatory against those not granted exceptions. The fabled separation of church and state was proposed for this exact thing - equal application of the law regardless of religion.
- seanhunter 8y agoIt's not a situation which I personally support, but in the UK (which is the example I gave) there is no separation of church and state. The head of state (the queen) is also the head of the official church, and various religious figures are granted automatic membership of the upper chamber of the legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state... My quick googling (eg http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_cs_can.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_cs_can.htm ) says that Canada has no equivalent to the "Establishment Clause" in the US constitution, and also doesn't have a strict separation.