6 ms·

"Not sure I'd necessarily say racist..." "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..." Our Charter clearly states a person can

"Not sure I'd necessarily say racist..." "It's not as though working FOR the government is some sort of human right..." Our Charter clearly states a person can't be judged bases off of sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I don't care what you call it, it's fucking wrong. I also don't care where you are from, in Canada, you don't judge people based off those things. Everyone has a right to those jobs, and to all jobs, unless they don't have the skills.

Mikeb85 13y ago
Since when is covering your face a religious issue? My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face, nor does any of her family, most of whom have been to Hajj and are quite religious. My wife's face wasn't covered when we were married by a Sunni Imam in a Muslim ceremony. So is requiring someone's face to be visible a religious issue? A racism issue? What is it? How about tucking in a chain? Does that infringe on someone's religious beliefs? Should government employees have no dress code? Come in to work wearing a baseball cap?
- bostonpete 13y ago
  > My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face How does this behavior of your wife say anything about what is or is not a religious issue for others?
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    It doesn't, but it is a little anecdote to illustrate that what some people claim is an essential religious belief isn't necessarily so. Plenty of questionable behaviour gets glossed over as a 'religious' belief. Carrying weapons, polygamy, subjecting women and minorities, violence, etc... There absolutely has to be a line in the sand concerning what we as a society are willing to accept. Some fundamentalist Christians think they should burn witches and homosexuals, and in the past, did. Yet our society no longer considers that acceptable.
    - richardlblair 13y ago
      Completely off topic, but what is your issue with polygamy? This is something that is illegal in Canada, and I find it puzzling. TBH, I don't see the issue with it. If you take away the fact that Warren Jeffs is complete fuck tart, polygamists seem to have the same issues you would find in monogamous relationships. Are there stories that are horrible, yes, but you find that everywhere else. When you look at the facts, are there more/worse issues in plural marriages?
      - Mikeb85 13y ago
        I have no issue with Polygamy. But some people do, and our governments evidently do as well. Polygamy is accepted by many religions, and we have no problem trouncing those rights, yet we will bend over backwards for other questionable 'rights' (like the Burqa/Niqab, which is not 'required' except by extremist sects - and is nearly universally regarded as a tool of oppression).
      - derefr 13y ago
        "Polygamy" is a word that really isn't used to mean the thing its component parts imply (marriage for polyamorous people.) Instead, it's usually both mixed-age and arranged: effectively, families coercing their daughters to join the harem of a rich man. (There may also be a dowry, in which case the family is selling their daughter into the harem of a rich man.) This is a pretty bad thing, but it's hard to write a fully-general (e.g. gender-neutral) legal definition of it that doesn't also cause problems for regular poly people.
      - richardlblair 13y ago
        I would honestly say that we need to look at our stance on polygamy. It seems kind of pointless to make it illegal (from the little knowledge I have on this specific topic). I mean, every everyone is a consenting adult, what does it matter?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam. > Should government employees have no dress code? Except insofar as dress is actually related to the performance of the substantive duties of the job, probably.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    > Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam. Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional, including many Sunni scholars, and every moderate Islamic sect. Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?
    - ramy_d 13y ago
      Canada infringes on polygamy for a very specific reason, from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_... In November, 2011 the court released its 335 pages long decision, which was that the polygamy abolition law is indeed constitutional, but that it should not be used to persecute minors for having taken part of a polygamous marriage.[21] Chief Justice Robert Bauman conceded that there is a conflict between this law and some civil right principles, but stated that there are other and "more important" issues which in this case takes precedence. He wrote (as quoted by CBC news[21]): "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. More specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage". Bauman argued that there are cases where the "wives" (who may be rather young; sometimes as young as 12 years) are abducted and abused, but because they believe in a faith promoting polygamy, they are not willing to bring complaints to the authorities. He reasons that these offences sometimes may be stopped by applying anti-polygamy legislation. The decision was welcomed by the attorney general of British Columbia, and by a representative for the group Stop Polygamy in Canada. Likewise, according to the CBC news,[21] some polyamorous groups in Canada expressed their relief, since Bauman had stated that the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions. === reference [21] is a broken link on wikipedia, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy... so i offer this one instead: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/568/B.C.-court-upholds-polygamy-law.html?print=1&tmpl=component http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/568/B.C.-court-u... it is more focused on the harm aspect and does not notice the polyamorous angle.
- richardlblair 13y ago
  To be entirely honest, I don't really care what your wife wears. This is an issue regarding The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It is explicit. No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them. I don't really see how this is hard to understand. Be accepting, and don't judge people. It has the happy side effect of making you a better person, too. (Note, I'm not religious at all. I'm here advocating based entirely on my belief that we have an amazing Charter of Rights)
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    > No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them. So police and government officials shouldn't be able to identify someone wearing a Niqab? Hiding one's identity is a safety issue, and harm could follow... I fully agree with the rest BTW, but you do need to realize, there are unsavoury practices around the world that are justified by 'religious' belief...
    - CanSpice 13y ago
      I'm not sure how wearing a Niqab while doing your desk job somehow constitutes a security risk.
    - richardlblair 13y ago
      I don't subscribe to the "if you are wearing a Niqab you are a terrorist" belief. You have a better chance of choking on your own vomit then being attack by a terrorist. Politicians use the "safety" concern argument to make you accept it, but just because the news lady tells you about a single incident about a person wearing a Niqab doesn't mean anything. the unsavory things you speak of around the world, well, they aren't here.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Since when is covering your face a religious issue? The proposal forbids a variety of religious adornments, for more than those involving face covering. I have no problem identifying someone in a hijab (headscarf), for example, which would also be outlawed for government employees under this proposal.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Since when is covering your face a religious issue? My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face, nor does any of her family, most of whom have been to Hajj and are quite religious. My wife's face wasn't covered when we were married by a Sunni Imam in a Muslim ceremony. So is requiring someone's face to be visible a religious issue? A racism issue? What is it? How about tucking in a chain? Does that infringe on someone's religious beliefs? Should government employees have no dress code? Come in to work wearing a baseball cap?

bostonpete 13y ago
> My wife is Muslim (and black), she doesn't cover her face How does this behavior of your wife say anything about what is or is not a religious issue for others?
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  It doesn't, but it is a little anecdote to illustrate that what some people claim is an essential religious belief isn't necessarily so. Plenty of questionable behaviour gets glossed over as a 'religious' belief. Carrying weapons, polygamy, subjecting women and minorities, violence, etc... There absolutely has to be a line in the sand concerning what we as a society are willing to accept. Some fundamentalist Christians think they should burn witches and homosexuals, and in the past, did. Yet our society no longer considers that acceptable.
  - richardlblair 13y ago
    Completely off topic, but what is your issue with polygamy? This is something that is illegal in Canada, and I find it puzzling. TBH, I don't see the issue with it. If you take away the fact that Warren Jeffs is complete fuck tart, polygamists seem to have the same issues you would find in monogamous relationships. Are there stories that are horrible, yes, but you find that everywhere else. When you look at the facts, are there more/worse issues in plural marriages?
    - Mikeb85 13y ago
      I have no issue with Polygamy. But some people do, and our governments evidently do as well. Polygamy is accepted by many religions, and we have no problem trouncing those rights, yet we will bend over backwards for other questionable 'rights' (like the Burqa/Niqab, which is not 'required' except by extremist sects - and is nearly universally regarded as a tool of oppression).
    - derefr 13y ago
      "Polygamy" is a word that really isn't used to mean the thing its component parts imply (marriage for polyamorous people.) Instead, it's usually both mixed-age and arranged: effectively, families coercing their daughters to join the harem of a rich man. (There may also be a dowry, in which case the family is selling their daughter into the harem of a rich man.) This is a pretty bad thing, but it's hard to write a fully-general (e.g. gender-neutral) legal definition of it that doesn't also cause problems for regular poly people.
    - richardlblair 13y ago
      I would honestly say that we need to look at our stance on polygamy. It seems kind of pointless to make it illegal (from the little knowledge I have on this specific topic). I mean, every everyone is a consenting adult, what does it matter?
dragonwriter 13y ago
Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam. > Should government employees have no dress code? Except insofar as dress is actually related to the performance of the substantive duties of the job, probably.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam. Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional, including many Sunni scholars, and every moderate Islamic sect. Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?
  - ramy_d 13y ago
    Canada infringes on polygamy for a very specific reason, from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy#North_... In November, 2011 the court released its 335 pages long decision, which was that the polygamy abolition law is indeed constitutional, but that it should not be used to persecute minors for having taken part of a polygamous marriage.[21] Chief Justice Robert Bauman conceded that there is a conflict between this law and some civil right principles, but stated that there are other and "more important" issues which in this case takes precedence. He wrote (as quoted by CBC news[21]): "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. More specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage". Bauman argued that there are cases where the "wives" (who may be rather young; sometimes as young as 12 years) are abducted and abused, but because they believe in a faith promoting polygamy, they are not willing to bring complaints to the authorities. He reasons that these offences sometimes may be stopped by applying anti-polygamy legislation. The decision was welcomed by the attorney general of British Columbia, and by a representative for the group Stop Polygamy in Canada. Likewise, according to the CBC news,[21] some polyamorous groups in Canada expressed their relief, since Bauman had stated that the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions. === reference [21] is a broken link on wikipedia, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy... so i offer this one instead: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/568/B.C.-court-upholds-polygamy-law.html?print=1&tmpl=component http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/568/B.C.-court-u... it is more focused on the harm aspect and does not notice the polyamorous angle.
richardlblair 13y ago
To be entirely honest, I don't really care what your wife wears. This is an issue regarding The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. It is explicit. No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them. I don't really see how this is hard to understand. Be accepting, and don't judge people. It has the happy side effect of making you a better person, too. (Note, I'm not religious at all. I'm here advocating based entirely on my belief that we have an amazing Charter of Rights)
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > No discrimination against religious beliefs. What constitutes a belief shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate, unless that belief may cause harm to an individual or those around them. So police and government officials shouldn't be able to identify someone wearing a Niqab? Hiding one's identity is a safety issue, and harm could follow... I fully agree with the rest BTW, but you do need to realize, there are unsavoury practices around the world that are justified by 'religious' belief...
  - CanSpice 13y ago
    I'm not sure how wearing a Niqab while doing your desk job somehow constitutes a security risk.
  - richardlblair 13y ago
    I don't subscribe to the "if you are wearing a Niqab you are a terrorist" belief. You have a better chance of choking on your own vomit then being attack by a terrorist. Politicians use the "safety" concern argument to make you accept it, but just because the news lady tells you about a single incident about a person wearing a Niqab doesn't mean anything. the unsavory things you speak of around the world, well, they aren't here.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Since when is covering your face a religious issue? The proposal forbids a variety of religious adornments, for more than those involving face covering. I have no problem identifying someone in a hijab (headscarf), for example, which would also be outlawed for government employees under this proposal.