|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious neutrality and public officials
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The Quebec National Assembly yesterday passed a new law, stating that people must have their faces uncovered when receiving or delivering government services. It is widely interpreted as a government ban on Muslim women wearing the Niqab.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burqa-niqab-national-assembly-quebec-liberal-government-stephanie-vallee-1.4357463
When I was in seminary, I disagreed with one of my professors on the issue of public officials wearing religious clothing. He stated, that any religious clothing is a violation of state neutrality which would include: wearing a crucifix, wearing a turban, wearing a hijab.
I objected because interpreting it this way would mean denying employment in the public service to Sikh men for example, because their religion requires them to wear a turban, a gross violation IMHO of minority rights.
What do others think?
[ 20. October 2017, 05:34: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
When I was in seminary, I disagreed with one of my professors on the issue of public officials wearing religious clothing. He stated, that any religious clothing is a violation of state neutrality which would include: wearing a crucifix, wearing a turban, wearing a hijab.
This is clearly discriminatory in favour of Protestants and members of other religions that don't require public display of religious symbols.
Also, if you think wearing a religious symbol violates state neutrality doesn't being a religious believer violate state neutrality? Is the insinuation that religious believers are incapable of impartiality in administering their public duties? (Some are apparently, true.) The logical upshot is that religious believers are told they are not welcome in public official space.
(As a side note, does 'religious clothing' include orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs?)
[ 20. October 2017, 07:24: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think this is quite difficult.
The first point is that people should be allowed to make religious decisions about clothing that the rest of us think are stupid. We might not like the idea of women walking around hidden from view, but providing they've freely chosen to do that* the rest of us should shut up and butt out. Because the alternative is that other people can stick their oar in and tell me what I can and can't do, think, believe. And I'm not having that.
But leading on from the first point, there are times when one's spiritual awakening and conscience position has consequences. And one can't shy away from those. You might think that your conscience is telling you that you absolutely must carry a large wooden cross at all times. Not my problem, bully for you. But there might be consequences of that which mean that you have to sacrifice other things in your life that you might have otherwise done. You are probably not going to be able to be a policeman if you are an anarchist who disputes the very nature of law. Meh, that's the natural consequence of your belief.
But, third, society does have to be clear about the reasons that there might be for exclusion and does have to think hard about the consequences. A woman wearing a form of head covering might not be an appropriate person for a range of customer facing roles in a way that there is no problem for a Sikh wearing a turban - simply due to the fact that the face is covered. So there might be legitimate reasons for saying that the hypothetical Sikh is able to do more things than the hypothetical veil-wearing woman. But again, these do have to be legitimate and explained rather than stupid and random.
And fourth, I'd have thought that there is a contradiction anyway if the point of the restriction is about a heightened sense of personal modesty. It would be silly to say "oh I'm going to wear this clothing to keep my face from being seen by men" and then go out of your way to get a job where you've got to talk to a lot of men.
* which of course is a difficult thing for anyone else to determine
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Haha, welcome to the French world of laïcité.
Here are few AIUI things about ECHR rulings as interpreted in France:
- Legislation properly based on allowing a person to be identified gets a pass ("we live in the Republic with our faces visible"); legislation based on religious discrimination doesn't.
- Religious symbols are allowed, but not if they constitute a form of pressure to conform or convert.
That said, there is a lot of discrimination in practice. A women's prison I know refused access to a headscarf-wearing Muslim chaplain but regularly lets in its Catholic nuns in full garb.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I have friends who dress up as Spiderman and/or Star Wars stormtroopers. That I should then go on to object to a woman wearing a niqab would be problematic.
(eta)
It's not that seeing someone's face isn't important, but accountability is more important. Ensuring that an ID tag is correctly in place so that I can say who gave me service is what I need. Mainly because I'm properly face-blind.
[ 20. October 2017, 07:47: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
Perhaps it's fair to point out that it is not a religious requirement for Moslem women to cover their faces; it's customary in some Moslem societies - though certainly not in all - for them to do so, but neither the Koran nor the Hadith require it, the only stipulation being that women should dress 'modestly' in public, which seems reasonable enough. Sikh men on the other hand are required by their religion to wear a turban, so there's an important distinction there. If anything, St. Paul is more prescriptive about women's dress than Islam ever is!
Do I want to deal with someone whose face is covered or even partly covered? No, I don't, which is why I don't want to talk to a man wearing a motorcycle helmet or a woman wearing mirror sunglasses either. It's a question of comfort, not of religion, though some people want to make it so.
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It can be a question of safety, too.
Sikh inmates can wear turbans in most circumstances, but they're not getting their ritual daggers in, any more than registered practitioners of the Jedi religion get to bring in light sabers.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Do I want to deal with someone whose face is covered or even partly covered? No, I don't, which is why I don't want to talk to a man wearing a motorcycle helmet or a woman wearing mirror sunglasses either. It's a question of comfort, not of religion, though some people want to make it so.
That's quite a tough distinction to make though.
A person might say "I refuse to accept medication from a Roman Catholic" and then say that they're not going to be treated by a crucifix-wearing doctor, nurse or pharmacist.
Or one might have racist views about the cleanliness of Sikhs etc.
It seems to me that if there are reasons to exclude people from certain jobs, they have to be more than because x number of people don't really like the idea of dealing with a public official with their face covered.
And it doesn't matter at all whether face-covering is a "requirement" or not. The fact is that the woman in question thinks it is a requirement for her.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It can be a question of safety, too.
Sikh inmates can wear turbans in most circumstances, but they're not getting their ritual daggers in, any more than registered practitioners of the Jedi religion get to bring in light sabers.
Sikhs have an exclusion from the normal requirement to wear a helmet whilst driving a motorcycle in the UK (no idea whether this is a thing elsewhere). Sometimes they have road accidents and die as a result.
Similarly I believe there are some loosening of other requirements to wear safety headwear on building sites.
I'm not sure how to parse this.
[ 20. October 2017, 08:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Also it must be the case that a large number of public interactions with public officials are now via the phone, email or instant message.
Is anyone here claiming that those people shouldn't have their faces covered either?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
In the prison context with which I'm familiar so much time and energy is expended trying to accommodate various religious requirements in terms of diet, clothing, sacred objects, and so on. Even the Catholics keep getting into trouble for referring to our shared worship space as a "chapel" and leaving postcards of the Virgin in it.
By contrast, give Protestants a Bible and we can adapt to just about anything - which is so much less annoying and time-consuming for the authorities.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Similarly I believe there are some loosening of other requirements to wear safety headwear on building sites.
It's a requirement for employers to make sure that all employees follow HSE rules on PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), and it's normally a sackable offence to be caught not complying, since the HSE will come down (pun alert) like a ton of bricks on an employer where the rules are not enforced.
But there is a specific exemption for the employers in the case of turban-wearing Sikhs. They cannot insist the man wears a hard hat. That is all: the rest of the PPE has to be worn.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But there is a specific exemption for the employers in the case of turban-wearing Sikhs. They cannot insist the man wears a hard hat. That is all: the rest of the PPE has to be worn.
Presumably if there was a Sikh death on a building site due to the lack of a hard hat, the employer wouldn't be liable.
I'm not sure why the other PPE is relevant to this..
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IMHO, people covering their faces, whether for religious or other reasons is of a different order from wearing clothes that self-identify a person as belonging to a religious or other group. In a public space, yet alone giving or receiving government services, the rest of us are entitled to know with whom we are sharing that space.
Most Moslem women round here who wear Moslem dress, do not wear a form of it that includes a face veil.
I would not disagree with a requirement that motorcyclists be required to remove their helmets and vizors except when actually riding their motorcycles, or that limited the wearing of sunglasses and face masks and forbade wearing certain types of hood except when it is raining.
I also agree that Sikh's should not be allowed their knives in prison.
However, covering the face and Sikh knives in prison are special cases. Beyond that, people should be entitled to self-identify as belonging to a religious or other group whether by clothes or symbols, anywhere, including when giving or receiving government services.
If a person objects to being treated by a nurse wearing a crucifix, a star of David, Goth earrings or whatever, then let them forgo their treatment. The nurse's right to express or not to express his or her identity is a great as the patient's.
That's what I think, anyway.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IMHO, people covering their faces, whether for religious or other reasons is of a different order from wearing clothes that self-identify a person as belonging to a religious or other group. In a public space, yet alone giving or receiving government services, the rest of us are entitled to know with whom we are sharing that space.
Why? Why is your requirement to see someone's face more important than someone else's conscience position that they need to wear it?
quote:
Most Moslem women round here who wear Moslem dress, do not wear a form of it that includes a face veil.
Again, that's irrelevant. If there was only one woman who felt her conscience saying that she needs to wear a face veil it wouldn't matter if every other Muslim in the world disagreed with her.
quote:
I would not disagree with a requirement that motorcyclists be required to remove their helmets and vizors except when actually riding their motorcycles, or that limited the wearing of sunglasses and face masks and forbade wearing certain types of hood except when it is raining.
OOOkaay.
quote:
I also agree that Sikh's should not be allowed their knives in prison.
Not sure anyone is saying otherwise.
quote:
However, covering the face and Sikh knives in prison are special cases.
I've not seen any reasoning from you as to why the face covering is a special case. You just seem to be arguing it is because you don't like it.
Meh. I don't like tattoos, so what? Why should I then have special dibs on saying whether someone who is working in the library has tattoos?
quote:
Beyond that, people should be entitled to self-identify as belonging to a religious or other group whether by clothes or symbols, anywhere, including when giving or receiving government services.
If a person objects to being treated by a nurse wearing a crucifix, a star of David, Goth earrings or whatever, then let them forgo their treatment. The nurse's right to express or not to express his or her identity is a great as the patient's.
That's what I think, anyway.
This all seems extremely muddled.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems to me that we Brits have had this conversation before (several times in fact).
The Quakers refused to take off their hats in court and refused to use honorifics. They even, *shock horror*, refused to participate in the state marriage requirements.
There was societal disgust and shock. Then the authorities tried to bully them into submission. When that didn't work, they tried exclusion. When that didn't work, they tried forcing them to leave the country.
And then, eventually, when all of that didn't work, the law was changed. And it turned out that the requirement to take off a hat in court and the requirement to swear oaths, and the requirement to get married in church etc and so on wasn't actually that important. And that including Quakers and their weird ways actually added to society rather than subtracting.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Eutychus: quote:
I'm not sure about "discriminatory in favour of Protestants" but when I get into these discussions I marvel at the extent to which understanding the grace aspect of the Gospel really does set people free from legalism.
Well, yes, that's just peachy for those of us who have been set free from legalism. That doesn't give us the right to cause our brothers and sisters to stumble. Or to look down our noses at people who genuinely believe that their immortal souls are in peril if they take their turbans off/allow a man to see their face/forget to put on their crucifix one morning. Grace is a gift, not something we have achieved through our own efforts; we haven't done anything amazing by accepting it.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
<time to edit message elapsed>
Eutychus: quote:
By contrast, give Protestants a Bible and we can adapt to just about anything - which is so much less annoying and time-consuming for the authorities.
Charles I would beg to differ. And when did 'being less annoying and time-consuming for the authorities' become a requirement for a follower of Christ?
[ 20. October 2017, 10:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That doesn't give us the right to cause our brothers and sisters to stumble. Or to look down our noses at people who genuinely believe that their immortal souls are in peril if they take their turbans off/allow a man to see their face/forget to put on their crucifix one morning. Grace is a gift, not something we have achieved through our own efforts; we haven't done anything amazing by accepting it.
Thanks for the sermon ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Another great thing about understanding the gospel of grace is the vast swath of teaching it opens up about respecting others' beliefs and matters of conscience. I still firmly believe, with plenty of experience to back my conviction up, that protestantism has a few aces in its had when it comes to dealing with the authorities in this respect - on behalf of all faiths and none.
Of course not being a bother to authorities is not a requirement of faith or applicable everywhere, but Acts talks about not putting any unnecessary obstacles in the way of faith and that's fine by me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've tried to trim this down a bit to prevent this post getting too long.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... Why? Why is your requirement to see someone's face more important than someone else's conscience position that they need to wear it?
Apart from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified. Even apart from the philosophical point that in the public space, our fellow citizens are entitled to know who we are, the scope pretending to be a veiled Moslem woman gives to criminals would a good enough reason on its own to ban self-concealment. ....
quote:
...Again, that's irrelevant. If there was only one woman who felt her conscience saying that she needs to wear a face veil it wouldn't matter if every other Muslim in the world disagreed with her.
I don't agree. Conscience is important but 'my personal private conscience' as something that caps all, demolishes all, is a thoroughly unattractive and untenable argument. I'm a Protestant, but that's Protestantism gone mad.
To have a claim on our heartstrings, conscience has to have some objective validity measured in the context of those who have a relatively similar world view. If many strict Moslem women clearly do not take the view that they will be eternally damned unless they cover the front part of their faces, then it's reasonable for society to take the line that insisting on covering the face at all times is a form of passive aggression rather than conscience. ...
quote:
This all seems extremely muddled.
Perhaps it would help if I distill the principles here more explicitly.
As a general principle people should have a strong right to express or not to express their identities. There should be a presumption that that right should prevail. The burden of overturning or limiting it should be high and based on objective arguments.
That somebody else is offended is almost never a sufficient reason. That somebody else might be offended never is. Not liking tattoos isn't sufficient - though I don't like tattoos either.
There are cases where safety, public security or public decency might be.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Face coverings make lip reading really hard.
For those who hear well, there is no non-verbal communication with a masked face. I find this more difficult to deal with in the few situations in which I have interacted.
Like any other right, should the right to religious expression have limits? If it makes someone else uncomfortable or disturbs them, is this of any importance? On a glaring example of self expression and rights, there are many videos of "open carry" gun people going into public space carrying rifles and handguns in the USA. Most other countries have restricted this. Most places we are also not allowed to be naked in public. I realize niqabs are suggested to be religious, but is this so? Or is it like RC tonsure unessential?
So, are face coverings a requirement of a religion, are they a cultural expression, and how oppressive is it to not allow them? While there are women who say they choose to wear them, is this representative of the group or do face coverings represent a male requirement for women? Why is there no male equivalent; Muslim women who wear niqabs (I see no burkas here) are identifiable, but the men who accompany them are not by manner of dress identifiable. Why? When I see pictures from Islamic countries men do wear cultural dress often.
I am not staking out any of this as my position. But I am asking questions. There is a large difference between hats and similar, and full masked faces.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The Québec law has almost nothing to do with religious neutrality and, in its efforts to make that argument, is as mockable as anything Donald Trump might do.
It was introduced by the Couillard cabinet to undermine a political push on the right by the Coalition Avenir Québec, a conservative nationalist party. There is a provincial election in the offing and, with the division of the leftwing and separatist parties (three at last count), this is the main threat to the government's majority. CAQ has received support from a nativist element and this measure is hoped by the Liberals to stop the growth (and electoral impact) of these voters-- the federal Conservative "Canadian values" campaign reaped electoral rewards in several Québec seats at the last election and likely led to the defeat of many NDP MPs.
The law has little to do with officials serving the public, and is aimed at citizens engaging with the public sector, particularly veiled Muslim women. Muslims in Québec are notoriously un-fundamentalist and I would be surprised if the number of veiled women exceeded a few hundred. The practical challenges of verifying identity are minimal-- federal and Ontario officials I know tell me that a space out of public view is set aside and woman officials carry out the identification.
While I don't particularly like the niqab-- I find it dreadful-- it was in Grade X that I first learned it was none of my business what others wear.
Shipmates may or may not be interested in that in Ontario, the neighbouring province, the three parties united against the Québec law. In the meanwhile, the Mayor of Montréal has said that he will not enforce it at the municipal level, and the bus drivers' union (as buses are a public service under the law) has said that their members will not enforce it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Apart from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified.
Well, that's just bollocks. Spiderman fights crime. He just wants to keep his identity secret.
And more seriously (though the above point is still serious) you have absolutely no idea who you're sharing a public space with at pretty much any time, unless you live on a small island or in a hamlet. Until we're compelled to have augmented reality tags floating above our heads, stating our names and identity numbers, I'd rather be anonymous, thank you.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
As explained by the ministers involved, a veiled woman would not be able to teach in a school, nor be a doctor or nurse -- nor indeed, go to a hospital or receive care from a doctor or nurse. Such a woman would not be able to board a bus or subway. One minister did indeed say that those wearing sunglasses would have to remove them before receiving services.
Unintended consequence -- in the middle of a Canadian winter, bus drivers will have to require that all persons wearing scarves or balaclava masks against the cold must remove them before entering the bus.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
part from Moslem women who go about fully veiled, one is entitled to assume that the only reason why a person might mask their face in public is to conceal their identity, for which the normal motive is so as to commit a crime without being identified.
I take it that you don't ride a motorbike.
The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to crime.
quote:
Even apart from the philosophical point that in the public space, our fellow citizens are entitled to know who we are, the scope pretending to be a veiled Moslem woman gives to criminals would a good enough reason on its own to ban self-concealment. ....
That's ridiculous.
A Muslim women can prove her identity if she needs to just like I can prove my identity if someone lawfully needs to know it.
Most of the time nobody needs to know who I am.
quote:
quote:
...Again, that's irrelevant. If there was only one woman who felt her conscience saying that she needs to wear a face veil it wouldn't matter if every other Muslim in the world disagreed with her.
I don't agree. Conscience is important but 'my personal private conscience' as something that caps all, demolishes all, is a thoroughly unattractive and untenable argument. I'm a Protestant, but that's Protestantism gone mad.
But why is it? Why is this mad? Why shouldn't someone do something with respect to clothing for a reason you don't agree with?
I don't think you've shown any reasoning here whatsoever.
quote:
To have a claim on our heartstrings, conscience has to have some objective validity measured in the context of those who have a relatively similar world view. If many strict Moslem women clearly do not take the view that they will be eternally damned unless they cover the front part of their faces, then it's reasonable for society to take the line that insisting on covering the face at all times is a form of passive aggression rather than conscience. ...
Is it? So how many women have to want to cover themselves before you give them the right to self-expression of their religion as they see it?
It's not about your heartstrings, it is about the way that the white, male majority seek to determine what other people do - in this case a dark-skinned Muslim woman.
For no reason other than that you aren't used to it.
quote:
Perhaps it would help if I distill the principles here more explicitly.
As a general principle people should have a strong right to express or not to express their identities. There should be a presumption that that right should prevail. The burden of overturning or limiting it should be high and based on objective arguments.
That somebody else is offended is almost never a sufficient reason. That somebody else might be offended never is. Not liking tattoos isn't sufficient - though I don't like tattoos either.
There are cases where safety, public security or public decency might be.
OK so explain to me in short words exactly how a woman wearing a face veil is more of a public security issue than a man (or anyone) wearing a motorcycle helmet.
Don't assume that I know your argument; make it. Otherwise we can't actually have a debate.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As explained by the ministers involved, a veiled woman would not be able to teach in a school, nor be a doctor or nurse -- nor indeed, go to a hospital or receive care from a doctor or nurse.
Whilst I understand the former, I don't understand the latter. Why can't a veiled woman get treatment from a doctor?
If the doctor is female, there is no issue at all.
quote:
Such a woman would not be able to board a bus or subway. One minister did indeed say that those wearing sunglasses would have to remove them before receiving services.
Riiiight.
quote:
Unintended consequence -- in the middle of a Canadian winter, bus drivers will have to require that all persons wearing scarves or balaclava masks against the cold must remove them before entering the bus.
John
And then presumably this stupid situation will be back to the real target: Muslim women. Other people will get a pass even though their faces are covered in other ways.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
notoriously un-fundamentalist
That could be sig-worthy.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Interesting Aleut re grade X. This is the grade in which they actually recruited a barber and lined us up at school for haircuts. Also forbidden were jeans and t-shirts. There was a short debate if the shirts with collars had be long or short sleeved. Not long after, white socks were forbidden as was carrying a package which resembled a Canadian 25 pack of smokes in your shirt pocket. Such rebels we were. We all aspired to look like [url=http://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/history-matters-who-remembers-humphrey-and-the-dumptrucks]these guys[/ur].
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Haha, welcome to the French world of laïcité.
Here are few AIUI things about ECHR rulings as interpreted in France:
- Legislation properly based on allowing a person to be identified gets a pass ("we live in the Republic with our faces visible"); legislation based on religious discrimination doesn't.
- Religious symbols are allowed, but not if they constitute a form of pressure to conform or convert.
That said, there is a lot of discrimination in practice. A women's prison I know refused access to a headscarf-wearing Muslim chaplain but regularly lets in its Catholic nuns in full garb.
And in Quebec, the double standards are quite blatant. The National Assembly has consistently refused to remove the Crufifix that hangs above the Speaker's chair, even as they pass laws targeting Muslim headgear in the name of secularism.
Other than that, what the Aleut said.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Eutychus: quote:
Thanks for the sermon
You're welcome. It seems to be catching:
quote:
Another great thing about understanding the gospel of grace is the vast swath of teaching it opens up about respecting others' beliefs and matters of conscience. I still firmly believe, with plenty of experience to back my conviction up, that protestantism has a few aces in its had when it comes to dealing with the authorities in this respect - on behalf of all faiths and none.
And we were all expected to deduce that from your other post?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I have dry skin which is sensitive to the cold - I live in the Thames Valley, so it rarely gets that cold, but if the wind is very chilly it can make my face very sore. In winter I often wear a scarf wrapped around my mouth as well as a hat with ear flaps to try and protect my skin. It's pretty blatant that this ruling is about Islamophobia - me in my winter hat and scarf is as covered up as someone in a niqab, yet strangely enough nobody gets worked up about it. If I found a cosy winter niqab (I'm sure some must exist) I would be treated totally differently, which is ridiculous because no more skin is actually covered.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
People generally take their scarves, hoods, toques etc when they come indoors. They certainly do when they are talking to others inside.
I've no idea if niqab wearers decide to show their face when having a serious conversation with others. I hope there is some decision making on this. I am progressively becoming more hard of hearing, it is an issue.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Here is the proposed bill.
What is strikingly contradictory is on the one hand, the bill claims the State is secular and neutral, but when it comes to the crucifix in the National Assembly, the state's "religious and cultural heritage" must be respected.
I don't understand why Quebec is insistent on the crucifix in the National Assembly, church attendance is minimal in the State, and half the time, Quebec politicians bemoans the evils of the Roman Catholic Church in its cooperation with the right wing Bourassa regime to predate the Quiet Revolution in the 1970s.
Besides the fact, if we take into account that there were people living in what we know of as Quebec before European settlement and colonialisation, First Nations' spirituality would have a stronger claim to the heritage of the land, then Catholicism, try 10,000 years or so of practice, compared to a measly few centuries.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Brat wrote:
quote:
I don't understand why Quebec is insistent on the crucifix in the National Assembly, church attendance is minimal in the State, and half the time, Quebec politicians bemoans the evils of the Roman Catholic Church in its cooperation with the right wing Bourassa regime to predate the Quiet Revolution in the 1970s.
But, earlier abortion legalization and lower church-attendance aside, 83% of Quebeckers still identify as Roman Catholic.
Charitably, it's possible that many in Quebec still see RCism as a part of the province's heritage that needs to be remembered.
Less charitably, they might just see ancestral or nominal Catholicsm as a dividing line between legitimate Quebeckers and everyone else. "Yeah yeah, we know Catholicism is all a bunch of BS, but we're still gonna keep that crucifix up just so everyone knows who the boss is around here."
(And I think you mean Duplessis, not Bourassa, and the 1960s was the decade of the Quiet Revolution.)
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And we were all expected to deduce that from your other post?
I stand by what I said, which was in response to the jibe that the legislation was skewed in favour of protestantism.
It would be more accurate to say that protestantism is skewed in favour of legislation that in theory allows all religions a level playing field in public space. Indeed laïcité in France was originally in no small part a protestant idea.
As I and others have already pointed out, legislation in this area is often applied hypocritically; just how depends a lot on the prevailing traditional religion where you are. The ECHR seems to have quite a good track record on spotting hypocrisy in this area, though.
All that said, I still affirm that one of the really positive characteristics of Christianity which protestantism largely helped rediscover is its adaptability to all cultures and its focus on what goes on inside us as opposed to outward appearances.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
^^ Sorry if I sound a little cynical about Quebec, but I do not think I have ever met one person in my life who loudly demanded the continuation of Christian religious displays by government, while simultaneously being able to make a convincing case that he truly cared about liberal values.
[ 20. October 2017, 17:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I take it that you don't ride a motorbike.
The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons.
And banks, jewellers, and similar places all have little signs instructing you to remove your motorcycle helmet before you enter the premises. The safety argument would seem to be the same - perhaps the woman in the niqab is a bank robber - but she has a counter-argument based on her religious freedom that the motorcyclist doesn't have. So it's not immediately obvious that the societal compromise has to land in the same place in both cases (not is it obvious that it doesn't.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And banks, jewellers, and similar places all have little signs instructing you to remove your motorcycle helmet before you enter the premises. The safety argument would seem to be the same - perhaps the woman in the niqab is a bank robber - but she has a counter-argument based on her religious freedom that the motorcyclist doesn't have. So it's not immediately obvious that the societal compromise has to land in the same place in both cases (not is it obvious that it doesn't.)
OK, so she can't go to banks that aren't run by women.
But clearly this is not about the general safety or security problem caused covered faces, which are a normal part of our society.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
All that said, I still affirm that one of the really positive characteristics of Christianity which protestantism largely helped rediscover is its adaptability to all cultures and its focus on what goes on inside us as opposed to outward appearances.
It is admittedly a long time since I worked in a prison, but I'd have thought that forms of Christianity which have more requirements than simply having a bible are easier for inmates to maintain.
Because prison is a structured environment. And it is hard to have the self-discipline to do something relatively unstructured (or at least self-directed) in an environment where everything else is structured by an outside force.
I'd be very surprised if religious inmates didn't become more outwardly religious in prison.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Point of clarification A Hijab does not cover the face and should be okay under the Quebec law. However, a Niqab, which partially covers the face would probably not be okay. A Burqa would also not be okay.
While the Quebec National Assembly has passed the law it remains to be seen how the courts will deal with the law.
I would just point out that under the US Constitution, the First Amendment, such a law would be unconstitutional under the freedom of religion clause and probably under the freedom of speech clause too since that would be a protected expression.
To force a secular law on a particular expression people of faith is not religious neutrality in my book. It amounts to tyranny.
I think some French Courts have ruled against such laws in their country.
[ 20. October 2017, 17:55: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
I'm guessing some people here have heard of the philosopher Charles Taylor, who writes about politics and religion and whatnot. He also wrote a report on "reasonable accomadation" in Quebec a few years back, with Gerard Bouchard, a sociologist.
They are both scathing about the Quebec government's new law.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
While the Quebec National Assembly has passed the law it remains to be seen how the courts will deal with the law.
I can almost guarantee it will be overturned as a Charter violation.
The only thing the Quebec government could do is invoke Section 33 of the Charter, which allows governments to overrule Charter-based court rulings. There is an unofficial taboo against doing this in Canada, though it has happened on occassion.
But I doubt that the government really cares if the law survives or not, since their main purpose is likely just showing the voters how much they care about secularism/feminism/Quebec's values/kicking around foreigners/whatever it is you think they care about.
In fact, if the law does get overturned, it'll probably just be another useful prop for the nationalists' melodrama about how Quebec is always being humiliated by the rest of the country.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd be very surprised if religious inmates didn't become more outwardly religious in prison.
That is by and large true. But the fact remains that where I am at least, the protestant chaplaincy is the one that doesn't regularly raise audible sighs about food arrangements or specific days for worship, etc.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think some French Courts have ruled against such laws in their country.
As I said earlier, in France we live in the Republic with our faces visible.* That is the text of the French Act of October 11, 2010, it applies to public space, and it has not been overturned.
==
* The wording resembles 2 Corinthians and as such could legitimately be translated "we live in the Republic with unveiled faces..."
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And we were all expected to deduce that from your other post?
I stand by what I said, which was in response to the jibe that the legislation was skewed in favour of protestantism.
I didn't mean it as a jibe. I meant it as a serious point. If it is a jibe at all then it's a jibe against secularism (at least, the sort of secularism that passes such a law) rather than against protestantism.
As it happens I am a protestant (Anglican communion). And I do think that God looks on the heart and that outward modes of dress are unimportant. But as a liberal I don't think the state ought to impose that belief on other religions. In any case, first they'll come for the Muslims, etc.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to crime.
Apart from the one Pomona's given, I can't think of any others that are valid.
... quote:
A Muslim women can prove her identity if she needs to just like I can prove my identity if someone lawfully needs to know it.
Most of the time nobody needs to know who I am.
Clearly you aren't. But I'm persuaded by the French position that Eutychus cites quote:
"in France we live in the Republic with our faces visible".
Even if you personally wouldn't reach that conclusion, I don't think it's possible to argue that that is outside the range of positions that a civilised state can reasonably reach.
... quote:
I don't think you've shown any reasoning here whatsoever.
No Mr Cheesy. The fact that you don't agree with my reasoning does not mean I haven't produced any.
... quote:
It's not about your heartstrings, it is about the way that the white, male majority seek to determine what other people do - in this case a dark-skinned Muslim woman.
No. This has nothing to do with race. There are plenty of Muslims in the world who are white. Admittedly, I don't think many Bosnian women wear veils, but there must be quite a lot of Arabs who do, and I've no idea what happens in central Asia. And most "dark-skinned Muslim women" (your phrase) do not.
... quote:
OK so explain to me in short words exactly how a woman wearing a face veil is more of a public security issue than a man (or anyone) wearing a motorcycle helmet.
I've already said that I think it would be reasonable to require motorcyclists to remove their helmets and visors except when actually riding their motorcycles. You might well not support that, but I would.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
quote:
As I said earlier, in France we live in the Republic with our faces visible.* That is the text of the French Act of October 11, 2010, it applies to public space, and it has not been overturned.
I stand corrected, though I note Amnesty International has condemned the law for the very reason I stated.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
As explained by the ministers involved, a veiled woman would not be able to teach in a school, nor be a doctor or nurse -- nor indeed, go to a hospital or receive care from a doctor or nurse.
Whilst I understand the former, I don't understand the latter. Why can't a veiled woman get treatment from a doctor?
If the doctor is female, there is no issue at all.
Because a veiled woman is forbidden to receive any service that falls under the general rubric of a government service. SO she may not be treated by a doctor or nurse if veiled. It has nothing to do with her beliefs or practices -- which indeed allow her to receive medical care from a woman. But this law denies her the right to ask for such services.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... The fact is that people commonly move around with their faces covered in our society for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to crime.
Apart from the one Pomona's given, I can't think of any others that are valid.
And this is exactly the point. No one made you the arbiter of what is valid and what is not.
If someone is not doing harm, then they should be left alone.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
andras
Shipmate
# 2065
|
Posted
First, a quick clarification to a couple of earlier posters who have talked about the 'State' of Quebec. It isn't a State, it's a Province (and a very fine one too!) and Canada is neither part of France nor - thank God! - part of the United States. I know that everybody 'knows' these things, but they do tend to slip out of mind when people are posting.
I see that Justin Trudeau has come out clearly in favour of not telling women (or anyone else, I suppose) what to wear, and I think that in general terms - with exceptions for motorcycle helmets in banks, for instance - this makes a great deal of sense.
But personally I don't feel comfortable in a face-to-face conversation with people who hide their faces. That may be my problem, possibly influenced by mild face-blindness, but then I wouldn't feel comfortable holding a conversation with someone with safety-pins through their nose either. In both cases I would avoid the situation as far as possible. Is that wrong of me? Does it make me some sort of closet racist?
--------------------
God's on holiday.
(Why borrow a cat?)
Adrian Plass
Posts: 544 | From: Tregaron | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
