Off Topic

Quebec set to pass law banning face coverings for anyone receiving public service — even a bus ride

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 21st, 2017 4:06 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16454 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
ConsoleWatcher wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 10:28 am
Just about every charter/constitution recognizes that religious freedoms aren't absolute and can be limited according to the greater needs of society as a whole.
Can you demonstrate that this ban serves any societal need? Does wearing a niqab infringe on the rights of others? Does it pose a threat to anyone?
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2012
2741 posts
298 upvotes
Ottawa
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 11:15 am
Can you demonstrate that this ban serves any societal need? Does wearing a niqab infringe on the rights of others? Does it pose a threat to anyone?
It causes problems in cases where the person needs to be identified visually.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16454 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
ConsoleWatcher wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 11:29 am
It causes problems in cases where the person needs to be identified visually.
But that is not what this law addresses. If it required you to briefly show your face in cases where photo id was presented, that's one thing.

This law requires you to remove your face covering for receiving any public service. Your library card has no photo. Your bus pass has no photo.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14182 posts
1533 upvotes
Toronto
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 7:55 am
Section 10 of the Quebec charter:

Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or impairing such right.
The niqab has no religious requirement, and you don't have the right to wear what you feel like in this country without restrictions. It's legal for both men and women to be topless in public, but 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' is fully enforceable.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16454 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
Piro21 wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 12:07 pm
The niqab has no religious requirement, and you don't have the right to wear what you feel like in this country without restrictions.
That's not the standard courts use. The court only requires that a religious belief be sincerely held by its practitioner, regardless of whether it be ordained in scripture or not.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14182 posts
1533 upvotes
Toronto
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 12:13 pm
That's not the standard courts use. The court only requires that a religious belief be sincerely held by its practitioner, regardless of whether it be ordained in scripture or not.
It actually doesn't: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pastaf ... -1.2041844

If I'm a fundamentalist who goes naked as God made me instead of committing the sin of wearing mixed fibers I'm still going to get arrested and convicted despite my sincerely held religious beliefs. The government would be right to do it, too. Religious belief does not take precedence over the law or social cohesion.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Fanatic
Jul 5, 2005
5975 posts
224 upvotes
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 12:13 pm
That's not the standard courts use. The court only requires that a religious belief be sincerely held by its practitioner, regardless of whether it be ordained in scripture or not.
You say this all the time but never provide the case(s) that you're referencing. I can show you at least 5 cases of Pastafarians whose sincere religious beliefs were not enough for a court to allow them to wear their holey strainers in pictures on various government issued pieces of identification.

Also, these people launching a complaint are garbage human beings since they've only stood up now that their is a privileged group being targeted. When it was the Pastafarians struggling for their human rights the civil liberties associations couldn't be bothered. If they had helped the Pastafarians, who were fighting the exact same damn thing, they would have precedence in their corner now.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 29, 2008
2821 posts
213 upvotes
hugh_da_man wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 1:11 pm
You say this all the time but never provide the case(s) that you're referencing. I can show you at least 5 cases of Pastafarians whose sincere religious beliefs were not enough for a court to allow them to wear their holey strainers in pictures on various government issued pieces of identification.

Also, these people launching a complaint are garbage human beings since they've only stood up now that their is a privileged group being targeted. When it was the Pastafarians struggling for their human rights the civil liberties associations couldn't be bothered. If they had helped the Pastafarians, who were fighting the exact same damn thing, they would have precedence in their corner now.
I’d be interested in reading some of these cases if you don’t mind providing them...
Sr. Member
Jul 30, 2010
940 posts
106 upvotes
random pattern wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 1:25 pm
I’d be interested in reading some of these cases if you don’t mind providing them...
Pastafarian who fought to wear pirate hat or colander in driver’s licence photo scolded by Quebec judge

B.C. 'Pastafarian' loses driver's licence over holy colander hat

Pastafarian’s fight with ICBC comes to a boil

That's what I found in a few mins. Interesting; so these people firmly held onto certain beliefs about their religion, but the judges basically ruled that it isn't a real religion. Sounds like the niqab isn't a real religious requirement, just like those colanders. It's not in the Quran, so it falls into the same grouping as the colander, as far as I can tell. I am also very curious to see how this case gets resolved; will the judge reference these pastafarian cases too?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 29, 2008
2821 posts
213 upvotes
LeisureSuitL wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 1:34 pm
Pastafarian who fought to wear pirate hat or colander in driver’s licence photo scolded by Quebec judge

B.C. 'Pastafarian' loses driver's licence over holy colander hat

Pastafarian’s fight with ICBC comes to a boil

That's what I found in a few mins. Interesting; so these people firmly held onto certain beliefs about their religion, but the judges basically ruled that it isn't a real religion. Sounds like the niqab isn't a real religious requirement, just like those colanders. It's not in the Quran, so it falls into the same grouping as the colander, as far as I can tell. I am also very curious to see how this case gets resolved; will the judge reference these pastafarian cases too?
Those aren’t links to cases. The first went to court, but I believe the case was in French - and I understand the judge found no Charter issue to decide. The second two links are with respect to the same individual and never went to court. There may be some real cases, and if there are, I’d be interested in reading them.
Deal Addict
May 17, 2005
3651 posts
456 upvotes
LeisureSuitL wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 1:34 pm
Pastafarian who fought to wear pirate hat or colander in driver’s licence photo scolded by Quebec judge

B.C. 'Pastafarian' loses driver's licence over holy colander hat

Pastafarian’s fight with ICBC comes to a boil

That's what I found in a few mins. Interesting; so these people firmly held onto certain beliefs about their religion, but the judges basically ruled that it isn't a real religion. Sounds like the niqab isn't a real religious requirement, just like those colanders. It's not in the Quran, so it falls into the same grouping as the colander, as far as I can tell. I am also very curious to see how this case gets resolved; will the judge reference these pastafarian cases too?

LOL ... (I mean: that is so disrespectful !)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 29, 2008
2821 posts
213 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 12:18 pm
It actually doesn't: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pastaf ... -1.2041844

If I'm a fundamentalist who goes naked as God made me instead of committing the sin of wearing mixed fibers I'm still going to get arrested and convicted despite my sincerely held religious beliefs. The government would be right to do it, too. Religious belief does not take precedence over the law or social cohesion.
Again, not a case. The law is pretty clear, that a sincere belief is required, and I haven’t heard of a case that says otherwise.

Well, there was that niqab (?) case where an alleged sexual assault victim (?) refused to remove her niqab and the alleged assailant argued that he had the right to see and question his accuser. The court took a pretty reasonable approach I think in that case in saying that if the woman was going to testify in a serious case like this that she had to take the niqab off, but that in other circumstances that wouldn’t necessarily be the case...
Banned
Aug 2, 2017
1219 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
Piro21 wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 12:18 pm
It actually doesn't: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pastaf ... -1.2041844

If I'm a fundamentalist who goes naked as God made me instead of committing the sin of wearing mixed fibers I'm still going to get arrested and convicted despite my sincerely held religious beliefs. The government would be right to do it, too. Religious belief does not take precedence over the law or social cohesion.
Totally agree.

Moving to Canada was a different experience for me, because of this duty to accommodate thought process. Still doesn't make sense to me, but meh.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
16454 posts
1764 upvotes
Montreal
hugh_da_man wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 1:11 pm
You say this all the time but never provide the case(s) that you're referencing. I can show you at least 5 cases of Pastafarians whose sincere religious beliefs were not enough for a court to allow them to wear their holey strainers in pictures on various government issued pieces of identification.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 1/index.do

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials.
Banned
Aug 2, 2017
1219 posts
120 upvotes
Logtown
mr_raider wrote:
Nov 9th, 2017 3:53 pm
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 1/index.do

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials.
With so few other Muslims covering their faces like this, how does it give credence to the argument that this is some sort of essential function of their religion?

I really had no opinion about the merits of the case but with what you cited I'd say it gives Quebec even more validity.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (1 member and 0 guests)

ConsoleWatcher