Women Use #DressCodePM To Ridicule Prime Minister's Anti-Niqab Comments

[mentalfloss]

It is still not a right and still is not a mandatory component of Islam.

Justine has really stepped in it, and he would be wise to listen to his handlers and let this issue slowly and quietly go away.

The election is around the corner, JT better get his sh*t together and develop some actual policies that have relevance to the public.

You're tripping over your talking points and resorting to ad hominem like Sal did earlier.


Under the Québec Charter and Canadian Charter, the expression “freedom of religion” has been construed in a broad sense. Indeed, Canadian courts have often held that a belief or practice does not need to be rooted in an official religious dogma in order to be protected; rather, as long as the person who entertains such a belief or practice is sincere and undertaking it in order to communicate with a divine entity or as a function of his spiritual faith, they are protected.[1] In other words, even if a religious practice is not a compulsory practice within its religion, its link to a religion and the subjective belief of the person are sufficient to be granted protection under both charters.[2]

Religious and other personal beliefs – what protection is granted to employees in Québec against discrimination? | Global Workplace Insider

The best part about this whole thing is that Harper created the office of religious freedom to uphold this very principle.

Now he looks like he is severely contradicting himself.

 

[captain morgan]

You're tripping over your talking points and resorting to ad hominem like Sal did earlier.


Under the Québec Charter and Canadian Charter, the expression “freedom of religion” has been construed in a broad sense. Indeed, Canadian courts have often held that a belief or practice does not need to be rooted in an official religious dogma in order to be protected; rather, as long as the person who entertains such a belief or practice is sincere and undertaking it in order to communicate with a divine entity or as a function of his spiritual faith, they are protected.[1] In other words, even if a religious practice is not a compulsory practice within its religion, its link to a religion and the subjective belief of the person are sufficient to be granted protection under both charters.[2]

Religious and other personal beliefs – what protection is granted to employees in Québec against discrimination? | Global Workplace Insider

Interesting excerpt.

That said, if it held any water with respect to this issue, it would have been used as the basis for the claim (see OP) and it would have been done and finished before it started.

As it stands, it does not appear that the above info has had any bearing that compels this woman's position

 

[petros]

Sorry Sunshine mon.

 

[taxslave]

You're tripping over your talking points and resorting to ad hominem like Sal did earlier.


Under the Québec Charter and Canadian Charter, the expression “freedom of religion” has been construed in a broad sense. Indeed, Canadian courts have often held that a belief or practice does not need to be rooted in an official religious dogma in order to be protected; rather, as long as the person who entertains such a belief or practice is sincere and undertaking it in order to communicate with a divine entity or as a function of his spiritual faith, they are protected.[1] In other words, even if a religious practice is not a compulsory practice within its religion, its link to a religion and the subjective belief of the person are sufficient to be granted protection under both charters.[2]

Religious and other personal beliefs – what protection is granted to employees in Québec against discrimination? | Global Workplace Insider

One more goofy law that requires fixing.

 

[captain morgan]

How is claiming "weed is a Religious Right" working out for Rastafarians?

The Rastas should look into this legislation


Religious and other personal beliefs – what protection is granted to employees in Québec against discrimination? | Global Workplace Insider

Apparently it will be working very well for our newest rights-demanding-burka-wearing-soon-to-be-citizen

 

[mentalfloss]

Interesting excerpt.

That said, if it held any water with respect to this issue, it would have been used as the basis for the claim (see OP) and it would have been done and finished before it started.

As it stands, it does not appear that the above info has had any bearing that compels this woman's position

Lol

You do realize there was already a complete ban right?

The ban was overturned and now Harper wants it back.


I am only arguing the freedom one has while a ban is not in place.

The Rastas should look into this legislation


Religious and other personal beliefs – what protection is granted to employees in Québec against discrimination? | Global Workplace Insider

Apparently it will be working very well for our newest rights-demanding-burka-wearing-soon-to-be-citizen

I would love to see some KKK make an attempt at this.

Considering the one real requirement is to state which deity they believe in, I wonder which God that would be? Lol

 

[petros]

The Rastas should look into this legislation


Religious and other personal beliefs – what protection is granted to employees in Québec against discrimination? | Global Workplace Insider

Apparently it will be working very well for our newest rights-demanding-burka-wearing-soon-to-be-citizen

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/toronto/marijuana-law-challenge-denied-by-ont-court-1.979790

 

[mentalfloss]

One more goofy law that requires fixing.

Then you should not voted for Harper because religious freedom was one of the main pillars of his platform.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/toronto/marijuana-law-challenge-denied-by-ont-court-1.979790

Two separate laws that conflict with each other and one supersedes the other.

I would not expect we would allow someone to bring in an AK-47 to the swearing in ceremony even if they claimed it was a religious item.

 

[petros]

It's not a religious issue.

 

[mentalfloss]

It's not a religious issue.

You need a religious tissue?

 

[captain morgan]

I am only arguing the freedom one has while a ban is not in place.

I believe what we are at odds with is if the garment(s) in question are in fact a recognized element of the religion... If not, it morphs into a personal choice made by an individual

I would love to see some KKK make an attempt at this.

Considering the one real requirement is to state which deity they believe in, I wonder which God that would be? Lol

Religion is a personal thing and if subjectivity is a relevant component, it will open the doors pretty wide.. The same argument made above now has an application (regardless of how insincere we believe it to be or how crazy it is)

Two separate laws that conflict with each other and one supersedes the other.

I would not expect we would allow someone to bring in an AK-47 to the swearing in ceremony even if they claimed it was a religious item.

A kirpan is a recognized quasi-religious symbol, yet they won't allow them in Court,on planes, etc.

There are very real limits and we have seen many examples of such to date

 

[mentalfloss]

The door has been open all along.

We do make special exceptions, yes, and this was one of them.


Now that the ban was overturned, it's up to the courts to reinstate it if Harper truly wants to return to the status quo on this issue.

 

[petros]

What are the odds animal sacrifices will be allowed in Canada as a Religious Right?

How about virgins if it doesn't rain?

 

[mentalfloss]

Like I said in response to your other attempt at hyperbole, there are other laws that may supersede religious freedom.

 

[petros]

Like I said in response to your other attempt at hyperbole, there are other laws that may supersede religious freedom.

Sincerity doesn't supersede law as stated by the judge in the link I provided.

 

[mentalfloss]

Sincerity doesn't supersede law as stated by the judge in the link I provided.

The link you provided showed that you cannot use religious freedom as an excuse to break another law.

 

[petros]

"I do not accept that providing cannabis to people in the basement … was a religious act," she wrote. "They may well believe that providing [marijuana] to others is a good thing to do. That does not, however, transform its distribution into a religious belief or practice."

She also ruled that providing a legal exemption for those who use marijuana for religious purposes is "not feasible" due to "the difficulties in identifying both the religious user and the religious use of cannabis.

"The proposed institution of a system of state inquiries into people's religious beliefs has the potential to undermine the value we place on freedom of religion rather than promote it."

 

[mentalfloss]

Ultimately it is up to the judge to decide in each case, if there is credibility to the religious claim.

Seems to be an easy case to make for the niqab.

 

[pgs]

The door has been open all along.

We do make special exceptions, yes, and this was one of them.


Now that the ban was overturned, it's up to the courts to reinstate it if Harper truly wants to return to the status quo on this issue.

Our laws are made in parliament not the courts .

 

[petros]

Ultimately it is up to the judge to decide in each case, if there is credibility to the religious claim.

Seems to be an easy case to make for the niqab.

Why would it be easy if it's not religious? It's not up to an individual as to what is and what isn't Religious. In the case it's cultural and not Religious.