Landmark Legisation from Montreal

[damngrumpy]

I don't consider myself a bigot yet i agree with the law in Quebec.
As for the crosses why would they have to take them off? It does
not obscure their identity as a veil does, The other bit of misinfo
is the Muslim face cover is religious garb it is Not. It is in the
category of custom not religion this has been debated before. I
am not all that religious but there is a difference between custom
and an article of faith Once again Muslim face covers are not an
article of faith they are part of societal custom

 

[eh1eh]

Welp.
Looks like judges can be bigots just like anyone.

 

[CDNBear]

Bigot?

 

[eh1eh]

Bigot?

Maybe that isn't the cause of the judge's actions but really, what if she had tinted glasses?
The judge said, as I heard her on the radio, she would do the same to someone with sunglasses.
What do you call that irrational prejudice?

 

[CDNBear]

What do you call that irrational prejudice?

It's not an irrational prejudice. It's court decorum.

No hats, touques, bandanas, and apparently hijabs.

I like that kind of equality.

 

[eh1eh]

It's not an irrational prejudice. It's court decorum.

No hats, touques, bandanas, and apparently hijabs.

I like that kind of equality.

I see your point but her face is visible. Might be a case for an exception to the technicalities of decorum.

 

[CDNBear]

I see your point but her face is visible. Might be a case for an exception to the technicalities of decorum.

I could agree, if the scarf was an actual religious requirement.