Skip to comments.Quebec Politicians Seek Ban on Public Employees Wearing ‘Overt and Conspicuous’ Religious Symbols
Posted on 09/14/2013 7:14:29 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Should free speech and religious rights be restricted the moment a person begins working for the government? This is the very question that some politicians in Quebec, Canada, are asking.
Leaders in the province could soon make a definitive decision that would essentially ban public workers from wearing discernible religious symbols. The regulation would be part of the proposed Charter of Quebec Values, a set of laws that would ensure a strict line is drawn between church and state.
In what can only be described as sweeping, civil servants, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, police and public day care employees, would be banned from wearing overt and conspicuous religious symbols, as Religion News Services Ron Csillag reported this week.
The move would put members of all faiths on alert. No large crosses or crucifixes (small ones are apparently allowed), headscarves, turbans, yarmulkes or other related items many of which are requirements for adherents of well-known and common faiths.
The goal in enacting this potential regulation? Ensuring and instilling secularism.
Canadas CBC News provides a list of five changes that would take effect if the Charter of Quebec Values is adopted: 1.Bar public sector employees including everyone from civil servants to teachers, provincial court judges, daycare workers, police, health-care personnel, municipal employees and university staff from wearing a hijab, turban, kippa, large visible crucifix or other ostentatious religious symbols while on the job. 2.Allow five-year opt-outs from the ban for certain organizations, but not daycare workers or elementary school teachers. 3.Require that those receiving or providing government services uncover their faces. 4.Exempt elected members of the Quebec legislature from the regulations. 5.Amend Quebecs human rights legislation, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to specify limits on when someone can stake a claim for religious accommodation.
Whats perhaps even more surprising than the text itself is that the majority of residents in Quebec support the measure (one poll found that 66 percent of residents support it; another found the proportion a bit lower at 61 percent).
In pushing for secularism, the theme of shared values is being touted. In fact, when Bernard Drainville spoke about the plan on Sep. 10, he was clear that a common set of ideals was at its center.
The time has come to rally around our common values. They define who we are. Lets be proud
Of the plan, CBCs James Fitz-Morris notes that a grander debate could unfold if politicians in the nations capital, Ottawa, stand up against the measure.
So, it would appear under the proposed charter of Quebec values, some are more valuable than others, he wrote on Fri. That suggests a possible violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its protection of freedom of religion, which would obligate Ottawa to fight it tooth and nail.
The proposed changes come from the leftist Parti Québécois, which also advocates to make Quebec a sovereign state. If the charter is halted by the Canadian government, Fitz-Morris argues that the party could get what it wants: A validation that the people living within Quebec are vastly different from others in Canada and, thus, deserve to be separate.
The debate over the measure is obviously ongoing. Though its future is uncertain and despite the fact that the majority support it concern over how younger voters will view its intentions could also come into play.
This is pure, unadulterated Stalinism.
I have problems with articles that cover the face entirely because of identification issues, but to ban all symbols of religiosity is flat-out totalitarian.
I recommend anyone of any faith cease working for the local government.
would this include prayer rugs and rainbow stickers?
Ah, so no large crosses, but a giant rainbow flag stuck up your rear is perfectly okay.
Quebec has no values. Whatever values they had evaporated when they adopted atheism as the state religion during the Quiet Revolution.
If states wish to ban moslem head-scarves, they should pass laws banning moslem head-scarves. But instead they pass laws banning Christians from wearing of crosses. This is the point of these laws anyway.
I'll get the popcorn.
No question, a certain religion will not go quietly into that brave new world.
Hint : It ain't Christianity.
I don’t know what is worse, tyranny like this or quailing out from carrying out what witness you can until they literally kill you. Actually I do know what is worse, it’s the latter.
OK, so crosses can be little? Let’s wear several dozen little crosses.
Or if not crosses, then fish. All over your necktie or shirt or blouse. Even an “X” for the Greek Chi for Christos. How do they know you don’t mean Malcolm X? To the crooked, God is astute! Give your cleverness to Him as an offering... He will use it!
Make them look as silly as they are as they keep up this hate at God.
This makes Quebec almost identical to France in their pathological fixation on secularism in all aspects of life. Interestingly, this is one of the reasons why France doesn’t have the same problems with radical Islam that England faces. A foreign-born radical imam can call for the overthrow of the British government from a mosque in London and collect welfare to pay his bills. The same imam can probably be deported without a trial in France.
Does "discernible" mean the same thing as "Overt and conspicuous"?
For example, woman wearing head/facecover and make up does not wear religious garb, she wears gang uniform because alleged religion belief forbids make up.
The question is not whether someone wearing gang uniform has the right to work for government, but why client who must deal with government has to deal with person wearing gang uniform? And have no choice to say I do not want to deal with this agent because of MY religious belief.
Can you imagine how Christian refugee from Syria, Sudan or 20+ other locations where gangs murder for fun and Prophet feels when facing gang clad person working for Canadian Government? Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
The point is, if you are civil servant you are SERVANT to the public and should behave this way.
I believe in freedom of public expression of religious belief when it comes to private enterprise, but not in Government paid by my tax dollars.
I do not want to pay someone who would be the happiest to see me roasted on the spit while hiding behind religious belief and laughing in my face.