It has come to Squirrel's attention that the government of the province of Quebec, a province within the nation known as Canada,has decided that it wishes to propose and introduce a law such that it will not allow public servants to wear Muslim headscarves, Jewish skullcaps or other obvious religious symbols under a new charter,more over it will also impose a strange hard to define limit on the size of religious symbols displayed,usually such as neck chains.Official documents give the nod to discreet religious symbols, such as a small crucifix or a ring with the Star of David, but not to veils, large crucifixes or turbans.The enormous crucifix protruding from the public property above Montreal’s Mount Royal will be spared.So while politicians continue to enact laws underneath a giant cross, low-level public employees would have to tuck their Christian symbolism away, as would Muslims, Sikhs and Jews with their religious headwear.
The
Quebec government,presently a ruling minority government,claims that
the presentation and enforcement of such a Charter Of Quebec Values will
cement a secular society,that it will help create a distinct identity
for it's 8 million people.The rest of the nation of Canada,however,also takes a secular approach,a multicultural approach, which encourages different communities to keep their faiths and traditions.One Harvey Levine, president of the Quebec branch of the Jewish organization B'nai Brith,said "They're trying to remove religious freedoms. They're trying to impose rules on religious values," and there he's unquestionably correct. It is an attempt at repression,suppression of the many mutlicultural values and rights of the peoples of Quebec, to display those,regardless
of faith. Indeed it is purely and simply a broad spectrum religious
intolerance imposed, or at least to be imposed,by the Quebec minority
government.Bernard Drainville, the Quebec minister of democratic
institutions,said a large crucifix in the National Assembly would stay
in place, since it was part of Quebec's history. Christmas trees would
be allowed in offices because they reflected the province's culture, he
added.But then that's hardly democratic, indeed allDrainville grappled
with questions about other inconsistencies.What about courtroom
witnesses and elected politicians who, in this staunchly secular state,
still swear an oath on that decidedly non-secular document, the Bible?
Drainville appeared caught off-guard by the question: “Oh, my God,” he replied, slowly, “we’ll get back to you.”
And how about city council meetings which begin with prayers, in places like Saguenay? Would this secularism policy
allow that? Drainville declined to answer the question.Would elected
officials be subject to these rules? No, he replied, arguing that voters
have a right to choose their representative. That means Quebecers
could, in theory, elect a cabinet minister or premier with a hijab — who
would then force her employees to remove theirs. should be so allowed
to display their religious
symbols, symbols they are each like and
in kind,rightly and justifyably proud of of,proud to wear and
display.The new plan would ban overt religious symbols to be worn by
“judges, police, prosecutors, public daycare workers, teachers, school
employees, hospital workers and municipal personnel.” These symbols
would include large crosses or crucifixes, turbans, hijab, and kippas.
Smaller jewelry (such as Star of David earrings) would be allowed.There were reactions of course, to the proposal, here are some found at
http://blog.acton.org/archives/59857-quebec-ponders-banning-public-employees-wearing-overt-religious-symbols.html
Quote........
This proposal has caused uproar, both in the Quebec government and in the public. Here are a few reactions:
As a Canadian-Muslim woman, I proudly wear my hijab, a choice that is completely my own and not influenced by others. Wearing my hijab does not cause any physical or psychological harm to anyone so than why should I be forced to remove it, if I want a good job working in Quebec? Have we really become so intolerant and insecure of ourselves that even the sight of a religious symbol has become unbearable and strikes fear in our society? The proposed charter is an infringement on my basic rights as a human. What I choose to wear is my personal choice; a freedom I thought I had as a Canadian citizen by birth.
–
I think the proposed charter is excellent. I’m a high-school teacher and I find it very insulting to see a teacher that teaches science or ethics (the French course teaches common values and is an introduction to different religions in the world) wearing a hijab, for example. A teacher has to be neutral in front of their students, has to be equal with his or her co-workers, and more specifically has to respect the dress code of the institution he or she works for. If somebody believes in God, great, but they don’t have to show it, especially when in a position of authority.
–
I am Buddhist and wear Mala beads during specific days of the year. It is important for me to feel free to present myself freely in the workplace, and my religious faith is a big part of whom I am. I find that it is important that my workplace reflects the multiculturalism of the society that we live in. It also helps to create a discussion in which we are able to get rid of prejudice and ignorance toward people and their faith.
Most of the hatred in the world is based on ignorance of the other person we are in conflict with, we need to understand each other if we are to live in a truly free society. The proposed charter is one of exclusion that will make certain people feel attacked. I also think that it is a diversion tactic to make people forget about the current government’s poor record with jobs, education and other important infrastructures.
Christian Lépine, the Catholic archbishop of Montreal, says the charter is “excessive”, adding that it
attempts
to control people’s freedom of expression. When you want to contain
the visibility of faith, you are saying to people: ‘You cannot be all
you are,” he said in an interview with Global News. Lépine said that the
charter’s proposal for religious neutrality and secularism is simply
another name for non-religious values that would be imposed by a few on
everyone. Such a move would not be respectful nor democratic, he said.
“Normally if you talk about a charter, it’s about a charter of rights
that gives space to different belief systems, so in that sense I don’t
see this as a charter, it’s more of a credo,” he said to CBC News.
Unquote.
Unquestionably this also means no Christmas Trees, no Easter Bunny, no dreidels or menorahs, no crosses. The symbols
don't hurt anybody, regardless of how much politicians think they do.
Religious freedom is one of the main basses that Canada and Quebec was
founded on. Being able to come here and be publicly Christian, Jewish,
Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, etc. is one of the biggest freedoms in. The
Quebec government people who argue "Separation of Church and State"
clearly either don't understand the question, or don't understand what
separates church from state. The STATE (meaning the government) should
not use the CHURCH (meaning religion) to justify any actions,any Church,
it should not support one Church(religion),over another.
Jefferson
made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the
separation of church and state was to be that government would not
establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship
God.Pauline Marois has a different definition of the seperation of
church and state,a far different one.Government was never meant to be
our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to
be our servant.Now the "Religious Right",the religious right of the
people, is just a straw-man to hide a REAL and very active movement -
the very much anti-religious form of of the present minority
government,of Quebec,that of Pauline Marois,"the Athiest Left!"
"Separation of Church and State" is just a myth. But it's a myth that if allowed to continue will continue to daily chip away our religious freedoms. We just cannot keep quiet about it any longer. Christians must be taught on this subject now - before it becomes illegal to do even that! All evil needs to flourish is for good men - to do (and say) nothing!
When Adolph Hitler took power in Germany, he recognized immediately that the major threat to his tyrannical designs would come from the church(s),[the religions present in Germany]. If he could neutralize the voice of the church, he correctly reasoned, there would be no one else to stand in his way,there would be no opposition to his thoughts,statements, and policies,he reasoned that he must weaken the underpinings of the churchs(the religions), the religious beliefs of the people of Germany.
Consequently, he immediately cranked up the Nazi propaganda machine to develop slogans designed to silence the voice of the church, slogans which were then relentlessly hammered into the minds of gullible Germans of all religions, and their pastors, who meekly complied.
Hitler crafted two slogans in particular,and here they are, straight from the mind of Adolph Hitler:
"Politics do not belong in the Church."
"The Church must be separate from the State."
If they sound eerily familiar, it will only be because you instinctively recognize in these words the voice of tyranny and repression.And so today's church is still paying the price for this small-minded politician's petty and vengeful ability to use the power of the federal government to punish his adversaries.
“Do you know, where does this phrase ‘separation of church and state’ come from?”American
Tea Partier Glen Urquhart asked at a campaign event last April. “It was not in Jefferson’s letter to the
Danbury Baptists. … The exact phrase ‘separation of Church and State’ came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth, that’s where it comes from. So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State ask them why they’re Nazis.”
Why is a cross, a Maguen David, or a head scarf a problem in society?Besides jewellery never annoyed anyone before. It doesn't force their beliefs on anyone, therefore no atheists or other believers from different faiths should force their non beliefs or different beliefs on anyone else. The European Court of Human Rights has found in favour of BA employee Nadia Eweida being able to wear and display a Christian symbol at work, is it not about time that Quebec accept that any person has the right to wear and display any religious symbol wherever they like?Clearly it infringes on civil liberties in a part of Canada that has already seen years of tension over accommodation for religious minorities, particularly those from immigrant communities."They're trying to remove religious freedoms. They're trying to impose rules on religious values," said Harvey Levine,
president of the Quebec branch of the Jewish organization B'nai Brith.Quebec would become the only
jurisdiction in North America to impose a sweeping ban on religious clothing for public employees including at schools, hospitals and courthouses, under a “Charter of Values”.It once was taken for granted that religious expression went hand-in-hand with the preservation of our society’s values and culture. Standing up for religions rights in Canada,and Quebec, these days means upholding the rights of Muslims, Jews and Sikhs to wear specialized religious garb at work, in court, or in a voting booth.In Quebec the Commission des droits de la personne and des droits de la jeunesse sent out a reminder that individual rights, including the right to freedom of religion, is protected under the Quebec Charter of Rights,meaning such that Marois proposed Charter is in direct violation of an enshrined right of the people of Quebec.The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, as well as by the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — ratified by Canada in 1976 in consultation with the provinces.
Article 18 of the covenant reads: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”
Quebec's governing Parti Quebecois (PQ) is trailing in the polls and, with only a minority of seats in the legislature, needs support from other parties to pass bills, casting doubt on whether the charter will survive in its current form.Jason Kenney, a federal government minister, said he was “very concerned” by the proposed legislation and said the federal government will challenge any law in courts if they deem it unconstitutional.The federal Canadian government announced that it will seek the advice of the Department of Justice and then head to court if the proposal is deemed to violate fundamental rights. Lawyers say the law may infringe constitutional rights on freedom of religion and expression.Canada's Supreme Court gave an indication of its view of religious symbols
in a 2006 decision that allowed orthodox Sikh students to carry kirpans, traditional daggers, to school.The early reaction suggests the plan will not pass in the current legislature, in its present form, which leaves two likely outcomes: it will either be watered down for adoption now, or be kept intact for later use as an election issue when the Parti Quebecois seeks a majority government.Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney said Justice Department lawyers will be consulted and, if the plan is found to violate fundamental freedoms, “we will defend those rights vigorously.” Montreal mayoral candidates Denis Coderre and Marcel Cote were also
unsparing in their criticism.
The NDP and Liberals also denounced the idea. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau did so during a visit to Montreal, where he was opening his party’s byelection office in one of Quebec’s most multiethnic ridings.Perhaps the most important reaction came from the Quebec legislature’s third party, which appears to hold the swing vote on the issue.
The Coalition Avenir Quebec called the PQ plan “far too radical” and demanded that it be scaled back to apply only
to those public servants, like police and judges, in authority
positions.To illustrate one of the party’s main criticisms of the plan,
the CAQ critic at a news conference held up a tiny crucifix necklace
next to a larger one.Who would go about measuring these crosses, she
asked, before warning of an impending bureaucratic boondogle where the
$1.9 million ad campaign is just the beginning.“Will this require a religious police?” said the Coalition’s Nathalie Roy.“This will be hell to apply.”
Fortunately the Parti Quebecquois government of Pauline Marois is in a minority, the proposed legislation can be voted on and rejected entirely from outside of her own party and of her dictates to her party.It also,for Pauline Marois, opens a door whereby an election can be forced, and a new legitimate government installed and a government of sanity once again restored to the province of Quebec.
