h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I hope to entirely avoid the perpetual discussions about 'imaginary friends' and the like, and have a clear discussion.

Our province of Quebec is prepared to table legislation that precludes any govenrment employee (of any level) from displaying any artilces of their faith in the work-place. Turbans, kirpans, crucifix, all banned. Legislation might also go so far as to preclude any citizen from displaying articles of their faith when seeking any government services, including medical treatment.

In your opinion, is this necessary or a step too far? A doctor wearing a yarmulke is no more or less a doctor. Exhibiting articles of his life choice and beliefs is not proselytizing. Where is the harm? I have no qualms about requiring faces be fully exposed for purposes of identification as required, but I do not see a need to demand that everyone hide their beliefs as some hide their sexuality.

Your opinion?

Do you have a link to the full / actual proposal Nick? There was a whole hoo-har before in the UK about something similar, which the tabloids used to stir up arguments, but when actually looked into said nothing of the sort.

It'd be good to get the full facts before debating the point

It hasn't been tabled yet, so specifics are vague. Only what the governing provincial government has floated through 'leaks' to their preferred media.

A Google search for the "Quebec charter of secularism" will bring up many discussions and descriptions of the anticipated laws to be presented today in their "national assembly"

So, what you're saying is that at the moment it's only hearsay and speculation?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that it's possible to have a valuable discussion based around gossip.

Although I do think that, if you are truly interested in the effects that this sort of law can bring in, and wish for a wider informed opinion, you Bing for the repercussions from the recent French laws on display of non-catholic symbols, as well as the interpretations of Sharia law that have been happening in some countries. To balance this however, you may wish to do some background reading on how several law firms in the UK have been working with a combination of Sharia law and UK law to not break either.

Let's just say country-wide 'speculation' that has been reinforced by interviews and statements for weeks by the Marois government. But if you are waiting the 6 or 8 hours for formal declarations, ...

The basic premise as put out there in Post #1, does it seem reasonable, fair or necessary? Even if just as an abstract discussion.

I guess the biggest problem is defining what constitutes an article of faith. A Liverpool football shirt? A One Direction t-shirt? It's the feelings of the person wearing it that makes it an article of faith. Conversely, there's a lot of art which involves religious themes. Could I wear that design on my shirt if I approve of its artistic merit but not necessarily the faith system(s) it implies?

The problem with country wide speculation though is that it's media driven. I don't know how much of the Canadian media is owned by individual corporation, especially Rupert Murdoch, but it might be worth reading the background here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/despise-politicians-my-part-murdoch-machine with particular attention to the comments where the politician joins in.

It would be very naive to base judgement on speculation informed purely from media outlets that have their own ulterior motives.

Brand logos are articles of faith & proselytising symbols - so will they be banned? Similarly national flags, the poppy, adornment of trinkets - ear rings, necklaces (paganism surely), painted faces (cosmetics) ...

As it seems to read so far, presenting at one of your A & E's in a t-shirt with a huge ankh would be enough to preclude you from being served.

>> Our province of Quebec is prepared to table legislation that precludes any govenrment employee (of any level) from displaying any artilces of their faith in the work-place. <<

What has been the "tipping point" for this? Is it reactionary to Muslim females wearing the Burqa in government offices or something ... partly generalised to other religions in order that it seems non-discriminatory? Normally this is avoided by straight forward discrimination when employing people ... i.e. don't employ them. Does a government employee extend to those employed in public service (schools etc)?

You mean, "As it seems to be portrayed by the media who have the ulterior motive of riling people up so they can sell newspapers..." surely?

There currently isn't a tipping point SA, it's pure hyperbole by the media it seems, as there's nothing official.

"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as not to destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract."

Are symbols of "good faith" to be banned in contract law also ... ?

I have little to say about employees dress code but it is very bad news to prevent customers attending government sponsored services because of what they wear. How many older women will simply not see medical help if they have to break religious or community convention?

At least in Oz, in some social enclaves wife's and daughters' access to university and school education, at least in Oz, if often barely permitted by men. To require complete socially integrated dress (jeans and tee-shirts???) so these women can go to university will certainly stop "desiring" to go.

Anyway, what is the difference between a full-cover headscarf worn by a Muslim lady and a full-cover headscarf worn by a open E-Type Jaguar driving lady? The second doesn't have to attend the dole office?

>> There currently isn't a tipping point SA, it's pure hyperbole by the media it seems, as there's nothing official. <<

Okay, but sometimes these are leaked in order to gauge public reaction ... except dependent on the media spin the information is rarely "neutral".

There isn't Phoenician Trader, so far all with got is:

"There's an unsubstantiated rumour that..."

By all means, a discussion could be had around the ethics of such a thing, and as such I think we'd have a good discourse, probably similar to the countless other times that this rumour has hit the internet. In fact I'm pretty certain there was a very similar one around this time last year.

I don't believe there are media leeks. The media and the politicians are far too in with each other these days. If you don't believe this just think how often a politicians speech is reported on the morning before they give it. Usually with lines like "...will say in their speech today..."

The speeches are handed out to the media early so that the politicians can get as much press coverage as possible.

Which is also why there's very little leek and unfounded speculation these days.

>> I have little to say about employees dress code but it is very bad news to prevent customers attending government sponsored services because of what they wear. How many older women will simply not see medical help if they have to break religious or community convention? <<

... and if this included denial of access to the welfare system & public services (schools, police, health) then they would really be making a statement!

But are they? Is that what's being proposed? Or are we being subjected to scaremongering by fascists?

It's times like this I wish people would get some perspective. Listen to the thought leaders of our age. Can we have forgotten so soon how we gotta have faith?

Before this river becomes an ocean

Before you throw my heart back on the floor?