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

" there's nothing in any form of Catholicism or Christianity that I'm aware of that says believers *must* wear a crucifix. In other religions outward facing attire is required, which does denote the religion to others." [Pastey]

The crucifix is not restricted by gender, however. Turbans, yarmulkes, veils, etc., are specific to certain genders for certain religions. I don't see this as a matter of trying to influence anyone as to which religion they should practice. It's just a matter of indicating that, within an individual's religion, this is the appropriate form of dress. if you're a male Muslim, you aren't required to wear a veil. If you're a female Jew,you aren't required to wear a yarmulke in the Temple [outside the Temple, God is thought to be less fussy, as far as I can determine ]. Sikh women in turbans? Maybe some of them exist, but they are probably rare. I'm not an expert on this, so maybe someone who is an expert would be kind enough to comment.

In brief, it boils down to a single platform that this particular political party has espoused for ages. Quebec was founded by Catholics, from France. If you are not native french nor Catholic, pur laine, you will accept what limited rights the rest of us impose on you. Or leave.

Despite the 'disreputable nature of the media', or the 'knee jerk reactionaries', to me it just seems very wrong in this day, age and country to declare under law that a person will not in any way indicate what they think and feel. Except Christians, and ... well, the elected officials, they are still allowed. If you feel that your heritage, beliefs and generations of history are more important? Well, there are always the Mac-jobs.

How-ever, as Pastey has made it clear that this is a subject without merit, matter or substance, and not something for opinion aside from his, then I leave now. let the thread close, fade or 'disappear'

Actually Nick, I've been trying to draw out exactly what the situation is rather than vagueness, so a proper discussion could take place based on facts rather than gossip.

If you wish to stick with gossip rather than grounded debate, then there are plenty of tabloid news sites with forums.

You do get female Sikhs in turbans, not often but it does happen. They also have beards, the not shaving part isn't limited to the men

No sir, you have made a point of being entirely dismissive of even the opening question ... Asking for an opinion of the premise. Posted twice, in fact.

With or without the final presentation by that regional governments' legislation, you have dismissed it as media frenzy, fear mongering and knee-jerk reactions.

I understand, you are probably far more educated than I, and work wonders with technologies. The sort of things and devices and other cool things that I rebuild and repair daily. But your words and papers weigh more than my nearly 4 decades of the hands-on. And a lifetime of Canadian politics which you appear to understand far more intuitively than we wee folks that live here.

To what is left of h2g2, I bid you and it a good night.

Oh dear, I don't want this conversation to end just yet!

Reading Psulh's comments drew to mind the convention among many lady Jews to hide their hair and wear a wig. Some even shave their heads.

In my imagination I can see the test for religious head coverings having to include a wig test. It could get very interesting in the final stages of every job interview where the applicant has to allow the interviewer to pull out a hank of hair to prove that the person isn't wearing a religiously mandated head covering. It reaches tug-of-war movie comedy status in my mind's eye.

The legal arguments about discriminating between applicants who were wearing wigs because of health treatment (obviously monstrous and illegal) and religion could get complicated and hair splitting. What would happen if the lady candidate had both leukemia and was a Jew? Would the state public employer have to attribute a percentage cause to religion and health and make a decision on balance about the wearing of the wig at work? What if she was faking the health problem to get around the system?

I doubt if the local politicians would want to go up against the Jewish lobby on this one. It will be fun seeing the final list of exceptions. Even more fun seeing the whole thing collapse in the courts.

As most of the 'large hats' of the current h2g2 are aware, I don't walk away from much too easily. And perhaps that has been part of this thread? Who knows. How-ever, from the outset, Pastey has determined that this is not a valid or worthy thread for the site.

Post #2 already calls our national news and political responses 'tabloids'.

Posts 4, 7,11, 12, 16 and 17 are labelling everything discussed across this 'little country' as hearsay, gossip and speculation

Post 19 is a step up by calling it all scaremongering

Post #28 devolves into the "there, there, little boy" and the pat on the head idea. #35 continues with that vein, while also going back to the scaremongering idea

Posts 37, 40 and 43 wander the field from brush-offs, chuckling about no hoardes in the streets, the whole thing is superficial, ... and finally back to ... Well gee, it's all gossip again.

Is this how tabled legislation is processed in the UK?

Good night, h2g2.

Well, I can't speak for Quebec, but the French law is about "ostentatious religious symbols", so discreet signs are absolutely fine. Then, of course you need to define "discreet".

So a hijab, a kippa, or a big crucifix are not allowed. A small cross, hand of Fatma, Star of David, are fine. And I would hazard a guess that a wig would be fine, since it's not specifically a religious sign (but I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be certain about that).
And yes, I do know that this law was started because of cases of young girls wearing the hijab in school. And I do realise that the hijab can't be made discreet, but this is a law about equality.

Oh and I'm not sure how it is understood abroad nowadays, but it is only applicable in state schools.

Noone is trying to "ban religion", as someone told me once.
French secularism is not about persecuting any religious folk, it is about allowing everyone to follow their own religion (or none at all if they so choose), while respecting the others.
Yes we do have some people (of several different religions) who think this should not be. Should we let them?

Nick, just to make this clear: If I thought that this thread should not be on this site, I would have yikesed it and let the moderators deal with it.

I agree with Phoenician, I don't want to see this discussion end, I want to see it go ahead with informed debate.

The basis of any good debate is having it involve parties of informed, up to date, and level headed people arguing each way.

You may have been involved in politics for the last 40 years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're intimate with all the working of it. After all, I've been using the toilet on my own for quite a few years but wouldn't say I'm exactly an expert on the microbiol breakdown of fecal matter.

So, personal pontificating aside...

I don't actually agree with the idea of the charter. The basis is that is enforces the government to be religion neutral, but it does this by effectively banning any religious expression outside of direct religious acts. Personally I'd rather they allowed all religious expression.

Well.... thinking about the issues, I'd suggest something like the following as a framework....

1. A strong presumption in favour of personal freedom, which would include freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and freedom to express a religion. This is only right and proper in a free society.

2. There may, however, be occasions where other factors might weigh against the strong presumption in favour of personal freedom. Such occasions might include:

(a) Health and safety considerations - as regards other people, and as regards the religious person themselves. The former is obvious, the latter because accidents and illness are a drain on public healthcare systems, and can be traumatic/upsetting to witnesses. I would imagine that such health and safety considerations might include hygiene as well as basic accident prevention.

(b) Basic practicality.

(c) State neutrality considerations. There are some jobs/roles which require neutrality, where postholders are not only expected but required to set aside personal beliefs and biases and act (and be seen to act) in a fair way, treating all equally. Such roles would include anyone working in the criminal justice system. This assumes that the state is (or is mostly) neutral on issues of religious belief, which I'd say is almost always a prerequisite for a free society.

(d) Other work considerations. This is where it gets tricky. While it's clear why you might not want a police officer or a high court judge wearing a religious symbol, it's less clear that an airport check-in clerk would cause the same worry. But we generally accept that employers have at least some rights are regards requirements on employees dress codes, uniforms etc, and so may want their staff to appear religion-neutral, to reflect the company's position.

3) A key consideration is how important the particular item of religious dress is to the actual religion. Some religions have clear requirements, others don't, and it's massively disingenuous for those who don't to try to inflate their non-central requirements.

4) Context. Socio-political context is key, and there are arguments for being particularly careful about restrictions that affect already disadvantaged and minority communities.

5) Good faith. I think these discussions largely need to be case-by-case, because it's always a matter of weighing up competing rights and imperatives and then coming to a conclusion. I say 'good faith' because these issues can fast become a proxy war for something else - e.g. while on the surface it's about a particular case, what's really going on is that people don't like religion X, and will jump on any opportunity to damage it or its adherents. Or, on the other hand, religion X has a martyr complex and wishes to portray itself as persecuted.