But Charter considerations would be driven by court cases and not human rights commissions correct?
Laŭ mi, people ahould be able to wear anything they damn well want, subject only to concerns such as safety, job requirements, and, yes, need to be identified. In Toronto I have seen everything from the full tent-like burqa to almost-full nudity involving only sandals and a smile (plus, presumably, lots of sunblock cream).
Am I the only person out there who finds that style of headscarf sexy? 
Read the first few replies, will post something fast and then come back to read the thread and fire some more answers.
This is the related article from Le Devoir: La RAMQ n'a pas à accommoder les femmes voilées | Le Devoir. Haven’t actually read TFD’s link; trust Le Devoir more. The point of the decision: say a Muslim woman wearing a full-face veil – the article specifies a niqab or a burka – goes to a service desk of the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec, Quebec’s government-run health insurance plan. And say she’s required to remove the veil in order to identify herself. (This would of course not come up with a simple hairscarf which doesn’t conceal her identity.) Her religious beliefs require her to only remove her veil in front of a female employee, but there is no female employee available. The decision says she cannot require a female employee be there to serve her and therefore must wait or go back another day.
No, I don’t feel the rage either. I’m all for trying to accommodate people, but when you have extraordinary requests, you must understand that sometimes they cannot be fulfilled, at least not right away. That’s why we talk about reasonable accommodation.
Other parts of the decision: one citizen had refused to be served by an employee wearing the hijab, citing laïcité/separation of church and state concerns, and another citizen had refused to be served by a call centre employee speaking with a foreign accent. The commission ruled that the first case could not reasonably be said to infringe on freedom of conscience or on separation of church and state, and that the second guy was a bigot. Can’t say I disagree with that either.
No. I knew a girl at university that wore one, and I thought it looked cute.
You guys just like the thought of her sloooowwwwly unwrapping it. 
Proof once again that covering up female body parts doesn’t do much to reduce male lustfulness. I’m sure there are niqab-fanciers in strict Islamic societies that just love watching those veils sway.
That is the contention of many Canadians, not just you. Here’s what the Angry French Guy has to say about it:
Yeah, he’s kind of a jerk and he likes to go for the “gotcha!” approach, but there’s a lot of wisdom in what he says. He and I both agree that English Canada shies away from a lot of things that Quebec deals with in the open. This is then picked up by English Canadians who claim to be better and more enlightened than us, since those issues are supposedly inexistant over there. Let’s have a debate over Canadian multiculturalism one day; I have interesting opinions that you may never have heard before but may make you think.
Then again, since this time we’re in the Pit: I think you’re a bigot, TFD, and a pretty stupid one at that, and whatever I may say you’ll never even consider it in good faith. Your mind is made up and closed forever. Sure, I and other Quebecers don’t always have the upper moral ground. I’ll recognize that many things, your society does better than ours. (Certainly not all of them, though.) But you’re pretty much the last person who should be lecturing us about open-mindedness. What I’m writing here is not for you, but for people who may not be aware of all the issues yet but who can attempt to look at things from different points of view. And who may want to know what a real-life, flesh and blood Quebec (liberal) nationalist has to say about stuff.
Massive over-simplification of the issue. Can’t say I’m surprised. The lady in question had actually accepted to remove her niqab, alone with the (female) teacher, for her elocution exercises. But then things happened, she got increasingly militant and made more and more demands. The last straw was apparently her demanding male students move so they wouldn’t be in front of her. Her presence was a disruption of the class, so expelling her became the only possibility.
I don’t know how often it happens. It’s not a “policy change”, it’s a decision from the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse. Basically a review board rendering decisions regarding rights.
You want to talk about official bilingualism? Let’s do so (in another thread, of course). If you don’t start it, I’ll do it as soon as I decide I want to. Could take months. Hint: I think it’s a fucking joke, useless as hell, and only used as a device for anglophones to pat themselves in the back and make demands from Quebec. I found it funny, in the “French immersion” thread, to see people claim that French is “prevalent” in Ottawa and you must speak it to get pretty much any job in the municipal or federal government (implied subtext: see all the work we are doing for them, how good we are to these ingrates!) when I know that the last time I went through immigration at the Ottawa airport, my customs agent didn’t speak a word of French. She did offer to get me a French-speaking agent, though, so I don’t blame her or the system. I declined: it was late and I just wanted to get out of there ASAP, and I was in Ottawa after all, and third, I figured that if she felt guilty maybe she’d ask less questions. But you can be sure I’d have demanded a French-speaking agent if we’d been in Montreal, and I’m quite sure this situation will arise someday. My point? Well, sure, anecdote, data, etc., but it’s not because these positions are officially bilingual that the people who fill them are actually bilingual. And maybe that’s alright, but it should be mentioned.
I don’t see how it’s at odds with the Ontario policy. Is the Ontario policy to always have female employees available? Even in the smallest of offices? I guess it’s not impossible, but the difference seems slight to me. And the Quebec policy is also to “do [their] best to accommodate individual situations”. Ontario doesn’t say it always manages to accommodate every situation.
Heh, when I said Canadians call Quebec a “sick society” (my exact words) RickJay laughed at me. He thought it was an incredibly stupid turn of phrase. Glad to know I didn’t invent it. 
LOL
At the risk of offending, the really good thing about a secular republic is that the secular rules blunt the ability off any particular religious faction to impose their shit on others, and that the secular guidelines favor practicality over dogma or ritual.
So those seeking an Islamically-oriented set of rules can go to or stay in any number of already Islamocentirc countries.
We’ve shed enough blood over the past 400 or more years limiting the destructive influences of the Judeo-christian-State couplings, We need not discard historical knowledge in dealing with these issues with Islam.
The idea that the state should basically adapt religious restrictions in an effort to appease the adherents of said religions in matters secular is destructively stupid.
If a person is incompatible with the idea of a core secular government and public life, then said person needs to go.
Both courts and human rights commissions handle Charter considerations.
For Quebec matters arising under provincial constitutional powers, both the Quebec courts and the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal deal with Charter issues.
Quebec has it’s own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. c. C-12. Section 100 of that act established the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, and s. 132 of that act provides for appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal with leave. The next appeal step would be the Supreme Court of Canada.
The federal Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumps the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in provincial power matters arising in Quebec (and throughout all Canada), and the both the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal and the Quebec courts apply it in Quebec.
Both the federal courts and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal deal with federal Charter issues arising in Quebec. Section 48.1 of the federal Canadian Human Rights Act established the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. A person can appeal to that same body’s internal Review Tribunal, or apply to the Federal Court for judicial review. The next appeal step would be the Federal Court of Appeal, folllowed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Since groundbreaking Charter cases often end up being appealed to the top of the chain, it might seem like the courts handle Charter cases, but in fact both human rights tribunals and courts handle charter cases.
Yes, this is my understanding of the decision. As well (from the Devoir’s article), Quebec’s health minister mentioned that there is a difference between getting a service and getting a treatment: if a lady wearing a niqab arrived in the emergency room with her sick child, there would be no question of forcing her to remove it to identify herself. This ties in with your argument about necessities vs. voluntary activities.
Can we hire you to act as mediator in culture-dependent reasonable accommodation cases, Kimstu? You’ve got a pretty good handle on the principles in play, and, well, being non-French-Canadian you’re just less suspicious. 
Don’t compare Quebec and France, we’re two different cultures. Language isn’t everything. But this said, both Quebec and France (and Turkey) do have a view of laïcité that may be different than in other places, and which stems from having experienced oppression under an established religious authority. France fought the French Revolution(s) against the conservative order supported by the clergy, and Quebec went through the Quiet Revolution against conservative forces supported by the Church. And it’s still in the living memory of my parents’ generation. We just do not want to let religion guide the public sphere anymore, especially since conservative forces are still present. We want religion to go back to the private sphere and stay there. Of course, it’s not always possible, which is why we move towards an accommodation model.
As for Turkey, well, the military holds coups to prevent the (democratically elected) islamists from taking power. They sure take their laïcité seriously.
See [post=12155361]this post[/post]. Summary: enforced? Bwah, come on! Many languages do have regulatory agencies, but they have no “enforcement” powers. It’s only advisory.
If you want to debate Quebec’s language policy, that’s once again another thread. Let’s just say that there’s a very good historical reason for it, but I will agree that some dispositions could be liberalised.
Little-known fact: Saudi Arabia is very well-known for its [thread=553632]Gay Syrian Car Salesmen[/thread].
(Quoting you only because you mention a way to get a photo for Health Cards). For what it’s worth, the RAMQ accepts photos taken at pharmacies, photo booths, in private homes, and pretty much anywhere else, as long as the photos adhere to size/background colour/facial expression (I think no smiles, long hair behind the ears, not sure about glasses…passports won’t accept glasses) standards etc. While getting your photo taken at the RAMQ office is convenient, it is also quite possible to do everything in your own home and simply send off a cheque in order to get your Health Card. It’s what I did when I moved back to the province, because it was fastest.
So to ask someone to simply wait, come back at another time, or (implicitly) use another means of acquiring the card such as through mail, isn’t really unreasonable. It allows the office to deal with all the other people in line (and trust me, there are always a ton of them) and doesn’t actually prevent the person asking for the accommodation to acquire the service.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this decision.
Largely because that would be rather poor French! 
But they no longer live in a society where not showing the female face is the norm. They are living in a society where all faces are exposed at all times. IMO, it is them that need to adjust, not the other way around. Sure, I’m all for accommodating special needs, but if there is no female available to take her picture, then the female customer must cope (or come back another time or make an appt etc). It is too much to ask that in a differently normative society minority groups will be accommodated in something that is so alien to the majority. I can’t believe that these women (or their men) didn’t know this prior to moving in. :dubious: I’m all for melting pots but if you get in that pot, you will have to “melt” a bit.
What can I say. I was a Bill [del]1[/del]401 child.
Ah, but Canada trumpets itself not as an American-style “melting pot,” but a “Canadian mosaic.” From Wikipedia on “Canadian Mosaic”:
Perhaps this accounts for some of the differing views on the topic of assimilation that are being expressed in this thread.
Thanks, sounds like fun actually!
Hypnagogic Jerk tends to over inflate the oppressed state of Quebec in confederation. :rolleyes: I think he conflates avoidance with apathy when the issue is raised elsewhere in Canada. It’s not that we aren’t mature enough to face harsh realities face on, it’s that the impact is so minimal to the general goings on that it doesn’t matter. As I linked earlier 10 out out 146000 is hardly a seismic shift in Quebec’s cultural self regard. And a single woman being dealt with as an outlier in expected behavior in a CEGEP will not bring down the sole bastion of french in North America. In fact it’s a fairly healthy indicator that very little needs to happen to make new comers of any religion welcome.
Some interesting discussion about Canadian multiculturalism is at this link. Briefly, this is a transcript of a Q&A session held between Globe and Mail readers (for those not in the know, the Globe and Mail is a highly-respected Canadian newspaper) and its immigration reporter, Marina Jiminez. Notice especially this dialogue, near the bottom of the page:
I guess the incident giving rise to this thread is one of the “signs of tension” that Ms. Jiminez was referring to.
Yes, and in any case we can’t really ban a form of dress that isn’t obscene, and while I may not be a fan of these clothes either I’d be very hard-pressed calling them obscene. But these kinds of dressing codes can cause issues in our society (not moral or ethical, but quite mundane issues, like identification which is at stake here), and we are under no obligation to accommodate the person wearing a niqab or burka past some reasonable threshold. What is a reasonable threshold, though, may be subject to debate. And this is what we’re doing.
It’s not so much a question of are they born here or not. It really doesn’t matter in fact. It’s a question of what do we consider “reasonable” in terms of accommodating people’s cultural needs (or physical, or other: these considerations also apply to handicapped people, to give an important example). It can vary by society: I’m sure a country in which 50% of the women wear a niqab would have a different way of asking women to prove their identity. But that’s not where we’re at.
Don’t think so, seems quite sensitive to me. What makes you say that?
God (any which one you like), Canada’s complicated.
What did I post in a very old thread? Would I be able to find it?
Amazingly enough, yes! [post=7909341]Here[/post], then I’m sort of questioned about it, and explain myself [post=7912925]here[/post].
I wear glasses in my passport picture.
I’m probably not going to have an interesting debate on Canadian cultural policy/multiculturalism with TFD, but I could have one with you. Let’s say I don’t believe in the Canadian assimilation model’s distinctiveness. Canada is very much a melting pot. Or many melting pots. But not anything different.
Glasses, OK; reflection on glasses not OK: http://www.ppt.gc.ca/cdn/photos.aspx?lang=eng
Oppressed? Probably not. But TFD did start this thread, and based it on some quite obviously prejudiced ideas, yes? Believe me, many more think like him. I do (sometimes) read English Canadian media and blogs, you know, to keep my anger fresh. 
Yeah, the “mature” part is one where I would disagree with the Angry French Guy (hereafter called AFG). As I’ve said, he’s sort of a jerk and enjoys exposing English Canadian hypocrisy. But that’s because he’s constantly being told basically what TFD said about Quebec in his OP, so he wants to point out that hey, we’re not as bad as they say, and sometimes we’re even better than you. It’s response to a provocation.
Certainly Canada as a whole is mature enough to face the challenge of greater cultural diversity. AFG’s point is that Canada prides itself on its multicultural model, and its “cultural mosaic” Spoons mentioned, and often doesn’t question the accuracy of this model. And then uses the fact that Quebec instead talks about reasonable accommodation and “can we really tolerate this?” to bludgeon us with accusations of intolerance. Same thing with the Canadian pride in bilingualism. Heck, TFD also mentioned that in his OP – predictable, isn’t he? – and I gave a first shot at deconstructing the myth.
I may have my cultural blinders. But my point is that so do you, and very often we’re the ones who suffer from your blinders.
Cut the theatrical language. Nobody said anything different. TFD was the one who was rightously and recreationally outraged about it, probably because he could alter the meaning to fit his preconceptions. Which I claim are actually quite common.
I never realized the niquab was such a potent tool of sexist discrimination.
Against men.