Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Ya I struggle to get worked up on this one. We've made some societal progress in recognizing LQBTQ+ etc rights...do we really need to protect/enable that institutions that have historically driven and continue to drive most of that oppression? We don't have to look very far to see christofascism driving our own government.
I do struggle a bit with forcing someone to ditch their turban if they want to seek employment as a bus driver, but we already limit similar 'freedom of expression' through tattoos/piercings/etc. We limit all of the charter rights in various ways. And AFAIK there is a grandfathering clause, so people aren't really being forced to choose between these expressions and continuing employment.
We limit b) quite significantly in public service jobs. I also think its interesting that conscience and religion are grouped together, implying internalization (though I'm sure it's not that simple). AFAIK they are not refusing to hire people who attend mosque/temple/church on their own time.
|
The problem is that the Sikh religion requires a turban on men, and certain Muslim sects require a hijab on women. So by banning those items you are banning those bpeople from applying and therefore discriminating on the basis of religion. The grandfathering clause doesn't protect them - only present employees. When there's no rational basis for such discrimination or limitation (and thus not saved by s. 1 of the Charter).