Muslim employee at Canada airport fights dress code

[PowerPlayoffs06]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Do I really need to point out the difference between playing a sport and being a police officer?

No, but the message is the same. As long as someone wants to do the job, it shouldn't matter what they look like doing it.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

No, but the message is the same. As long as someone wants to do the job, it shouldn't matter what they look like doing it.

There needs to be basic standards in place in terms of professionalism. But wearing a turban doesn't make someone look sloppy or unprofessional. It's a piece of headware for pete's sake. If its important to that culture than so be it - doesn't impact me at all and it doesn't impact you. If our culture is so fragile that it can't withstand our national police having different hats - we are indeed in trouble.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by PowerPlayoffs06

Holy miss the point. You may as well say "If someone wants to block shots for the Flames, I really don't care what jersey they wear."

That is a horrible example! But it does make a good point for this argument because if a player makes a change to their jersey they can not play. If they do not conform they do not "go to work".

She should have gone through the proper channels to get the dress code and maybe even get a third uniform for herself and others who work for the company. She can't be the only Muslum women to work for them...or is she the only one who has a problem with it?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jammies

Well, you are wrong. Depending on whether she is Shia or Sunni, either an mujtahid or mufti is able to rule on whether or not her dress code issue is valid or not. In Islam you don't just get to decide how you are going to interpret "scripture" - for example, if you don't want to fast during Ramadan, it's a sin, not a "personal choice". She is not any kind of Muslim authority(which I can be sure of, as she is a woman, and women's "protected status" (ie - subservient role) in Islam prevents such), so in fact it WOULD be appropriate to consult an official arbiter, as they are readily available.

Of course, she might end up having to wear a scarf over her face, or similar, if they went this route, which would be a problem considering she is working in an area where security concerns would prohibit such, religious belief or not.

This applies to other religions, too - if I am a Catholic, I can't be pro-contraception and claim it is my "religious right" to obtain access to condoms (in the unlikely event the issue ever arose, to be sure) because Catholic authority condemns contraception. What I personally feel on the matter is irrelevant, what is important is what the religious authority on the matter has ruled. You can't just make up your own rules (or adhere to your cultural rules) and say they are "religious" in nature.

It's apparent I don't know much about the Muslim faith so I appreciate your input. Sounds like you know what you're talking about (which is a breath of fresh air).

I'd like to point out a 2004 SCC decision called Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem. This wasn't the best decision in the world and it's not entirely on point since Ms. Muse brought a complaint under the Ontario Code and this deals with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The court split 5-4, in part, over the extent to which a person's religious belief is consistent with religious practice. The majority didn't think it was crucial to examine this to the same extent that the minority did. Judging by your previous thoughts on the topic, jammies, I would guess you probably agree with the minority on this one.

The appellants A, B, K, and F, all Orthodox Jews, are divided co-owners of units in luxury buildings in Montréal. Under the terms of the by-laws in the declaration of co?ownership, the balconies of individual units, although constituting common portions of the immovable, are nonetheless reserved for the exclusive use of the co?owners of the units to which they are attached. The appellants set up “succahs” on their balconies for the purposes of fulfilling the biblically mandated obligation of dwelling in such small enclosed temporary huts during the annual nine?day Jewish religious festival of Succot. The respondent requested their removal, claiming that the succahs violated the by?laws, which, inter alia, prohibited decorations, alterations and constructions on the balconies. None of the appellants had read the declaration of co?ownership prior to purchasing or occupying their individual units. The respondent proposed to allow the appellants to set up a communal succah in the gardens. The appellants expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposed accommodation, explaining that a communal succah would not only cause extreme hardship with their religious observance, but would also be contrary to their personal religious beliefs, which, they claimed, called for the setting up of their own succahs on their own balconies. The respondent refused their request and filed an application for a permanent injunction prohibiting the appellants from setting up succahs and, if necessary, permitting their demolition. The application was granted by the Superior Court and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Held (Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed.

Per McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Major, Arbour and Fish JJ.: Defined broadly, religion typically involves a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship. In essence, religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to his or her self?definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.


Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials. This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion. As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion. It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived?as?mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection. The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma. Although a court is not qualified to judicially interpret and determine the content of a subjective understanding of a religious requirement, it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant’s belief, where sincerity is in fact at issue. Sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief and the court’s role is to ensure that a presently asserted belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice. Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on criteria including the credibility of a claimant’s testimony, as well as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other current religious practices. Since the focus of the inquiry is not on what others view the claimant’s religious obligations as being, but what the claimant views these personal religious “obligations” to be, it is inappropriate to require expert opinions. It is also inappropriate for courts rigorously to study and focus on the past practices of claimants in order to determine whether their current beliefs are sincerely held. Because of the vacillating nature of religious belief, a court’s inquiry into sincerity, if anything, should focus not on past practice or past belief but on a person’s belief at the time of the alleged interference with his or her religious freedom.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'd like to point out a 2004 SCC decision called Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem. This wasn't the best decision in the world and it's not entirely on point since Ms. Muse brought a complaint under the Ontario Code and this deals with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The court split 5-4, in part, over the extent to which a person's religious belief is consistent with religious practice. The majority didn't think it was crucial to examine this to the same extent that the minority did. Judging by your previous thoughts on the topic, jammies, I would guess you probably agree with the minority on this one.

That's very interesting, and I *would* agree with the minority opinion - I find the following passage somewhat disturbing - "Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on criteria including the credibility of a claimant’s testimony, as well as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other current religious practices. Since the focus of the inquiry is not on what others view the claimant’s religious obligations as being, but what the claimant views these personal religious “obligations” to be, it is inappropriate to require expert opinions."

What this says, to me, is that the court can subjectively determine the "fact" of belief in a particular rite or observation without needing to refer to expert opinion, which is a dubious proposition at best. This position might be defined as "if you can convince us, we'll let it pass", whereas you would think the opinion of an actual practitioner, scholar and authority on the subject might carry a bit of weight in the matter.

Further, it opens up the idea that whatever you can personally cook up as your "deeply held spiritual belief" can exempt you from all kinds of obligations and regulations. I think the definition of "religion" should be much more narrow - like the Wikipedia one of "A religion is a social institution that includes a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law." The key element being "social institution", which is markedly different from the concept of "personal religion".

Of course, what I think is irrelevant to the law of the land, but at least there is a significant minority on the Court that disagrees with this loose interpretation of "religious freedom". It would be interesting to see a few more cases (as we very well may) of this nature be tried to put this idea to the test in cases where it not quite so harmless as whether or not someone can erect a tent on their balcony.

[Flames09]

Originally Posted by feartheflames

as for the whole Merry Christmas thing , I am muslim and have no problem when people say "Merry Christmas " at all...but Does Hannukah not run during the same time... why not everyone say Happy Hannukah.... some time Ramadan or Diewali will also fall in that time as well.. "Happy Holidays" just doesn't exclude anyone, everyone beliefs are included and nothing wrong with that, and I had 10 years customer service experience and said " Merry Christmas" to people of every religion and amost everyone said it back to me... its not that big of an issue, I just think by saying "Happy Holidays" you get everyones in the picture

No kidding are only the people who celebrate Christmas important??? you know the rest of us couldn't possibly have anything to celebrate. 'Happy Holidays' is the most appropriate.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by jammies

It would be interesting to see a few more cases (as we very well may) of this nature be tried to put this idea to the test in cases where it not quite so harmless as whether or not someone can erect a tent on their balcony.

How about whether a Muslim child can wear a hijab during soccer matches? It's probably not the kind of case you were thinking about when you commented on the balcony tents but it does seem more inline with the issue originally brought about by Ms. Muse.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...88373-sun.html
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...88372-sun.html