Quebec judge refuses to hear women's case until she removed Hijab

Status
Not open for further replies.
The court should be secular, not the people coming into court. I mean wearing a hijab could harm her case in one way or the other, but that is up to her discretion in my opinion.
If it was a nikab, the judge would have a good argument not to go through with the hearing. She needs to identify the defendant and read facial expressions.
 
GSG Flash said:
Total bullshit. I've lived in Canada almost all my life, I'm a red blooded Canadian who would put his life on the line for this country because it's the best country in the world, the hijab in no way, shape or form infringes on Canadian culture or value.

The tolerance for all the cultures of the world, as long as it's harmless, is what makes Canada the best country in the world.
Click to expand...
A hijab is sexist female oppression though.
 
spekkeh said:
A hijab is sexist female oppression though.
Click to expand...
In some countries sure. In countries where its optional though? Its about as oppressive as this.

5VuMoCg.jpg
 
Morrigan Stark said:
Really? Have you ever paid attention to American politics? lol
.
Click to expand...
have you been paying attention to the media and opposition parties?

you got radio jockeys like Benoit Dutrizac who is up the Premiere's ass everyday about secularism.

The media and opposition parties are so obsessed with absolute secularism that Francois Legault even wants to amend the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to limit rights.

spekkeh said:
A hijab is sexist female oppression though.
Click to expand...
maybe so, but shutting her out is not the way to help her integrate into society and the workplace
 
People in this thread are coming up with hypotheticals posing as religion to justify denying this women her right to dress according to her belief.

Courts in the US and Canada also require that your beliefs be sincere.
 
Morrigan Stark said:
Wait what? You first bitch that "solemn affirmation doesn't sound so secular", but now you're angry that one has both the secular and the biblical option? This doesn't make any sense. Not to mention, that the Bible option is still there is just a relic of the past (and actually it's no longer the case for civil court and an Ottawa professor said the federal courts should follow suit... so much for Québec being so terrible), it doesn't impact your quality of life or your civil rights in any way.
Click to expand...

Are you daft?

Where did I ever say "solemn affirmation doesn't sound so secular"? I'll wait as long as it takes for you to find a quote where I said that (here's a tip, don't bother wasting your time because you're fucking lying).

And yes, I find being given swearing on the bible as one of only two options offensive, especially since this lady was refused a court hearing in the supposed name of secularism. Allowing one to swear on the bible is not secular, you don't need a PhD to understand that. I don't care if it's a relic of the past, the policy currently exists. That link you posted does not corroborate your claims one bit, the closest thing to your claims is that it says is that it's at the judge's discretion whether an oath on the bible is accepted or not.

And who said Quebec is so terrible? Don't be an idiot

spekkeh said:
A hijab is sexist female oppression though.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with you about its origins, it's not infringing on Canadian culture or value if it's worn voluntarily, which it is in this case by this lady's account. My coworker, who was born in Canada, does not have any family members who wear hijab and does not have any friends who wear hijab, wears a hijab voluntarily. I wouldn't say she's less Canadian as a result of something she chooses to wear on her head.
 
Dr.Acula said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ed-case-unless-hijab-removed/article23229155/



So every party at every level of govt. is saying that the judge screwed up, and the supreme court supports the right of Canadians to wear religious garb in court. It's only the Que. courts supporting this judge.

It would be as if the judge started yelling at you to shave your side-burns. A Hijab is not a hat or sunglasses, it's not inappropriate dress for court.
Click to expand...
The judge sounds like a real piece of work.
 
Judge is a bigot, how is this even a point of contention. I could understand if her face was covered too, but this isn't the case. The head scarf is religious and completely inert to the court room environment.
 
pgtl_10 said:
Courts in the US and Canada also require that your beliefs be sincere.
Click to expand...
"I sincerely believe baseball is a religion and Ty Cob is its prophet.
One of its precepts is: you shall wear a Detroit Tigers cap from dawn to dusk.
I freely embraced this religion and therefore demand the right to appear to this court wearing such a cap."

I mean, how is it even an argument?
What makes a belief sincere, other than freely choosing to believe in it?
 
GSG Flash said:
Although I agree with you about its origins, it's not infringing on Canadian culture or value if it's worn voluntarily, which it is in this case by this lady's account. My coworker, who was born in Canada, does not have any family members who wear hijab and does not have any friends who wear hijab, wears a hijab voluntarily. I wouldn't say she's less Canadian as a result of something she chooses to wear on her head.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm not at all saying she's any less Canadian. And on the off chance she doesn't feel societally inclined to wear the hijhab, does it voluntarily out of some kind of self-affirmation free from the cultural reasons to wear one, and isn't trying to make a statement to other muslim women to fold into archaic oppressive mores, then it's totally fine she wears one. I'm just saying the two moral positions can bite each other; tolerance for intolerance. It's classic existentialism. There's no ultimately right position.
 
'cause it's so hard to empathise with people that treat their headwear as as essential to standard dress right? If there was a court in a different Canadian province that wouldn't hear your case as long as you were wearing pants there'd be outrage.
 
why should there be any rules what someone chooses to wear to court? if you want to come dressed in a garbage bag you should be allowed to.
 
This discriminatory behavior from the judge is abhorrent. The hijab is part of her identity. It's even permitted when taking a passport photo, so the prerequisite that the judge is commanding is illogical. I'm sure Sikh's and Jews that wear traditional clothing have no problems in this regard.
 
Dryk said:
'cause it's so hard to empathise with people that treat their headwear as as essential to standard dress right? If there was a court in a different Canadian province that wouldn't hear your case as long as you were wearing pants there'd be outrage.
Click to expand...
There are rules in every court of the world, though, and you won't be welcome if you don't respect them.

Here, the judge seems to have chosen to enforce the decorum in her court, and I'm honestly not sure why it brings so many negative reactions towards her.

If anything, she's just applying the very same rules to everybody.
Strict equality. No exceptions. Impartial justice.
Sounds good to me.

Once again, if you feel the rules aren't good (any more), get the rules changed.
But don't bring exceptions to the existing rules for religious reasons, because what somebody calls exception, somebody else calls privilege.
 
Kind of in the camp that if it's not covering her face / identity, it shouldn't be a problem.

What was the girl in court for?
 
I'm of the opinion no form of religious garb, or any ounce of religion should be anywhere near a court of law, or the law itself (outside of those that protect religious people from scrutiny based off their religion as people should be allowed to believe what they want to without getting hatred for it if they're not using it to incite hatred).

By bringing religion into a court of law you run the risk of a jury treating a defendant or witness differently and while that's a problem of someone on the jury being either an idiot or a horrible person, it's still a big risk to need to avoid.
 
StayDead said:
I'm of the opinion no form of religious garb, or any ounce of religion should be anywhere near a court of law, or the law itself (outside of those that protect religious people from scrutiny based off their religion as people should be allowed to believe what they want to without getting hatred for it if they're not using it to incite hatred).

By bringing religion into a court of law you run the risk of a jury treating a defendant or witness differently and while that's a problem of someone on the jury being either an idiot or a horrible person, it's still a big risk to need to avoid.
Click to expand...

To be fair it wouldn't be much different than defendants wearing suits to a courtroom when they otherwise wouldn't wear one. People dress and try to appear innocent or garner sympathy for a jury.

That said I know what you mean it could still prejudice opinions if there is a Christian, Muslim, Jew etc on the jury. How far do we go with such concerns though? All kinds of things could affect a jury when they really shouldn't. Gender? Skin colour? People from adversarial neighbourhoods?
 
Fusebox said:
If I were a judge presiding over a serious court case and was interviewing someone I'd insist on seeing their facial expressions and body language to try and determine their truthfulness and motivations. Otherwise why even come to court, lets just do it over a phonecall.
Click to expand...

That would be some hilarious LA Noire DLC
 
GSG Flash said:
Are you daft?

Where did I ever say "solemn affirmation doesn't sound so secular"? I'll wait as long as it takes for you to find a quote where I said that (here's a tip, don't bother wasting your time because you're fucking lying).
Click to expand...
Sure:

GSG Flash said:
You're right that you don't have to swear by the bible but your only other option is a solemn affirmation. Doesn't sound secular to me, maybe this idiotic judge should fight against that first before picking a fight with someone who didn't mean any harm by wearing a headscarf.
Click to expand...
Now, apparently, you meant that the fact that the Bible option even still existing is what isn't secular, but the way you phrased it very strongly suggests that you thought the solemn affirmation wasn't secular enough for you. I apologize for misunderstanding, but your clarification was even more confusing because it boggles my mind how having an antiquated religious option being available and totally optional would even be an offensive blow against secularism. And this is coming from someone who's as atheistic as it gets.

Of course, the fact that you keep resorting to malicious insults and accusations of "lying" (hint: misinterpreting isn't "fucking lying", take a chill pill) is enough to tell me you are not arguing in good faith.

And yes, I find being given swearing on the bible as one of only two options offensive, especially since this lady was refused a court hearing in the supposed name of secularism.
Click to expand...
And here I thought it was a comparison to hats and sunglasses and the same rules applying to everyone. Now the judge's ruling might have been wrong or stupid (I think it was, by the way), but she didn't bring up secularism, the press did when the lady cried about the religious card.

Allowing one to swear on the bible is not secular, you don't need a PhD to understand that.
Click to expand...
It's not really "not secular" because it's irrelevant. Secularism is separating religion from the state, and also about the state enforcing religious freedom. Allowing a witness to swear on the Bible doesn't necessarily violate secularism because it is not the state that is enforcing a religion on others, it's merely allowing a witness to exercise their religion when pronouncing a statement they must feel is truthful. If swearing on the Bible were required, then it would definitely be anti-secular.

I don't care if it's a relic of the past, the policy currently exists. That link you posted does not corroborate your claims one bit, the closest thing to your claims is that it says is that it's at the judge's discretion whether an oath on the bible is accepted or not.
Click to expand...
You need reading comprehension lessons. I said it's no longer the case for civil court and that is indeed what the link said:

La Cour civile du Québec ne compte plus sur la Bible pour s'assurer de la bonne foi des témoins. Seule la déclaration solennelle y est prononcée. « Le fédéral devrait suivre l'exemple de la Cour civile, dit le professeur à la Faculté de droit civil de l'Université d'Ottawa, Charles Belleau. La loi fédérale devrait changer.

It's funny because this guy agrees with you that the Bible should be gone completely.... but from the federal court. xD But honestly, the fact that the Bible is an existing option for witnesses, does not impact others whatsoever, and does not violate anyone's civil rights. Sure, it should be gone altogether, but the oath to the Queen is a far more serious and offensive problem right now, because it basically forces many Québec elected officials to perjure themselves when being sworn in!

And who said Quebec is so terrible? Don't be an idiot
Click to expand...
That is my bad. I got you confused with several other posters (that'd be "who", but not you) who engaged in Quebec bashing in this thread, such as saying it was racist, hated "basic human rights", was unwelcoming, etc. I got you confused with CaLe I think, for some reason I thought I was quoting the same person. I do sincerely apologize for that.
 
I think people are confused about what Separation of Church and State should be.

The State should be secular, Yes. But the individual citizens who consume those public services don't necessarily have to be.
 
gutter_trash said:
I think people are confused about what Separation of Church and State should be.

The State should be secular, Yes. But the individual citizens who consume those public services don't necessarily have to be.
Click to expand...
That's what I was trying to say. That said, Bible swearing should definitely go as a matter of principle. But it's not a major concern because it doesn't harm anyone.

gutter_trash said:
have you been paying attention to the media and opposition parties?

you got radio jockeys like Benoit Dutrizac who is up the Premiere's ass everyday about secularism.
Click to expand...
Hey I didn't say Québec politics were great or anything, believe me. But we're still a far cry from the shitfest that is American politics, at least.
 
Cyd0nia said:
To be fair it wouldn't be much different than defendants wearing suits to a courtroom when they otherwise wouldn't wear one. People dress and try to appear innocent or garner sympathy for a jury.

That said I know what you mean it could still prejudice opinions if there is a Christian, Muslim, Jew etc on the jury. How far do we go with such concerns though? All kinds of things could affect a jury when they really shouldn't. Gender? Skin colour? People from adversarial neighbourhoods?
Click to expand...

one step at a time. lets first get rid of religion.
 
Morrigan Stark said:
Sure:


Now, apparently, you meant that the fact that the Bible option even still existing is what isn't secular, but the way you phrased it very strongly suggests that you thought the solemn affirmation wasn't secular enough for you. I apologize for misunderstanding, but your clarification was even more confusing because it boggles my mind how having an antiquated religious option being available and totally optional would even be an offensive blow against secularism. And this is coming from someone who's as atheistic as it gets.

Of course, the fact that you keep resorting to malicious insults and accusations of "lying" (hint: misinterpreting isn't "fucking lying", take a chill pill) is enough to tell me you are not arguing in good faith.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I seemed aggressive, it was 4 in the morning and one of my biggest pet peeves is people putting words in my mouth during a discussion. I though it was pretty obvious that I meant that the act of allowing swearing on the bible was going against secular principles. I mean there's even a period there to separate the two statements.

I would say it's you who wasn't discussing in good faith by putting words in my mouth to further your argument, that is more offensive than my use of colourful language.

And here I thought it was a comparison to hats and sunglasses and the same rules applying to everyone. Now the judge's ruling might have been wrong or stupid (I think it was, by the way), but she didn't bring up secularism, the press did when the lady cried about the religious card.
Click to expand...

That is true, the judge hasn't even spoken about this event so we don't know her true intentions. That said, the debate started when people here were claiming that she's some sort of warrior for secularism.

Edit: zhorkat below said that the judge did bring up secularism, I have to re-read the article now.

Edit2:

zhorkat is right:

Justice Marengo told her that under Rule 13 of the Court of Quebec – “any person appearing before the court must be suitably dressed” – she would have to remove her head scarf. She said that the courtroom is a “secular space” and that the rules are the same for everyone.
Click to expand...

It's not really "not secular" because it's irrelevant. Secularism is separating religion from the state, and also about the state enforcing religious freedom. Allowing a witness to swear on the Bible doesn't necessarily violate secularism because it is not the state that is enforcing a religion on others, it's merely allowing a witness to exercise their religion when pronouncing a statement they must feel is truthful. If swearing on the Bible were required, then it would definitely be anti-secular.
Click to expand...

The definition of secularism includes a strict separation of religion and government institutions. I'd say allowing an individual to swear over the bible(and giving preferential treatment to the Bible over other religious objects) is a clear violation of that principle.

You need reading comprehension lessons. I said it's no longer the case for civil court and that is indeed what the link said:

La Cour civile du Québec ne compte plus sur la Bible pour s'assurer de la bonne foi des témoins. Seule la déclaration solennelle y est prononcée. « Le fédéral devrait suivre l'exemple de la Cour civile, dit le professeur à la Faculté de droit civil de l'Université d'Ottawa, Charles Belleau. La loi fédérale devrait changer.

It's funny because this guy agrees with you that the Bible should be gone completely.... but from the federal court. xD But honestly, the fact that the Bible is an existing option for witnesses, does not impact others whatsoever, and does not violate anyone's civil rights. Sure, it should be gone altogether, but the oath to the Queen is a far more serious and offensive problem right now, because it basically forces many Québec elected officials to perjure themselves when being sworn in!
Click to expand...

More like I need French lessons. My reading level of French is very basic and we are on an English forum, so I would appreciate that you either post English links or, at the very least translate the text to English.

Either way, that is not a good source for your claims as the official website of Justice Quebec directly contradicts that article:

http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/temoins-a.htm
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/temoins-j-a.htm

On the witness stand, you must promise to tell the truth, either by swearing on the Bible or by making a solemn affirmation. The court clerk will then ask you to state your name and address. If you fear reprisals or threats, you can, with the judge’s permission, give your address in writing and it will be kept confidential.
Click to expand...

It does not make a distinction between the civil court or federal court. So unless you provide an official link backing up your claims(that only one news outlet seems to be reporting), it would make more sense to accept the official wording, no?

I don't disagree with you on swearing an oath to the Queen, but that really has no relation to the topic at hand.
 
Morrigan Stark said:
And here I thought it was a comparison to hats and sunglasses and the same rules applying to everyone. Now the judge's ruling might have been wrong or stupid (I think it was, by the way), but she didn't bring up secularism, the press did when the lady cried about the religious card.
Click to expand...

The judge didn't bring up secularism? The text of the article says the judge did, and the article even provides an audio recording where it sure sounds like the judge is bringing up secularism.
 
A lot of people on GAF are just as ignorant as this judge from Quebec. Comparing the hijab to other forms of head coverings (secular kinds, environmental kinds, fashion wise) is incongruous.

Muslim women wear hijab as a sign of modesty and self-respect for themselves and their husbands. Telling a Muslim woman to remove her hijab is like telling her to strip naked, and would be just as traumatizing for them.
 
zhorkat said:
The judge didn't bring up secularism? The text of the article says the judge did, and the article even provides an audio recording where it sure sounds like the judge is bringing up secularism.
Click to expand...
Lol that's extra BS considering the court lets you swear on the Bible.

The judge was racist. I'm very happy Rania raised $30k, she can sue the judge in court and hopefully she gets debarred.
 
"...you are wearing a scarf as a religious symbol?"

"Yes."

"In my opinion the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space. There are no religious symbols in this room, not on the walls and not on the persons. Article 13 of the regulation of the court of Quebec states, 'any person appearing before the court must be suitably dressed.' In my opinion you are not suitably dressed. Decorum is important, for example hats and sunglasses are not allowed, and I don't see why scarves on the head would be either. The same rules need to be applied to everyone. I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding. ..."​

This is petty bullshit at best, and at worst, religious discrimination. Her opinion about 'suitable clothing' would preclude certain citizens from being able to participate in a court of law because of their religion. You don't wear a hat or sunglasses out of respect to the court - no shit. Religious clothing is not disrespectful; it is completely suitable attire in modern society. It's also not a choice for certain faiths. When a 'secular' entity make rules against how one chooses to practice their religion, they cease to be secular. The rule she sites makes no mention of hijabs or anything specific; the one sentence she read is the entire rule.
 
lednerg said:
"...you are wearing a scarf as a religious symbol?"

"Yes."

"In my opinion the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space. There are no religious symbols in this room, not on the walls and not on the persons. Article 13 of the regulation of the court of Quebec states, 'any person appearing before the court must be suitably dressed.' In my opinion you are not suitably dressed. Decorum is important, for example hats and sunglasses are not allowed, and I don't see why scarves on the head would be either. The same rules need to be applied to everyone. I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head, just as I would not allow a person to appear before me wearing a hat or sunglasses on his or her head or any other garment not suitable for a court proceeding. ..."​

This is petty bullshit at best, and at worst, religious discrimination. Her opinion about 'suitable clothing' would preclude millions of people from being able to participate in a court of law because of their religion. You don't wear a hat or sunglasses out of respect to the court - no shit. Religious clothing is not disrespectful; it is completely suitable attire in modern society. It's also not a choice for certain faiths. When a 'secular' entity make rules against how one chooses to practice their religion, they cease to be secular. The rule she sites makes no mention of hijabs or anything specific; the one sentence she read is the entire rule.
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed this excerpt of the rules:
'Anything that interferes with the decorum and good order of the court is prohibited.'

The judge explicitly makes reference to the decorum as her decision to require her to take off her scarf.
Call it bullshit or anything if you want, but there's at least a valid base to her demand.
 
le-seb said:
You seem to have missed this excerpt of the rules:
'Anything that interferes with the decorum and good order of the court is prohibited.'

The judge explicitly makes reference to the decorum as her decision to require her to take off her scarf.
Call it bullshit or anything if you want, but there's at least a valid base to her demand.
Click to expand...

It is not a valid justification:

...
Case law in Canada appears to give strong backing for the right to wear religious headgear in court. The Supreme Court of Canada, ruling in a 2012 case where an alleged sex-assault victim sought to wear a niqab while testifying, said judges need to balance a witness’s sincere religious beliefs with the accused’s right to a fair trial. “A secular response that requires witnesses to park their religion at the courtroom door is inconsistent with the jurisprudence and Canadian tradition, and limits freedom of religion where no limit can be justified,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.​
 
Too many levels of bullshit in this and that Judge does not deserve her position.

Attire that represents religious modesty, worn under the same rules of religious freedoms the state is supposed to be in favour of, is being restricted and prohibited on the basis of what? "decorum"? "unsuitability"?

Unsuitable based on what specific criteria exactly..? I'd have asked the Judge to state plainly and clearly how she defines "unsuitable" in a valid legal context as she would have found it hard to accurately present a valid argument for this that wouldn't ruffle feathers or get herself into more hot water...

Oh and anyone who agrees with the Judges position on this is, contrary to their own beliefs, not doing so on the basis of preserving secular formality of courtroom proceedings (by what basis does the ladies attire have any impact on courtroom proceedings? She's not even the subject of the court case nor under any kind of scrutiny in that light) but merely in line with personal bias and a clearly observed anti-religious sentiment. But that isn't secularism and it certainly isn't tolerance and religious freedom...
 
GSG Flash said:
I apologize if I seemed aggressive, it was 4 in the morning and one of my biggest pet peeves is people putting words in my mouth during a discussion. I though it was pretty obvious that I meant that the act of allowing swearing on the bible was going against secular principles. I mean there's even a period there to separate the two statements.

I would say it's you who wasn't discussing in good faith by putting words in my mouth to further your argument, that is more offensive than my use of colourful language.



That is true, the judge hasn't even spoken about this event so we don't know her true intentions. That said, the debate started when people here were claiming that she's some sort of warrior for secularism.

Edit: zhorkat below said that the judge did bring up secularism, I have to re-read the article now.

Edit2:

zhorkat is right:





The definition of secularism includes a strict separation of religion and government institutions. I'd say allowing an individual to swear over the bible(and giving preferential treatment to the Bible over other religious objects) is a clear violation of that principle.



More like I need French lessons. My reading level of French is very basic and we are on an English forum, so I would appreciate that you either post English links or, at the very least translate the text to English.

Either way, that is not a good source for your claims as the official website of Justice Quebec directly contradicts that article:

http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/temoins-a.htm
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/temoins-j-a.htm



It does not make a distinction between the civil court or federal court. So unless you provide an official link backing up your claims(that only one news outlet seems to be reporting), it would make more sense to accept the official wording, no?

I don't disagree with you on swearing an oath to the Queen, but that really has no relation to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

It says the same thing in French.

À la barre des témoins, vous devez vous engager à dire la vérité, soit en prêtant serment sur la Bible, soit en faisant une affirmation solennelle. 

Courtrooms are not completely secular. Canada is not a laïcité country and I rue the day we adopt such a garbage ideology. I much prefer our current tradition of using reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Judge Frank Caprio has passed
5
208
DreamcastSkies replied
A new hat is thrown into (or removed from) Neogafs eternal debate
44
99
Lionel Richie replied
NHS surgeon who had his legs removed to satisfy sexual interest is jailed for fraud
2
64
819
Avid Reading Horse replied
The Yogurt Shop Murders case, over 30 years cold, appears to have finally been solved
17
286
DragoonKain replied
  • Locked
Women have become helplessly addicted to disgusting porn
2 3
103
136
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom