Support NeoGAF

[Terra Firma]

Use of the term "racism" is pretty common when describing bigotry towards different cultural groups who share a common cultural identity. There just isn't much of a better way to describe it in English.

Exactly. Antisemitism is racism. Hatred against people who appear Muslim is also clear cut racism.

 

[Sibylus]

Secularism ought to be about compelling government to extend equal protections and dignity to the diverse people it serves... not about forcibly secularizing people and stripping them of their traditions, culture, and self-expression. The judge believes she has the power to perform the latter, and that is frankly insane overreach.

And yeah, for whatever it's worth I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[injurai]

don't like em don't read em xoxo

I'm perfectly capable of reading things that are grating. But I don't think you'll find yourself convincing, if that's your goal at all, to proceed in the style that you do. Just something to think about.

But that's the thing, Canada literally does have a ruling in this scenario. There is a four point test. Religious freedoms are protected until it impacts testimony and must be judged in a case by case basis.

The laws aren't all encompassing, that should be obvious. Judges have a precedence for well... setting precedence. That is how the systems works in general. So if you want enforceable changes to the system outside of realm of judicial liberties. Then it must be codified.

 

[Tesseract]

if somebody needs to explain this to you then there is no point.

honestly I hope I never come across people like you

but feel free to call yourself an intellectual



pretty much, I'm a minority atheist and I really dont get this sentiment. I guess its because I have been dealt a shit hand because I am a minority and don't really want other people to get shit on

 

[Codeblue]

Cross? No because it's not an headgear.

The court is a secular place though.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

I wonder if the judge tipped his fedora.

You can disagree with someones religion all you want, but you shouldn't disrespect it. I'm guessing he's never made a Jewish person take off their yarmulke. Saying its the same as wearing a hat and sunglasses is a huge false equivalency because as far as I know, there are no belief systems that involve some raybans and your Yankees cap. And it's not like she was stopping everyone in the middle of a hearing so she could lay out a mat and face Mecca.

Seems like some pretty clear discrimination to me. Unless he starts every hearing by knocking off yarmulkes and slapping glasses off blind people.

 

[Volimar]

But that's the thing, Canada literally does have a ruling in this scenario. There is a four point test. Religious freedoms are protected until it impacts testimony and must be judged in a case by case basis.

I wonder how many more times you'll have to say this before it sinks in.

 

[SRG01]

Secularism ought to be about compelling government to extend equal protections and dignity to the diverse people it serves... not about forcibly secularizing people and stripping them of their traditions, culture, and self-expression. The judge believes she has the power to perform the latter, and that is frankly insane overreach.

Yes, there is a distinct difference between a secular government and an atheistic government.

 

[speculawyer]

Use of the term "racism" is pretty common when describing bigotry towards different cultural groups who share a common cultural identity. There just isn't much of a better way to describe it in English.

Yes, there is a better way and you used it. You could also go with 'religious intolerance'.

Words have meaning.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Secularism ought to be about compelling government to extend equal protections and dignity to the diverse people it serves... not about forcibly secularizing people and stripping them of their traditions, culture, and self-expression. The judge believes she has the power to perform the latter, and that is frankly insane overreach.

And yeah, for whatever it's worth I'm an agnostic atheist.

I agree with you.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yes, there is a better way and you used it. You could also go with 'religious intolerance'.

Words have meaning.

Let's be honest, there is a race component as far as Hijabs and burqas go.

 

[SRG01]

The laws aren't all encompassing, that should be obvious. Judges have a precedence for well... setting precedence. That is how the systems works in general. So if you want enforceable changes to the system outside of realm of judicial liberties. Then it must be codified.

This was a Supreme Court ruling. It's about as high and precedent setting as you can get.

I wonder how many more times you'll have to say this before it sinks in.

Haha, I was beginning to wonder if anyone was actually reading my posts

 

[FunkyMunkey]

This shouldn't need to be the solution. Just make exception for religious or cultural reasons.

Sorry, this is bullshit. There should be no exception for any religious things (not just Islam) in this case. What if I worshiped a purple elephant in the sky who told me to wear a giant dark bag over my entire body, should I be forced to remove that in court? Wait, that doesn't count because that belief is ridiculous? Well where is the line drawn? Where does the discretion lie? If people can't wear baseball hats and sunglasses in a courtroom, then you can't wrap your head in a scarf (whether covering your face completely or not) and expect an exception, it doesn't matter your beliefs.

Secularism ought to be about compelling government to extend equal protections and dignity to the diverse people it serves... not about forcibly secularizing people and stripping them of their traditions, culture, and self-expression. The judge believes she has the power to perform the latter, and that is frankly insane overreach.

Your right to self-expression through appearance does not completely flow into a courtroom. It's nonsense.

I'll be sure to wear sandals and short-shorts into a courtroom next time and throw a fit when I'm kicked out. But I just want to represent warm weather judge! Why are you infringing on my beliefs?

 

[Frog-fu]

Secularism ought to be about compelling government to extend equal protections and dignity to the diverse people it serves... not about forcibly secularizing people and stripping them of their traditions, culture, and self-expression. The judge believes she has the power to perform the latter, and that is frankly insane overreach.

And yeah, for whatever it's worth I'm an agnostic atheist.

Excellent post.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

What a crappy judge if she doesn't even realize that her ruling violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter.

 

[Loofy]

The court is a secular place though.

I dont think thats official or anything.
“In my opinion, the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space,” she said.

The leader of the official opposition party, the liberal party, and the prime ministers office said the judge is wrong.

 

[Somnid]

Yeah, it's just so silly. "If they can wear something on their head for religious and cultural reasons, then I should be able to wear something on my head for made-up religious and cultural reasons!"

We still haven't come to a consensus which religions are made up. But we seem to acknowledge some more than others due to subscribing population (and interestingly they often do not agree about what that means within their own self labeled groups giving birth to thousands of special sects). Note that this is the grounding for the permeation of Christianity in the West and why those practices are considered more proper than those of other religions. I don't think everyone is fine with that and so I wouldn't adopt a banner that minority personal preferences are less important because they are "made up."

 

[Terra Firma]

Secularism ought to be about compelling government to extend equal protections and dignity to the diverse people it serves... not about forcibly secularizing people and stripping them of their traditions, culture, and self-expression. The judge believes she has the power to perform the latter, and that is frankly insane overreach.

And yeah, for whatever it's worth I'm an agnostic atheist.

This is an excellent post.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Your right to self-expression through appearance does not completely flow into a courtroom. It's nonsense.

I'll be sure to wear sandals and short-shorts into a courtroom next time and throw a fit when I'm kicked out. But I just want to represent warm weather judge! Why are you infringing on my beliefs?

I don't know how conducting oneself with dignity while trying to respect their own beliefs is the same as "surf's up, brah, don't harsh my vibe."

 

[injurai]

This was a Supreme Court ruling. It's about as high and precedent setting as you can get.

You're losing the subject. What was? That religious freedoms be protected. Because unless it's explicit that hijabs are allowed this is a case by case ruling. The precedence I was talking about is the ability for judges to pick out something that is not explicit and make a ruling on it. Thus setting a new precedent. There is a precedent in this process itself.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Sorry, this is bullshit. There should be no exception for any religious things (not just Islam) in this case. What if I worshiped a purple elephant in the sky who told me to wear a giant dark bag over my entire body, should I be forced to remove that in court? Wait, that doesn't count because that belief is ridiculous? Well where is the line drawn? Where does the discretion lie? If people can't wear baseball hats and sunglasses in a courtroom, then you can't wrap your head in a scarf (whether covering your face completely or not) and expect an exception, it doesn't matter your beliefs.

Well first off, let's get this out of the way: you do not worship a purple elephant in the sky, nor will you ever for a single moment in your entire life. That you compare "ancient religion" to "thing I made up while jerking off intellectually on NeoGAF" is super disheartening.

We still haven't come to a consensus which religions are made up. But we seem to acknowledge some more than others due to subscribing population (and interestingly they often do not agree about what that means within their own self labeled groups giving birth to thousands of special sects). Note that this is the grounding for the permeation of Christianity in the West and why those practices are considered more proper than those of other religions. I don't think everyone is fine with that and so I wouldn't adopt a banner that minority personal preferences are less important because they are "made up."

I shouldn't need to explain that "made up" refers to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and elephants in the sky.

 

[Angel_DvA]

I can understand the judge decision as long as it was covering her face, if it was just around her head, I see no problem with it.

 

[googleplex]

no hats or sunglasses should include hijabs

not a human being because you gotta remove a cap? rekt.

Bullshit. No one would ask a Jewish person to remove thier yarmulke.

 

[speculawyer]

if somebody needs to explain this to you then there is no point.

honestly I hope I never come across people like you

but feel free to call yourself an intellectual

Make an argument. There are plenty to be made. Or don't make an argument. But don't just throw up your hands and spew veiled insults. It kinda comes off as childish.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I can understand the judge decision as long as it was covering her face, if it was just around her head, I see no problem with it.

It wasn't covering her face. Hijabs don't cover faces. Read the article.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Well first off, let's get this out of the way: you do not worship a purple elephant in the sky, nor will you ever for a single moment in your entire life. That you compare "ancient religion" to "thing I made up while jerking off intellectually on NeoGAF" is super disheartening.

Most people don't see the difference between religious garb and favorite sports teams. A lot of people see religion as non-sense anyway so their position here isn't that outrageous.

You can compare ancient religion beliefs to the Purple Elephant. Why? Because that's the belief. You cannot compare the effect its had though. Different argument altogether.

If it's a rule to remove your head coverings and religious symbols in trial then just remove it. Your Almighty won't smite you right then and there. If it's not against the rules then the judge is overreaching.

 

[MuzzledBasher]

. A hijab is an inoffensive, innocious article of clothing.

And who decides what is inoffensive and innocuous? Does your tolerance of hijab also extend to burqa?

 

[GSG Flash]

This thread is ridiculous...

You would think that in cases like this you wouldn't have people trying to justify the actions of the judge

I agree.

Religion is an outdated concept to me, I wouldn't give two shits if the hijab or the yarmulke/kippah or the Sikh turban went the way of the dodo bird. I think the niqab and any other garment or accessory that fully or partially covers the face(including sun glasses) should definitely be banned in the court of law where an individual's visual identity is imperative.

That said, this lady was wearing the hijab, not the niqab, where her face was fully identifiable. Her hijab would not have affected the case that she went to court to make in any way. It was 100% harmless, as is the Jewish kippah or the Sikh turban. The judge should be ashamed of herself and she is unfit to be a judge as it's clear that she's not capable of delivering justice.

And anyone defending the judge needs to take a long hard look in the mirror, because they are condoning the curtailment of an individual's harmless right to freedom of expression.

And yes, I still think she's a racist piece of shit because I believe her actions were racially motivated, but that's my opinion.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Obviously not.

People are either ignorant or playing dumb with this sort of response; we all know what someone is talking about when they label treatment like this as racism.

 

[Trey]

We should just make everyone get naked. That way its just us and the truth.

how did you know what I called it?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Well first off, let's get this out of the way: you do not worship a purple elephant in the sky, nor will you ever for a single moment in your entire life. That you compare "ancient religion" to "thing I made up while jerking off intellectually on NeoGAF" is super disheartening.

I don't know how conducting oneself with dignity while trying to respect their own beliefs is the same as "surf's up, brah, don't harsh my vibe."

And yet, wearing shorts to worship the Sun God holds about the same weight as wearing whatever for whichever religion and both deserve about the same amout of merit in a court of law. They are all personal beliefs that you may respect yourselves (which is fine) but don't inherently warrant the same amount of respect from others.

And if we're going to play ancient religion vs new "jerking off intellectually" ones, why not jump back to Greek Gods? Or maybe Vikings? Do those hold more weight than Islam or Christianity or Scientology or Buddhism, because they are older?

 

[A Link to the Past]

And who decides what is inoffensive and innocuous? Does your tolerance of hijab also extend to burqa?

Is your intolerance to the burqa because you actually care about the women who wear them, or is it due to a dislike of their religion?

 

[Volimar]

You're losing the subject. What was? That religious freedoms be protected. Because unless it's explicit that hijabs are allowed this is a case by case ruling. The precedence I was talking about is the ability for judges to pick out something that is not explicit and make a ruling on it. Thus setting a new precedent. There is a precedent in this process itself.

This isn't even a case of legal precedent. The case before the judge wasn't about wearing hijabs in courtrooms. The judge's actions were outside the per view of the case. This was about preference, not precedence.

 

[speculawyer]

Well first off, let's get this out of the way: you do not worship a purple elephant in the sky, nor will you ever for a single moment in your entire life. That you compare "ancient religion" to "thing I made up while jerking off intellectually on NeoGAF" is super disheartening.



I shouldn't need to explain that "made up" refers to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and elephants in the sky.

Yes . . . we do need some of test.
Is Mormonism a religion?
Is Scientology a religion?
Is Jedi a religion?

Some people will say "yes" and others will say "no" to all of those.

 

[Boogie]

That judge is almost assuredly a racist piece of shit. Let's not forget that you have to swear an oath on the bible in Quebec courtrooms.

edit: oh my god, not even the most right-wing news sites were as bad as this GAF thread in terms of racism In a court where you have to swear on the Bible, an hijab is not allowed to be worn? That's a laugh.

You don't have to swear an oath on a Bible in Canadian courts.

Witnesses are asked if they would prefer to swear an oath on a holy book such as the Bible or a Quran, or make a secular "solemn affirmation" regarding their testimony.

 

[SystemBug]

Make an argument. There are plenty to be made. Or don't make an argument. But don't just throw up your hands and spew veiled insults. It kinda comes off as childish.

There is no point in making one when the dudes rebuttal is essentially going to be "so what"

honestly I'm tried of making arguments against people who are Islamaphobic. The last time that happened the dude literally said my parent's love ISIS and want to do the things ISIS does.

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Yes . . . we do need some of test.
Is Mormonism a religion?
Is Scientology a religion?
Is Jedi a religion?

Some people will say "yes" and others will say "no" to all of those.

Wait, so if I wanted to wear Jedi robes into a courtroom, a judge may actually refuse to allow it? But what about Religious Freedom? Oh wait Islam is older than Jedi so it deserve more respect, I think I'm understanding now

 

[kamorra]

This shouldn't need to be the solution. Just make exception for religious or cultural reasons.

Even for a Burqa?

 

[speculawyer]

Let's be honest, there is a race component as far as Hijabs and burqas go.

So white people can't be Muslims? That seems racist to me.

 

[genjiZERO]

Yes, there is a better way and you used it. You could also go with 'religious intolerance'.

Words have meaning.

it's not so cut and dry though because a reasonable person can see that Islamophobia and Anti-semitism are not purely matters of religious intolerance, but have an ethnic component as well.

Furthermore, race itself isn't carefully defined. For example, Koreans and Indians are both "Asian" yet no one could reasonably say they are the same. Where does one race begin and another end? The term race and what it constitutes is as plastic as it gets. So I'm not really seeing what the big deal is using the term racism here especially since it's being used colloquially.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You don't have to swear an oath on a Bible in Canadian courts.

Witnesses are asked if they would prefer to swear an oath on a holy book such as the Bible or a Quran, or make a secular "solemn affirmation" regarding their testimony.

It's still an option. If she is accurate in describing the court as secular, Bibles should be banned.

So white people can't be Muslims? That seems racist to me.

So instead of taking what I said as "the vast majority of Muslim people are not white, leading to Muslims being disproportionately targeted by atheists", you take that as "white people can't be Muslims."

Participate in this discussion with even the tiniest amount of good faith, please.

 

[Codeblue]

I dont think thats official or anything.
“In my opinion, the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space,” she said.

The leader of the official opposition party, the liberal party, and the prime ministers office said the judge is wrong.

I mean, the court is definitely a secular space, and that's the way it should be. How you think people should conduct themselves in a secular space is a different matter. If you think religious symbols have no place in court, then that should extend to all religious symbols.

In any case, I'm not sure why she even brought up secularism if she was just going to argue the baseball cap thing.

 

[Volimar]

Fun fact. My kindle spell check changed hijab to hijack. WTF Amazon?

 

[Eos]

edit: nvm

 

[SystemBug]

So white people can't be Muslims? That seems racist to me.

If I was a white Muslim I wouldn't be stopped in the airport because I wouldn't be racially profiled.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

You don't have to swear an oath on a Bible in Canadian courts.

Witnesses are asked if they would prefer to swear an oath on a holy book such as the Bible or a Quran, or make a secular "solemn affirmation" regarding their testimony.

You don't have to, but you can. So to say the courtroom is laïcité-type secular is false.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

And yet, wearing shorts to worship the Sun God holds about the same weight as wearing whatever for whichever religion and both deserve about the same amout of merit in a court of law. They are all personal beliefs that you may respect yourselves (which is fine) but don't inherently warrant the same amount of respect from others.

And if we're going to play ancient religion vs new "jerking off intellectually" ones, why not jump back to Greek Gods? Or maybe Vikings? Do those hold more weight than Islam or Christianity or Scientology or Buddhism, because they are older?

If you're that devout to a long-dead solar cult religion, then go ahead and wear your shorts, but make sure they are formal and that you wear a tie.

Reasonable compromise?

If there are no practicing members of long-dead religions, and you're only doing that shit to make a point, that's disingenuous as fuck.

 

[kamorra]

If I was a white Muslim I wouldn't be stopped in the airport because I wouldn't be racially profiled.

So it really isn't so much Islamophobia but just plain Racism?

 

[S-Wind]

When it comes to the treatment of ethnic, racial, and religious minorities, in some ways, Quebec is the Alabama of Canada.

"Pure Laine"

 

[GSG Flash]

You don't have to swear an oath on a Bible in Canadian courts.

Witnesses are asked if they would prefer to swear an oath on a holy book such as the Bible or a Quran, or make a secular "solemn affirmation" regarding their testimony.

You're right, you can make a solemn affirmation as your right to a secular oath. That said, in Quebec you only have the option of a solemn affirmation or the Bible, nothing else:

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

On the witness stand, you must promise to tell the truth, either by swearing on the Bible or 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 ask the judge to allow you to give your address in writing and it will then be kept confidential.