do they not swear on holy texts in quebec?
Quebec judge refuses to hear women's case until she removed Hijab
- Thread starter Maninthemirror
- Start date
- Status
do they not swear on holy texts in quebec?
Yeah. Bible or solemn affirmation.
i thought so. rich coming from a justice system that up until forty years ago required a motion in parliament to allow a divorce because of how religious the populace were.
I looked it up and yup. Apparently they give you an assortment of religious texts to chose from or you can just 'affirm' if you'd like. The entire basis of this judge's opinion, that there are "no religious symbols in this room", is flat out wrong. She's either a moron or a bigoted moron.
I stand corrected.
No doubt this judge has gotten into trouble, then.
Interesting how different justice courts can come to diametrically opposed conclusions on this question : European Court of Human Rights considered that religious freedom neither protected any act motived or inspired by religion, nor always granted the right to behave accordingly to some religious beliefs, basically (Court was examining the case of France banning any religious signs from public schools).
No shit. I don't post much anymore, but I'm quite taken aback at how many people here would shit all over human rights in the name of "secularism".
Poodlestrike
Banned
Europe as a whole is significantly less (legally) tolerant of speech and religion than the States or Canada, so it's not really surprising.
It's threads like these in which the real bigots come out and show their true colours.
LaserBuddha
Member
If it were up to me I would treat hijabs and other religious clothing the same as hats, etc: If you must have a rule against it, then that rule applies the same to religious and non-religious clothing. That's because I don't think a court of law is a place to make allowances for fairy tale beliefs. Also get rid of the fucking bibles, torahs, qurans, etc, for swearing oaths.
You've got a funny definition of "human rights". (as long as we are throwing around scare quotes for no apparent reason)
gutter_trash
Banned
bigotry exists everywhere, even minorities can be as bigoted as the majority
but back to the story, the Judge misinterpreted the rules IMO and the judge was wrong in "this" case.
Premiere Philippe Couillard has been dogged for over a year for "doing nothing" about secularism and religious accommodations. He is forced to come up with legislation this summer because the local media and opposition parties bring this up daily.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Lol weren't you advocating affirmative action for ugly people. That's a weirder definition of human rights to me.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=741928&page=3
I used to be into the atheist community on YouTube and elsewhere, but the antagonism against the religious got to be too much and I had to bail. It's just not healthy to be that angry all the time, especially about shit you cannot change. It sucks how the moderate voices in any community inevitably get drowned out by zealots.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm sort of torn between just throwing a fedoratipping.gif and seriously responding. How firmly do you believe that religion is just "fairy tale beliefs," and that it's no different from any other method of choosing garments?
LaserBuddha
Member
You must be thinking of someone else.
Do you really think wearing a scarf on your head during a singular event like a court hearing is a matter of human rights? Wearing tinfoil on your head in court because you believe aliens are listening is a matter of human rights too then.
Your joke is trite and religion is bullshit. I don't know how you got to a debate on methods of choosing garments, when we are talking about rules on what a court will allow. They can require everyone to wear hats for all I care, but I don't see supernatural beliefs as a reason to start making exceptions, tying in human rights, and treating a scraf with hushed reverence.
If the rules were up to me from the outset, I wouldn't have the sort of clothing restrictions this court has to begin with.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Well, the main difference I see is that one is a large part of a person's identity (and has been a source of persecution throughout history) and the other is the result of a mental illness.
She was being forced to commit a sinful act according to her faith just in order to be heard in a court of law. The Supreme Court of Canada has already stated that this kind of treatment is not lawful. They also don't force you to swear on a Bible, because that would be wrong for a very similar reason. If you want freedom from religion, then you also want freedom of religion.
unpopularblargh
Member
When an authority figure uses it as justification to deny you due process in a court of law? Yes.
Freedom of religion is a basic right.
gutter_trash
Banned
if an elected Federal MP can wear a turban in the House of Commons... I don't see what the problem is with a woman plaintiff/defendant showing up in court with hijab headscarf.
LaserBuddha
Member
The difference for me is this: Say we have two people wearing headwear, one a baseball cap and the other a hijab, and the court requires them to remove those. Both refuse and are denied a hearing. While I think the whole concept of a garment bringing a court of law to a standstill is ridiculous, both of those people made a free choice and neither one is having their rights violated by being given this choice. Basically I'm saying that I don't have a high regard for superstition.
There is a massive, MASSIVE difference between saying that it should be illegal for businesses to have a standing discrimination policy against ugly applicants, and advocating affirmative action for ugly people.
Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
Who are you to decide whether one person's beliefs are more valid than another person's beliefs? While I disagree with what the judge did, religious beliefs don't deserve any special treatment. If someone believes that they need to wear a tinfoil hat in court, they should be allowed to do so. As long as what they wear doesn't cover their face, I see no reason to force them to remove it.
gutter_trash
Banned
what about cancer ladies who lost their hair who wear a bandanna?
Poodlestrike
Banned
Eh. Fair enough.
0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55
Banned
So, do people sleep with a hijab on?
"A hijab is a veil that covers the head and chest, which is particularly worn by some Muslim women beyond the age of puberty in the presence of adult males outside of their immediate family and, according to some interpretations, in the presence of adult non-Muslim females outside of their immediate family." - Wikipedia
LaserBuddha
Member
This is what I would consider a practical need.
I will say again, although I'm sure I can say it a thousand times and have it still ignored: I don't favor strict dress codes in general and would not choose to create a rule against hats. In both business and government, it's all a bunch of nonsense to project so much meaning on to certain kinds of clothing and pretend that a pair of sandals here or a tshirt there is going to harm something. I think it's really just a proxy way for bosses, judges, etc to assert their authority over others.
I just don't have any more respect for the idea that a woman showing her hair is a big no-no to the sky wizard (everyone keeps saying its a choice though...) than I do for someone wearing the aforementioned tinfoil hat because they believe Xenu will audit their private thoughts. The only difference between the two beliefs is the passage of time, but one is apparently a victim of human rights abuse and the other is a crackpot.
Thank you.
gutter_trash
Banned
strict dress codes in the court room is discriminatory to the poor who don't own suits
What a ridiculous and petty judge, and I can't believe there are people here supporting her. Freedom of religion is a basic human right
I am sorry, but this is nonsense, and sounds like a rule a racist would heavily abuse.
Using this logic:
By bringing race 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. So, if a defendant is from a minority group, they should be painted white for the trial, or a white stunt double should be hired for the trial.
I am sorry, but this is nonsense, and sounds like a rule a racist would heavily abuse.
Using this logic:
By bringing race 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. So, if a defendant is from a minority group, they should be painted white for the trial, or a white stunt double should be hired for the trial.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
This logic seems prevalent. This first comment in the Journal de Montréal article that gutter_trush linked was something like "we require you to remove your hijab to protect YOU in case the judge is prejudiced". Like seriously wat
It's funny how racist complain about accommodating people and then they want minorities to jump through hoops to accommodate them.
Baldwin_the_First
Member
Power trip from a Judge, well I would never imagine! Doesn't need to be racist, just a asshole. I never heard of it happening before and I'm in Quebec, this is just stupidity from yet another human being. Sometimes, it just ain't about a province,state, country, religious belief or the race.
Which has not a damned thing to do with anything going on here.
/thread
layzie1989
Member
I feel like I'm in bizarro GAF reading the first page. does Canada not have the freedom of religious expression or something? Are the people in this thread against her just ignorant?
Phd_In_Owning
Neo Member
Imagine there is an expert witness wearing some religious garment in a trial.
The expert witness has to provide an expert opinion; their belief derived from the facts of the scenario and their knowledge. Bias EXISTS in every judicial system, we can’t eliminate it completely but where we can eliminate it we SHOULD.
This expert witness, who has a religious belief completely irrelevant to their area of expertise, believes their faith – which is based on very little- is true and holds it above all other faiths.
How can you eliminate the bias this person would receive, from those that do not share this persons beliefs, with respect to their expert testimony? Is it not better that we do not see this persons beliefs written on them???
Of course, a proper expert witness SHOULDN’T receive any bias and I am not saying that in my example situation the religious expert deserves any. But if they are dressed appropriately for the court setting than this eliminates some potential bias that may be directed at them.
Secularism is integral to the justice system in eliminating bias and thus integral in the search for justice.
I don’t agree with the SCC decision for this reason.
The expert witness has to provide an expert opinion; their belief derived from the facts of the scenario and their knowledge. Bias EXISTS in every judicial system, we can’t eliminate it completely but where we can eliminate it we SHOULD.
This expert witness, who has a religious belief completely irrelevant to their area of expertise, believes their faith – which is based on very little- is true and holds it above all other faiths.
How can you eliminate the bias this person would receive, from those that do not share this persons beliefs, with respect to their expert testimony? Is it not better that we do not see this persons beliefs written on them???
Of course, a proper expert witness SHOULDN’T receive any bias and I am not saying that in my example situation the religious expert deserves any. But if they are dressed appropriately for the court setting than this eliminates some potential bias that may be directed at them.
Secularism is integral to the justice system in eliminating bias and thus integral in the search for justice.
I don’t agree with the SCC decision for this reason.
I think it has to do with her religion. I don't think any one would be supporting the judge if she was saying the same thing to a Sikh.
Except Morrigan Stark insisted she was specifically speaking of the civil court, which has its own rules.
299. Nul n'est admis à déposer, sous peine de nullité de sa déposition, s'il n'a fait le serment de dire la vérité.
Dans tous les cas, le tribunal doit voir à ce que la formule du serment, laquelle consiste à faire l'affirmation solennelle de dire la vérité, toute la vérité et rien que la vérité, soit lue au témoin de manière qu'il la comprenne bien.
You're simply asked for solemn affirmation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and only the truth. Like it happens in France, for example.Dans tous les cas, le tribunal doit voir à ce que la formule du serment, laquelle consiste à faire l'affirmation solennelle de dire la vérité, toute la vérité et rien que la vérité, soit lue au témoin de manière qu'il la comprenne bien.
No Bible or Queen option, here.
You mean fedora right?
The online atheist community was overtaken by popular, militant anti-theists some years ago. Now whenever the issue of religious freedom comes up, there's undoubtedly going to a vocal bunch who feel no shame in espousing their intolerance towards the religious as if it's some kind of enlightened or reasonable way to act in public. Then there's probably Islamophobes, which I don't even want to get into since it's so unfounded and embarassing to witness.
What absolutely ridiculous and bigoted nonsense. This is when rule making goes too far. Her wearing a hijab is a religious garment which is intrinsic to her way of life and identity, and completely harmless to any one but those with strong prejudice, xenophobia or general anti religious sentiment, which is a fault of their own and not hers, and as such not something she should be punished or discriminated against for.
I'm glad this was over turned, and if the judge has not been consistent with this rule for other religious garments (Jewish kippahs, veils, Sikh turbans etc), she should be properly reprimanded, punished and fired from her duty. Hell, if she simply wrongly punished and embarrassed her for this, the same should follow.
I'm glad this was over turned, and if the judge has not been consistent with this rule for other religious garments (Jewish kippahs, veils, Sikh turbans etc), she should be properly reprimanded, punished and fired from her duty. Hell, if she simply wrongly punished and embarrassed her for this, the same should follow.
It absolutely is.
Sorry but it's not no matter how much your vocal minority wish it were. The condemnation this has received just ilustrates how out of touch you are.
LaserBuddha
Member
Appeal to popularity = white noise post.
It's crazy that people think there is anything practical, productive or useful about asking a woman to remove her hijab in court.
1. Nothing of value can be ascertained from seeing her hair.
2. The arbitrary nature of 'dress code' is something that can, should and will continue to be fought against for a whole manner of different reasons - fuck my hair (dreads) would be considered bad etiquette by quite a few people, but if I have to cut my hair before I go to court, it's some bullshit.
3. All this does is further create unnecessary conflict and strife.
4. Basically every federal entity who's commented on this has said it was a dumb decision, and from some language I've read, it implies the judge might want to undo her decision but she actually can't. This whole thing was a dumb ass kerfuffle by a dumb ass judge.
5. Don't let your dislike for religion, Islam or otherwise, make you act foolish. I am extremely vocal about my dislike for Islam, but that doesn't mean we should hamstring ourselves and tie ourselves up in stupid legislative decisions just to spite a woman who was doing a routine visit to the courts. For the non-religious in you who want to ideally bring more people into being non-religious, this sort of shit is the -last- thing you want to do. You want to seem inviting, open, and respectful - not a belligerent ass.
1. Nothing of value can be ascertained from seeing her hair.
2. The arbitrary nature of 'dress code' is something that can, should and will continue to be fought against for a whole manner of different reasons - fuck my hair (dreads) would be considered bad etiquette by quite a few people, but if I have to cut my hair before I go to court, it's some bullshit.
3. All this does is further create unnecessary conflict and strife.
4. Basically every federal entity who's commented on this has said it was a dumb decision, and from some language I've read, it implies the judge might want to undo her decision but she actually can't. This whole thing was a dumb ass kerfuffle by a dumb ass judge.
5. Don't let your dislike for religion, Islam or otherwise, make you act foolish. I am extremely vocal about my dislike for Islam, but that doesn't mean we should hamstring ourselves and tie ourselves up in stupid legislative decisions just to spite a woman who was doing a routine visit to the courts. For the non-religious in you who want to ideally bring more people into being non-religious, this sort of shit is the -last- thing you want to do. You want to seem inviting, open, and respectful - not a belligerent ass.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
You are right for that particular court. Still, the judge is lawfully wrong and violated the Charter. It's funny because you would expect a Judge to know this basic thing.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I actually agree with the notion that a strawman is more offensive than colourful language, believe it or not. But in my case it was not an intentional one, I simply misunderstood. Your phrasing was a bit weird, but I accept that I made a mistake and I apologize. Moving on...
It does not because this source is specifically about criminal law.
Here's another source saying the same thing as the first article I linked:
http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/ac...6-serment-sur-la-bible-au-choix-des-juges.php
Sorry for the French sources but hey we are talking about Québec law. Here it says:
Translation:
The MLQ (Movement Laïc Québécois or "Movement for Secular Québec") insists that in civil cases, there is no place for an oath sworn on the Bible or any other sacred text. "It's the Civil Procedure Code that should be applied, and this one only considers solemn affirmation. If a court clerk allows a Bible or any other religious text, he or she does so by tradition and goes against the law.
The MLQ also called out the Charbonneau commission about this in September 2012. "The court clerk asked witnesses if they wanted to swear an oath on the Bible or make a solemn affirmation," remembers Mr. Baril. "We told the Charbonneau Commission that this way of doing things goes against current legislation."
Thanks for the official source. I tried googling and could only find articles and those government sites are crap to navigate.
(I'm a she, btw.)
theignoramus
Member
Eh albertan rednecks elected a Muslim mayor of Calgary something that would never happen in Montreal or Quebec city
I was referring specifically to rednecks in Alberta, I wasn't calling all Albertans rednecks
I don't know if Calgary standards are across the board in Alberta though but the diversity is growing especially since the last oil booms. More and more people from around the country and world are looking for work here.
- Status