Jump to navigation
Just reread it SJ, and I see no contradictions in his post, what do you see as a contradiction?
Yes the rights of those poor male civli servants are being trampled on because a woman wants another woman to take her picture. Apparently the woman has to choose between her beliefs and services provided by the government. Are we losing sight of the fact that the Charter is primarily designed to protect people from the government not to protect government employees' schedules from citizens requests that are not unreasonable. The woman did not insist that this be made into a standard practice and thus would be setting up gender based services she herself asked for an accommodation that only required her being sent to a customer service employee who was also a woman.
in Canada we protect against discrimination not reverse discrimination. I have little time to spend wondering whether any religion should be tolerated in Canada because I think they are all problematic and most are patriarchal at best but since we protect freedom of conscience why is this woman's conscience is irrelevant.
Yes the rights of those poor male civli servants are being trampled on because a woman wants another woman to take her picture.
Perhaps you already know this, but this accomodation isn't being denied in order to protect some "right" of a male civil servant. If that's your understanding of this, I think you've got the wrong end.
Unionist, this is getting confused and we're about to be EPU'd anyway. I was responding only to statements you made @ 94, not to the general argument re this case introduced into the thread quite late, and about which I gather we still don't have good evidence.
So let me just say this in summary of my own position. The Charter does not tell you or anyone else, certainly not any male but no self-righteous female either, to go out and liberate women. It tells you something about your own behaviour. It tells you that you cannot discriminate against women. And that's all it does -- except it will certainly pull you up short if your proselytizing among women becomes newly oppressive to women.
Women will liberate themselves, not by patriarchal state edicts but by their own free choice, which the Charter only acknowledges and protects, did not create, since women's rights are inherent. The Charter recognizes that women are fully human, which is still news to a lot of people and which is a principle that has still to be asserted every day. Being human does not mean being perfect -- it can mean being just as mediocre as most men are. That's as far as the Charter goes.
The Charter is about your behaviour, not women's reality. Go thou and sin no more (and try to talk some more men into the same headspace).
I don't know the reasons since I have been unable to read the decision so far. i do know better than to presume that the MSM actually read or understood the nuances that this decision must contain. What would be the reason to not accommodate such an easy request? Either because it infringed on some male workers rights or because it is not a matter of conscience for the woman. Feel free to suggest other possibilities since most often dualities are not the only choices.
That is what I want to see in writing. Too me the idea that a male civil service employee would be inconvenienced is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this is an item of conscience for this woman and whether the accommodation requested is reasonable and does not cause undue hardship. What is being said here is that freedom of conscience should not be a protected Charter right when it comes to religious believes that are outside of the "norm." At present freedom of conscience is a Charter right so why is this woman not being accommodated?
continued over here