Reasonable Accommodations Debate, Part III

As usual I just lost a post while this was being moved.  I hate that!!!!

I will repost the last entry that made the cut since Remind seems to have ignored it and instead of responding threw out a nasty little slag at all who disagree.  

So Remind do you believe that freedom of conscience should be included in the Charter or is that the sticking point you have.  Or is it merely that you don't share this woman's believes so she is not only wrong but trampling on your right to have your world view imposed on this WOMAN..

Quote:

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?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As usual I just lost a post while this was being moved.  I hate that!!!!

 

I will repost the last entry that made the cut since Remind seems to have ignored it and instead of responding threw out a nasty little slag at all who disagree.  

So Remind do you believe that freedom of conscience should be included in the Charter or is that the sticking point you have.  Or is it merely that you don't share this woman's believes so she is not only wrong but trampling on your right to have your world view imposed on this WOMAN..

Quote:

 

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?

The accomodation requested is not reasonable in the least. Freedom of conscience should be protected, but only to the point of not infringing on someone else's rights and equality. The example of justice of the peaces who do not want to marry gay couples came up. It is not a huge hardship for another justice of the peace to perform a certain marriage, but we should not go down this road. Men, women, gays and straits, etc. etc. should be treated the same in public services whether they are employees or clients. A justice of the peace has freedom of conscience in terms of the right to practice their religion and at home, etc. They can refuse to let gay people into their house if they want. They DO NOT have the right to refuse service in their job to certain groups.  Your freedom ends where mine begins is the principle. Similarily, barring issues of sensitivity, a male or female does not have the read to plead freedom of conscience if they do not wish to interract with the opposite sex. Another good example was police officers.

This is not about this woman and some other member of the public. This is about a woman saying to the government I have these believes and I want an accommodation that is very easy.  If this isn't about her religious believes then what is it about?  You must understand that discrimination is supposed to be examined from the perspective of whether the believes are honestly held and whether they would lead to the government having to incur hardship to comply with a request. You seem to be turning it on its head to say that a citizen must prove the righteousness of their beliefs and if it fails some purity test it is not a protected belief.  She did not ask you are any other woman in this country to do anything or change anything about your life.  Do you really think that since her beliefs are not feminist enough for you her religious rights should be denied?  

If you didn't mean that people who disagree with you are so far beyond anything reasonable that you can't even imagine their viewpoint, please explain then what you actually meant by this. Sure sounded snarky and pointed to me so I await an explanation.

Quote:

Agree snert, it is well beyond protecting the rights of a civil servant, so far beyond  had never even considered someone here would think so.

remind wrote:

I am not asking for rigorous proof of anything, I am stating that no such types of excluding accomodation are acceptable based upon relgion/culture in the public  secular sphere. It sets precedents for everything else.

I disagree with a public sphere that is so fixed in place that it can predetermine exclusion based on difference (sound familiar?). I like how this woman's insistence can challenge what is deemed public in the same way that progressive, Western feminists have challenged what is public.  Hegemony in the public realm is never fair, nor democratic, and so if you are going to qualify the public sphere as 'secular', then you have automatically excluded a number of interests from showing up.

No Remind you have the fact scenario on its head.  I agree no one would accept someone had the right to insist others wear clothing they don't want to.  You are saying that these Mennonite women can be told that they must remove the little cap to receive a service. That is the closer analogy to the facts in the veil case. 

Quote:

because if you do not sniff examine  an issue from every  parallel, you are in danger of forming an opinion that has not been welll thought out, and/or could indeed be racist in and of itself, while believing one is not being so.

you win I'm a racist and will stop posting on this subject.   

remind wrote:

 JM, where I am from there is a whack load of Mennonites, and they are pretty damn fundamentalist. Their wives and daughters all wear the head gear, and many home school as they do not want they children impacted by the public school system.

 

Now we start accomodating one religion in the public realm, we have to accomodate ALL religions. The Charter would demand it.

 

So this would mean they would have a right to demand that their children and themselves be accomodated in the manner they want. The teachers would have to dress according to their dictates, sales clerks would have to slap on the little net cap to serve them, or their religion would be affronted.

 

Seriously this is not difficult stuff to get. But I think people are so concerned with appearing tolerant and politically correct, it blinds them to the realities of accomodating for exclusion/inclusion preferences based upon religious dictates, based upon Charter equity rights.

I'm not the one with my hand on the throttle, nor are you. It is not like "we" are opening the flood gates to other interests. We are other interests, too. How can you not acknowledge that creating preconditions for exclusion fosters a very non-democratic and closed public realm? As a matter of fact, it isn't public at all if it is only for some and cannot be accessible - even through contestation - by others. Sorry, but this preoccupation for letting marginal interests in is a recipe for more fearmongering and xenophobia of the other.

remind wrote:

How can you not acknowledge that creating preconditions for minority inclusion based upon excluding factors fosters a very non-democratic and closed public realm?

I never suggested that anyone *must* be included through preconditions. I stated that everyone should have the right to struggle in the public realm and that preconditions on who can participate and how they can participate are inherently exclusive. The minute anyone starts deciding who belongs and who doesn't belong in the public sphere we are engaging in marginalization. This form of framingreally bothers me about this debate.

So, if we place limits the sphere how does this make us any different than other exclusionary groups?

I appreciate that based on the interests that progressive babblers want to protect they will try to exclude dangerous interests - as other communities would do. Let's just not fool ourselves in thinking that we are democratic and open when we say "no, never" to those interests and act on our promise.

Ghislaine wrote:

Saying "no, never" to tolerating sexism and inequality of the sexes in the public sphere is progressive, open and democratic. It is crucial.  No one is being excluded. Sexism is what is being excluded. A person's beliefs, etc. are their right to hold and their choice - however they must understand that society will (I sincerely believe and hope!) remain secular. 

Call it the "open, democratic, progressive public sphere" if you want. It is still exclusionary to tell people what content and actions are to be private.

I acknowledge that you are trying to foster democratic inclusion of marginal or unequal groups, but that don't make it "open".

We do not have a secular society. Listening to the National Anthem or observing which holidays are privileged makes that clear.

Ultimately, the courts will decide what constitutes a "reasonable accommodation." It would be interesting to know what the SCC would have to say on the current case.

Ghislaine wrote:

Where would it end? If anything one claims as their personal "conscience" and belief is to be considered reasonable merely because it is a deeply held belief we are in for a wild ride down a slippery slope. 

This type of argument is usually held by members of the politically dominant segment of society -more frequently males- as their own interests are entranched within the structure of society and are very unlikely to seek any accomodation (the whole structure accomodates them) let alone to be denied one. 

Yes, but we have been fighting the domination of the (Catholic) church for decades - we have pretty much achieved secular school boards, but there are still those damned subsidies to religious schools (Catholic and fundie Evangelical Christians, Muslims, Jews, and perhaps others) that preach that women are subhuman beings who have to cover/produce children or whatever misogynist demands that they ALL make on us, those brothers in arms.

I am well aware of Islamophobia and prejudices endured by people (including friends and comrades) assumed to be Muslim, whatever their actual beliefs or lack of beliefs. Racism must be combatted. But idem the oppression of women in ALL patriarchal religions.

Muslim women and others with concealing headwear will have to uncover their faces when they deal with Quebec government services, under landmark legislation tabled Wednesday in the province's legislature.

In tabling the controversial bill, Quebec has delved into sensitive territory where governments in Canada have largely avoided treading.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/24/quebec-reasonable-accommodation-law.html#ixzz0j7FwGlPu

No surprise that Québec solidaire thinks this (silly) law is skirting the real issues:

In short, it is pointless to talke about secularism and equality between men and women while continuing to fund religious and private confessional schools, and that women who are victims of the different religious fundamentalisms should be provided aid.

That was an example, personally I'd say the same about LGBTI people. This law is bullshit and aims to "accomodate" the fears of people such as ADQ types who never have met a woman wearing a hijab, much less a niqab. Indeed, as unionist says, there are real problems of clashes of rights (which some of the "civil libertarians" seem to ignore) but legislation such as this does nothing to attempt to grapple with these; it simply panders to fear.

Source: www.quebecsolidaire.net

Projet de loi sur les demandes d'accommodements Il faut en faire plus, estime Amir Khadir

Le 24 mars 2010

Québec, le 24 mars - Amir Khadir, député de Mercier, estime que le projet de loi établissant des balises encadrant les demandes d'accommodement déposé par la ministre de la Justice est trop mince pour assurer l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et la laïcité de l'État.

« Il manque à ces balises certaines restrictions pour mieux affirmer le caractère laïque de l'État québécois et pour assurer la protection de l'égalité hommes-femmes au Québec, explique le député solidaire. Afin de préserver l'image de neutralité de l'État en matière religieuse, il est raisonnable par exemple, d'interdire le port de signes religieux aux détenteurs de postes d'autorité, tels les policiers, juges ou autres agents de la paix. »

« Le gouvernement vient de faire un pas pour baliser les accommodements, qui se résume à interpréter explicitement la notion d'accommodement. C'est mince et ça ne nous dispense pas de l'exercice de nous entendre au Québec sur les principes de la laïcité et d'en définir les applications », ajoute le député de Mercier.

Selon lui, toute intervention qui touche ce sujet sensible doit être empreinte de la plus grande cohérence possible, et c'est précisément là que le bât blesse : « Le gouvernement ne peut pas prétendre respecter la laïcité qui exige la neutralité de l'État et continuer à subventionner les écoles religieuses et confessionnelles privées. »

De plus, pour M. Khadir, le gouvernement doit être plus actif pour assurer l'égalité hommes-femmes lorsque celle-ci est menacée par des intégrismes religieux. À titre d'exemple, il suggère une campagne de sensibilisation et une offre des services de soutien social et juridique pour répondre aux besoins des femmes qui vivent des situations d'oppression découlant des pressions exercées par un milieu familial, communautaire ou religieux contraignant.

Well, because it is only Muslim women who would wear the niqab (just like a ban on yarmulkes would only affect Jewish men) and I think certainly that this is what is causing a lot of the discrimination.

Um, Unionist? Have you bothered to read the entire article? If you picked up that general use of "Muslim women" from the excerpt that Catchfire quoted, even that much of the article should tell you that you were reading something of a parody, the author's quick summary of the conventional narrative that she is then setting out to challenge.

The only times I see the expression "Muslim women" appearing elsewhere in the article are the two times (early and much later) when the author refers to "Muslim women who wear the niqab." And she knows how few of those there are. Iow, the author isn't the one who's doing the projecting.

The article clearly means to challenge unexamined cultural assumptions nationwide, not just in Quebec. I thought it was very well done.

'Bill 94 targets Muslims, rights group says.

Ligue des droits et libertÉs at hearings; Quebec Bar advocates case-by-case approach'

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Bill+targets+Muslims+rights+group+says/3044696/story.html#ixzz0oNuH9lrU

'Bill 94, which aims to set guidelines on reasonable accommodation of minorities, including banning Islamic face coverings in some circumstances, is unnecessary, La Ligue des droits et libertés says.

' "It doesn't resolve anything," Nicole Fillion, coordinator of the rights group, told National Assembly hearings on the bill yesterday.

' Fillion explained that the Supreme Court of Canada has set guidelines for reasonable accommodation, concessions to ensure people can exercise such fundamental rights as freedom of religion ... '

Only the Muslims. I support all the other religions.

Kropotkin, here is my pledge. When a sect comes along where men have to cover their faces and can only show them to other men - while women are free to walk around with bare or covered faces, as they please - I will defend the right of those men to their modesty.

But not the women.

There you have it! My misogyny, exposed (so to speak)!

You've really put your finger on the problem in Quebec today. We want women to resume their erstwhile subordinate roles. First step: make them show their faces. After that: who knows what other indignities we shall visit upon them!

Finally I understand it is modesty that is the problem. Because men don't want to be modest then it is wrong for any woman to want to be modest in public.  In fact it is not only wrong it should be a reason for denying them equal access to services. Is there something particularly improper about being modest with ones mouth compared to being modest with ones hair?

So I am awaiting the Quebec law that bans all women in full length skirts and kerchiefs from services because it is their belief in modesty that makes them wear such costumes. Start with the Ukrainian grandmothers and then the Amish women and the women of Bountiful and many women from the Jewish community who would never go into the street without a scarf. Why only the women who cover their mouths?  

If your modesty argument makes any sense than it can't just be about covering someone's mouth. It is about the pracitice of women being more modest then men have to be so why only the veil covering the mouth.  The rest of religious women's modesty appareel is for the same reasons and originates from the same basic sources in the religions of christianity , islam and judaism.  

Here's a site that has many examples of costumes designed specifically for modesty. When all these types of modesty apparel are also listed I will know it is about women's rights and not just more islmaphobia.

http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah.com/home

http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

I don't think it is any different that is why I think the law is discriminatory.  Even if one was to believe that a list of expressions of male dominance in women's apparel could be drawn up and thus used as a requirement to access government services even then banning ONLY one specific expression of patriarchy is discriminatory.  Why only this one thing? Is it an oral fixation?   Should a grieving widow be allowed to wear a veil in public? After all it is only within traditional patriarchal cultures that one sees a widow in a veil. If not laws then how would you see that those kinds of outrages are prevented?