Women who wear the niqab in Canada have been caricatured at worst, misunderstood at best. I don’t misunderstand them, wear it but never on government property, just like all other religious items should not be on display on government property and by employees. It is not for us to accommodate religions but for religions to accept that their beliefs might keep them from having certain things in life, it’s a choice. Separation of church and state made clear and simple.
ECE staff to be Catholic, board says. Religious school boards should not only stop receiving funding, they should be outright eliminated! In a secular country education should be secular. Teach children a secular curriculum and hopefully they’ll make up their own mind if they wish to be religious or not, we should have no part in it. The only time religion should come up in education is in a history class.
2010/04/21 at 5:10 pm
if you take a look at the position paper for P.E.A.C.E located here:
http://peace.sealman.ca/pdf/Guide_draft.pdf
You will be surprised to find that their argument is actually that public school boards are advancing the values of “Secular Humanism” as opposed to their Biblical Christian values.
They are trying to frame “no religion” as a religion by pointing at Secular Humanism and saying that it has taken over our schools. pretty interesting angle, and I give them credit for a well thought out tactic on this one.
2010/04/21 at 5:43 pm
No religion has taken over our schools?
I WOULD HOPE a neutral point of view would!
Well thought out but easily deconstructed… ask them what secularism IMPOSES… free thinking?
2010/04/21 at 6:10 pm
The secular humanist bogeyman has been a standard part of Christian Right rhetoric since the Reagan era (and for this purpose, SH even includes the more liberal strands of religion). Part of it is framing “They won’t let us shove (our version of) Christianity down everyone’s throats” as “Help, help! We’re being repressed by the evil secularists!”
2010/04/21 at 6:59 pm
This is one more insult to public education.
The niqab is a religious garment, which discriminates against women. The School Board is an arm of the Provincial Government. Niqabs, along with any other religious garment, accessory, book or any other religious matter, should NEVER be allowed on school grounds.
I am becoming more than ever disgusted with our so-called “public” school system.
How can we protest? What should we do next?
Diane S.
2010/04/22 at 11:46 am
Would the prohibition on “religious” items extend to wearing a Happy Human pin? (Note that, for purposes of human rights and anti-discrimination legislation, humanism and atheism are classed as religions). People do not cease being who they are when they enter a school building; they do not relenquish all other affiliations. In any society I would regard as free, the non-intrusive religious expressions of individuals are as legitimate on school grounds as off it.
Now I find the niqab problematic for two reasons. The primary public interest (ie. the legitimate concern of government) is in identification, and I think full-face concealment falls under the heading of intrusive, and can legitimately be discouraged. But there I think the role of the state stops. Yes, the niqab also represents a tradition of controlling women, which I find abhorrent — but I am equally troubled by the notion that the government should dictate what presumably consenting adults may wear in public (including at work, including government jobs).
2010/04/21 at 7:12 pm
When that PDF file mentions that back in the 40′s -80′s , public schools reflected traditional ‘family ‘ and ‘church’ values, here is a list of the ‘values’ I received in my Protestant Schools in Montreal, int eh 50′s up to and including, 1961:
1. Protestants and Jews were ‘moral ‘ people
2. Roman Catholics were bearable , but not really as ‘moral’ as Protestants and Jews.
3. Being ‘middle class and upper class made your respectable. If your were working class or poor, you were not respectable .
4. You had to try really hard to get to university and get a degree. If you chose not to do so, then you would have no real future.
5. You had to belong to a religion -there were no Buddhists or those from any other religion, except Jehova’s Witnesses who were really ‘weird’.
6. If you chose not to bow your head in daily prayer, you would be suspended, because prayer was necessary.
Now, these were just some of those ‘traditional ‘ values. How ‘moral’ were they really?
Diane Schmolka
2010/04/21 at 7:42 pm
That’s hilarious! AND stupid!
2010/04/22 at 12:33 am
Separation of church and state would have government employees not wear religious garments, but I don’t agree that extends to people accessing government services. This almost smells of xenophobia and racism to me.
2010/04/22 at 6:42 am
In certain instances it makes sense. You give services and often you need to see a persons face. That should obligate the person to remove it in those instances.
This creates a whole lot of “accommodations” and simply complicates the issue as when and where would be fought by religious organizations. An outright ban eliminates all the problems that would ensue.
2010/04/22 at 5:52 pm
Freedom does complicate things, so we deal. It would be much easier if we all wore arm bands and lived in camps too, but at some point you draw a line.
If they need to show their face to demonstrate proper annunciation when learning a language, set up a muslim-only class or have that part done in private.
Education is the way to defeat religion, not banishment.
2010/04/22 at 6:11 pm
I cannot agree with that. It means a special accommodation for religious beliefs.
I say it again, it is not for people to adapt to someone’s religious beliefs, but for them to adapt to society in general.
2010/04/22 at 2:53 am
[...] The Humanist Association of Ottawa comes down on the side that as an issue of secularism – “separation of church and state made clear and simple” – the Niqab ought to be banned from being worn on government property. [...]
2010/04/22 at 6:36 am
Not the HAO, Ricky has that opinion. I don’t speak for the HAO as a whole and last time I checked the HAO is not like a religion where everyone has to have the same point of view. The one common ground we share is that religion should not be involved or have influence in state affairs. Apart from that we have many divergences.
Racism is what Sarkozy is planning in outright banning it for the whole country. Then again would you call me a racist for wanting to ban a weapon(the kirpan)?
2010/04/22 at 9:51 am
What is wrong with a person displaying their own personal beliefs? They are not imposing it upon others. The school can be secular, however that doesn’t mean a student can’t wear a cross or a scarf.
2010/04/22 at 12:09 pm
I prefer to look at it in the terms of equality and culture. If you can see my face, I should be allowed to see yours. Everything else above or below your face is your own business. that makes things equal and it fits into our culture (Western).
Yes there are exceptions – face masks when its -30, some sporting gear, and let’s not forget Halloween!
And the nice thing about this position is that it has NOTHING to do with religion.
2010/04/28 at 3:35 pm
I think that she has not read the bill 94 and fails to understand what this bill is about.
First, this bill ALLOWS religious accommodations as long as they comply with human rights and don’t promote religion. A head scarf that doesn’t hide the face would be fine.
Second, if you read chapter 2 article 6, the objective is to be able to see your face for security and communication. If you’re an employee, you must show your employee photo ID and your face. You must also use your face to communicate effectively (body language). If you’re a customer, you also provide a photo ID and must show your face to prove this is you.
I see nothing wrong with this bill.