OPINIONS. Need to vent? Contact the editor at opinions @theotherpress.ca War of the Words: The right to bear religious symbols Unconstitutional and unconscionable Sophie Isbister Life & Style lifeandstyle@theotherpress.ca Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion. — The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms he above quote is from Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: a constitutional document ratified in 1982 that grants political rights and civil freedoms to all Canadians. Given that, it’s unclear to me why Quebec’s Parti Québécois feels as though those same rights shouldn’t extend to civil servants. Their proposed Quebec charter of values seeks to directly override aspects of the Canadian Charter by calling for the ban of religious dress on civil servants in the province. This would include all forms of dress worn by Quebec's not-insignificant Islamic community, such as the hijab, niqab, or turban, and also the Jewish kippa. Small artifacts like discreet jewellery will be exempt from the ban, and, of course, the giant crucifix that adorns Quebec’s legislative building. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also covers multiculturalism. Section 27 states, “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” What that line does is entrench values of multiculturalism in every aspect of the charter. It's why Canada is such a desirable place for people to emigrate to, and the fact that we're the only country to have multiculturalism entrenched in our constitution makes most Canadians proud. Except, apparently, the Parti Québécois and the proponents of their rogue charter—a document which can only be viewed as racist. Some argue for the charter on the grounds that such religious dress makes them uncomfortable, but the largest argument in favour is that articles of clothing like the hijab are oppressive to women and that Canada shouldn't allow such oppression to take place in their public, tax-funded spaces. Arguments along this line ignore the fact that freedom for women is about choice. If Quebec’s feminists are seriously concerned about women being coerced into wearing their religious garbs, then banning them is not the solution. Do they seriously think that taking away the livelihood (jobs) of women who are in coercive marriages will do any good? Taking away the rights of Islamic-Canadian women to hold jobs in civil services because of the customs of their religion is harmful and dangerous. And it’s un- Canadian. I’m proud to be Canadian. I’m proud that we’ve opened up the gates of our country to other cultures, and that we peacefully coexist. I agree with secularism in government, but ahead of that, I believe in personal choice, especially personal choice in manners of dress, and with regard to already entrenched constitutional law. The issue of religious artifacts on civil servants isn’t a question of whether cultural artefacts are attractive or even important. It comes down to this simple question: do you want to fundamentally suppress the cultural rights of people who are proud to call Canada their home? Quebec’s charter of values tells real Canadians that all they are is their religious garbs. It tells them that we don’t want them here. And that is simply not true. HISTO ART) hlela {sc Attire, accessory, and attitude dont change your religion Elliot Chan Opinions Editor ts opinions@theotherpress.ca HH does one practice their religion? Do they practice in their house, church, temple, or cathedral—or could they do it while commuting to work? Surely they don’t practice at work, right? Of course I’m talking about Quebec’s charter of values and how, if it passes, civil servants will no longer be allowed to wear religious articles of clothing including turbans, kippas, and overt crucifixes. Religion has played a large role in my life, and it’s not my intention to argue against it. I’m not against religion. In fact, I wish I had faith. Sadly, although I was brought up as a Buddhist, I cannot honestly call myself one. 16 What I do want to express is a social commonality. That doesn’t mean tolerance or intolerance, or being anti- or pro- anything; it simply means a culture we can all agree upon. For example, my father is a smoker. When the regulation passed to have smoking banned in public areas, he became a monster and he’s not—he’s just a dude trying to relax. People who wear religious articles Commonality is the point; a mutual understanding is the point. If you entered an Asian person’s home, you would graciously take off your shoes. That's a custom and an understanding. Your shoes are clean and it doesn’t hurt anyone for you to keep them on, yet you do it out of respect. Canada has an ambiguous culture. It’s more of a mosaic than a mixing pot, and different bring everyone together, where everyone feels welcome, and where no animosity is displayed. This is a good thing. And this is the first step towards having a province that really understands itself. It might feel ruthless, but in generations to come, you'll see that it'll bring them closer together. I worked at Starbucks for over a year and IJ had to wear a green apron. I wasn’t We might think that commonality is harmful: that it will cause us to lose our heritage and roots, but | believe itll help us to understand our history better. aren’t monsters either, they’re simply expressing their faith and practicing a tradition that they’ve known since they were young. It upsets some, but so does a bit of cigarette smoke. “Suck it up,” some smokers said initially—the same thing those advocating religious symbols in public sectors are saying now. “It’s not harming anybody.” Harm is not the point. communities have different conventions. That's great, that should be cherished, and people should be delighted that we have such diverse communities. But we need commonality as well to help establish a general culture as our cities, provinces, and country continues to grow. The mindset of Quebec isn’t to alienate. Instead, they’re trying to develop a central place to thrilled, because green isn’t my colour. But I was under Starbucks’ roof, I was being paid Starbucks’ money, and the Starbucks customers recognized the standards—that was how they knew I worked there. It didn’t make me who I was, it didn’t change my beliefs that capitalism is just another form of slavery, but I accepted it because that was the corporate culture. We might think that commonality is harmful; that it will cause us to lose our heritage and roots, but I believe it'll help us to understand our history better. Why do we do certain things “just because”? Commonality allows us to question our traditions, habits, ethics, and values and ask the ultimate question: are we doing the right thing? Am IJ actually less of a person—less myself—if I go without certain things? Does it benefit the hive and not just the honeybee? All through life, I have mistaken my wants with my needs. I get my priorities mixed up, and I feel many others have as well in regards to this religious symbols debate. Your ideals don’t have to change, your personality doesn’t have to change, and if it helps the general population approach civil servants with ease, I don’t see why they shouldn’t appeal to them. After all, have a little faith.