|
There are many reasons why this wouldn't work. First, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other Canadian human rights laws would invalidate any provincial law legalizing the discrimination against people's religion in any significant way, especially formally.
On day ONE of that law theoretically being instated, plenty of people would sue their employer on the grounds that they are being discriminated against. The law would be found to be unconstitutional and would get struck down, and the same judgment would be made in appeal and in the Supreme court.
The ruling would insist that provincial laws may not favor discriminatory behavior and that Canadian laws value religious freedom as well as freedom of expression in general.
This shit would not fly in the private sector. The only reason why it has a chance in the public sector is that there are grounds to argue that the government should be secular, and it's not discriminatory to say that government should be secular. However like I said, the propose charter affects many people who have very little to do with government.
|
Making law is all about determining which of the constitutional rights and freedoms we have are more important.
We have freedom of speech and freedom of expression, still you can't really announce "I don't like Mr X. Y. somebody go kill him". Most people would argue that Mr X.Y's rights are more important and that such behavior should be a criminal offense.
A couple of steps away from that there is a band who wrote a song "Loot Burn Rape Kill Repeat". Is it alright to write such a song? What if there is a psycho that takes the title seriously? Well... it is legal today but the tides may turn at some point.
The same applies to any secularization law. A question needs to be answered: which is more important? Mr A's right to express himself and his religious affiliations or Mr B's right to feel comfortable (and somehow he feels uncomfortable/offended upon seeing religious people) ?
I feel that the west is drifting towards a civilization of the offended and Mr B's stakes are skyrocketing. See, this is how I understand tolerance: I enjoy the variety, I'd like to hear hear a "Merry Christmas" from a Christian, "Happy Hanuka" from a Jew, "Have a nice Ramadan" from a Muslim, "Happy Reason Rules the World" from an atheist and even "Happy I don't give a F* Day" from someone who just chills.
I like this way more than turning all these hypothetical people into indistinguishable blobs that need to hide their identity because the offended and insecure can't stand their sight.
|
Well maybe you're right in that the society is moving toward that trend, although I wouldn't be worried, but anyway, the constitution is preventing the common law from being excessively discriminatory, so those laws would be invalidated like I said.
The constitution would need to be changed, and that requires such an overwhelming amount of political support that it's just not happening. Not anytime soon, at least not in Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
