Yesterday some details were released about the Quebec government's plan to limit the public employee's ability to publicly display religious symbols while on the job. The statements from a number of Canadian federal politicians in this article seemed rather sanctimonious:
- Jason Kenny, Conservative Party (Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)
- "We are very concerned by any proposal that would limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our society and that would affect the practice of their faith ... And we are very concerned by any proposal that would discriminate unfairly against people based on their religion, based on their deepest convictions."
- Tom Mulcair, NDP leader
- "Completely unacceptable ... Suffice it to say, the text confirms our worst fear ... We’re categorical in rejecting this approach. Human rights don’t have a best-before date, they’re not a popularity contest"
- Justin Trudeau, Liberal party leader
- From the article: "Trudeau said the charter would create 'second class' citizens who lose their jobs because , for instance, they cannot wear religious garb. 'They are forcing people to choose between their job and their religion,' said Trudeau."
If this were held consistently it would be one thing, but in general this seems not to be the case. Practice seems closer to how it was phrased by one US judge in a recent New Mexico case where the judge labelled forcing people to act against their religious beliefs as "the price of citizenship" - to which Albert Mohler asserted:
So the price of citizenship is the denial of religious liberty when the Christian convictions of this couple run into a head-on collision with the “contrasting values” of others. This is a “compromise” that requires the Huguenins to give up their convictions or go out of business. What does the “compromise” require of those who push for the normalization of same-sex relationships and the legalization of same-sex marriage? Nothing. Some compromise.
Pretty much all cases where people argue for religious freedom have some potential downsides to them - some potential negative impacts on others. Some examples: a motorcycle helmet exemption demanded by some Sikhs (and granted in some Canadian provinces) is likely to lead to increased medical costs, allowing face-concealing garments like burkahs may make it easier for some to commit crimes as the difficulty of identifying them increases, and the Sikh kirpan can and has been used as a weapon, and marriage commissioners might refer some elsewhere to perform a ceremony. These impacts don't necessarily mean that any or all must be banned, but force you to consider that all come at a cost. Would you expect the politicians mentioned above to actually treat these cases equally? On what basis should some be allowed but not others?
