Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe that every time you see a church or a crucifix against your will, your rights have been violated? Or is this just bad faith / sloganeering?
I cannot tell if you are being ironic. Taking it at face value, what leads you to believe that in Canada, freedom of religion means that you have a right not to see anyone practicing religion?
I think anyone who grew up here would agree but it’s the reasonable limits clause.
What I find funny is when people act like these laws target Muslims when the majority of religious people in this country are Christians. The door knockers are the people being targeted. These laws protect Muslims from the Christians trying to force their religion on them because as a private matter your neighbours shouldn’t know what you practice.
Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Thine is the kingdom, the power, and glory, forever and ever, Amen.
Do you believe you now have some kind of legal standing to have me punished or silenced?
I agree that it’s probably not “in public” for many legal purposes.
Since you decline to engage further on the question of your interpretation of the Charter vs that of Canada’s courts, I’ll consider that you don’t have anything to add. I’m alarmed to see you so at odds with observable reality. Like this seems to be something you’ve thought about at length, but not especially researched. I don’t mean to be vexatious, and I’m trying to say it respectfully because (unless I’m confused) you have had many perfectly sensible comments in the past.
Doesn’t the existence of this bill at all make you question your belief? If every Canadian has a right not to be exposed to other people’s prayers in public, Quebec would not need to pass additional laws to prevent it.
Doesn’t the existence of this bill at all make you question your belief?
No, it provides a standardized punishment for this given right infringement. To differentiate it from (example) those crazy prayer circles the yanks have at sports games.
I happen to know for certain that there are people who grew up here who do not agree that you have a right not to hear or see other people practicing their religion in public. Furthermore, I believe you ALSO happen to know that to a near certainty.
Are you aware of an instance where the reasonable limits clause of Section 1 has been used to prevent a Canadian from exercising their religious and personal expression rights in public? Is this your personal interpretation, or can you cite something with legal weight? Governments can place limits on rights (like freedom of expression or freedom of religion) if the restriction can be shown to be reasonable, necessary, and justified in a democratic society. As far as I know, it has never been legally established that it is reasonable, necessary, and justified that Canadian citizens cannot pray in public. I believe I can show that Canadian courts have consistently upheld the right to practice and express religion publicly, unless it infringes concrete rights of others (e.g. hate speech, discrimination in services).
You find it funny? I don’t see humour in it.
People act like these laws target Muslims because these laws frequently target Muslims, both in France, and here in Quebec.
Do you actually believe that? Do you actually believe that every time you see a church or a crucifix against your will, your rights have been violated? Or is this just bad faith / sloganeering?
Yes, that’s the country we live in.
It’s why there’s calls for politicians to resign whenever they mention god. (Yes there are campaigns to change the anthems)
I cannot tell if you are being ironic. Taking it at face value, what leads you to believe that in Canada, freedom of religion means that you have a right not to see anyone practicing religion?
I think anyone who grew up here would agree but it’s the reasonable limits clause.
What I find funny is when people act like these laws target Muslims when the majority of religious people in this country are Christians. The door knockers are the people being targeted. These laws protect Muslims from the Christians trying to force their religion on them because as a private matter your neighbours shouldn’t know what you practice.
Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Thine is the kingdom, the power, and glory, forever and ever, Amen.
Do you believe you now have some kind of legal standing to have me punished or silenced?
If we consider this internet community to be public then yes.
I agree that it’s probably not “in public” for many legal purposes.
Since you decline to engage further on the question of your interpretation of the Charter vs that of Canada’s courts, I’ll consider that you don’t have anything to add. I’m alarmed to see you so at odds with observable reality. Like this seems to be something you’ve thought about at length, but not especially researched. I don’t mean to be vexatious, and I’m trying to say it respectfully because (unless I’m confused) you have had many perfectly sensible comments in the past.
Doesn’t the existence of this bill at all make you question your belief? If every Canadian has a right not to be exposed to other people’s prayers in public, Quebec would not need to pass additional laws to prevent it.
No, it provides a standardized punishment for this given right infringement. To differentiate it from (example) those crazy prayer circles the yanks have at sports games.
I happen to know for certain that there are people who grew up here who do not agree that you have a right not to hear or see other people practicing their religion in public. Furthermore, I believe you ALSO happen to know that to a near certainty.
Are you aware of an instance where the reasonable limits clause of Section 1 has been used to prevent a Canadian from exercising their religious and personal expression rights in public? Is this your personal interpretation, or can you cite something with legal weight? Governments can place limits on rights (like freedom of expression or freedom of religion) if the restriction can be shown to be reasonable, necessary, and justified in a democratic society. As far as I know, it has never been legally established that it is reasonable, necessary, and justified that Canadian citizens cannot pray in public. I believe I can show that Canadian courts have consistently upheld the right to practice and express religion publicly, unless it infringes concrete rights of others (e.g. hate speech, discrimination in services).
You find it funny? I don’t see humour in it.
People act like these laws target Muslims because these laws frequently target Muslims, both in France, and here in Quebec.