Cultural Protectionism (Human Geography)
What are the benefits/costs of cultural protection of secularism in Canada? Should government enforce cultural protection of secularism?
The government of Canada should accept all forms of cultural and religious regalia instead of imposing restrictions on symbols, garbs, veils, turbans, and kippahs, worn in public sector workplaces. Canada's cultural protection of secularism have remained fairly good through the federal government's experience but with little criticism compared to Quebec's recent controversy with Bill 60. This bill is a perfect example as to why Canada doesn't need a new legislation. Bill 60 initially planned to ban religious ...view middle of the document...
The cost of the bill prevented freedom of expression, violated civil rights and was simply unconstitutional, Authier (2014). Moreover the government's attempt to pass this restrictive bill also infringed the fundamental rights under the Charter Rights and Freedom, Harrington (2013).
The government shouldn't enforce cultural protection of secularism in Canada because of how diverse it is. It can be agreed that everybody accepts the Charter Rights and Freedom. The charter promises to strengthen agreements, assimilation and put communal freedom beyond individual freedom. However, unlike the rest of Canada, Quebec is more of an intercultural than multicultural, Solyom (2013). For that reason, the bill made cultural protectionism of secularism a difficult stance for religious groups to accept. With Bill 60, Quebec is likely to go backwards. For example an educational institute like college or university have students that wear religious symbols and clothing. They don't have a problem with what students or teachers wear, they accept them for who they are, Authier (2014). Imposing restrictive legislation can only oppress religious groups rather than make them feel liberated. Likewise, the government should accept religious people for who they are and respect the charter rights further given that everybody abides those laws.
When students were given an opportunity to discuss the issues concerning about Bill 60, according to Solyom (2013) one of the students from Vanier college regarded that their school didn't have a problem accepting different religious groups and so didn't understand why the government had a problem. Another student felt like the law had asked her to be half naked if she were to take off her religious scarf. The bill affected most public sector jobs like a police officer, teacher, nurse, doctor, bus driver, and lawyer in that they weren't allowed to wear religious symbols even though the materials didn't interfere with their jobs. According to Solyom (2013), one student stated that people wearing religious regalia should be judged in terms of their trustworthy not their appearance.
Having no cultural protection of secularism in a country doesn't affect anybody as long as they aren't imposing their religious beliefs in the workplace, schools or a community. Turbans, kippahs, hijabs and niqabs are worn because of religious beliefs and shouldn't be looked upon as a threat. According to...