Canadian Store (CAD)
You are currently shopping in our Canadian store. For orders outside of Canada, please switch to our international store. International and US orders are billed in US dollars.
Janet Epp Buckingam’s Fighting over God surveys a vast array of religious conflicts, exploring both their political aspects and the court cases that were part of their resolution. The following excerpt deals with freedom of religious practice in the Canadian workplace.
Legislation specific to prohibiting discrimination in relation to employment followed the Second World War, no doubt a response to understanding the link between anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Indeed, the Canadian Jewish Congress took a leading role in lobbying for such legislation. Human rights legislation exists in every province and provides a mechanism to resolve allegations of discrimination on the basis of religion. However, the same legislation has also been used to challenge religious organizations that discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs.
What then can be said of religious institutions that wish to discriminate in hiring members of their own religion or discriminate against people on the basis of gender or lifestyle? A secular society finds this issue very challenging yet freedom of religion requires that these institutions be permitted to hire employees on the basis of their religious beliefs. This freedom must be exercised in a bona fide manner. Thus, a religious institution cannot be formed for the purpose of discriminating against people on the basis of race or gender. Religion cannot be permitted to be used as a smokescreen for other discriminatory practices.
Almost all cases dealing with freedom of religion in the employment context have been decided under human rights legislation. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms only limits discrimination by governments and government institutions and can generally not be invoked in cases of discrimination by a person’s employer. Certain decisions under the Charter can impact religious freedom in employment. As well, of course, decisions under human rights legislation must conform to Charter guarantees.
This chapter does not include any conflicts related to Roman Catholics versus Protestants. Employee rights are really minority rights. In an era when Canadian culture was deeply Christian, no one questioned that religious institutions would hire co-religionists and impose a statement of faith and require adherence to behavioural standards. But in the twenty first century, religious institutions must justify practices that are culturally considered discriminatory. Restrictions on religious institutions in hiring and employment practices relate to the impact of secularism.
(…)
A second area of religious observance that can come into conflict with employer requirements is that of religious dress requirements. Employers that have uniforms must be aware that certain Muslims, both male and female, cannot wear short sleeves. Some Muslim women wear head coverings, the hijab. Some Muslim and Sikh men do not shave their beards. Some Sikh men wear turbans and kirpans. The duty to accommodate has been extended to include dress requirements.
(…)
A job requirement of a clean-shaven face has a discriminatory effect on some Sikh men who follow a religious requirement not to shave. When the issue is employer preference, that requirement must give way. For example, a taxi company that did not hire men with beards or long hair was required to consider a complainant’s application for employment. However, employers may have a clean-shaven policy where it is established as a matter of health and safety. For example, the requirement that men be clean shaven was upheld where the job could necessitate wearing self-contained breathing apparatus in the event of a gas leak in a pulp mill, given that having a beard affects the effectiveness of the seal of the equipment on the employee’s face. A similar requirement was upheld where the employee worked in a correctional facility and the job could necessitate wearing self-contained breathing apparatus to lead correctional facility inmates to safety in case of fire. This second case not only involved the safety of the employee but also the lives and safety of others.
Muslim women are also subject to religious dress requirements – namely, to dress modestly and, for some, to wear a hijab or niqab. A Quebec woman enrolled in a prison guard training program was told she could not serve as a prison guard while wearing a hijab, ostensibly because it could be used to strangle her. Several Muslim women brought a complaint against ups to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal after they were dismissed in 2005; the employer alleged that their long skirts were hazardous when climbing ladders to retrieve packages. UPS agreed to a settlement. Seema Saadi made a human rights complaint alleging that she was dismissed from her job on a discriminatory basis, on the basis of her wearing a hijab and loose, modest clothing. Her employer argued that her manner of dress was “unprofessional.” An Ontario human rights tribunal ruled that how Saadi dressed was a matter of personal taste and awarded her damages.
In March 2010, the Quebec government introduced legislation that would ban the niqab for women who provide or require government services. This bill died on the order paper in 2012 when an election was called, but this will be an ongoing issue in Quebec. The Parti Québécois government, elected in 2012, has promised to introduce a “secular charter” or “charter of Quebec values” that would ban the wearing of any religious symbols in public institutions. If this legislation passes, it may be difficult for adherents of religions with dress requirements to work for the Quebec government.
To learn more about Fighting over God, or to order online, click here.
For media inquiries, please contact Jacqui Davis.
No comments yet.