my position on the hijab/niqab in the 2015 election was that the issue was unimportant, and nobody should care if somebody wants to wear a scarf to a ceremony or not. i've broadly held to the view that i don't believe in the fashion police, and that, while i do interpret the garments as oppressive, i am in favour of defeating religion by discourse rather than passing laws against it.

passing laws against religion tends to backfire; if you sincerely seek to abolish it, it is more tactical to take a different approach.

nowhere have i argued in favour of "religious freedom", and have rather argued rather explicitly against it - i would support a constitutional amendment to remove the concept altogether. my argument is that religion is inherently oppressive, and that "religious freedom" is consequently a contradiction in terms - akin to arguing for legalized slavery, under the argument that we should be free to sell our selves into bondage, if we decide to.

arguing in favour of progress and the increasing liberalization of society means arguing against religion at every turn, and most importantly against the flawed concept of religious identity. we are individuals - we are not defined by our tribe, or by the faith of the other members of our tribe.

so, those are my biases - i despise all religion and want it annihilated, but i understand the tactical error of attempting to do so with force, and i reject the concept of "religious freedom" as a logically incoherent blight on our system of laws, and on our constitutional framework that i would very much like to see removed.

put into this context, what does it mean to display a religious symbol in the specific situation of a government workplace?

well, i would reject the premise that an individual has some kind of inherent right to it as a part of some kind of group identity - fully realizing that the supreme court is unlikely to agree with me. yet, i would consider it draconian to install a fashion police. to me, these things kind of cancel each other out, and i consequently don't really want to approach the issue on this basis - i don't really have an answer that i'm willing to put any sort of conviction towards. i understand what the constitution says on this point, but i don't really like it, and i'd like to see it changed.

i'd rather ask you to consider a comparison to displaying the ten commandments in the courthouse, which i think is a more relevant precedent. to my knowledge, that isn't something that has really come up in canada - i don't think we have the kind of jurisprudence around the topic that exists in the deep south. i could be wrong. but, as a secularist and an atheist, i'm essentially confronted with the same problem when i walk up to a counter and speak with a person wearing a hijab as i am when i walk into a court room with the ten commandments hanging on the wall.

now, as it happens to be, i don't really care enough to make an issue of it. i'll admit that i don't really like dealing with cashiers or counter-people with hijabs, but there's lots of thing i don't like, and i don't go out and agitate for laws to be written.

but, i don't, personally, have any particular objection to telling people that if they have to display a religious symbol at work then they should seek employment in the private sector.

i don't expect s. (1) arguments to be successful in saving the law.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-religious-symbols-teacher-crop-poll-1.4921276