Monday, March 12, 2012

THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT

Here in Canada, our laws and political system are spin-offs of the British System. In fact,  it was not until 1982 when the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights were patriated that the tradition of constitutional acts and amendments being passed by the British Parliament ceased. As the BNA was originally a British law, it could not return to Canada.

If you are one of those people who feel that bans on scented products in the workplace are an infringement on your rights, a battle over the right to wear a crucifix at work might interest you. Accommodation/protection is required under  federal and provincial human rights Acts for those  living with environmental sensitivities.

The first line in the Canadian constitution states:  Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

The supremacy of God is an issue in the United Kingdom where British officials say Christians have no legal right to openly wear a crucifix at work!

 Britain's government announced it will side against two women who say they were laid off or sidelined for sporting Christian symbols in the workplace. Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, will face government lawyers when the case reaches the European Court of Human Rights

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects a person's right to "to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”  The crux of the argument has the Government arguing that wearing a cross is not a "requirement of faith," while  the women crucifixes "manifest" faith.

The clash has its origins in a much larger public controversy,  the Government’s plans to legalize same-sex marriages. The initiative has been viciously attacked by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian organizations in Britain.

Can the supremacy of God and the rule of law co-exist?





No comments: