As far as I know, the confederate flag isn't an article of faith that is required per religious tenets.
Please don't take that out of context, clearly i was using this as an analogy only, of a cultural symbol that would incite very different feelings and emotions from one individual to another.
Perhaps another analogy in our own context would be the monarchy?
Our constitution has set forth what's permissible (i.e. freedom of religion) and what isn't. Practice of faith is.
That's kind of funny - you at once deny our right as the collective to judge and yet expounded their (questionable) right to do so. Quebec belongs to the Canadian state and is governed by Canadian laws.
As I've said before the Quebec proposal is flawed, no question. However, the broader concepts of 'religious neutrality' in government and of the legal right in Quebec to set
reasonable exceptions to basic freedoms (notwithstanding clause) are open for debate. Consider the Globe and Mail article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-quebecs-secular-charter-constitutional-nine-legal-experts-weigh-in/article14324825/?page=all
Though the overwhelming response to the Charter of Values is negative, much of this revolves around the specifics of the flaws in how Quebec is going about this, which we are all agreed on. If Quebec were not 'favouring' catholic symbols the response would be less clear, at least.
Also, not one of the legal experts has addressed the prohibitions on homosexuality promoted by the major religions. These ideologies are discriminatory, justified by religious faith and dogma. The fact that this is invisible in the debate leads me to feel the legal interpretations here are fundamentally heterosexist and thereby flawed. If you consider Nathalie Des Rosiers in the above article:
Prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by civil servants violates their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. But both charters accept that the state may violate the rights of people for good reasons, in a manner that is “reasonable in a free and democratic society.” To determine whether a measure is reasonable, a court must be convinced that a) there is a pressing state interest at stake and b) the measure is rational and infringes the freedom as little as possible.
It could be argued that symbols that represent ideologies that are demonstrably discriminatory against any other segment of the population might satisfy (a) above, which might be another argument in favour of 'religious neutrality' in the government.
Promotion of "collective values" (of questionable effiacy, of a questionable subpopulation) that requires the diminishment of personal freedoms (and quite possibly, in contravention of our laws). I don't know about you, but I think I would feel far more xenophobia than seeing what, 5% of the population in hijabs or wearing turbans.
All laws represent 'collective values', which involve the limiting of freedoms and compromise... to which:
As the Brits suggested in one of their diplomatic reports for Thatcher - "“the Canadians are a people of the extreme centre." Perhaps we should take note of what outsiders have seen in us and frankly adopt it as our own
Agreed. By definition though it requires enormous compromise to be so firmly and extremely 'of the centre', and compromise is indeed also one of the hallmarks of Canada (as opposed to often polarized unshifting extremes south of the border, for example). Personally, I see 'religious neutrality' in the government sector as a reasonable compromise. Religious groups should also be capable of compromise, evolving within a modern Canadian context to allow their adherents to adapt to different contexts as required.