B Roodnick

Sorry for the spelling mistake!! Discrimination!!!!

Note that the phrase "in particular" serves only to draw emphasis for those areas most often targeted by discrimination. The initial statement is that "EVERY INDIVIDUAL" is equal under the law. Every means exactly that. Atheists are individuals and therefore protected from discrimination, just like everyone else. Therefore, refusal of a job must be based on an individual's qualifications, not some prejudicial opinion of an applicant's lack of belief in religion.

I agree that all individuals should be free from discrimination. Under law, the discrimination that is not permitted has to be defined. The charter definition specifically includes a number of areas. Personally, I think it should include atheism but I am not sure it is currently under the protection of law as defined by the charter.

Do you feel that it deserves the protection of law and which parts of the charter should be used to defend it?

Originally Posted by B Roodnick

I agree that all individuals should be free from discrimination. Under law, the discrimination that is not permitted has to be defined.

Let me get this straight... in your opinion, despite the fact that the Charter explicitly states "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination", because it doesn't specifically mention atheists, atheists shouldn't be considered to be covered under umbrella terms like "every individual"? Is that what you're saying?

I hope you won't be offended if I don't put much (if any) stock in your legal opinion.

Also, keep in mind that there's more to the law than just the Charter. There are plenty of human rights and employment standards laws all across the country that have plenty to say on the subject of discrimination in employment.

Personally, I think it should include atheism but I am not sure it is currently under the protection of law as defined by the charter.

Do you feel that it deserves the protection of law and which parts of the charter should be used to defend it?

No, atheism does not deserve protection under the law. Individuals deserve protection under the law. Ideas, philosophies, religions and beliefs do not deserve protection against discrimination. They should be the focus of discriminating examination.

Does anyone think that religion should be removed from the charter and doesn't warrant protection? I firmly believe that discrimination based on colour, physical handicaps, sex, age, disability is wrong. However, religion isn't a physical attribute in comparison to everything else specifically listed. You don't choose your age, skin colour, disability, however you do choose your religion. So do you think employers, schools, and etc should be able to decline people based on religious beliefs when the employer will be forced to accommodate them? Such as permitting time off, providing special meals (halal), or altering dress codes.

I think this would probably work to non-believers disadvantage.

Originally Posted by Rationella

Ideas, philosophies, religions and beliefs do not deserve protection against discrimination. They should be the focus of discriminating examination.

So you are in favour of discrimination against anyone who is religious? So anti-semitism is acceptable? Where have we seen this before in history?

Posted by B Roodnick: So you are in favour of discrimination against anyone who is religious?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Ideas, philosophies, religions or beliefs are not now or should they be protected from discrimination by our charter of rights. INDIVIDUALS are to be protected from discrimination, which may be based on their religious affiliation among other things. So, NO, I am NOT in favor of discriminating against ANYONE who is religious. NO, anti-semitism is not acceptable in my opinion.

We all discriminate against ideas, philosophies and religions. It's called critical thinking. I am not Hindu, or Muslim, or Jewish, because I have discriminated against those religious teachings. They are foolish belief systems that have no basis in reality. So now you should understand why I believe ATHEISM, an idea, not an individual, has no business being protected under any charter of rights.

Another thought: discrimination doesn't always have to be negative; it can also mean giving preferential treatment to one group over another. Any case where difference in religion is the deciding factor is "discrimination on the basis of... religion". This would include a case where, say, an atheist is passed over for promotion in favour of a theist when the supervisor made his or her decision based on the fact that the one employee was a theist and the other one wasn't.