Tag: Supreme Court

Categories
Opinions

Can Justice Ginsburg RIP?

Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away last week and, in a recent discovery, the internet has no patience for human grief.

Do political figures deserve peace in death?

They gave up a lot to acquire the power they wielded in life. Many sacrifice their families, their retirements, their privacy. After their death, the consequences of their actions live on — in legislature, public opinion and history books. Do public figures, especially those in politics, get to rest in peace?

This conversation, most recently stoked by the passing of United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is a heavy dispute shaping the landscape of our collective values and standards.

Does Ginsburg deserve a quiet, private passing, despite the public and political consequences of her death? Since her passing last Friday, with her public and personal life on display, the progressive-leaning corners of the internet have taken to criticizing Ginsburg’s policies and values, and her impact on society and law. That must be nice for her family in mourning.

It is important to critically assess the decisions made by those in power. It is important to celebrate successes and openly discuss failures. In life and in death, our policymakers weave the fabric of our society, and it is our duty to use our right to think and speak freely.

With this in mind, our society also has customs, and our customs guide our collective moral compass, behavioural norms and cultural taboos. We have undressed a lot of customs over the last century and determined that some no longer serve us, and we have fortified others that remain relevant today.

In death, people of the Jewish faith have a custom called “sitting shiva,” shiva meaning seven in Hebrew. Sitting shiva is when the intimate family of the deceased mourn their loss over seven days by inviting loved ones and mourners to their home to fortify community and support throughout their grieving process. It is a time to come together. It is a time to lay loved ones to rest.

It’s barely been a week since Ginsburg’s passing. Those closest to Ginsburg, who was Jewish herself, have not yet concluded the tradition of shiva. Meanwhile, Ginsburg’s work and legacy are in violent dispute. Can people have a moment to grieve?

Ginsburg was not perfect, and should not be deified — nobody should be. I find it distressing that we have two options for celebrities in our society: hero or villain, us or them, perfect or disgraceful. Neither life nor people have to be absolute and binary.

Beyond that, singular thinking like this hinders connection, productivity, and mobilization, which are major factors in democracy’s inefficiency. Why is Ginsburg, after a career championing women’s rights, in death labeled the image of “white feminism?” Can’t those who support gender equality bridge the gaps between our differing visions, and celebrate the victories when we do reach them?

We spend so much time arguing amongst ourselves how to accomplish gender equality that we create more obstacles for the movement.  Ginsburg made many mistakes, such as the Atlantic Coast Pipeline crossing the Appalachian Trail, located in Virginia, that she voted to pass. She also made a lot of progress. Can’t we talk about, during this week of mourning, all of the beautiful ways she contributed to the gender equality movement?

This idea is not about censorship. It is the custom of North American society, and the custom of Jewish society, and I believe it serves our society today. It is a question of dignity to allow Ginsburg’s grieving family to celebrate and love her in peace.

I want to hold hands. In her long career as a lawyer, and member of the Supreme Court Justice of the United States, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was instrumental in passing laws that support abortion rights, same sex marriage rights, prevent gender and reproductive discrimination in the workplace, include women in jury duty, ensure equality with social security and tax exemptions, enable those assigned female at birth (afab) to own credit cards and take out mortgages — the list goes on.

While notorious for her guts, her grind, and her relentlessness, RBG does not deserve to be deified. Her family deserves a week of mourning. Her critics deserve a chance to reflect on her complicated legacy. Her supporters deserve a chance to learn more about her shortcomings. Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserves to rest in peace.

 

Graphic by Taylor Reddam

Categories
Opinions

Religion and sexuality in the workplace

Ideally, a person’s qualification for any job would be limited to their aptitude and general attitude towards the workload. In a perfect world, the only thing an employer should consider before hiring you is your ability to do the job.

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world and we are not perfect people. Against our better judgment, we rely on appearances, religious beliefs, sexuality, and overall social norms to determine a person’s character. As we progress, however, the best of us choose to educate ourselves and overcome social biases. The best of us grow out of superficial moulds and strive to judge by a person’s actions if they should be trusted or not. But that is not the case for most of us.

A few months ago, some would say discriminatory actions were taken in Quebec when the government passed Bill 21; a law reprimanding people for their religious garments in the workplace, under the pretext that it is respecting the province’s laicity.

As if to join hands with their Canadian neighbours, a HuffPost article reports that the Trump Administration is imploring the Supreme Court to legalize firing someone based on their sexual orientation.

“In an amicus brief filed Friday, the US Justice Department argued that a trio of cases set to appear before the Supreme Court this fall should be used to limit Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of sex,” the article read.

The Justice Department’s reading of Title VII recalls that “sex,” as written in the Civil Rights Act, is not intended to allude to one’s sexual orientation which, in their book, means that the law shouldn’t be used to protect LGBTQ+ workers.

“The original bill didn’t define “sex” as a term, and the Trump administration is now using that ambiguity to argue that lawmakers’ original intent focused solely on protecting women’s rights,” wrote the HuffPost.

In Quebec, the Montreal Gazette reported that teachers are struggling the most with Bill 21 and are having a hard time transitioning from a tolerant environment to a limited one. It is stated that no articles of faith – kippahs, turbans, or hijabs – are allowed during the hiring process, and those already hired are allegedly not granted higher positions.

Nadia Naqvi, a science teacher at St. Thomas High School in the West Island, recounted to the Gazette how her five-year plan to move into administration now seems like a distant dream.

“I know I have a lot of leadership qualities,” said Naqvi.“I know I have a lot to offer my school board… but I’m stuck. If that’s not the definition of a second-class citizen, I don’t know what is.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember anybody’s sexuality, let alone religion get in the way of anyone’s job. In my personal experience, I have seen practicing Muslims during Ramadan work twice as hard as usual; and one could barely feel when they would take a small break for their daily prayers. And since when does being part of the LGBTQ+ community inhibit one from doing their job correctly?

But I can see how loving the same sex, or choosing your own gender could deter you from your workload. Can you imagine how much time, effort, and patience it would take to justify your sexual preferences to other people? And let us not even get into the time-consuming act of debating Islam with people who have taken one sentence from the Quran out of context and made it their weapon of choice when arguing.

But I can totally see how loving the same sex or choosing your own gender deters you from your workload. I mean, can you imagine how much time and effort it would take to justify it to other people, because it’s their business, too? And let us not even get into the time-consuming debate on Islam, at the workplace, with people who have taken one sentence out of the Quran, out of context, and made it their choice of weapon when arguing. Yes, these are most definitely valid reasons.

The way I see it, the only time religion or sexuality disrupts working environments is when other people aren’t minding their own business.

 

Graphic by Victoria Blair

Categories
Opinions

Supreme Court cracks down on hate

Image via Flickr
Image via Flickr

In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada defined the word hate as “unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification,” and, years later, it is seen as just that when it comes to upholding the law.

Two weeks ago the court made an important ruling on a hate speech case. The case in question concerned anti-gay activist William Whatcott who had picketed in public with controversial signs and distributed pamphlets.

The court decided that even though ruling against Whatcott was violating his rights of freedom of expression and religion, the court believed it to be fair and reasonable because they decided his actions amounted to hate speech.

Whatcott is expected to pay $7,500 in damages but stated that he refuses to do so. He believes that this ruling means the court is imposing their moral values on the rest of the country and censoring his free speech rights. Refusing to respect a tribunal order, however, can lead to contempt of court and jail time.

David Arnot, chief commissioner for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, told the Leader Post that the decision vindicates the organization’s position that Whatcott’s words and behavior “crossed the line between critical speech and hateful speech — the type of extreme speech that has the potential to incite violence against others, challenge their safety and human dignity and in fact actively promote discrimination.”

After this, Whatcott hit the streets again last week and took a controversial stand with anti-gay and anti-abortion signs outside of the University of Regina, where he offended many students.

I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and religion, however, when one is imposing a certain view or opinion on another person or group, that’s when I have a problem.

This is not to say you can’t have an opinion, but how you choose to express it is a different story. One must realize that opinions differ amongst people, and that one is not better than the other.

Despite his lawyer’s warnings that further acts of this nature could land him a contempt of court charge, Whatcott again said that it won’t stop him.

“I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future flyers will be more of the same,” he told the National Post.

Justice Marshall Rothstein wrote on behalf of the court that Whatcott’s actions “delegitimizes homosexuals by referring to them as filthy or dirty sex addicts and by comparing them to pedophiles, a traditionally reviled group in society.”

Although Whatcott saw it as a violation of his own right to freedom of speech and religion, the court responded that “ultimately, it is the need to protect the societal standing of vulnerable groups that is the objective of legislation restricting hate speech,” the National Post reported.

In my opinion, who a person marries doesn’t affect anyone else but them. If a woman chooses to get an abortion, rape victim or not, how does it affect anyone else but her? It doesn’t.

Exit mobile version