Freedom of expression

Editor:

In Quebec, prevailing political dogma to put a ban on religious appearances at public premises is controversial.

Editor:

In Quebec, prevailing political dogma to put a ban on religious appearances at public premises is controversial and a comedy of errors.

It is an absolutely ridiculous act to deprive the supreme right of freedom to practise religion in public sector. Thus such type of charter erodes the true value. It can be viewed as the character of rights turning into the charter of fights for the people.

The matter is grim and needs to be scrutinized carefully. How does a religious symbol play the deterrent role while performing official duty? So far there is no evidence that an employee with a full faith fails to offer faithful service or creates unnecessary obstacles? So then, which force compels them to impose a ban?

Whether it is state affairs or private affairs, people should be allowed to fulfill their religious obligation without any squalid political policy – because multicultural has became core component part of Canadian vibrant society.

The draconian measures can be classified as a segregation factor, not an integration.

People elect their representative who can discuss important issues that benefit, not petty issues that hurt the religious sentiments.

It is a colossal shame to see the tax money and time wasted behind the trifle task and separate the society.

In front of us, numerous challenges need to be addressed accordingly. We should give them priority to resolve and amplify effort in the direction to improve education system, health care programmed, elevate child poverty, domestic violence, drug trafficking and many more matters.

Banning religious appearance is not a service that the public deserves. Instead, build a constructive platform where each Canadian would obtain an opportunity to become strong, united and prosperous part of the nation.

Hanif A. Patel, Surrey

• • •

Those who had the honour to be liberated by the Canadian Forces in the Second World War have tears in their eyes remembering the power of the far right of fascism as presented by Herr Adolf Hitler.

Reading about the direction the politicians in Quebec City are taking, we all know about the 1982 Constitution. Quebec refused to sign, even though it was drafted by three Québécois – Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien and Jean Marchant.

Today, Quebec is eager to enforce more of the content, which started with restricting the use of the English language, building on that year after year, costing Canada billions, now followed by a top-down ruling banning the visual showing of a religious commitment.

Small steps at the time will create a dictatorship funded by all of Canada, under the so-called 50/50 agreement, a matter the in-name democratically elected government in Ottawa refuses to deal with.

Where are the English-speaking premiers, as there is only one province that is officially bilingual, New Brunswick.

The premiers would be right to limit sending money to Ottawa.

Suan H. Booiman, White Rock