27 Jan - Canada:

The Canadian Race Relations Foundation has lent its support to an ex-RCMP recruit who successfully argued before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that discrimination prevented him from finishing his Mountie training.

Iranian-born Muslim Ali Tahmourpour, 36, appeared with several anti-racism leaders yesterday in a press conference at the CRRF's Yonge St. and Hwy. 401 offices.

After starting training with the Mounties in July 1999, he was dismissed in October of that year because he failed to meet training standards, according to the Mounties. But the rights tribunal felt otherwise, and ruled "the RCMP's discriminatory conduct caused Mr. Tahmourpour to lose the opportunity to develop and demonstrate, in his full potential, the necessary skills to become an RCMP officer."

[...]

Tahmourpour (who declined to comment yesterday) contended at the 2007 tribunal hearing that the RCMP of subjecting him to discrimination during training, including claims he was singled out for wearing a religious pendant and ridiculed for signing his name to documents in Persian.

Link

26 Jan - Toronto, Canada:

A Sikh security guard who was asked to trade in his turban for a hard hat at a Milton Home Depot will have his case heard before the Human Rights tribunal today.

Deepinder Loomba has been fighting the hardware franchise for almost four years after a supervisor at a Home Depot construction site asked Loomba to wear a hard hat.

Link

A 13-year-old Sikh boy in Canada pleaded innocent to charges he threatened two classmates with a ceremonial dagger.

Appearing in Montreal Youth Court this week, the unidentified teenager said he didn't use a ceremonial kirpan to threaten two classmates in an alleged incident Sept. 11 and has asked the court to grant him a speedy trial, The Gazette said Friday.

Montreal police have accused the teen of responding to an argument with two classmates by threatening them with the religious dagger.

One of the boy's defense lawyers has accused the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school board of targeting the Cavelier de LaSalle secondary school student because of his religion.

"I'm a great admirer of Quebec, but on this issue there's dissonance. Quebec is so obsessed with kirpans. There's something unhealthy about it," lawyer Julius Grey, whose client's trial begins on Oct. 29, told the Globe & Mail. [Link]

A 24-year-old Sikh man who was told to leave a jobsite unless he shaved his beard said the experience has turned him off Alberta and doubts he will return if he's offered another job.

Av Singh flew back to England Tuesday afternoon. He plans to meet with human resources officers and union officials with his company in England to determine if they will take action against TransAlta Corporation.

Singh was ordered off the job at the Sundance plant near Wabamun because he was told the length of his beard interfered with a respirator and posed a safety risk.

He had been working at the plant for five weeks and had passed an earlier fit test with the mask without problems.

As a Sikh, Singh is not allowed to shave his beard for religious reasons. [Link]

Multiculturalism debated in Quebec

QUEBEC and the defence of cultural traditions have long, and not always happily, been linked in the minds of Canada's English-speaking majority. Now Quebeckers are themselves seeing things from a majority point of view, bridling, in this context, at the claims of immigrants in their French-speaking province. An official commission, however, thinks the complaints are overdone.

Back in 2006 several unrelated incidents led some Quebeckers to think that too much was being asked of them in welcoming immigrants, and too little of the newcomers themselves. A Sikh boy went to court and won the right to wear a ceremonial dagger to school. A gym bowed to a request from Hasidic Jews to frost over windows so the Lycra-clad bodies of women working out wouldn't be visible to their nearby congregation. A man was asked to leave a pool so that a group of Muslim women could swim in private.

These cases were seized upon by a declining Montreal tabloid and by Mario Dumont, the popular young leader of an upstart conservative party. To defuse the issue, Jean Charest, Quebec's Liberal premier, set up the commission and asked two prominent intellectuals—Gérard Bouchard, a pro-independence sociologist, and Charles Taylor, a federalist philosopher—to chair it. This worked politically: Mr Charest scraped back for a second term, though Mr Dumont's party catapulted from four to 41 seats in the provincial parliament, becoming the main opposition.

After a year in which it held endless town meetings and received 900 written submissions, some inflammatory, the commission reported this month. Its conclusions were nuanced and moderate. The crisis was one of “perception”, in which the media had grossly distorted the controversial incidents, the chairmen said. To soothe both sides they made a long list of recommendations. They urge speedier recognition of foreign qualifications to make it easier for immigrants to get jobs (of more interest than cultural accommodation to most). They want the government to coax more of the 45,000-odd immigrants who come to the province each year to settle outside Montreal, in the rural regions where misgivings about migration are highest. And more should be done to ensure that migrants quickly learn French—and more Quebeckers learn English.

The report pleased immigrant organisations but not the original grumblers. They want more stress on making immigrants integrate and conform. “Does it mean that in our daycares, our primary schools and in all milieus we will have to hide our Christmas trees and Easter bunnies in the closet?” asked one of Mr Dumont's aides of a proposal that the Quebec government produce an annual calendar showing holidays of all faiths. No, is the answer. Mr Charest is enjoying a rare spell of popularity, and seems to have no intention of jeopardising it. Even before the report was released, he rejected its symbolic proposal to reinforce Quebec's secular image by removing the crucifix over the speaker's chair in the provincial legislature. [Link]

The Muslim head scarf is no real threat to Quebec values and most women in the province wear it by choice, not out of coercion. That's what a commission on the integration of immigrants concluded after a year of study costing $5 million.

In the final draft of their report - which was submitted to the provincial government Monday and is expected to be made public at a news conference Thursday - scholars Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor say Quebec society will have a lot to lose if it restricts the wearing of the Muslim head scarf strictly to the home and outdoors. [Link]

Interfor seeks to resolve conflict of safety regulations and religion

International Forest Products says it has offered to find new positions at identical wages for turbaned employees who have been off the job since a new hard-hat policy was implemented last November.

Interfor vice-president Ric Slaco said the company has been willing to work with its employees to resolve the apparent conflict between a new safety regulation and some baptized Sikh employees who don't want to cover their turbans with hard hats.

Employees Mander Singh Sohal and Kalwant Singh Sahota have filed a human rights complaint of religious discrimination against Interfor because of the new hard-hat rule forcing them from their specific jobs at Interfor's Delta sawmill.

Sohal -- who started with Interfor in 1988 -- has been offered back wages to November and a different job in the receiving department, while Sahota -- who is off on disability leave -- will also be accommodated when he is ready to return to work, Slaco said.

"We have tabled through the union an accommodation offer," he said in an interview Tuesday after The Vancouver Sun revealed details of the human rights complaint.

But David Perry, a lawyer for the two men, said he has not been contacted directly by Interfor with any offer for Sohal and Sahota.

And he said the issue still needs to be resolved by a human rights tribunal so there is a precedent for the entire community and other employers.

Slaco said the stricter hard-hat policy was implemented after a strike ended last November because of health and safety concerns expressed by a number of interested parties. [Link]

A turban-wearing Sikh who has lost his battle to ride a motorcycle without a helmet has said he will appeal the decision.

Backed by the local Sikh community, Brampton's Baljinder Badesha, 39, said he plans to challenge the constitutionality of the law, rather than focusing his fight solely on the ticket he received for not wearing a helmet in 2005.

"This time I will not fight for myself, but I will challenge Ontario's law in the larger interests of all Sikhs who want to ride a bike," Badesha said.

Community members met last weekend at a local gurdwara to discuss the March 6 ruling. Badesha, supported by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, had argued the law forces him to choose between his religion and his love of riding a motorcycle because his faith does not allow him to cover his turban or remove it outside of his home.

The court ruled safety is paramount and refused to allow an exemption. However, Ontario Court Justice James Blacklock said his decision does not preclude the provincial government from making a policy change that would allow for an exemption for all Sikhs.

Badesha was found guilty of the Highway Traffic Act violation and ordered to pay a $110 fine.

"We are confident of winning the battle this time," Badesha said. "We don't believe a helmet is safe. Every day riders with helmets die in accidents. If I'm supposed to die today, I will die and nothing can save me."

The Ottawa-based World Sikh Organization of Canada has expressed disappointment at the court's decision. "A turban is an important Sikh article of faith that shouldn't be covered by any other object," it said. [Link]

A Mississauga lawyer thinks a Brampton man charged with illegally wearing a turban rather than a helmet while riding his motorcycle thinks the defendant will ride off into the sunset a free man.

"I think (defendant Baljinder Badesha) will win," said Satwinder Gosal, a partner in the city centre law firm RZCD.

"There has to be a basic commitment to observe the common law," said Gosal, who several years ago helped Malton resident Pardeep Nagra, a follower of the Sikh faith, successfully fight a ruling that banned him from boxing because of his beard.

"There is enough historical religious precedence to say his belief is genuine," said the Mississauga lawyer.

Helmet laws are designed to protect those who ride motorcycles and save millions of dollars in public health care spending, a crown attorney told the hearing of the controversial case yesterday in Brampton.

Although Gosal acknowledges the issue of safety, the only person at risk of being harmed is Badesha, he points out.

Case law supports Badesha's case, he said. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1990 that Baltej Singh Dhillon, an RCMP officer, could wear a turban on the job.

More recent cases have led to exemptions for Sikhs who ride motorcycles in B.C., Manitoba, England and India. To rule against Badesha would be like asking those jurisdictions, "why did you codify the law?" the graduate of Queen's University suggested.

Badesha, 39, has said he understands the risks of riding without a helmet and is willing to accept them for his religious beliefs.

Justice James Blacklock reserved making a decision until March 6. [Link]

A Brampton man is the first to challenge Ontario's motorcycle helmet law saying it unfairly excludes him from a pastime he loves because of his religion.

Baljinder Badesha, 39, is fighting a $110 ticket he was issued by Peel police in the fall of 2005 for riding his 1994 Yamaha motorcycle on Queen Street near Hwy. 10.

Badesha is a devout Sikh and wears a turban at all times outside of his home. He believes it is a tenant of his religion and cannot take it off to put a helmet on.

"We want an exemption for our religion," Badesha said outside the court. "We can't put a helmet on it (turban)."

He has the Ontario Human Rights Commission on his side, and the commission presented arguments in support of Badesha in a Brampton courtroom yesterday and will continue today. The province is expected to respond to the commission's arguments today or at a later date, and a decision on whether or not to acquit Badesha will come some time later from Mr. Justice James Blacklock. [Link]

A Sikh man says his Charter rights were violated when he was not allowed to take his ceremonial dagger into the Calgary courthouse.

Tejinder Sidhu, 25, had been summoned to court Monday by subpoena to testify as a witness to a fatal car accident.

Sidhu was stopped at the airport-style security screening, which greets all visitors to the Calgary Courts Centre that opened last fall. An Alberta sheriff told him he would have to leave his kirpan at security or he couldn't enter the building.

Baptized orthodox Sikh men carry the small ceremonial dagger under their clothes as a symbol of their religious beliefs.

Sidhu offered to be escorted in to testify if he could keep his kirpan, but that was rejected.

"I don't feel that I should be asked to remove it — especially being a witness to a case — I'm being basically denied my civil duty or my civil right … to testify in court," Sidhu told CBC News.

"So after basically debating for about five, 10 minutes, basically, I just left the courthouse and was unable to fulfil my civic right or my civic duty." [Link]

A prominent Sikh businessman told the Air India inquiry Friday he's concerned his cultural community has become unfairly associated with terrorists since the high-profile 1985 bombing.

Gian Singh Sandhu, founder of the World Sikh Organization of Canada, said the bombing of Air India flight 182, which killed 329 people, devastated the Sikh community in British Columbia — but they were also stigmatized in its wake.

"The Sikh community as a whole was torn apart.... The majority of the Sikh community was categorically against these type of events," he testified in Ottawa.

However, the onslaught of news coverage and allegations of Sikh involvement in the bombing tainted his community, he said.

Sandhu described to inquiry commissioner John Major being approached while taking part in a parade in B.C. one week after the disaster.

"Kids were asking me when was the next plane going to go down," he testified. [Link]

The ongoing debate over "reasonable accommodation" has been cause for significant unease and discomfort for many Canadians.

However, rather than demonstrating clear leadership by addressing those concerns constructively, some of our political leaders have exploited the issue for short-term political gain, creating even greater unease.

As our society becomes more diverse, it is natural for a conversation about our evolving identity to arise. However, the key to success lies in that conversation being grounded in respect and dignity rather than mistrust and division.

The dialogue should focus on how we build a community that contains respectful space for all of our cultural and religious traditions to interact and contribute within the laws and norms of a liberal society.

We are witnessing a toxic version of that conversation unfold today. Naturally, the notion of "reasonable accommodation" might mean different things to different people, and that gap in understanding is being used to polarize Canadians into "us" and "them."

Some opportunists suggest that multiculturalism is a threat to the very essence of Canada and Quebec; these fears are entirely unfounded. Aside from stoking ill-founded fears, none of the opportunists has demonstrated how one Canadian's expression of their faith or culture diminishes those of others.

How does allowing a Muslim to wear a hijab or a Sikh to wear a turban diminish the rights or beliefs of others? These expressions of faith do not require any compromise by others because they are simply individual life choices. Clearly, they are red herrings in the "reasonable accommodation" hysteria.

Of course, there may be instances when respecting someone's cultural or religious practices necessitates some accommodation, like requesting a prayer space or providing for special dietary needs. However, such requirements are both minimal and reasonable.

Last month was the 78th anniversary of Persons Day, which celebrates the date in 1929 when women were declared "persons" under Canadian law. Looking back, we might find it strange, or even absurd, that women were not legally "persons" in this country. However, I wonder if the opponents of women's rights in 1929 might have argued that such an extension of legal rights was an accommodation that threatened the "Canadian way of life."

The fear that the Canadian way of life will be lost if we accommodate others is based on a narrow view of this great country. Canada prospers because our identity is robust and open to new ideas. For example, bilingualism likely would not have survived if not for Canada's values of respect and inclusion. Some have argued that "multiculturalism" fosters division and segregation. On the contrary, it is a policy that appreciates the reality of this country by promoting healthy integration balanced with respect for difference.

Many Canadians are immigrants or the children of immigrants who emigrated from countries that brutally denied minority rights and demanded assimilation. For those Canadians, it must be disheartening to see strains of their native lands' assimilationist policies arising in Canada under the cover of a debate on "reasonable accommodation."

Rather than exploiting misunderstanding and fear, political leaders should be bringing Canadians together. They ought to reassure us that celebrating Diwali does not mean the rejection of Christmas, and accommodating Kosher dietary requirements does not mean banning the consumption of pork.

Unfortunately, the separatist parties and the governing Conservatives have been fuelling anxiety by jumping on the unreasonable accommodation bandwagon.

Xenophobia is largely driven by fear of the unknown. Political leaders can act responsibly by demonstrating that diversity is not a zero sum game; diversity holds the promise of economic prosperity for Canada and cultural richness for its citizens.

The process of nation-building is delicate and difficult. But, does that mean we should shy away from what is required to continue building the best country in the world? In this new millennium, Canada is well-positioned to leverage its great strengths and lead the world economically, politically and socially.

Our diversity is one element of our strength as a nation. Realizing that, we can become more united and cohesive than we have ever been. All we need is proactive leadership to take us there. [Link]

It should be a simple matter for Muslim immigrants to settle in to Canadian society: You accommodate, and we adapt

[T]he Quebec Council on the Status of Women's proposal to bar public employees from wearing religious symbols while at work reflects fear and ignorance, not good judgment. The good women of Quebec have confused religion with culture. Let's face it -- much of the current ire is rooted in misgivings about ultra-conservative Muslim practices and increasingly emboldened Islamists. But whether it is Iran or Canada, the state should not be in the business of deciding what women should wear.

[W]hy ban the hijab or the Sikh turban? There's much work to be done within the Muslim community (with full support of the mainstream) to eradicate medievalism through education, dialogue and a vigorous, no-holds-barred debate. Banning the hijab will only make this exercise more difficult.

"Reasonable accommodation" is a separate issue. Most immigrants find Canadians to be accepting and accommodating to newcomers. Our first years are difficult and scary, but ask our children and their successes speak for themselves. Of course, the cancer of racism has not been completely defeated and occasionally raises its ugly head, but by and large, new immigrants and racial minorities do better in Canada than in any other place on earth.

Contrary to this, in most Muslim countries, non-Muslims are denied equal citizenship, don't have the same freedoms we enjoy in Canada and there's little or no accommodation for their religious and cultural needs. They have to follow the law of the land, no matter how oppressive.

Muslims discover that the Canadian Charter of Rights gives them infinitely more freedoms than the lands where Islamic law is the norm. Any Muslim who has faced the wrath of religious police in Saudi Arabia, the vigilantes in Iran and rude officials in Pakistan should think twice before damning the proceedings of the Taylor-Bouchard Commission.

So why do Muslims complain when we're asked to adapt ourselves to our new home where most of us have come by choice? After all, accommodation is a two-way street -- you accommodate, we adapt.

Accommodation also places a huge responsibility on us not to make a nuisance of ourselves. Being Muslim is not only about finding a space to pray. The first words of the Koran were to "read and write" not "pray and preach." Islam is more about respect for those around us and the adoption of an impeccable integrity in our personal character rather than the parading of our costumes and the flaunting of our rituals. If my religious freedom becomes a nuisance for others, it's no longer a freedom but a burden.

So what constitutes the fine line between reasonable accommodation and unreasonable demands?

Reasonable accommodation is the multi-faith chapel at Toronto's airport, where the largest section is for Muslims. Nuisance value is the employee who insists on a separate room allocated only for her. The onus to find time and space to pray is on us, not on our teachers, employers or colleagues.

Reasonable accommodation means including Muslim books in the library. Unreasonable accommodation is the demand to ban The Three Little Pigs from schools.

Reasonable accommodation means making vegetarian or halal food available in the university cafeteria; asking for a separate restaurant is unreasonable.

Reasonable accommodation is having the freedom to wear the hijab; unreasonable accommodation is to insist on wearing face masks in public by falsely invoking Islam.

At a critical time when liberal, progressive Muslim Canadians are trying to make a dent in the dogma, it's important to let mainstream Canada know that we don't require extra accommodation; we need better accommodation for all Canadians.

For Muslims this means that instead of spending an inordinate amount of time on inane debates about the halal-ness of maple syrup, we should be engaged in a dialogue about the future of our youth, public policies, elections and the security of Canada.

Muslims are an essential part of Canadian society, whose values of secular democracy and individual freedoms are under attack by Islamists. Muslims should realize that citizenship in Canada is not based on inherited race or religion, but on a set of common laws created by men and women whom we elect and send to Parliament. Those who wish to introduce laws based on divine texts should try living in Saudi Arabia and Iran before they force the rest of us to embrace their prescription. [Link]

Clearly, all of Canada continues to struggle through multiculturalism issues and to define what it means to be a Canadian. Few countries have opened their doors to such a wide cross-section of immigrants as Canada and no city has embraced it more than Toronto.

We can be proud of our diversity, of our willingness to embrace a wide range of cultural and religious differences. Yet many of our recent newcomers still face bigotry, racism and job discrimination.

Canada is not at a point that has been reached in European countries like Britain, France and Germany where tolerance for minorities has eroded and riots have broken out. But our elected leaders, as well as every one of us, must remain vigilant to attacks on multiculturalism and ensure immigrants and minority groups are treated fairly and that their integration into Canadian society is as smooth as possible.

Instead of questioning multiculturalism, we should reaffirm the inclusiveness and tolerance that has made modern Canada a success.

Our diversity is a source of strength, not weakness. Millions of new Canadians have settled successfully in Canada over the last 100 years. They and their children are proof that multiculturalism works. [Link]

Eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone said, “The law is the embodiment of the moral sentiment of the people.” The manner in which a society treats its religious minorities equally speaks about the value that society places on religious liberty.

The accommodation of religious minorities is a significant canary in the mine shaft. In recent times, the Western world’s record in this regard has been inconsistent at best. One immediately recalls France’s ban on religious symbols and clothing in its schools. Other than a fear or discomfort with the unusual or unattractive, how can a society that values individual freedom embrace such bans?....

On the one hand, standards that protect the lives and safety of people in the community are laudable. On the other, some of these standards go beyond that, communicating a refusal to accommodate cultural or religious differences. For example, one of the standards states that “children cannot carry any weapons … symbolic or not.” On first blush, that makes perfect sense. Why should students be armed?

Gurbaj was initially successful, but lost on appeal. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court acknowledged that freedom of conscience and religion as guaranteed in section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be limited when a person’s freedom to act may cause harm to or interfere with the rights of others. However, the Court reiterated prior decisions that required the state to justify any restrictions on freedom of religion it has chosen.6


The Court was convinced that Gurbaj Multani, an orthodox Sikh, sincerely believed that he was required to wear his metal kirpan at all times, even in bed. In essence, young Gurbaj was being compelled to either abandon his religious belief or leave the public school system. As such, there was little doubt that his freedom of religion was compromised.

The Court went on to accept that the school board’s objective of ensuring safety in schools was important, potentially important enough to override a constitutional right. However, the school board did not minimally impair Gurbaj’s rights, since he was prepared to accept conditions on the wearing of the kirpan designed to alleviate safety concerns. Gurbaj had never had behavioral problems, and the probability that the kirpan would ever be used for violence was very low.7 He would wear it under his clothes, in a wooden sheath, and wrapped and sewn securely in a sturdy cloth envelope.8


The Supreme Court of Canada held that failing to accommodate Gurbaj’s religious practice contravened the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. This decision is consistent with Canadian human rights jurisprudence, in which reasonable accommodation of religion is deeply entrenched. 9


The Multani decision affirmed, probably conclusively, that democratic efforts to prevent the wearing of religious clothing or symbols in schools in Canada will not be acceptable. This should differentiate Canada from France, in which a ban on religious clothing in schools has apparently met with general acceptance.

The Multani case shows there is a real need for good constitutional protection from the vagaries of public opinion, like the opinion inherent in Hérouxville’s “standards.” It should have been a clear signal to Hérouxville that its democratically motivated attempts at compelling homogeneity of cultural and religious practices within its community are out of step with Canadian constitutional precedent.

Compare that with the “jilbab” case from the United Kingdom, which is reminiscent of France’s ban on religious apparel in schools.
Although Canada remains very similar to the United Kingdom in its laws and legal traditions, it appears to be significantly departing from this close relationship in how it deals with religious accommodation in public schools.

In the Begum case,10 the House of Lords11 struck down the complaint of a student who was prohibited from wearing a jilbab to school. A jilbab is a long, flowing, baggy overgarment worn by some Muslim women who believe that it fulfills the Islamic demands for modesty, or “hijab.” The modern jilbab covers the entire body, except for hands, feet, face, and head (which is then covered by a scarf or wrap).

Denbigh High School refused to allow Ms. Begum, then 14 years old, to wear a jilbab. It required her to wear either the school uniform or a “shalwar kameeze,” another form of religious dress that was worn by some Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh students, and was approved by the school. The problem was that Ms. Begum and her family did not believe that the shalwar kameeze met her religious requirements because it did not conceal the contours of the female body to the same extent as the jilbab.

Similar to the Canadian Court’s finding in Multani , the House of Lords accepted that Ms. Begum sincerely believed that she was religiously required to wear the jilbab and categorized the ultimate issue as whether her right to manifest her religious belief should be subject to a justifiable limitation.12 The applicable provision of the European Convention on Human Rights is similar in text and structure to the portions of the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms that was an issue inMultani.
13 As such, there were similarities both in legal structure and in the factual substance of the cases. Both cases came down to the issue of reasonable justification of the infringement of religious freedom.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill thought it would be best to defer to the decision of the school, as it had a “power of decision” with respect to uniforms and was “best placed to exercise it.”14 He held that the school did not intend to exclude Ms. Begum from the school; it wanted only to ensure that Ms. Begum adhered to its uniform policy. He rejected the concept of adverse effect discrimination of Ms. Begum in the case by holding that she was not, de facto, excluded from the school. 15The precedent of Multani was brought to his attention, but he dismissed the comparison out of hand. 16

Another of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffmann, concluded similarly, relying on prior European authority holding that the rights of a man who became a Seventh-day Adventist in Finland were not infringed when he was required to work after sundown on Fridays, since he was “free to relinquish his post.” 17

This analysis cannot hold up to scrutiny. Ms. Begum’s right to attend school was removed because of her need to conform to a standard of dress she believed was required by her religious beliefs. It is an impoverished sense of religious liberty to grant a person a choice between adhering to their religious practices and leaving their job or a public school. A robust sense of religious freedom and a society that values such freedom accommodates religious practices, except to the extent that such practices cause real harm or undermine the rights of others.

The fact that Denbigh High School wanted to maintain a certain standard of dress does not rise to the level that should be required to undermine religious liberty. Ms. Begum was not undermining the morals of the school by immodest dress. Quite the contrary: Ms. Begum found the required dress to be insufficiently modest. The only complaint was that she did not conform and, perhaps, that her preferred style of dress made others uncomfortable, as it was out of step with modern feminist thinking.

Lord Scott of Foscote found the discrimination against Ms. Begum to be reasonable since “Muslims are well represented in the management structure of the school,”18 and the shalwar kameeze was designed to be “suitable for Muslim girls.” 19 That is irrelevant.

Religion and religious observance are deeply personal and must be examined on the basis of how each individual sincerely believes he or she is required to obey God. The extent to which accommodation of religion should be achieved must be examined on an individual basis, examining primarily the sincerity of the religious claim and whether it causes actual harm to others. [Link]

Minutes before prayers were set to begin on Sunday, a foot-wide slab of concrete came crashing through a window of a Mississauga mosque.

It was the second time in less than a month that the mosque has been targeted by vandals, and Muslim groups are asking police to treat the incident as a hate crime.

There were 100 people inside the mosque when the window shattered. No one was hurt and many were unaware that anything had even happened. Those who saw the act of vandalism reported that two male teens rode up on bicycles and hurled what appears to be a chunk of patio stone through the window of the facility's control room.

"It was a scary-looking thing," says M.D. Khalid, director of the Islamic Society of North America centre. "How much more daring can you be?"

He estimated the cost of the damage to be about $1,000. The building houses a mosque as well as a Muslim secondary school, where students are due to return from summer holidays in two weeks.

Earlier this month, a rock was tossed through the windshield of a van belonging to the mosque. Reports again identified two males on bicycles as responsible.

"When it's twice in the same location, it leaves the impression that some people are prejudiced," says Khalid. "These incidents are not random."

The mosque was also firebombed after Sept. 11, 2001 and Khalid is constantly increasing security at the mosque. "It's not a good feeling."

Wahida Valiante, vice-president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, is urging police to treat the incident as a hate crime.

"People could have died inside," she says emphatically. It's naïve to think that these incidents are not racially motivated, she adds.

Peel police are investigating, but treating the incident as mischief for now.

``If several Muslim mosques within Peel were all targeted, then you can say okay, they're targeting a specific culture," says Det. David Bullock.

"At this point, it's just a brick through a window of a building and the building happened to be a mosque." [Link]

Passport Canada will issue an apology -- and travel documents -- to three Sikh children whose passport applications were rejected because they were wearing religious headgear.

The federal agency will also offer remedial training to passport staff to ensure a similar incident doesn't happen in the future, spokesman Fabien Lengelle said Friday.

"It is resolved," Lengelle said. "As soon as we became aware of the issue, we called the parents and offered corrective measures."

Lakhwinder Kaur Sidhu had mailed passport applications to Ottawa for herself and her husband along with their three children, Gurleen Kaur, 9, Ravneet Kaur, 7, and Gurmant Singh, 4, on May 15.

All five had included passport photos in which they were wearing their religious headgear.

Although Sidhu and her husband, Hardip, got their passports last week, the children's applications were denied because their photos did not meet the specifications, as the wearing of a "head covering is unacceptable." [Link]

Family says Passport Canada told them religious garb was unacceptable

A Sikh family in Surrey, B.C., is upset because Passport Canada denied their children's passport applications, saying the religious head garb the children wore in their photos was unacceptable.

Days later, the decision was reversed but the family is demanding to know why the pictures were rejected in the first place.

Nine-year-old Gurleen Kaur Sihdu, one of the three children, is seen in her passport photo wearing a head covering but her face is clearly visible.

She wants to know why these pictures weren't good enough for Passport Canada. [Link]