BorealFAREWELL POSTINGSPlaying Into the Hands of IslamistsJuly 30, 2025 The short-sightedness of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)—the renamed Canadian Jewish Congress—in seeking, through the courts, to insulate from government interference norm-defying Jewish schools such as those found in Hasidic communities and barbaric religious traditions such as torturing food animals to death to render their meat kosher is playing into the hands of Islamists. Jewish judicial intervention has paved the way for Islamists, who do not, as matter of faith, acknowledge the Separation of Church and State, to undermine the very foundation of the secular state, if not our democracy. A reminder of what Islamists are all about: Islamism is commonly expressed as the desire to enforce a version of Shari’ah as law… An Islamist attempts to impose his version of Islam on society, and a jihadist is an Islamist who attempts to do so by force… Political Islamists seek to impose their views through the ballot box, biding their time until they can infiltrate the institutions of society from within. Maajid Nawaz, author of Radical, My Journey out of Islamist Extremism Labels I may now live long enough to see the unraveling of the Canadian secular state where there will be no place safe from the bombardment of the Word of God what He stands for. Secularism on trial: Supreme Court sees record number of interveners in Bill 21 case Montreal Gazette, July 30, 2015 Two of the interveners are the CIJA and the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) who will argue, in essence, that religion has a God-given right to be omnipresent and the State is powerless to intervene. Matthew 22:21 Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Those who refuse to grant Caesar his due would have you believe that it is a matter of human rights. It isn’t! It is a matter of jurisdiction. How we got to this momentous crossroad can be a traced to a 1985 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the case of Ontario Human Rights Commission and Theresa O'Malley vs. Simpsons-Sears Limited the Canadian Jewish Congress was undoubtedly the most influential of the 7 interveners (the others being Canadian Human Rights Commission, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Manitoba Human Rights Commission, Alberta Human Rights Commission, Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded, Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped). The decision of the Court in O'Malley vs. Simpsons-Sears not only opened the floodgates to religious accommodations, but, for all practical purposes, elevated religious observances to preponderant rights, an outcome that Bill 21, An Act respecting the laicity of the State, finds incompatible with the functioning of an ostensibly secular state. The First Accommodation(Abbreviated from Teach Your Children Well - The Future as a Truism and a Cliché, Boreal Books) The Constitution of 1982 may boast that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God”, and the first freedom guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may be religion, but it was not the Constitution or the Charter on which the Supreme Court based its watershed decision giving revealed truths (immutable facts communicated to a mortal by a god) precedence over man-made laws. The precedent setting case was one alleging discrimination in the workplace. The decision in Ontario Human Rights Commission and Theresa O'Malley vs. Simpsons-Sears Limited is cited by the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Difference, better known as the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodations, as the watershed ruling which opened the floodgates to religious “accommodation” in Canadian law. O'Malley vs. Simpsons-Sears was not a Charter challenge but a challenge under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Supreme Court of Canada had to decide whether the retailer, Simpson-Sears was guilty of discrimination based on creed contrary to Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1980, c. 340, s. 4(1)(g). Ms. O'Malley had joined Simpsons-Sears in 1971. As a condition of full-time employment she was required to work Friday evenings on a rotating basis, and two Saturdays out of three. In 1978, Ms. O'Malley became a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Seventh-day Adventists must strictly observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. As a result of her newfound-faith, Ms. O'Malley could no longer work on Friday evenings and Saturdays, the busiest time of the week for most retailers, and Simpsons-Sears was no exception. To accommodate her religious beliefs Simpsons-Sears offered her part-time employment and told her that if a permanent position became available which did not require her to work on Friday evenings and Saturdays, and for which she was qualified, she would be considered for the job. The Federal Court of Appeal considered this more than a sufficient attempt to accommodate Ms. O'Malley religious beliefs. The Court, cognizant that Simpsons-Sear could not completely satisfy Ms. O'Malley’s demands without discriminating against employees who did not share her beliefs and would find their working conditions adversely affected, accepted Simpson-Sears’ sensible fairness argument that “An employment rule, honestly made for sound economic and business reasons and equally applicable to all” was not discriminatory. Not so, said the Supreme Court of Canada in overturning the Federal Court ruling. The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in favour of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Ms O'Malley wrote that “… the Court of Appeal, having decided that intentional discrimination had to be shown, did not consider the question of accommodation.” The fact that Simpson-Sears, in everything it did to be accommodating to Ms. O’Malley, had tried to be fair to all its employees and not discriminate did not matter. It had a duty, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, to accommodate the religious beliefs of Ms. O’Malley even if in seeking to accommodate those beliefs it discriminated against those who did not share them. This concept of “reasonable accommodation” in the workplace of one group at the expense of another, the Supreme Court of Canada extended to the educational sector in 2006. The Supreme Court, in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys ruled that children could bring concealed weapons to school i.e. a dagger (the kirpan), if it was a religious requirement. They could do this even if it placed both armed and unarmed children at considerable risk during normal schoolyard confrontations and gave an advantage to the children carrying concealed weapons. The deliberate discrimination in Canadian law in favour of those who believe in a higher God-given law — for all intent and purposes the meaning of reasonable accommodation — is now understood to apply everywhere in Canadian society from "labour relations, public and private-sector suppliers of goods and services, lawmakers, and regulatory authorities."* ---- * Report to the Québec Minister of Education on Integration and Reasonable Accommodation in the Schools (2007).
|