@elbanditoroso
“what has this judge done when people of other religions (or other moslems) have appeared before her? Was this woman treated differently?”
The OP’s title must have sounded to you that “Is this judge only being….to this woman who happens to be wearing a hijab? That it would be acceptable if she was doing it to men who wear things from other religions too? No, of course it didn’t mean that. It was just as an aside. It would be horrid too if she did. It just means that it is highly unlikely that she (or whoever is like her) would practice… on a nun with a habit on men with kipa, turban, etc. esp. who also happen to be rich. She is on the poor side, she is moslem, and she is a woman. The judge picked on her just like some people would only pick on the physically weak not the musclebound ones. According to some she is practicing hatred, (comapring a baseball cap to a religion-related item of clothing) Some say she is practising politics. instead of practising the law. People who are supposed to administer justice should be teaching it, no learning it on the job.
- “what are the rules / laws of the province of Quebec? Are they different from Canadian (national) rules? THis was a local (Quebec) case – not a federal one. What are the regulations on the provincial level?”
Even so,there is such a thing as a law, a rule being unconstitutional.
“wearing was insincere, and perhaps a way of evading justice?”
Are you confusing the face covering Niquab, and the hijab which exposes the face? Even then there must be procedures in the court that verify the identity of the key persons concerned * You’re imagining that that doesn’t happen that they just take whoever in without ID?
Did the judge find out the defintion of freedom of religion? It is about the state/people representing the state not being discriminatory, toward religious people who need their services. There is no need to study the Charter for this.