Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam.
> Should government employees have no dress code?
Except insofar as dress is actually related to the performance of the substantive duties of the job, probably.
> Islam is a big religion (like Christianity). That something is not seen as a religious mandate by some branches of Islam does not mean it is not a religious issue for other branches of Islam.
Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional, including many Sunni scholars, and every moderate Islamic sect.
Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?
> Much of Islam (most, probably) sees the Niqab as being optional
Which doesn't stop it from being a religious issue.
> Every Islamic sect allows polygamy (other religions also allow it). So tell me, why are we infringing on that belief?
Whether something is a bona fide religious issue is not, alone, dispositive of the treatment it should have by the State. So pointing out that other religious practices are prohibited by the State is irrelevant when the discussion at hand was over whether the issue was really a religious issue.
In November, 2011 the court released its 335 pages long decision, which was that the polygamy abolition law is indeed constitutional, but that it should not be used to persecute minors for having taken part of a polygamous marriage.[21] Chief Justice Robert Bauman conceded that there is a conflict between this law and some civil right principles, but stated that there are other and "more important" issues which in this case takes precedence. He wrote (as quoted by CBC news[21]):
"I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm. More specifically, Parliament's reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage".
Bauman argued that there are cases where the "wives" (who may be rather young; sometimes as young as 12 years) are abducted and abused, but because they believe in a faith promoting polygamy, they are not willing to bring complaints to the authorities. He reasons that these offences sometimes may be stopped by applying anti-polygamy legislation.
The decision was welcomed by the attorney general of British Columbia, and by a representative for the group Stop Polygamy in Canada. Likewise, according to the CBC news,[21] some polyamorous groups in Canada expressed their relief, since Bauman had stated that the law shouldn't apply to them unless they decide to formalize their unions.
I understand this angle, but the harm described here has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do with oppressive, criminal behaviour. A man could easily commit the same crime on a single woman, there's nothing inherent to polygamy that is more harmful than a monogamous relationship.
I don't think polygamy is specifically disallowed by the state, depending on how you define polygamy. Since marriage comes with tax and legal benefits, the state has an active interest in controlling what is legally defined as marriage (specifically, how many people are party to one marriage. I'm not talking about controlling any kind of two-party marriages like one man and one woman, two men, or two women).
For the religious definition of marriage, there are no laws saying you can't be married in your religion to multiple people. The only stipulation is that you can only be legally married to one person because of the aforementioned legal and tax benefits. There's no law prohibiting me from having six female roommates who are exclusively in a relationship with me. There is a law saying I can only be legally married to one of them at a time. The rest of the women would be legally single and religiously married.
> Should government employees have no dress code?
Except insofar as dress is actually related to the performance of the substantive duties of the job, probably.