Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Back to Questions
Prev Next
CELPIP Practice Reading: Reading for Viewpoints ID: #63262 Hard Faith at the Front Counter

Read the following editorial from a website.

Proposals to limit religious symbols for public-facing workers are back on several agendas, from city councils to provincial cabinets. The symbols include the hijab, the turban, the kippah and the cross. Supporters say the rules show that the state takes no side on religion. Opponents see a dress code that falls hardest on minority believers and may not survive a Charter challenge. We think the question deserves more care than it usually gets, and in our view most blanket rules fail that test.

Theodora Toussaint, a civil liberties lawyer, argues that the state should not decide when faith is too visible. She would accept a limit only where an employer can show a genuine safety risk or a clear barrier to doing the job, not a worry about a symbol’s appearance. In her experience, such rules mostly affect women who wear head coverings and men who wear turbans, people for whom the symbol is not optional. Zeno Tardif, a former Crown prosecutor, argues for a narrower line. He believes that judges, armed police officers and prison guards, who exercise the state’s power to detain people, may reasonably be asked to appear neutral, but he rejects rules that would cover teachers, librarians or counter clerks.

Olumide Turgeon, a workplace mediator who has resolved many dress-code complaints, says the process matters more than the principle. Employers already handle hard hats and surgical masks case by case, he says, and faith deserves the same careful treatment: a written reason tied to the job, a look at options such as a different shift or post, and no city-wide code that skips the individual. Mehreen Valois, who directs human resources for a mid-sized city, says her managers mostly want clarity. Without provincial guidance, she explains, each department invents its own answer, and employees in similar jobs end up treated differently.

Canadian courts have thrown out some sweeping rules while leaving narrower ones in doubt, so employers will work without a final answer for some time. Until then, we recommend that governments drop blanket bans on religious symbols for public-facing staff. Any limit should be confined to the small group of roles Tardif describes, and even there it should rest on the written, job-based reasons Turgeon sets out. Our provinces should also publish the plain guidance Valois asks for, so that fairness does not depend on which office a worker happens to join. That is the fairest path we can see for our public services.

Using the drop-down menu (▾), choose the best option according to the information given on the website.

This editorial is mainly about 1.
.

Who most clearly accepts some limits, but only for people with the power to detain? 2.
.

Mehreen Valois’s position would most likely be supported by 3.
.

What outcome does Theodora Toussaint’s condition call for? 4.
.

The editorial’s recommendation is best summarized as 5.
.

The following is a comment by a visitor to the website page. Complete the comment by choosing the best option to fill in each blank.

I have spent eleven years at the front counter of a provincial office, serving coworkers and customers of every faith, so this editorial matters to me. Theodora Toussaint notes that these rules fall mostly on 6.
, and I think she is right to say so plainly. Olumide Turgeon, who 7.
, was new to me, but his practical approach made sense. He says employers already handle 8.
 case by case, so faith hardly needs its own blanket code. You also point out that the courts have 9.
, a point I had missed. Supporters of such bans claim they show that 10.
, but I have yet to hear any evidence for that claim.

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Saving...