Quebec infringed on religious freedom by forcing Catholic school to teach secular course: Supreme Court

On the recent Supreme Court ruling:

Loyola told the Supreme Court it wasn’t challenging the constitutionality of any legislation. But it was invoking a regulatory provision that allows private schools to teach their own version of a course where their program is equivalent, the school said in its factum. However, Quebec’s Education Department doesn’t consider Loyola’s substitute course an equivalent one. One reason is that the approach recommended by the ERC course is non-denominational, while Loyola’s version aims to transmit the Catholic faith, the Quebec government argues.

Loyola has said it would teach all the same content at the ERC course Loyola’s former principal Paul Donovan told the Montreal Gazette on Wednesday.

“We just didn’t want to have to suppress or hold back the Catholic nature of the school,” Donovan said.

Private religious schools in Quebec can teach their own faiths, but separately from the ERC course.

It’s the second time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the course taught in Quebec’s schools since the 2008-2009 school year. A Drummondville couple, who are Catholics, had argued that refusing to exempt their sons from the compulsory course violated their freedom of conscience and religion. But in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal in 2012. The couple hadn’t proved that the ERC course interfered with their ability to pass their own faith onto their children, the decision said.

Quebec infringed on religious freedom by forcing Catholic school to teach secular course: Supreme Court.

Graeme Hamilton’s commentary on the fears of religious fundamentalism in Quebec:

Listening to politicians, it can feel as if Quebec is under assault from religious fundamentalists. The opposition Parti Québécois wants an observer to report annually to the National Assembly on “manifestations of religious fundamentalism.” The Liberal government has a working group to combat radicalism. The Coalition Avenir Québec proposes banning preaching that runs counter to Quebec values.

But those same legislators have no quarrel with a secular fundamentalism that has taken root in the province at the expense of religious rights. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada sent a message to Quebec that its state-sanctioned secularism can go too far.

In a ruling affirming the right of Montreal’s Loyola High School, a private Catholic boys school, to teach its own version of a provincially mandated course on ethics and religion, the court offered a timely reminder to politicians.

“The pursuit of secular values means respecting the right to hold and manifest different religious beliefs,” Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority. “A secular state respects religious differences, it does not seek to extinguish them.”

The pursuit of secular values means respecting the right to hold and manifest different religious beliefs

The ruling specifically applies to a small number of private religious schools in Quebec, but it resonates more widely at a time when governments contend with questions involving religious rights. Recently in Quebec, mosques have run up against obstacles over fears of religious extremism, and a Muslim woman was told she could not appear before a Quebec Court wearing her hijab. The federal government has taken a stand against the face-covering niqab, saying women cannot wear the garments during citizenship ceremonies.

Interference with a religious group’s beliefs or practices is justified only if they “conflict with or harm overriding public interests,” Justice Abella wrote.

… In a partially concurring opinion that argued for less restriction on Loyola, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Michael Moldaver wrote that it is enough for Loyola teachers to treat other religious viewpoints with respect; it does not have to treat them as equally legitimate.

“Indeed, presenting fundamentally incompatible religious doctrines as equally legitimate and equally credible could imply that both are equally false,” they wrote. “Surely this cannot be a perspective that a religious school can be compelled to adopt.”

John Zucchi, whose son was a student at Loyola when the ERC program was introduced and who was a plaintiff in the initial court case, said Thursday’s ruling provides crucial guidance. “This is helping the country to come to what I would call a sane form of secularism,” he said. “We don’t need to shut down one voice in the name of diversity and pluralism, but rather diversity and pluralism mean that all perspectives can be heard and be out in the public square.”

Graeme Hamilton: A secular fundamentalism has taken root in Quebec

In politics, it’s dangerous to take the low road: Bruce Anderson

Bruce Anderson, is his usual diplomatic way, makes strong points about wedge politics, topical given some of the comments by Conservative MPs in particular:

They [political strategists] know that voters have had a bellyful of manufactured drama – politicians getting hot and bothered about issues that shouldn’t be at or near the top of the agenda.

For one reason, the audience can spot the manipulation. It’s like a magic trick when the audience has figured out how the illusion is done: not only is it not entertaining, it’s awkward and embarrassing. At best, voters might just ignore you, because they know the tactic is not serious, just a game.

But the bigger reason to hesitate is the risk of starting a hazardous chain reaction, one that gets outside your control quickly. When you use a controversial issue to rally your base, there is a greater risk of also hardening and energizing your opponents too.

There are highly skilled and experienced campaign teams all across the spectrum, people who know how to turn a wedge attack aimed against them into an opportunity to raise money and ire and generate a backlash.

The late U.S. politician Adlai Stevenson (who twice failed in presidential bids against Dwight Eisenhower) said, almost 60 years ago, “the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”

It would be naïve to suggest that we’re in for a new golden age of only positive campaigning. But a pretty fair case can be made that voters are noticing and responding well to high-road campaigning, which reveals how fed up they are with the opposite.

And the smartest campaigners know that wedge issues are becoming less like a magic potion for electoral success, and more like nitroglycerine: a choice that could go pretty badly, if fumbled.

In politics, it’s dangerous to take the low road – The Globe and Mail.

Pierre Karl Péladeau fait volte-face et s’excuse

Once the cat is out of the bag…

Les mots ont un sens. Les mots ont un poids. Le favori de la course à la direction du Parti québécois, Pierre Karl Péladeau, a reconnu jeudi soir avoir eu tort de présenter l’immigration comme un obstacle sur le chemin du pays du Québec.

Le PQ doit « rassembler le plus large possible », a fait valoir M. Péladeau lors d’une causerie entre les cinq prétendants à la succession de Pauline Marois et des militants péquistes de la région du Centre-du-Québec.

En route vers le motel Blanchet à Drummondville, le député de Saint-Jérôme a mis en ligne sur sa page Facebook un message intitulé « Mes excuses ». « Ça m’apparaissait important de chasser l’ambiguïté parce qu’il faut que ce soit clair, net et précis : […] ceux et celles qui ont décidé de venir s’installer ici au Québec, c’est une richesse pour le Québec », a-t-il répété une fois arrivé à destination.

… Les propos tenus par M. Péladeau mercredi soir attestent de la « déviation claire vers le nationalisme ethnique » prise par le PQ, estime le premier ministre Philippe Couillard. « Depuis la charte, il y a une dérive très malheureuse. Il n’y a plus d’arguments financiers [et] économiques pour la séparation du Québec. Alors, on essaie de s’accrocher à n’importe quoi », a déclaré le chef du gouvernement à l’entrée du caucus libéral. « D’après moi [cela] doit faire frémir ceux qui ont fondé ce parti-là. »

De son côté, le ministre Gaétan Barrette a reproché au PQ d’importer l’idéologie du Front national, parti d’extrême droite français, en sol québécois. « Le Parti québécois est en train de montrer son vrai visage. C’est un parti sectaire », a-t-il lancé.

Pierre Karl Péladeau fait volte-face et s’excuse | Le Devoir.

And Chantal Hébert’s commentary on the PQ leadership campaign:

PQ blind spot keeps Pierre Karl Péladeau the party favourite: Hébert

Audrey Macklin: And just like that, you’re an illegal immigrant

Audrey Macklin on the “4-in, 4-out” rule, requiring all temporary foreign workers who have been in the country for four years or longer to leave, and remain outside Canada for at least four years.

Some Canadians may consider the government’s guest-worker regime to be misguided and believe it should not continue. But terminating it will not resolve the dilemma of those temporary foreign workers who are already here and who are the targets of the “4-in, 4-out” rule. Some Canadians may equally have little sympathy for temporary foreign workers who overstay their visas, no matter what their motives. Some may not care that non-status workers are even more precarious and exploitable than temporary foreign workers — after all, they are not supposed to be here, anyway.

But the point is that it is absolutely inevitable and predictable that they will be here. Governments, like people, might be assumed to intend the natural consequences of their actions. So why would the government devise a rule that is guaranteed to produce just-out-of-time illegality?

It is common knowledge that some sectors of the U.S. economy have become dependent on undocumented workers, of which there are an estimated 11 million. Some employers find them a desirable work force precisely because their deportability ensures that they will “work hard and work scared.” These employers are also known to wield their political influence accordingly. To my knowledge, there is no comparable market for non-status workers in Canada, at least not yet.

On March 31, temporary foreign workers will go to bed as lawfully employed and wake up the next day as illegal immigrants

Migrants without legal status are also easy targets for vilification. The slide from “illegal immigrant” to “criminal” in popular discourse is politically cheap and easy. A government that is looking to supplement the bogus refugee, the marriage fraudster and the foreign terrorist with a new category of bad immigrant and a new excuse to get tough on non-citizens might find it convenient to add “illegal immigrants” to the roster. The government’s role in illegalizing these migrants may escape notice.

Thanks in part to Canada’s historic commitment to permanent immigration, this country has not had a significant population of irregular immigrants, until now. Thanks to the “4-in, 4-out” rule, Canada’s population of “illegal immigrants” is about to increase, and not because hordes of foreign nationals have suddenly surged across the border clandestinely.

On March 31, temporary foreign workers will go to bed as lawfully employed, hard-working, tax-paying residents of Canada, and wake up the next day as illegal immigrants. A bad law will have made them illegal. A good law would put them on the path to permanent residence.

Audrey Macklin: And just like that, you’re an illegal immigrant

From Afghanistan to Iraq, the perils of overconfidence – Brian Stewart

Brian Stewart’s commentary on the recent audit on the aid program in Afghanistan and a reminder for the need for greater policy modesty:

My own view, shared by many others, is that central to Canada’s problem was an overconfident, relentless boosterism around this mission that was encouraged, even demanded, throughout by Ottawa.

“We went into a complex country without a proper strategy and this was a major problem. And there was over-optimism so we were not looking at the status of the insurgency,” Nipa Banerjee, who ran our aid there between 2003 and 2006, told Canadian Press this week.

In later years, the sunny Canadian outlook often astonished even NATO allies.

Chris Alexander, then our senior diplomat in Kabul and now the minister of citizenship and immigration, is remembered in one British memoir as “among the most persuasive of the optimists, and in many ways the golden boy of the effort in Afghanistan … a formidable operator who never let much check his unquenchable optimism.”

For many of Canada’s allies, our military and aid officials in Afghanistan simply ignored a trilogy of inconvenient facts: that the West didn’t have the military or civilian capacity necessary for the challenge at hand; that the Afghans were in no position to take over any time soon; and that the Taliban grew stronger thanks to sanctuaries in neighbouring Pakistan.

Some may be asking themselves if these elements, including overconfidence, apply to what looks to be our expanding war against ISIS in Iraq and possibly Syria.

One dark irony of this period was that the Conservative government and other ardent supporters of the war often criticized the media for being too pessimistic in its Afghan coverage.

The reality is most media were far too pliant and unquestioning of a military-civilian mission that, with rare exceptions, hid behind the false-confidence curtain dictated by Ottawa.

Understandably, many Canadians want to put that far-off war behind us and forget. But we simply can’t ignore the lessons learned about the cost of our simplistic over-optimism if we’re to avoid similar mistakes in Iraq or other campaigns to come.

From Afghanistan to Iraq, the perils of overconfidence – World – CBC News.

Pierre Karl Péladeau says immigration hurts Quebec sovereignty

Just after he backed off a more comprehensive Quebec Values Charter in favour of the Bouchard Taylor approach, he does a Parizeau in his remarks on immigration and the ethnic vote:

Parti Québécois leadership candidate Pierre Karl Péladeau says he believes immigration is seriously compromising the province’s ability to achieve sovereignty.

The perceived front-runner in the contest to lead the separatist provincial party took that position Wednesday evening in a PQ leadership debate at Laval University in Quebec City.

“We don’t have 25 years ahead of us to achieve it. With demographics, with immigration, we’re definitely losing one riding each year,” Péladeau told a room of 350 people.

He said the PQ could be in danger of disappearing if immigrants continue to come to the province in great numbers.

Quebec would love to control immigration, he said; however, the PQ should not have any illusions about who really controls the number of newcomers to the province.

“Who’s responsible for the immigrants who come and settle in Quebec? It’s the federal government,” Péladeau said.

All the other leadership candidates took issue with his remarks.

Bernard Drainville, Alexandre Cloutier, Pierre Céré and Martine Ouellet all spoke about the PQ’s need to welcome immigrants and incorporate them into their sovereignty solution by showing them how great Quebec as a country could be.

Ironic that he was attacked by Drainville, the main advocate of the Quebec Values Charter.

Pierre Karl Péladeau says immigration hurts Quebec sovereignty – Montreal – CBC News.

French version here, with the comments of the other PQ leadership candidates:

Son rival Alexandre Cloutier, son interlocuteur lors de ce face à face, a promptement exprimé son désaccord.

«Pour moi, l’immigration n’a rien à voir là-dedans, a-t-il affirmé. Moi, je rêve de rallier tous les Québécois sans exception et je rêve que le PQ soit représentatif de l’ensemble de la population telle qu’elle existe.»

Au terme des échanges, le jeune candidat s’est dit «surpris» par les propos de M. Péladeau. Il a précisé qu’à ses yeux, les néo-Québécois «ne sont pas des adversaires».

Les autres adversaires du député de Saint-Jérôme ont également dénoncé ses commentaires.

«Notre responsabilité comme hommes et femmes politiques, c’est de convaincre nos concitoyens, a dit Bernard Drainville. Et moi, je ne fais aucune distinction entre un concitoyen dont les ancêtres sont arrivés ici en 1650 et un autre concitoyen dont la famille est arrivée à Dorval la semaine passée.»

«Les nouveaux Québécois, il faut travailler avec eux, a renchéri Martine Ouellet. Je pense que l’immigration est une force au Québec.»

Pierre Céré a dénoncé au cours du débat le «repli identitaire» opéré ces dernières années par le PQ. Au terme de la soirée, il a jugé que les commentaires du meneur de la course sont «extrêmement malheureux et extrêmement dommageables» pour le parti.

«C’est le malaise, a dit M. Céré. Non seulement ce qui a été dit l’a été de façon maladroite, je crois, mais c’est qu’une partie de la salle a applaudi. Et les propos étaient assez clairs et limpides.»

Questionné sur ses déclarations, M. Péladeau a affirmé en fin de soirée qu’il n’avait aucune intention de présenter les immigrants comme une menace pour le projet indépendantiste. Il a dit vouloir améliorer l’intégration des nouveaux arrivants.

«Le Québec s’est enrichi de la diversité des gens qui sont venus s’y installer, a-t-il dit. Et jamais, d’aucune façon, nous n’allons cesser cette richesse, cet enrichissement lié à l’augmentation de la diversité.»

La souveraineté minée par la démographie et l’immigration, dit Péladeau

 

Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically

Another illustration that charities chosen for CRA audits, and those not chosen, appear to reflect ideological or political criteria:

The charity behind the campaign to erect a monument to the victims of communism has declared zero political activity in its five-year history, even though it originally told the Canada Revenue Agency some of its work would be political.

A review of Tribute to Liberty’s official filings with the CRA reveals a clear intention to engage in political activity. When asked if it planned to engage in political activities, it answered “Yes” in its 2009 application for charitable status. It said this would involve contacting MPs and senators to gain their support for the project.

Yet, in the five years that followed, the charity answered “No” each time it was asked by the CRA in annual reporting forms whether it conducted political activity.

Dozens of Canadian charities have faced scrutiny since the 2012 Conservative budget set aside $8-million for CRA audits to determine whether they are following rules regarding political activity. The CRA has not published a list of the 60 charities it has identified for auditing. However, some of the groups that said they were audited were critical of government policy. The CRA has rejected suggestions the selection was politically motivated.

Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically – The Globe and Mail.

‘Behind Sweden’s tirade is a hidden Western agenda to tarnish Islam’ | Arab News

A reminder of some of the beliefs of those allied in the fight against ISIS and their denial of universal human rights:

Sweden and other Western countries have adopted double standards while dealing with human rights as they ignore the killing of thousands in Iraq, Syria and Palestine, and highlight the flogging of an individual in Saudi Arabia as a big issue, said Dr. Mohammed Badahdah, assistant secretary general of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY).

Speaking to Arab News, he emphasized that Saudi Arabia’s rules and regulations as well as its judicial system are based on the Qur’an and Sunnah or Shariah. “Shariah laws are not made by Parliament or people’s representatives. They are divine laws given by the Almighty for the welfare and security of the whole humanity,” he explained.

“It’s the duty of all countries and societies to respect religious faiths, beliefs and cultures of different communities in order to promote peace and stability in the world,” Badahdah said while denouncing Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s anti-Saudi tirade.

“We are not imposing Shariah on others. Why do then Sweden and other Western countries criticize the Kingdom when we are implementing Shariah in accordance with our faith? This is clear interference in our internal affairs and Saudi Arabia will not tolerate such attacks,” he said.

‘Behind Sweden’s tirade is a hidden Western agenda to tarnish Islam’ | Arab News.

The Demonization of Stephen Harper

This is quite an (unintentionally) funny piece in its innuendo regarding unnamed former clerks, its many assertions (anecdote-based, bien sûr) and its systematic ignoring any evidence regarding flaws in the Government’s policy process or substance.

While some of the points regarding officials are valid (indeed I argued some myself in Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism), this article has little nuance or balance.

And publishing under a nom de plume, hiding behind anonymity, is at best cowardly, at worst unethical, whether in social media or sites like this:

Retired senior federal public servants stand as an interesting révélateur of the true mindset of the senior Canadian federal public service. With retirement comes the possibility of speaking up, after years of extramural discretion on matters of partisan politics. It is not that active senior public servants have no view on these matters, but in a system that is supposed to have a professional non-partisan public service, such views are expected to be toned down (if not suppressed) at least externally when federal public servants are on active duty.

However, when senior federal public servants formally retire these days, many do not really retire. On the basis of their former status, they seek employment in a variety of positions outside the federal public service: lobbyists for industry, return to private practice for lawyers who might procure access to government officials, refugee in academe, etc.. From such new perches, they have a much greater licence to speak on any matters they feel strongly about – whether these views are competent and informed or not.

The wise ones remain quite discrete in retirement, for they feel they have a devoir de réserve. But most are not that wise. They rather sense that their special status as certified mandarins in the federal public service for a while, stands as a proof that they can be presumed to be, in their own mind at least, better informed and wiser than most. This status is perceived as carrying with it a responsibility to remain on guard for us, lesser Canadians, even in their new civilian life

Indeed, this special status has often been the major asset they have displayed to persuade their new bosses of their value-adding capabilities. Such special status is undoubtedly real when it comes to the personal links mandarins have retained with senior public servants still in active duties – and their ability to parlay such intelligence into advantages in their new positions – privileged access that can be used by universities, law firms, lobby firms, etc. for their own benefits.

But such mundane advantages are usually not the main asset that retired mandarins claim to possess. They most often feel that their tenure and experience as mandarins have definitely established them as persons of superior quality whose storytelling and judgments have greater intrinsic value than those of ordinary citizens on any matter they choose to address.

So certain former clerks of Privy Council, not especially known for their great wisdom when in active duty, but rather more for their craftiness and disingenuity, have had no hesitation, in retirement, in trotting themselves out into the public forum to denounce actions of the government now in place, on the sole basis of their supposed former moral authority being sufficient for their views to be regarded as consequential if not canonical.

One can certainly point to some former senior federal civil servants who have, in retirement, demonstrated their extraordinary intellectual resourcefulness by impressive endeavours: path-breaking books, enlightening papers, imaginative initiatives, etc. But most have not shined in that way. They have simply parlayed their former overblown status into financially profitable sinecures in organizations naïve enough to believe that their ‘greatness’ would be value-adding somewhat in the new setting.

Such matters however are only of interest to the chroniclers in the social pages of the Ottawa daily newspapers. What is much more interesting is the storytelling of those retired mandarins.

The demonization of Stephen Harper (free but requires login)

Michael Den Tandt: The Conservatives have Canadians soaking in fear

Funny and pointed commentary by Den Tandt:

Despite the psychological edge conferred on ISIS militants by illiteracy, innumeracy, zealotry and plain old stupidity, they really are not able to defeat the combined militaries of the whole world, led by the U.S. Air Force, which owns the sky and space. Yet here we are, locked in a stalemate, a token war in which Canada is participating with half-a-dozen old fighter jets, transport planes and a single company of soldiers. If the threat to our nation were pervasive, we’d have more invested — no disrespect to the Canadians serving valiantly over there now. But the fear certainly feels pervasive.

Next on the list of Things of Which We Should be Terrified comes the home-grown ISIS militant: Would-be Che Guevaras, misfits, drop-outs, rebellious teens and pot-heads fleeing the oppressive yoke of mom and dad, now fifth columnists for the jihadist horde. With Michael Zehaf-Bibeau as their poster child, this legion of highly-trained, lethal … but no, wait — they’re mainly witless incompetents, witness the Via Rail terror trial chronicled by my colleague, Christie Blatchford.

Ottawa is not under siege, nor does it feel itself to be: Any third-rate guest house in Kabul has more rigorous security screening than did last week’s Manning Centre conference, where the nation’s most powerful conservatives mixed and mingled. Hmm.

…The political question is simply this: Why so much distemper, now? It looks like nothing so much as an effort to shore up the Conservative base, comprising no more than 30% of the electorate and perhaps less. These are moves to harden the core, not win the centre — or persuade a plurality. If this is truly the game plan for Election 2015, then the governing party may be in worse shape than public polls indicate. The prospect of loss, they say, brings a fear all its own.

Michael Den Tandt: The Conservatives have Canadians soaking in fear