Immigration: Une Contamination vertueuse

2025/12/19 Leave a comment

Useful reminder of the integration dialectic, and how positive influences work in both directions:

…Ce choc de valeurs est au cœur de débats déchirants sur le vivre-ensemble. Certains y voient le signe d’une incompatibilité fondamentale, irrémédiable. Les immigrants issus de sociétés plus conservatrices seraient porteurs de valeurs si éloignées des nôtres, si dangereuses, qu’ils constitueraient une menace pour notre identité.

Et si c’était l’inverse ? Et si c’étaient eux qui se laissaient contaminer par nos coutumes ?

Plusieurs études ont mis en lumière un tel effet de contagion. Deux chercheurs de Statistique Canada, Kristyn Frank et Feng Hou, se sont par exemple intéressés à la répartition des tâches entre conjoints. En compilant les données de six recensements, ils ont constaté qu’au départ, les nouveaux arrivants continuent d’être influencés par les rapports femmes-hommes qui étaient la norme chez eux. Ainsi, les immigrantes nées dans des pays où les femmes sont moins présentes sur le marché de l’emploi ont tendance, une fois au Canada, à consacrer moins d’heures au travail rémunéré et plus de temps aux corvées ménagères, comparativement à celles qui ont grandi dans des sociétés plus égalitaires.

Mais au fil du temps, l’empreinte du pays natal s’estompe. Plus les années passent, plus le labeur est divisé équitablement, selon l’étudeparue en 2015.

Même les gens qui immigrent à l’âge adulte, donc, en viennent à épouser les normes de leur terre d’accueil, du moins en partie. Et il suffit d’une génération pour que la conversion s’achève.

C’est ce que révèle un sondage mené dans 27 pays européens et relayé en 2014 dans Social Forces. À leur arrivée, les immigrants adhèrent davantage que les non-immigrants au modèle de l’homme pourvoyeur et de la femme au foyer. Avec les années, cependant, leurs opinions se rapprochent de celles des natifs. Et les immigrants de la deuxième génération, nés au pays de parents étrangers, pensent comme la majorité.

…À écouter le portrait qu’en brossent certains leaders, on pourrait croire que le Québec est une société fragile dont les valeurs les plus chères risquent de s’effondrer au contact d’autres cultures.

Mais le Québec n’est pas un château de cartes. C’est un phare qui, malgré ses imperfections, brille suffisamment pour inciter des gens venus d’ailleurs à embrasser ses idéaux. Un lieu où l’égalité, comme la douceur de vivre, est contagieuse.

Source: Contamination vertueuse

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Yakabuski: After 120 years, France is still grappling with the meaning of the separation of church and state

2025/12/19 Leave a comment

Interesting survey and generational divide:

…A survey by the polling firm Ifop, marking the 120th anniversary of the 1905 law, found that while 67 per cent of French voters, and 85 per cent of those over 65, support banning religious symbols in the public sphere, this proportion falls to 46 per cent among 18- to 24-year-olds. While 52 per cent of those over 65 consider la laïcité to be an “essential” element of French identity, just 24 per cent of their younger counterparts agree. And the generational divide is growing.

Therein lies an irony: For a country that frowns on public manifestations of faith, French politics do seem to revolve an awful lot around religion. Fully 120 years after the official separation of church and state, France is still grappling with its meaning.

Source: After 120 years, France is still grappling with the meaning of the separation of church and state

Filed under Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Various commentary on antisemitism following Sydney

2025/12/18 Leave a comment

Globe editorial: The fight against the growing darkness of antisemitism

…The groups that march in Jewish-Canadian neighbourhoods, as was the case last month in Toronto, are not mere protestors trying to convince their fellow citizens. They are engaged in an act of aggression and intimidation, an echo of the Ku Klux Klan marching through a Black neighbourhood. They are fueling antisemitism.

Holding regular rallies that demand the eradication of Israel, make unproven assertions of genocide and thirst for a global intifada is not an act of mere protest. It is antisemitic, it fuels radicalism and it clears a path for violence. Demand an intifada often enough, and you will get one.

The right to protest, even in a loathsome way, is a constitutional right. But there are laws that can be, and should be, enforced more vigorously. Canada has a hate-speech law on the books. Crown prosecutors should use it, with particular attention to section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, which prohibits the public incitement of hatred. And police need to abandon their preoccupation with maintaining public order at all costs. A deescalation strategy does not make sense when dealing with protestors looking to assert control of the streets….

Source: The fight against the growing darkness of antisemitism

Cotler: Condemnations of antisemitism are necessary. But they are simply not enough

…Canadians often look at the gun violence that plagues the United States with scorn and disbelief; its predictability and preventability make it especially tragic and senseless. The U.S. refuses to address the underlying cause – the proliferation of guns – and in 2023, nearly 50,000 Americans died from gun violence, and it was the leading cause of death for minors. After mass shootings, American politicians and public figures almost ritualistically offer their thoughts and prayers. Then they move on, until the next time – and then the pattern continues.

Yet, our approach to violent antisemitism in Canada and throughout the West has been almost identical to America’s approach to gun violence. Antisemitic attacks and incidents have become similarly routine and predictable across liberal democracies. After each incident, politicians issue condemnations, but fail to adequately address the underlying cause: antisemitic incitement and disinformation….

Source: Condemnations of antisemitism are necessary. But they are simply not enough

Regg Cohn | The antisemitism that exploded in Australia has long been brewing in Canada

..The more sophisticated protest leaders understand that these dog whistles send different signals to audiences of differing sophistications. All under the flag of free speech and fair criticism, a flag of convenience.

Consider “Zionism is racism.” Nothing against Jews, just everything against “Zionists” — whoever and whatever and wherever they may be.

It so happens that the vast majority of Jews would see themselves as Zionists of one description or another. They simply support self-determination for the Jews of Israel, as for the people of other lands.

And so if almost every Jew is a Zionist, it turns out that the newly permissive and vicious anti-Zionism is a distinction without a difference. In reality, on the street, online, the truth is that “Zionism is racism” is antisemitism by another name.

“From the river to the sea” is another loaded phrase, long ago embraced by Palestinian nationalists and now imported by sympathizers around the world. What does the slogan really mean?

What river, which sea?

Answer: From the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which translates into one land for one people — Palestinians — not two states for two peoples. It would leave no trace of Israel or its nearly 10 million citizens (roughly 8 million Jews and 2 million Arab Christian and Muslim citizens).

“Globalize the intifada” means what, exactly?

Protesters have parsed the phrase, insisting that intifada merely means “shaking off” in conventional Arabic. Are we to believe that all who hear the chant, native Arabic speaker or not, are grounded in this grammatical understanding?

Check the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionaries: intifada refers to armed “uprising” or “rebellion” against Israeli occupation.

To “globalize” an armed “uprising” is not an invitation to a tea party. It has a violent context and a confrontational subtext, which is perhaps why New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a darling of progressive protesters, has belatedly agreed to stop using a phrase that unsettles so many in New York, as in Toronto.

Against that backdrop, should we be surprised that father and son — armed with these incendiary slogans and coded chants and antisemitic dog whistles — would load their weapons and take aim at a Hanukkah celebration in Sydney, slaughtering 15 people? Conditioned and incited by propaganda and prejudice that now travels online and echoes on the streets, it is inevitable that impressionable souls will make illogical leaps that transport their minds from Gaza to Australia or Canada.

Antisemitism, like anti-Zionism, has long predated the Hamas massacre that burst out of Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli counterattack and overkill. It will persist long after peace finally comes to the Middle East.

I spent four years as a foreign correspondent covering the hatreds of the Middle East. There was a time when I thought Canadians — Jews, Muslims, Christians, people of all faiths and no faiths — could set aside the prejudices of the past and chart a path to a peaceful future.

Back then, I imagined we could transplant our goodwill from Canada to the Middle East, but I had it backwards: Today, the ill will of the Middle East has come to Canada, as it has to Australia.

Source: Opinion | The antisemitism that exploded in Australia has long been brewing in Canada

Lederman: Ahmed al Ahmed showed the world what heroism looks like. What we need now is leadership

…It is tempting to go tribal in difficult times, to keep with our own. This is one of many dangers of a time so dark that lessons passed down from generation to generation might be hatred and violence, rather than love and wisdom. 

Is this massacre a wake-up call? Maybe. But in its wake, my social media feeds still offered up grotesque antisemitism. On a Facebook thread about a new Toronto-area Uber-type service for Jewish people (following reports of Uber drivers shunning certain customers), one guy wrote: “I thought they were called train cars.” In the hours immediately after this massacre, it wasn’t the only Holocaust-related comment on there. When I reached out to the person who wrote it, he told me: lighten up, it’s a joke. He’s from Newfoundland, he replied, where self-deprecating humour is the norm. 

This is very small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. But antisemitism has crept into socially acceptable territory. Would anyone make that kind of public “joke” about any other minority’s deadly persecution? 

I’m so sick of it. The mezuzahs ripped off doorways, the swastikas in public schools, people telling us to go back to Europe. This is happening in Canada.

Sorry if I sound angry during this Festival of Lights. But I am angry.

We can placate ourselves with stories like Mr. Ahmed’s. But we have hit a dangerous place. One man’s heroism is not going to save us. World leaders, Canadian politicians, law enforcement, anyone who has silently stood by while allowing this normalization to happen: it’s your turn to step up and intervene.

Source: Ahmed al Ahmed showed the world what heroism looks like. What we need now is leadership

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Kermalli: As a Muslim, I grieve the murder of Jews in Australia — the racist attack breaches the ethical core of every faith tradition

2025/12/17 Leave a comment

Good commentary:

..As a Muslim, I grieve this because antisemitism is a form of racism that breaches the ethical core of every faith tradition. I also grieve because such attacks inevitably place Muslim communities under suspicion, intensifying fear of the perceived “other.” This is not an either/or. I can acknowledge and hold both of these realities at once.

It matters, then, that amid this horror, a Muslim man intervened and acted with courage, attempting to stop the violence. The actions of Ahmed al-Ahmed, a 43-year-old father of two and Australian citizen of Syrian origin exemplify what Islam actually demands: the preservation of life, even at personal risk.

Along with the Jewish victims, he is a figure worth remembering — not because he is Muslim, but because moral clarity should guide whose stories we elevate. After the Christchurch mosque massacres in 2019, former prime minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern refused to name the killer, saying she would not give him the notoriety he sought. That restraint mattered. It still does. Let us remember the people who ran toward danger, not those who revelled in it.

What we must also resist is the rush to politicize tragedy. We cannot associate this terrorist attack with pro-Palestinian protests. If we do, we will weaken the moral credibility of movements that stand for human dignity.

Faith teaches that in the face of violence, our response must be measured, compassionate and united. We must resist the forces that seek to turn grief into conflict.

Source: As a Muslim, I grieve the murder of Jews in Australia — the racist attack breaches the ethical core of every faith tradition

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Urback: Canada’s hate speech laws don’t need a rewrite. They need to be enforced

2025/12/16 Leave a comment

Agree:

…Whether that was a reasonable conclusion is a matter of debate (who, I wonder, was Mr. Charkaoui referring to when he called for the killing of Zionists?), but the religious exemption under the Criminal Code is not what got him off the hook. And even if Mr. Charkaoui was charged with hate speech and he decided to lean on 319(3)(b) as a defence, the Crown could still make the case that his statements were not a “good faith” reading of a religious text, and that he was willfully promoting hatred with an intention that went well beyond an interpretation of scripture. It seems the problem here – as with many other instances of, for example, protesters intimidating people outside of their homes or places of worship, or individuals spreading hateful messages at public events – is one of enforcement of existing laws and a willingness to prosecute, and not of a subsection defence in the Criminal Code.

It is easy to see why many people would think scrapping the religious exemption is a good thing. Why wouldn’t we want to remove any crutch upon which bigots can rely to get away with spreading messages of hate? But on principle, we should demand government restrictions on speech to be as narrow as possible, so that the law doesn’t end up criminalizing good-faith readings of religious texts. In his capacity as chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Marc Miller, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, cited Bible verses he personally considers “hateful.” That’s fine as a matter of personal opinion, but alarming when the government is opening the door to criminal conviction. 

Source: Canada’s hate speech laws don’t need a rewrite. They need to be enforced

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Terry Newman: Liberals give $100K to antisemitic group to fight antisemitism

2025/12/16 Leave a comment

More than 15 years ago, when I was responsible for multiculturalism at Canadian Heritage, officials were shocked when the political staff would check the websites and social media of groups applying for grants, to check whether the values in the submission matched the public website values. The websites in question are skimpy with no board or members listed.

Some embarrassing disconnects and it appears that those habits, forced under the Harper government, have been forgotten under the Liberals. Should be part of due diligence:

…Instead, Savoie [IRCC] wrote, “The Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that public funds are allocated responsibly and in alignment with Canadian values, ensuring that every dollar spent contributes to fostering equity, inclusivity and respect for all Canadians. Grants and contributions are actively monitored by the department to ensure program funding terms and conditions are duly respected.”

This is interesting, because clearly these funds were not “allocated responsibly and in alignment with Canadian values,” nor do they “foster equity, inclusivity, and respect for all Canadians.” And if they’re actively monitored to ensure conditions are respected, then what the government is telling us, is that it approves of TPF’s conduct.

And just in case his response seemed insensitive, Savoie added: “Jewish-Canadians deserve to feel safe, supported and accepted, and the government reaffirms its commitment to ensuring they can practise their religion and culture freely. The country cannot tolerate any form of antisemitism in any context.”

Reading this response had me questioning which dystopia I’m living in — Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” or Kafka’s “The Trial” — perhaps both.

Savoie suggested I contact Toronto Palestinian Families and Toronto Jewish Families directly if I would like information on their organizations and their activities.

Round and round we go. No explanation. No accountability. No responsibility taken by the Canadian Heritage department.

Savoie also ignored my question about whether he thought it was troubling — at a time of skyrocketing antisemitism in Canada — that an explicitly anti-Zionist group has been given almost $100,000 of taxpayer money for a grant based on false pretenses.

The Canadian Heritage department doesn’t appear to be taking any responsibility, nor does it appear to be concerned about what it has funded.

What are Canadian Jews to make of all of this?

Source: Terry Newman: Liberals give $100K to antisemitic group to fight antisemitism

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Plaidoyer de Fatima Aboubakr pour une laïcisation complète au Québec

2025/12/16 Leave a comment

The extreme laïcité perspective:

…Fatima Aboubakr s’explique mal pourquoi l’interdiction de porter des signes religieux prévue dans le projet de loi 9 s’appliquera aux centres de la petite enfance et aux garderies privées subventionnées, mais pas aux garderies privées non subventionnées — y compris celle qu’elle dirige à Laval. « Nos institutions au Québec sont universalistes, sont égalitaires, sont mixtes. Et les religions ne sont ni universalistes ni égalitaires, et quelques-unes d’entre elles ne sont pas mixtes. Donc, il est juste cohérent que la laïcité commence dès la petite enfance [et s’étende] jusqu’à l’université », explique-t-elle.

Elle déplore au passage la contestation de la constitutionnalité de mesures favorisant la laïcité, adoptées par le gouvernement québécois, telle l’interdiction du port de signes religieux pour certains employés de l’État, par une organisation de défense des droits comme le Conseil national des musulmans canadiensau nom des 500 000 personnes de confession musulmane qu’il dit représenter. « Même en islam, il y a plusieurs lectures et interprétations qui permettent [aux femmes] d’enlever le voile si elles sont obligées de le faire », souligne-t-elle.

Fatima Aboubakr trouve également que le gouvernement Legault a manqué une belle occasion de légiférer afin d’interdire le visage couvert dans l’espace public, après que les membres de la CAQ lui eurent demandé de le faire en septembre dernier. « Le visage découvert, c’est vraiment un enjeu de sécurité », fait-elle valoir.

François Legault n’est pas à l’abri des critiques de Fatima Aboubakr. En accusant les « islamistes radicaux » de perpétrer des attaques contre « certaines de nos valeurs communes » comme l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes sans donner plus de détails, le chef du gouvernement a semé, selon elle, de la « confusion ». « Un jour, une madame m’a [écrit :] “La personne qui a fait ma livraison de Maxi, elle est voilée. Je vais appeler Maxi pour leur dire de ne jamais m’envoyer cette personne.” Donc, dans sa tête, c’est une islamiste radicale. Je lui ai expliqué que ce n’est pas parce qu’elle porte un voile qu’elle est islamiste ou dans une idéologie. Tu peux juste prendre ta livraison et lui dire merci », relate la membre du conseil d’administration du MLQ.

Vendredi dernier, François Legault a promis de « continuer à protéger la laïcité » et de poser de nouvelles actions si le besoin s’en fait sentir.

Fatima Aboubakr « souhaite » que, durant la prochaine campagne électorale, « on ne parle plus des Québécois issus des communautés musulmanes ou de communautés juives ou… mais qu’on parle des Québécois tout court ».

Source: Plaidoyer de Fatima Aboubakr pour une laïcisation complète au Québec

… Fatima Aboubakr can’t explain why the ban on wearing religious signs in Bill 9 will apply to early childhood centres and subsidized private daycares, but not to unsubsidized private daycares — including the one she runs in Laval. “Our institutions in Quebec are universalist, egalitarian, mixed. And religions are neither universalist nor egalitarian, and some of them are not mixed. So, it is just consistent that secularism begins from early childhood [and extends] to university,” she explains.

In passing, she deplores the contestation of the constitutionality of measures promoting secularism, adopted by the Quebec government, such as the prohibition of the wearing of religious signs for certain state employees, by a rights organization such as the National Council of Canadian Muslims on behalf of the 500,000 people of Muslim faith that it says it represents. “Even in Islam, there are several readings and interpretations that allow [women] to remove the veil if they are forced to do so,” she emphasizes.

Fatima Aboubakr also finds that the Legault government missed a great opportunity to legislate to ban the face covered in public space, after members of the CAQ asked her to do so last September. “The uncovered face is really a security issue,” she argues.

François Legault is not immune from the criticism of Fatima Aboubakr. By accusing the “radical Islamists” of perpetrating attacks against “some of our common values” such as equality between women and men without giving more details, the head of government sowed, according to her, “confusion”. “One day, a lady [wrote to me:] “The person who made my delivery of Maxi, she is veiled. I will call Maxi to tell them never to send me this person.” So, in her head, she is a radical Islamist. I explained to her that it is not because she wears a veil that she is Islamist or in an ideology. You can just take your delivery and say thank you, “says the member of the MLQ board of directors.

Last Friday, François Legault promised to “continue to protect secularism” and to take new actions if the need arises.

Fatima Aboubakr “wishes” that, during the next election campaign, “we no longer talk about Quebecers from Muslim communities or Jewish communities or… but that we talk about Quebecers altogether”.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Lederman: The ceasefire is holding, but in Israel the fight for sustainable peace isn’t over

2025/12/15 Leave a comment

Good long read:

…Even for a Canadian who couldn’t understand more than the odd Hebrew word, it was electric.When I messaged the woman in Toronto who had let me know about the choir to tell her how profound I found the performance, Bonnie Goldberg shared some notes she wrote after her own experience.

“If the Rana Choir of Muslim, Jewish and Christian women, can find their common voice,” she wrote, “why can’t my former friends who shunned me find their way back to be my friend?”

This shunning in the diaspora has gone from shocking to almost familiar: friendships torn apart, mezuzahs ripped from doorways. For Israel, the shunning is existential, with people around the world using their platforms to question its legitimacy. Does Israel even deserve to exist? 

It was, I have to say, a relief over those 10 days to not be confronted with antisemitism and a prevailing anti-Israel sentiment. There are political arguments and debates here – very heated – but at least you can skip past the should-Israel-even-exist question.

It was also a relief to meet with so many Israelis who are fighting for justice for Palestinians, while also acknowledging the trauma of Oct. 7.

It was never lost on me – visiting art museums, strolling on the beach that I had more rights as a visitor than many of the people who live here, Palestinians, have under Israeli control. I was not able to visit Gaza, obviously. Nor was I able to get to the West Bank. But I didn’t need to go there to know, with certainly, that in those places, there is a lot less of that thing I had been searching for.

Source: The ceasefire is holding, but in Israel the fight for sustainable peace isn’t over

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Kay: Liberalism’s Lonely-Hearts Club

2025/12/15 Leave a comment

Good calling out of the hypocrisy of the anti-woke when it comes to their betrayal of liberal beliefs in the age of authoritarian Trump and his policies:

…While Quillette’s liberal editorial mission has never really changed, executing it became more complicated during the COVID pandemic—especially once vaccinesbecame available. When heated and pressurised under lockdown, the same sort of free-thinking scepticism that fuels heterodox political thought, it turns out, can readily blur into conspiracism and junk science. A prominent example is Bret Weinstein, the one-time Quillette academic darling who began telling Americans that COVID vaccines had, according to one “credible estimate,” caused “something like 17 million deaths globally.” (In fact, the figure represents a passable ballpark estimate of the number of lives that such vaccines have saved.)

Even in ultra-progressive Canada, where this sort of conspiracism is less common, I’ve seen a number of prominent anti-wokesters go down similar rabbit holes. And though it’s been years since the pandemic ended, not all of them have found their way back to the surface. 

Following a recent speech I gave to a free-thinking Toronto crowd, the organiser felt moved to explain to attendees that it was important to hear “diverse views.” This was a diplomatic reference to my (poorly received) observation that many self-described heterodox intellectuals who cheer on my opposition to trans-activist pseudoscience will also insist (falsely) that COVID vaccines don’t work and (also falsely) that anthropogenic global warming is a myth. Science isn’t a buffet where you get to pick and choose what proven truths to accept, I told them. Few in the crowd looked convinced.

Another major schism within our liberal movement has centred on Donald Trump and conservative populism more generally. Trump’s second presidency, in particular, has accelerated the ongoing process by which critics of progressive illiberalism have been self-organising into two separate camps—(1) one that continues to oppose illiberalism of all flavours (that’s us), and (2) another that’s just fine with authoritarian political creeds, so long as the authoritarians come from the conservative side of the aisle.

If the goal is to get rid of DEI and throw men off women’s college sports teams, members of this latter Trump-friendly faction reason, why bother with the hard intellectual slog of staging “heterodox” academic conferences and writing long essays about Martin Luther King Jr., Areopagitica, and the nature of human sexual biology? Just elect a strongman who tells university presidents and athletic directors what to do, on pain of losing their government cash. Problem solved.

…While the University of Austin is just one institution, it serves as a bellwether of the whole anti-woke project more generally—having been conceived as a sort of model liberal project by some of the leading lights of this movement. Its board of trustees includes historian Niall Ferguson and journalist Bari Weiss, while the board of advisors boasts Eric Kaufmann, economists Glenn Loury and Tyler Cowen, and famed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Harvard professor Steven Pinker was also an early advisor; as was social scientist Jonathan Haidt (a founder of the staunchly liberal-minded Heterodox Academy)—though both have since departed. Every one of these people has been featured by Quillette at one time or another, either as author or podcast guest. It says a lot about the stormy seas that liberals now face that even a once-impeccably liberal organisation such as this can begin listing to starboard just four years out of the shipyard.

I find these developments not just politically disturbing, but also personally disappointing. Not so long ago, I imagined that the coalition of plucky liberal gadflies that began countering illiberal progressivism at around the time I began working for Quillette could be sustained indefinitely—and perhaps even solidify into a durable movement that would become my long-term political home. (I’ve never had one, and it would be nice if I finally did.) But that’s now been exposed as an exercise in wishful thinking.

O’Sullivan’s Law and Quillette’s Law (I promise that’s the last time I’ll use the phrase) both describe ideologically centrifugal forces—driving people away, in opposite directions, from the liberal democratic baseline that I’d always taken for granted as the natural resting point for mainstream intellectual life. Battling against illiberalism from both sides at the same time can feel like a lonely and hopeless intellectual project. But absent the emergence of some third law that will deliver me from my labours, I see no principled alternative.

Source: Liberalism’s Lonely-Hearts Club

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Bouchard | Questions de laïcité à M. Legault

2025/12/15 Leave a comment

Bouchard still going strong with his pointed critique:

Des restrictions non justifiées. Le nouveau projet de loi sur la laïcité contient des mesures bienvenues, notamment la fin des exemptions en faveur des écoles privées. Mais d’autres mesures font problème parce que leur justification n’est pas démontrée. Où sont les études qui précisent le nombre d’éducatrices en CPE et en garderies subventionnées qui portent le hidjab ? Ou des études qui établissent que cette pratique perturbe les enfants ? Qui dénombrent les femmes exerçant leurs activités à visage couvert dans les institutions publiques ? Qui évaluent rigoureusement l’ampleur du problème des prières en public ?

Vous dites, Monsieur Legault, qu’il vaut mieux prévenir que guérir. La religion musulmane au Québec serait donc un fléau en dormance ? Et la bonne façon de s’en protéger serait de resserrer des mesures déjà très restrictives ? Vous ne craignez pas de favoriser ainsi ce que vous prétendez prévenir ?

Un terrain mal connu. Contre quoi précisément entendez-vous nous protéger ? Voit-on les signes d’un grave problème islamiste au Québec ? Observe-t-on des manifestations de haine, des mouvements de rue, de la violence ? Que savons-nous exactement de la situation, de l’humeur de cette minorité ? De l’état de la foi et de la pratique ? De son attitude envers l’intégration ? Des tendances qui la traversent ou la divisent ? Est-elle aussi homogène que vous le croyez ? Que savons-nous de ses dispositions envers notre société ? Sont-elles marquées par l’agressivité, le retranchement ? Je parle ici de connaissances et non de stéréotypes ou de rumeurs nées d’épisodes montés en épingle.

Pourtant, en cette matière tout particulièrement, il importerait de bien connaître le terrain sur lequel vous intervenez. Ce n’est pas le cas. Vous vous laissez guider surtout par la boussole électorale.

Des contradictions. Votre démarche est plombée par des contradictions qui révèlent un étrange bricolage. En voici deux exemples. Les signes religieux et les lieux de prière sont interdits dans les universités. Cependant, une chapelle catholique située sur le campus de l’Université Laval restera ouverte. Motif ? Ce serait un « milieu de vie » isolé à l’image des prisons et des CHSLD ! S’il s’agissait d’une petite mosquée, aurait-elle droit à la même indulgence ?

Votre gouvernement entend légiférer dans les écoles privées à vocation religieuse. Mais en respectant quelques conditions, elles continueront néanmoins à être financées par l’État (coût en 2024 : 160 millions de dollars, ce que M. Drainville a fièrement qualifié de « compromis historique »). Ici, c’est donc l’ensemble de l’école qui sera elle-même religieuse. Où est la logique ?

De la retenue. Notre société a été jusqu’ici épargnée par les conflits religieux. Mais la réalité internationale enseigne que le sujet doit être traité avec prudence et lucidité. Il faut se garder d’initiatives dont on n’a mesuré ni la pertinence ni le potentiel d’effets nocifs.

Élargissons la perspective. Des études québécoises montrent que la majorité des immigrants désirent s’intégrer et nourrissent une vision favorable de notre société. Mais ces travaux semblent ignorés. J’ai à l’esprit la déclaration d’un de vos ministres de l’Immigration se désolant de ce que les immigrants refusent de travailler, méprisent nos valeurs, rejettent le français, etc.

Cette vision reflète-t-elle la réalité ? Donne-t-elle le goût du Québec ? Inspire-t-elle confiance en votre gouvernement ?

De l’inconséquence. Sous prétexte de fermeté et de vigilance, ne craignez-vous pas de faire mal au Québec en semant les graines d’un vrai problème qui mettrait un grand désordre dans notre vie collective ? Avez-vous une pensée pour la réaction des jeunes musulmans d’aujourd’hui quand ils auront pris conscience des effets que vos politiques à courte vue auront provoqués ? Curieusement, votre projet de loi est pourtant présenté sous l’affiche de la « paix sociale » — j’ai lu aussi : « apaiser le climat social ». Étrange médecine. Et ce climat serait donc présentement turbulent ?

Monsieur Legault, vous avez opté pour la méthode forte avec votre laïcité répressive. Peut-être pourriez-vous jeter un coup d’œil du côté de la France pour voir ce qu’il en est ? On constate aujourd’hui chez les jeunes musulmans français qu’au lieu de s’intégrer, ils se replient sur un islam plus radical que celui de leurs parents.

Il y a plus. Selon des études fiables, un grand nombre de jeunes écoliers québécois manifestent beaucoup d’ouverture en matière de diversité ethnique et religieuse. Comment réagiront-ils à vos initiatives ? Leur disposition sera-t-elle ébranlée ? Vous apprêtez-vous à compromettre une importante avancée de notre système scolaire ?

Une phobie du religieux. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il faut interdire le port du hidjab à une étudiante universitaire, une adulte agissant selon des convictions profondes, en conformité avec le droit consacré par notre charte et qui ne porte préjudice à personne — sauf à ceux et celles que la seule vue d’un signe religieux indispose. C’est pour moi l’exemple le plus frappant d’une violation arbitraire d’un droit fondamental. Réalisez-vous que, ce faisant, vous encouragez l’hostilité non seulement envers les signes religieux, mais envers le religieux lui-même ? Et ce n’est pas un n’est pas un croyant qui vous en fait reproche, c’est un athée tout simplement respectueux du droit.

J’ai peine aussi à comprendre que les manifestations et rassemblements publics à caractère social, culturel ou politique sont admis, mais non ceux qui ont une connotation religieuse. Cet interdit ne relève-t-il pas d’une phobie du religieux, tout comme l’interdiction du hidjab chez les éducatrices de la petite enfance ?

Et tout ça, pour quoi au fond ? Pour tenter de refaire votre image en vue de la prochaine élection ? Cet objectif justifierait les sensibilités que vous allez heurter, les préjugés que vous allez remuer, les divisions que vous risquez de créer ?

Apparemment, « c’est comme ça qu’on fonctionne au Québec ». Et les droits ? Ils ne feraient pas partie de notre fonctionnement eux aussi ?

Éviter l’autre extrême. Cela dit, évitons tout malentendu. Il faut évidemment se garder de la naïveté. Je crois que des garde-fous s’imposent — nous l’avons vu dans le cas de l’école Bedford. Mais leur mise en place doit être arbitrée par la mesure, la clairvoyance et la sagesse.

Source: Idées | Questions de laïcité à M. Legault

Unjustified restrictions. The new bill on secularism contains welcome measures, including the end of exemptions for private schools. But other measures are problematic because their justification is not demonstrated. Where are the studies that specify the number of educators in CPE and subsidized daycare centers who wear the hijab? Or studies that establish that this practice disturbs children? Who counts women carrying out their activities with their faces covered in public institutions? Who rigorously assess the extent of the problem of public prayers?

You say, Mr. Legault, that prevention is better than cure. Would the Muslim religion in Quebec therefore be a dormant scourge? And the right way to protect yourself from it would be to tighten already very restrictive measures? Are you not afraid to favor what you claim to prevent?

A poorly known terrain. What exactly do you intend to protect us against? Do we see signs of a serious Islamist problem in Quebec? Do we observe manifestations of hatred, street movements, violence? What exactly do we know about the situation, the mood of this minority? The state of faith and practice? Of his attitude towards integration? Trends that cross it or divide it? Is it as homogeneous as you think? What do we know about his dispositions towards our society? Are they marked by aggressiveness, entrenchment? I’m talking here about acquaintances and not stereotypes or rumors born of episodes edited in pins.

However, in this matter in particular, it would be important to know the field in which you intervene. This is not the case. You let yourself be guided above all by the electoral compass.

Contradictions. Your approach is weighed down by contradictions that reveal a strange DIY. Here are two examples. Religious signs and places of prayer are prohibited in universities. However, a Catholic chapel located on the Université Laval campus will remain open. Reason? It would be an isolated “liveing environment” like prisons and CHSLDs! If it were a small mosque, would it be entitled to the same indulgence?

Your government intends to legislate in private schools with a religious vocation. But by meeting some conditions, they will nevertheless continue to be financed by the State (cost in 2024: $160 million, which Mr. Drainville proudly described it as a “historic compromise”). Here, it is therefore the whole school that will itself be religious. Where is the logic?

Restraint. Our society has so far been spared from religious conflicts. But the international reality teaches that the subject must be treated with caution and lucidity. We must beware of initiatives whose relevance or potential for harmful effects has not been measured.

Let’s expand the perspective. Quebec studies show that the majority of immigrants want to integrate and have a favorable view of our society. But this work seems to be ignored. I have in mind the statement of one of your Ministers of Immigration regretting that immigrants refuse to work, despise our values, reject French, etc.

Does this vision reflect reality? Does it give the taste of Quebec? Does it inspire confidence in your government?

Inconsistency. Under the pretext of firmness and vigilance, aren’t you afraid of hurting Quebec by sowing the seeds of a real problem that would put a great mess in our collective life? Do you have a thought for the reaction of today’s young Muslims when they become aware of the effects that your short-sighted policies will have caused? Curiously, your bill is nevertheless presented under the poster of “social peace” – I also read: “appease the social climate”. Strange medicine. And this climate would therefore be turbulent at the moment?

Mr. Legault, you have opted for the strong method with your repressive secularism. Maybe you could take a look at France to see what’s going on? We see today among young French Muslims that instead of integrating, they fall back on a more radical Islam than that of their parents.

There is more. According to reliable studies, a large number of young Quebec schoolchildren show a lot of openness in terms of ethnic and religious diversity. How will they react to your initiatives? Will their disposition be shaken? Are you about to compromise an important advance in our school system?

A phobia of the religious. I do not understand why the wearing of the hijab should be prohibited to a university student, an adult acting according to deep convictions, in accordance with the law enshrined in our charter and who does not harm anyone – except those whom the mere sight of a religious sign indisposed. For me, this is the most striking example of an arbitrary violation of a fundamental right. Do you realize that, in doing so, you encourage hostility not only towards religious signs, but towards the religious himself? And it is not a believer who reproaches you, it is simply an atheist who respects the law.

I also find it difficult to understand that public demonstrations and gatherings of a social, cultural or political nature are allowed, but not those with a religious connotation. Isn’t this prohibition a phobia of the religious, just like the prohibition of the hijab among early childhood educators?

And all this, for what basically? To try to remake your image for the next election? Would this objective justify the sensitivities that you will offend, the prejudices that you will stir, the divisions that you risk creating?

Apparently, “that’s how we work in Quebec”. And the rights? Wouldn’t they be part of our operation too?

Avoid the other extreme. That said, let’s avoid any misunderstanding. We must obviously beware of naivety. I believe that safeguards are necessary – we have seen it in the case of Bedford School. But their implementation must be arbitrated by measure, foresight and wisdom.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts