Working site on citizenship and multiculturalism issues.
2013/09/17 Leave a comment
A good piece by Jean-Claude Leclerc in Le Devoir about the mixed history of religious symbols, and how it is important to understand that for the current debate, and how times have changed.
Québec et le crucifix – Mais savent-ils ce qu’ils font? | Le Devoir.
2013/09/15 Leave a comment
Always nice to have Chantal Hébert’s analysis, as she steps back from the day-to-day chatter and puts it in context. And I think her analysis is correct; while the motives for the Charte are suspect, the reaction within Quebec (and among the federal parties) has been encouraging. Favourite quote:
Common sense suggests that a society that is perpetually consumed by polarizing issues will pay a price. But sweeping them under the rug may take an even higher toll on the democratic fabric of a society — even when that rug is the plush one of the Canadian court system.
Values charter sparks fierce but worthwhile debate: Hébert | Toronto Star.
2013/09/15 Leave a comment
Good analysis by Michel David in Le Devoir of the longer term implications of the PQ politique identitaire strategy with the proposed Charte des valeurs québécoises:
Avec son projet de charte, le gouvernement Marois compromet non seulement les chances de rallier les communautés culturelles au projet souverainiste, comme le font valoir les Indépendantistes pour une laïcité inclusive, mais il va également à l’encontre des politiques d’intégration que le PQ a mises de l’avant dans le passé…
Cette fois-ci, la ligne de fracture n’est pas simplement de l’ordre des moyens. Les objections de Mme Mourani et des nombreux indépendantistes qui s’opposent au projet de M. Drainville portent sur la question beaucoup plus fondamentale du respect des droits et libertés de la personne.
Il permettra peut-être au PQ d’obtenir une majorité à l’Assemblée nationale, mais que sert à l’homme de gagner l’univers s’il y perd son âme, n’est-ce pas ?
2013/09/14 Leave a comment
Starting with some political analysis on how this is playing out on the national and provincial stage. Some good insights on the leadership styles – strengths and weakness – of both federal leaders in Quebec. My own take is that while both ended up in the same place, first mover advantage Trudeau.
On PQ charter, Trudeau and Mulcair take different paths to condemnation – The Globe and Mail.
John Ibbitson of The Globe notes the political challenges and calculations for the government, and why they have hewed to a more cautious approach while being clear on their fundamental opposition:
Can Tories put the heat on Quebec over its secular charter without getting burned?
Andrew Coyne argues that the PQ may have over-reached, and may have as much support in the end as it counted on. And bang on implications and implementation:
But not to worry, the minister responsible, Bernard Drainville, assures us: “It will be done humanely.” But of course. They will not be told to get out in a cruel way, but with care, compassion, or what the minister calls “good old common sense.” It will simply be made clear to these people, as kindly as the occasion permits, that, notwithstanding their years of blameless service, their continued employment is incompatible with Quebec’s common values — that their insistence on wearing the yarmulke or the turban, in accordance with the deepest teachings of their faith, has become a source of “tension” and “division,” and that for that reason they will have to find other work.
Far from certain Quebecers will side with PQ on values charter
Tabatha Southey does a funny yet serious take on the approach, citing her mother, following hair loss due to chemo, reached out to the Muslim Canadian community for help in wearing a scarf elegantly.
The Quebec charter: Maman, qu’est-ce qu’un turban?
And Maria Mourani, former Bloc MP, who left the party and questions her faith in sovereignty given the divisiveness of the Charte and the implications for her vision of an open, inclusive and independent Quebec. Her action, and criticism of other indépendentistes like her of the Charte, may help Quebec get past the identity politics. One can aim for rural Quebec; one can’t ignore Montréal.
Mourani remet en question sa foi en la souveraineté
And a good summary in The Globe about Quebec’s francophone press reaction, largely negative:
What Quebec’s francophone media thinks of the secular charter
Lastly, some general opinion pieces. Starting with Conrad Black reminding us of the role the Catholic Church played for most of Quebec’s history in preserving Quebec’s francophone culture and society (he glosses over the less savoury aspects):
Spurning Quebec’s proud Catholic roots
And a couple of opinion pieces (Brian Lee Crowley, André Schutten) that blur the lines between what people wear and performing their job. It is one thing to express one’s faith; it is another thing to expect that one’s duties on the job should accommodate those beliefs.
As public servants, we have an obligation to serve all citizens, and provide the required services of the government. We cannot pick and choose; we can likely however find alternative work within government without such matter of conscience issues. And if we can’t, we should work elsewhere.
2013/09/13 Leave a comment
As this is behind the firewall (and it quotes me extensively!), full text below for those who do not have National Post access:
Gérard Bouchard, co-author of the Bouchard-Taylor report on diversity in Quebec, once remarked that Jason Kenney’s reforms to Canada’s multiculturalism policies had brought the Quebec and Canadian models closer — an emphasis on integration over accommodation.
Both Quebec nationalists and Canadian conservatives were suspicious of Pierre Trudeau’s multiculturalism policies — particularly the Liberal tradition of indulging cultural groups just long enough to extract their votes.
In large measure, Mr. Kenney, as Multiculturalism Minister, pursued his own charter of values. But, crucially, he used “soft” policy tools to persuade people to buy into his vision of Canada, rather than the bludgeon of legislation that the Parti Québécois government is proposing in its secularism charter.
As the author of a new book — Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism — makes clear, Mr. Kenney pursued an unabashed policy of integration (often in the face of opposition from his own public servants).
Andrew Griffith was a director general of multiculturalism at Citizenship and Immigration at a time when significant shifts in policy were being introduced by the Conservatives.
“Kenney did make a major shift towards integration … I would argue he brought multiculturalism back to its roots, as it was always about making various communities more comfortable about integrating into the Canadian ‘mainstream’, while preserving their culture, all within the common framework of Canadian laws [and] regulations,” said Mr. Griffiths.
While placing high value on cultural diversity and religious freedom, he set limits and condemned “extreme” behaviour like honour killings that were not in compliance with Canadian laws, identity and values.
In 2011, he even aligned himself with the Quebec approach when he announced that the niqab would not be allowed at citizenship ceremonies, claiming it was not a religious obligation to wear the veil. The next year, Mr. Kenney introduced a language requirement for citizenship applicants, obliging them to provide objective evidence like test results to prove they could speak either French or English.
Mr. Griffiths said Mr. Kenney’s extensive outreach into ethnic communities gave him credibility to take a broad range of positions.
“My take on him is that it is a very rare minister who can both implement more restrictive immigration, refugee and citizenship policies and yet ‘narrowcast’ to individual communities, addressing their concerns while reinforcing broader pan-Canadian messages.”
Mr. Kenney not only stressed integration into the Canadian “mainstream,” he redefined what that mainstream would look like.
Most famously, he revamped the citizenship guide for new Canadians from a very Liberal “A Look At Canada” to the Conservative-friendly “Discover Canada.”
“I think we need to reclaim a deeper sense of citizenship, a sense of shared obligations to one another, to our past, as well as to the future. In that I mean a kind of civic nationalism where people understand the institutions, values and symbols that are rooted in our history,” he told Maclean’s in 2009.
But the guide cherry-picked those symbols to promote the Conservatives’ preferred narrative, with emphasis placed on the military and the monarchy at the expense of peace-keeping, medicare and gay rights.
The results were not always appreciated internally, particularly among staff who were forced to turn down grant applications from non-governmental organizations they’d supported for years. Mr. Griffiths notes how some demonstrated the initial stages of the Kubler-Ross grief model — denial, anger and depression.
But there is some evidence that the shift in policy worked. A Citizenship and Immigration Canada survey from the 2012 departmental performance report found that 88% of foreign-born, compared to 81% of Canadian-born, respondents reported “feeling proud” to be Canadian.
Not only did foreign-born Canadians demonstrate a higher level of attachment to Canada, they also had a better understanding of what is required of citizens.
Those findings suggest that a balance has been struck between the majority culture and integration of minorities in the rest of Canada; that, in large measure, sensible public policy has ensured that the fundamental values of the majority have been respected, while allowing new Canadians to preserve their food, music, folklore and religion.
One wonders how many Sikhs, Jews and Muslims can say they feel proud to be Quebecers today?
2013/09/13 Leave a comment
The big news is the division among the sovereigntists. The Bloc has lost its one woman member, Maria Mourani with a strong position in favour of gender and religious rights. And her riding is very multicultural. Good for the Quebec debate.
Charte des valeurs québécoises – L’inconfort des forces souverainistes explose | Le Devoir.
And some articles about the impact of Quebec’s international reputation (let alone within Canada). Couillard is particularly eloquent describing his experience as a doctor in Saudi Arabia (I lived in Saudi 1986-88):
« J’ai connu, moi, c’est quoi, un régime autoritaire. J’ai connu, moi, c’est quoi, un régime qui exclut », a-t-il dit. « Je sais c’est quoi, être l’étranger qui n’a pas la religion de la majorité. Je sais c’est quoi, être celui qui n’a pas la même couleur de peau que les autres. Je sais c’est quoi, être celui qui se fait arracher ses lumières de Noël devant chez eux. C’est arrivé chez nous quand j’étais là-bas. »
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Le Québec pourrait en payer le prix, dit Couillard
The contrary view is expressed by Lise Payette, former PQ Cabinet Minister, in the 70s, who puts the proposed Charter in a liberation context – but liberation from what and from who:
Le pas que nous désirons faire aujourd’hui est la suite logique de notre libération. Nous souhaitons de tout coeur que vous en fassiez partie.
Le Québec qui renaît de ses cendres
Premier Marois continues to praise the French model of integration. France has a terrible record here with its Muslim population – just take a tour of the suburbs if you dare – and look at employment and other statistics. Me thinks broader life experience would have been helpful for her and other members of her Cabinet:
Charte des valeurs québécoises: Marois vante l’intégration à la française
And a nice reminder that Ontario hospital recruiters are looking forward to hiring new talent:
Un hôpital ontarien en recrutement
Some general analysis on Quebec dynamics and “chronic anxiety”, understandable given Quebec’s history and identity, but by no means justifying the proposed Charter, as well as the possible longer-term political impact:
PQ’s controversial new secular values charter preys on Quebec’s chronic ‘identity-related anxiety’
Quebec values charter: Is it a political game changer for the PQ?
As always, some general commentary. Again, part of the uniqueness of Canada is that even many commentators on the right strongly oppose such bans and approaches, as individual rights, including religious, are paramount. Ironic that those who once condemned the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are now among its strongest defenders:
Freedom under fire: Parti Quebecois values charter an outright attack on indidual rights
And in closing, a good opinion piece by Christian Rioux of Le Devoir contrasting the Anglo-Saxon approach, based more on inclusion and ensuring different faith groups are treated equally, and the French and Latin approach, which tends towards banning religion in the public sphere.
The reality is more complex; in practice French and Latin countries provide lots of public support to religion, whether school, maintenance of cathedrals and the like, but nevertheless a good piece to reflect upon.
He misses that the Canadian and Anglo-Saxon approach is based on individual rights, not community rights, unlike some European countries where communitarianism is more common, reflecting their history of managing Protestant and Catholic communities:
2013/09/11 Leave a comment
So the draft Charte is out with few surprises. Lots of reaction. Starting with what’s in and what’s out:
Would
Bar public sector employees — including everyone from civil servants to teachers, provincial court judges, daycare workers, police, health-care personnel, municipal employees and university staff — from wearing a hijab, turban, kippa, large visible crucifix or other “ostentatious” religious symbols while on the job.
Allow five-year opt-outs from the ban for certain organizations, but not daycare workers or elementary school teachers.
Require that those receiving or providing government services uncover their faces.
Exempt elected members of the Quebec legislature from the regulations.
Amend Quebec’s human rights legislation, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, to specify limits on when someone can stake a claim for religious accommodation.
Wouldn’t
Remove religious symbols and elements considered “emblematic of Quebec’s cultural heritage.” That includes: the crucifixes in the Quebec legislature and atop Mount Royal in Montreal, the thousands of religiously based geographic names (e.g. Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!) and the names of schools and hospitals.
Ban public sector employees from wearing small religious symbols like a ring with a Star of David, earrings with the Muslim crescent or a necklace with a small crucifix.
Eliminate subsidies to religious private schools. The Quebec government currently funds about 60 per cent of the budgets of most of the province’s private schools, including parochial ones.
Ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, which was recommended by the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission report into cultural accommodation. The Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in May that such prayers do not necessarily violate Quebec’s current human rights legislation.
Eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious buildings.
In other words, some of the deeper aspects of multiculturalism, deeper than the rest of Canada, and arguably less integrative like subsidies for religious schools, would remain, while imposing restrictions on public service employees. And will we have a ‘sartorial’ police measuring the size of ‘discrete’ or small religious symbols?
5 things Quebec’s values charter would do, and 5 it wouldn’t – Montreal – CBC News.
Quebec reveals religious symbols to be banned from public sector
Five key consequences of Quebec’s planned Charter of Values
Reaction in Quebec to the proposal is mixed. While Minister Drainville continues to say with a straight face that the Charte aims at harmony, others disagree, particularly in Montreal, where most of the communities live and work together:
Une Charte au nom de l’harmonie, selon Drainville
Signes religieux: la Charte se bute à un écueil
Mairie de Montréal : unanimité contre la charte des valeurs
Signes religieux – Québec fait fausse route, dit la Fédération des femmes
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Réactions mitigées sur la scène politique provinciale
«C’est une Charte contre les femmes»
Federal politicians have pronounced strongly against the proposed Charte. Particularly striking – and courageous given Quebec politics – that both federal leaders from Quebec, Justin Trudeau of the Liberals, and Tom Mulcair, Leader of the Official Opposition and NDP, have been unequivocal in their defence of human rights and freedoms, as has been Minister for Multiculturalism and Economic and Social Development Jason Kenney, speaking on behalf of the government, although as some have noted, he was less expansive than usual.
Given the Ottawa-Quebec dynamics, and the desire by the PQ to play politique identitaire, this may fit into their game plan to create a wedge issue. But irresponsible politics at best.
How Kenney, Mulcair and Trudeau took on Quebec’s charter of values
Tories gear up for constitutional fight as parties unite against PQ’s charter
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair denounces Quebec’s proposed charter of values
Some other reaction and analysis in English Canada:
Charter of Values hints that Quebec having second thoughts over mad dash for immigrants
And an opinion piece in Le Devoir in favour of laicité:
And unfortunately behind Le Devoir’s firewall, an opinion piece by Gérard Bouchard, one of the co-authors of the Bouchard-Taylor report, and one of the more thoughtful thinkers on multiculturalism and interculturalisme around. Interview below:
Le sociologue Gérard Bouchard, professeur à l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, a codirigé avec le philosophe Charles Taylor de l’Université McGill la Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodements reliées aux différences culturelles, en 2007-2008. Il juge sévèrement la proposition du gouvernement défendue par le ministre Bernard Drainville pour « répondre au pluralisme religieux dans un état moderne ».
Si le ministre Drainville vous appelait pour vous demander conseil, lequel lui donneriez-vous ?
Je lui dirais que la façon de poser les termes du débat indispose les libertés fondamentales et risque de produire une fracture sociale. C’est donc une mauvaise façon et nous allons nous faire mal. La sagesse consisterait présentement à couper le projet de réforme en deux. Une partie concerne les accommodements et une autre concerne les signes religieux. Sur les signes religieux, visiblement, le Québec n’est pas prêt à se diriger vers un consensus. À mon avis, cette partie du débat sera un échec. Les Québécois seront très, très divisés. Par contre, sur les accommodements, il y a toutes les chances de réaliser un très large consensus parmi l’ensemble des Québécois, la minorité, comme la majorité. Là, à mon avis, il y aurait la possibilité d’en arriver à une loi.
Et tout irait pour le mieux, tout simplement ?
Non. J’ai une autre inquiétude. En parlant des accommodements, le ministre a amplifié toutes les mauvaises perceptions à propos des accommodements. Il a répandu l’idée que les accommodements portaient atteinte régulièrement à l’égalité hommes-femmes. Ce n’est pas vrai. Aucune étude ne soutient ça. Il a aussi répété qu’il y avait une accumulation d’accommodements déraisonnables consentis récemment. Pas de preuve encore. Pas d’études. Rien pour soutenir ça.
Quel autre élément de la proposition vous semble négatif ?
Au cœur de l’affaire, il y a la volonté de s’en prendre à un droit fondamental qui concerne la liberté de manifester sa religion en public, incluant au travail, dans les postes de l’État ou les institutions parapubliques. C’est reconnu comme un droit fondamental par les deux Chartes, canadienne et québécoise, partout en Occident et par l’ONU. Il est permis de supprimer un droit fondamental. Mais il faut alors s’appuyer sur un motif supérieur. Le meilleur exemple au Québec, c’est la loi 101. Elle restreint ou supprime des droits, par exemple en limitant le droit de choisir l’école de ses enfants. Mais il y avait un motif légitime que même la Cour suprême du Canada a reconnu. Je ne trouve pas de motif équivalent dans le cas présent. Il n’y a pas de proportionnalité entre le droit restreint et les motifs évoqués.
Pourquoi est-ce si grave d’interdire des signes religieux aux fonctionnaires ?
Dire que tous les employés de l’État et des organismes parapublics — et ça fait beaucoup — devraient s’abstenir de porter un signe religieux ne tient pas compte de la réalité profonde de certaines croyances. Pour certains croyants, le signe religieux n’est pas dissociable du credo. En se défaisant du signe, le croyant trahit sa foi. C’est pourquoi jamais un sikh ne va retirer son turban au travail. Voilà pourquoi les sociétés doivent trouver des accommodements, dans la mesure où ça ne nuit à personne, sans nuire au travail.
Qu’auriez-vous souhaité alors ?
Charles Taylor et moi, dans notre rapport, nous recommandions l’adoption d’un régime de laïcité au Québec. Il fallait énoncer les grands principes et les justifier. Il fallait énoncer des règles générales de conduite à l’usage des décideurs des institutions. Ce qui a été dévoilé ne fait pas ce travail, ne décrit pas le régime de laïcité qui dirait les rapports entre les religions et les convictions profondes, qui ne sont d’ailleurs pas toutes religieuses, dans notre société. Le gouvernement a tout de suite sauté à des conclusions qui conduisent à la suppression d’un droit fondamental.
Que pensez-vous du droit de retrait de certaines institutions, pour une période allant jusqu’à cinq ans, inclus dans la proposition ?
C’est une affaire difficile à comprendre. Ce droit de retrait se trouve à défaire ce que le projet est censé faire. Premièrement, le problème juridique de fond reste. Deuxièmement, il va en découler une fragmentation juridique du Québec, d’une municipalité à l’autre, d’une université à l’autre. Une jeune étudiante portant le foulard pourra fréquenter tel cégep, mais pas tel autre. C’est assez surprenant. En général, quand l’État statue sur un droit, il le fait pour l’ensemble de la société. Il paraît très étrange de donner aux citoyens la liberté de respecter la loi et des dispositions de la Charte. Troisièmement, cette option donne à la majorité la possibilité de disposer des droits des minorités. On ne peut pas confier la gestion des droits fondamentaux aux humeurs de la majorité. Imaginez où en serait le droit des homosexuels si on fonctionnait comme ça.
Gérard Bouchard: «Nous allons nous faire mal»
And lastly, some questions for those in favour of the Charte and laicité absolue:
As someone who has been in and out of hospital for more time than I would like to remember, and has been treated with a variety of doctors and nurses, some with religious symbols, some without, competence trumps appearance and I have not been disappointed. Yesterday, it was a nurse wearing a hijab that did my regular blood work; and it was one of the more painless pokes in recent memory.
2013/09/10 Leave a comment
On the morning the draft Charte will be revealed, the usual round-up of articles. While it appears the main direction has not changed – banning religious signs in all government-funded workplaces, implementation periods and renewal derogations will be allowed. Another layer of bureaucracy, another way to keep the politique identitaire a public issue, and another way for Quebec to avoid coming to terms with diversity, interculturalisme, and expressions of faith. And sad that the government is not going back to the more nuanced and moderate laïcité ouverte of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.
However, delaying implementation of a bad law does not make it good.
Charte des valeurs québécoises – À peine connue, déjà contestée | Le Devoir.
Parti Québécois to unveil secular charter Tuesday
And a naive article on the implications for Charter challenges:
Vers des exceptions à la Charte des valeurs
And divisions among the membership of one of the teacher’s unions, the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE), not surprising but illustrative of Québec public opinion:
Laïcité – La position de la FAE décriée
An opinion piece by Lucia Ferretti, largely favourable to the proposed approach, and noting how embedded religion is in society, whether the schooling system in Québec (government-financed faith-based schools unlike Ontario, NGOs). He neglects the human rights element of freedom of religion, which includes, of course, Catholics in Québec, whether secularized or traditional, whether progressive or traditional (like other religions):
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Séparation oui, neutralité, non
And a good piece by Bruce Anderson on how motives, and how they are perceived, can help a policy initiative sink or swim:
Bruce Anderson: For Marois’s charter, voters will judge the motives
And some good profiles in the Globe from a range of Québécois:
Five Quebeckers weigh in on the proposed secular charter
Sheema Khan reinforces her ongoing message:
Institutions should reflect local best practices, where discourse, debate and inclusion of stakeholders set the tone. Currently, most Muslim institutions are replicas of their foreign counterparts, with a top-down approach in which the voices of women and youth are often absent.
We need intelligent, dispassionate discussions of how Western principles, such as gender equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and critical inquiry, meld with overarching Islamic principles.
Civic engagement will also be paramount for future integration, as Muslims participate in wider policy issues, such as the environment, energy security, aboriginal self-assertion and, yes, Quebec identity.
In classical Islamic thought, the overriding principle of the faith was understood to be mercy. It was manifest by the intent to do good to others, to bring benefit to the wider society and to prevent harm. It is a principle worth resurrecting as Muslims establish roots here.
2013/09/09 Leave a comment
A whole series of articles on Quebec Premier Marois’ ongoing effort to fan the flames and, in the process, making her look more ignorant on multiculturalism, interculturalisme, and common sense approaches to diversity. Will not comment on each – too painful. Fortunately, lots of highly critical comment and debate in Quebec press.
Pauline Marois au Devoir – L’étapisme pour la Charte des valeurs (the interview that started it all)
Marois blasts multiculturalism in defence of ‘values’ charter
Marois blames multiculturalism for violence in England – Montreal | Globalnews.ca
Multiculturalisme: Marois dit qu’elle ne voulait pas choquer | Politique québécoise
Paul Wells of Macleans remarking on just how limited her experience outside the Quebec bubble is, and how ‘drinking the Kool-aid’ makes such comments possible:
Pauline Marois: Protecting Quebec against the fate of England
And the ever sensible Chantal Hébert:
PQ debate on values bringing irreconcilable differences to the surface: Hébert
And beyond the silly, some serious discussion, starting with PLQ leader Couillard:
Multiculturalisme: Marois doit s’excuser, croit Philippe Couillard
Quebec Liberals would enshrine religious neutrality of the state in charter
And from LSE professor Grégoire Webber:
Charte des valeurs québécoises – Où sont les bombes, Madame Marois?
And some analysis by Philippe Authier to round-up the round-up:
Why PQ has us on a values roller-coaster
Probably more that what my readers want, but given the details should come out this week, good to capture the tenor of the comments and debate.
2013/09/05 Leave a comment
Some interesting comment on the potential impact on education of the proposed Charter of values, starting with the teachers, who favour laïcité ouverte, and respect for their members:
Selon lui, l’État ne doit pas interdire le port de vêtements ou d’accessoires à connotation religieuse ou culturelle, car c’est le droit au travail qui est en jeu. « On considère qu’il est normal qu’un enseignant ou une enseignante porte la kippa juive, porte la croix ou le hidjab », a-t-il dit lors d’une conférence de presse où la FAE a dévoilé ses positions adoptées à son congrès de juin. « Peut-on convertir les élèves du simple fait de porter une croix dans le cou ? On pense que non. »
Charte des valeurs – Conflit en vue entre Québec et les enseignants | Le Devoir.
And in English, the Fédération autonome d’enseignement — which represents about 32,000 teachers, or a third of teachers in Quebec, notes the real issue is public financing of private religious schools, not the wearing of religious signs (and Ontario rejected that approach in a provincial election a number of years ago):
If Quebec really wants to secularize education, it should stop funding religious schools, union says
Click image for book purchase
Multicultural Meanderings 