Multiculturalism articles of interest March 2026

2026/03/31 Leave a comment

Articles and opinions related to multiculturalism that I found of interest in March:

  • Racial and Ethnic Disparities
  • Activisim/Advocacy
  • Quebec Bill 21
  • Representation corporate boards and public serice

Disparities

Picard: To address racism in health care, we need to collect data on race

Agree, without data, over reliance on anecdotes:

…It’s important, of course, that data are collected voluntarily and that people’s privacy is respected as it is with all health records. 

The public needs to know, too, that the information will not appear on their health card or on medical charts. Rather, it is used in an aggregated fashion to reveal trends and inequalities between racial or ethnic groups, without identifying individuals. 

The big barrier to collecting and using race-based data is technical: digital health systems still need to adapt. But we know it’s doable, even on a large scale. 

During the pandemic, for example, the Coronavirus Rapid Entry Case and Contact Management System (CORES) included data on race, income and household size. As a result, we learned Black, Indigenous and people of colour in Toronto were over-represented in the tally of COVID-19 cases and deaths. That allowed, among other things, targeted vaccination campaigns. 

The data also allowed people who are too often marginalized and ignored to be heard, an important first step in correcting disparities. 

Race, culture, language and socio-economic status can all have a profound impact on health, individually and collectively. 

Allowing gaps in data collection to persist is bad for our health, and our health system. 

Source: To address racism in health care, we need to collect data on race 

StatsCan: Criminal court outcomes of Black accused persons in Canada, 2016/2017 to 2022/2023

Latest useful StatsCan study highlighting disparities

  • There were 100,450 Black accused persons in adult criminal courts between 2016/2017 and 2022/2023. Black people (6.2%) were overrepresented as accused persons in adult criminal courts over this period, relative to their representation among the adult population of Canada (3.7%).
  • The proportion of Black accused persons in adult criminal courts has generally increased over time, from 5.7% of all accused in 2016/2017 to 7.1% in 2022/2023. 
  • Between 2016/2017 and 2022/2023, the proportion of Black people in adult criminal courts in Nova Scotia and Ontario was more than two times higher than that of Black people in the total adult population of these provinces. Black people were also overrepresented as accused persons in criminal courts in Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta and New Brunswick compared with their representation in the total adult population.
  • More than 4 in 10 (42%) cases involving a Black accused person completed in adult criminal courts between 2016/2017 and 2022/2023 resulted in a guilty decision. This was equal to the proportion of cases involving Black accused persons that were withdrawn, dismissed or discharged over this period (42%).
  • Compared to the rest of the (non-Black) accused population, Black accused persons less often had their case result in a guilty decision and more often had it withdrawn, dismissed or discharged. 
  • Black accused persons most often received a guilty decision for cases where the most serious offence was a Criminal Code traffic offence such as impaired driving (69%) or an administration of justice offence such as breach of probation (49%), and least often for cases where it was a violent offence (33%). 
  • Between 2016/2017 and 2022/2023, just under half of violent crime cases (47%) and property crime cases (46%) involving Black accused persons were withdrawn, dismissed or discharged.
  • Similar proportions of Black and non-Black accused persons were sentenced to custody upon being found guilty in adult criminal courts (29% versus 27%). Probation was the most common sentence handed down to both Black and non-Black accused persons. 
  • It took nearly two months longer for court cases involving Black accused persons to be completed in adult criminal courts between 2016/2017 and 2022/2023, compared to non-Black accused persons (219 versus 165 days).

Source: Criminal court outcomes of Black accused persons in Canada, 2016/2017 to 2022/2023

CMA: Black Canadians more likely not to fill prescriptions because of financial constraints, study finds

Another insightful study:

Black adults in Canada are more likely not to fill prescriptions because of financial constraints than white adults, according to a new study that highlights disparities in prescription medication coverage as a major barrier to equitable health care.

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on Monday. Its authors concluded that the prevalence of cost-related prescription non-adherence – defined as the inability to fill a prescription or delaying, splitting or skipping doses because of financial pressures – was 75 per cent higher among Black adults than white adults.

Coverage for prescription medications was also lower among Black adults, the study showed. In 2022, for example, 72.5 per cent of Black adults were covered compared with 80 per cent of white adults. 

One of the study’s authors, Oluwabukola Salami, a Canada Research Chair in Black and racialized peoples’ health at the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary, said this study is the first of its kind and broadens the understanding of how Black Canadians experience health inequities.

“We know that Black people are more likely to have cardiovascular disease, to have certain types of cancer and to die from any of these conditions. But we always looked at how access to care is a challenge to Black people,” Dr. Salami said.

“This study presents new findings related to medication specifically.”…

Source: Black Canadians more likely not to fill prescriptions because of financial constraints, study finds

Activism/Advocacy

Amira Elghawaby entend poursuivre son combat contre la laïcité à la québécoise

Suspect may be harder given lack of a government platform and support staff and resources:

Amira Elghawaby, ancienne représentante spéciale du Canada, continue de s’opposer à la loi 21 sur la laïcité malgré l’abolition de son poste.

Bien que son poste ait été supprimé par le gouvernement de Mark Carney, elle se dit en paix et prévoit de rester active dans la scène publique.

Elle exprime des inquiétudes quant à l’efficacité du nouveau comité consultatif sur la lutte contre le racisme et la haine.

Source: Amira Elghawaby entend poursuivre son combat contre la laïcité à la québécoise

Jamie Sarkonak: The crusading judge who helped Liberals build a race-based sentencing regime

Sarkonak appears to be following judges with activist backgrounds as seen in her previous column on Justice Go.

There is a judge on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice whose signature move is letting violent men walk free because of racism. One of the architects of race-based sentencing, his name is Faisal Mirza, and he was appointed to the bench by former prime minister Justin Trudeau in 2022.

Mirza’s flourish of race-based acquittals is not a case of a judge gone rogue: indeed, it’s perfectly on-brand. He was writing about the need for more racial considerations in the Canadian justice system in 2001, before he even became a lawyer. Back then, he argued in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal that mandatory minimum sentences for drug and weapons offences would be racist because of the disproportionate impact they’d have on Black people.

Toronto police, he asserted, were racist because of the arrest statistics they produced: in 1988, Black individuals comprised 51 per cent of drug arrests, 82 per cent of mugging arrests and 55 per cent of purse snatching arrests. This, he said, was evidence of over-targeting. He concluded that more mandatory minimums would exacerbate the effect, because the threat of being convicted on a charge with a guaranteed jail term would disproportionately pressure Black accused persons to make plea deals and forfeit the opportunity to expose racist police at trial.

This became a career pursuit. When the Supreme Court was deciding whether to strike down the mandatory minimum for illegally possessing a loaded firearm in 2014, he argued as an intervener in the case that its disproportionate impact on Black individuals needed to be taken into account. The court ultimately ruled that this mandatory minimum was unconstitutional.

In 2018, Mirza laid the foundation for Ontario’s racial sentencing regime. He was the defence lawyer of Kevin Morris, a Black man who was convicted of various firearms offences. They were lucky to draw the hyper-progressive, destructively lenient Shaun Nakatsuru for a judge. Mirza filed two racial context reports about Morris and Black people as evidence, and the judge emphatically agreed to consider them. He settled on a 15-month sentence to account for the racial factors, even though three years was considered the starting point. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal made racial considerations in sentencing the province-wide rule in 2021….

To his credit, there have been instances where Mirza refrained from applying a racial discount, and from tossing out evidence because of racism, but it doesn’t excuse the other times when he let his biases reign. It’s undeniable that he has a habit of projecting racism in assessing any interaction with the state and undermining public safety with his assumptions. One day, it’s going to end up getting someone hurt — if it hasn’t already.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: The crusading judge who helped Liberals build a race-based sentencing regime

Dummit: How accommodation hollowed out Canadian nationalism

Not an easy country to govern given differing regional and group interests. Will be interesting to see how the (still) forthcoming revision to the Harper era citizenship study guide provides a cohesive and coherent national perspective:

….Taken as a whole, this legacy of national hesitation makes governing difficult. Is it any wonder that Carney spends so much time abroad signing international agreements? Foreign policy is one of the few areas where a Canadian government can still act as a single whole with relative clarity about the national interest.

But Carney’s real test will come when he finally returns home.

Canada’s genius has always been accommodation. But accommodation, repeated often enough, can gradually hollow out the idea that the country itself even has a single political purpose.

When Carney eventually tries to move forward with projects deemed nationally significant—whether mining developments, high-speed rail, or (God forbid) a new pipeline—he will run directly into Canada’s familiar pattern of internal division.

That’s when we’ll truly find out who is willing to embrace an “Elbows Up” style of nationalism. Until then, we’re left wondering: whose elbows? Defending which nation?

Source: How accommodation hollowed out Canadian nationalism

This woman is suing Canada for its ban on adoption under Muslim law

Inevitable that the ban would be challenged. Of course, this predominant affects Muslim families but perhaps a more appropriate challenge would be with respect to Pakistan’s application of kafala:

A Toronto woman is being denied the right to reunite with her adopted children because Ottawa does not recognize adoptions from Pakistan under Islamic rules, a court has heard.

Jameela Qadeer is the maternal aunt of Salman, Umme and Umm; she and her husband raised them as their own in Pakistan after her sister died of a brain hemorrhage in 2012. The Pakistani court has granted them guardianship of the kids and authorization to travel after their biological father, who was absent in their lives, abdicated his responsibility for their care.

An Ahmadiyya Muslim, a sect of Islam deemed heretical in Pakistan, Qadeer fled to Canada in 2017 and was granted asylum. However, her adopted kids have not been allowed to join her. Since 2013, Ottawa has stopped accepting adoption from Pakistan because it says the Islamic rules known as kafala only allow for guardianship of children, but do not sever biological ties as required by Canadian law.

In a fight to reunite the family, Qadeer and her sister’s children, along with two Muslim organizations, have taken the federal government to court, challenging the refusals of permanent residence to the children, and the constitutionality of Canada’s ban on recognizing adoption from Pakistan. 

They contend that Canada’s immigration policy has disproportionately affected Muslim families and denied them equality rights under the Charter, even when a guardianship arrangement following traditional kafala is permanent and sanctioned by a foreign court. 

“That categorical refusal does not only affect the individual applicants,” Armaan Kassam, lawyer for the National Council of Canadian Muslims told the opening of a three-day Federal Court hearing this week. “It affects Muslim families across Canada who adopt through foreign court-supervised guardianship processes.”

Warda Shazadi Meighen, lawyer for the children, said her clients’ biological father officially abdicated his responsibility in 2013 to Jameela Qadeer. Before leaving for Canada in 2017, Qadeer and her husband were granted judicial guardianship by a Pakistani court under national guardianship laws, giving them exclusive custody. ,,,

Source: This woman is suing Canada for its ban on adoption under Muslim law

Quebec Bill 21

Khan: In Quebec, laïcité has become its own kind of religious orthodoxy

Ironic but accurate:

…In the meantime, there is no legal recourse to challenge laws that are clearly discriminatory. Those primarily affected by these bills are veiled Muslim women – whom Quebec ostensibly wants to liberate, while strengthening gender equality. In its oxymoronic quest to impose freedom, then, the government is excluding those very women from the job market and impeding their financial independence. And it’s so 1950s to hear the high priests of laïcité – François Legault, Bernard Drainville – tell women what they can and cannot wear.

Given the situation, it’s time to tell the world about Quebec’s laïcité mission. Canadian embassies, high commissions and consulates should be clear to prospective immigrants (especially from la Francophonie) that their religious freedoms and expression will be curtailed in la belle province. Here at home, the federal government, along with the governments of Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba, should help those adversely affected by Quebec’s laws resettle in francophone communities in the rest of Canada, if they wish to leave. They deserve an opportunity to thrive without compromising their faith.

And finally, something must be done about the notwithstanding clause. Governments show no slowdown in its use, while the wider public seems unaware of its fundamental threat to basic freedoms. Perhaps a jarring public education campaign is in order, using the spectre of Donald Trump. After all, his administration has overseen attacks on domestic human rights, circumvented judicial warrants, tried to suspend legal protections to immigrants and denied equality before the law. Little wonder he wants to absorb Canada: The notwithstanding clause would allow him to do all that legally.

Source: In Quebec, laïcité has become its own kind of religious orthodoxy

Kutty | When parents are shut out of classrooms over what they wear, we have a problem

Absurd and unreasonable:

Two mothers in Quebec were recently told they could no longer volunteer at their children’s elementary school unless they removed their hijabs. For one of them, it meant being shut out of a classroom she had supported for years — not because of anything she did, but because of what she wears.

They are not alone. Across Quebec, people of faith — including Muslim women who wear hijabs, Sikhs who wear turbans, and Jewish Canadians who wear kippahs — are being pushed out of classrooms and public life unless they conceal visible expressions of their identity. In a separate incident, twelve Muslim women reportedly lost their teaching jobs because they refused to remove their hijabs. These are the lived consequences of Quebec’s secularism law, Bill 21, which prohibits many public-sector employees — including teachers, police officers and government lawyers — from wearing visible religious symbols while performing their duties.

The constitutionality of this law is now poised for its most consequential test. Canada’s Supreme Court is now hearing arguments in a landmark case examining whether Bill 21 violates fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Quebec has invoked the notwithstanding clause — Section 33 of the Charter — a rarely used constitutional mechanism that allows governments to override certain fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and equality, for renewable five-year periods….

Source: When parents are shut out of classrooms over what they wear, we have a problem

Representation

StatsCam: Representation of women on boards of directors and in officer positions, 2023

Useful study with breakdowns:

Statistics Canada is releasing new data on the gender composition of leadership and strategic decision-making roles within publicly traded corporations, privately held corporations and government business enterprises operating across a variety of industries in Canada.

This data helps inform the objective “More company board seats held by women, and more diversity on company boards” and the indicator “Proportion of board members who are women, by type of board” in the Leadership and democratic participation pillar of the Gender Results Framework.

Additional information and other studies and statistics related to gender and enterprises can be found in the Gender, diversity and inclusion statistics hub, the Business performance and ownership statistics portal and in the Representation of women on boards of directors and in officer positions: Visualization tool.

Women hold just under one-quarter of director positions

In 2023, women occupied just under one-quarter (23.2%) of seats on boards of directors, increasing 0.5 percentage points over the proportion of women recorded in 2022 (22.7%). 

Just over half of boards (50.3%) did not include any women directors in 2023. In addition, 25.8% of boards had one woman director, while boards with two or more women directors accounted for 23.9% of the total. 

Educational services has the highest representation of women directors, followed by the utilities and finance and insurance industries

Educational services had the highest proportion of women directors in 2023, with women holding 35.3% of board seats. This reflects an increase of 4.9 percentage points from 2022. 

The utilities industry recorded the second-highest share in 2023, at 34.1%. Corporations in finance and insurance followed, with women representing 28.2% of board members. 

The agriculture industry had the lowest proportion of women directors, with women occupying 8.8% of board seats….

Source: Representation of women on boards of directors and in officer positions, 2023

Treasury Board not tracking impact of public service job cuts on equity groups

Will be curious to see the respective numbers of hirings, separations and promotions in the forthcoming TBS EE report. Hopefully, TBS will continue to provide the breakdowns by visible minority groups.

Slides from last year’s EE report.

Advocates are raising concerns about how job cuts will affect public servants in equity groups — something the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat says it’s not tracking. 

The federal government has committed to cutting the number of public service jobs by about 40,000 from a 2023-24 peak of 368,000 as it looks to find savings.

Departments and agencies across the public service have started notifying staff of coming job cuts.

Barb Couperus, a spokesperson for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — which oversees government operations — said the office does not collect information centrally on the impact of workforce adjustment on employment equity designated groups.

Equity groups include women, Indigenous people, people with disabilities and members of visible minorities.

Couperus said heads of departments are responsible for managing their workforces.

She said departments will continue to pay “close attention” to maintaining representation and meeting their obligations under the Employment Equity Act.

The act requires federally regulated employers, including the government itself, to take steps to eliminate employment barriers and maintain proportional representation in the workplace for members of equity groups.

During layoff periods, Couperus said, departments can prioritize keeping staff from equity groups if there are gaps in representation.

Nicholas Marcus Thompson, president and CEO of the Black Class Action Secretariat, said he is “disturbed” to learn the Treasury Board isn’t tracking the impacts of job cuts.

“What that suggests is that this is not a priority for this government,” he said.

Over the past five years, the government has hired approximately 5,000 Black workers throughout the entire federal public service, said Thompson. It also has increased the number of Black executives from around 99 in 2020 to more than 220, he said.

“What we’re seeing now is that those gains are being lost as a result of workforce adjustment,” said Thompson, adding his organization has started tracking data on workforce adjustment. “Many folks have reached out to us to find out what their rights are.

“Usually with workforce adjustment, the first to go are folks that were the last to come … So far our data is showing that, despite these equity gains, it’s now turning out to be equity losses.”

Thompson said his organization wants to see the government require equity impact assessments before workforce adjustment decisions are made. It also wants the government to be transparent about the process and publish data on which demographics are being affected.

Rabia Khedr, national director of Disability Without Poverty, said people with disabilities working in the public service will be feeling anxious.

“Generally speaking, a lot of times people with disabilities may be at an entry level position, so that makes them vulnerable,” said Khedr.

The most recent employment equity report for the public service says that as of March 2024, 9.7 per cent of federal executives were people with disabilities, up from 4.6 per cent in March 2019.

Khedr also said she’s unhappy about the lack of central tracking of the impacts of job cuts on equity groups.

“That then leaves it to the individual leadership within departments to make those critical decisions,” she said.

“It really depends on the leadership and their commitment to diversity and inclusion … There’s a risk that equity-denied groups might be more vulnerable in terms of who gets cut and who stays.”

Source: Treasury Board not tracking impact of public service job cuts on equity groups

Filed under DEI, discrimination, Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism, Religion

L’interdiction des signes religieux affecte l’implication des parents dans les écoles alternatives

2026/02/06 Leave a comment

Reminder of the collateral damage related to laïcité:

L’interdiction de porter un signe religieux, imposée au personnel scolaire, risque de faire particulièrement mal aux écoles alternatives du Québec, puisque cette directive s’applique aussi aux bénévoles, a appris Le Devoir. C’est que, dans ces établissements, l’implication des parents dans la classe de leurs enfants est obligatoire.

Le 30 octobre dernier, le gouvernement Legault a fait adopter son projet de loi 94, qui visait à renforcer la laïcité dans le réseau scolaire québécois. Depuis, les élèves doivent fréquenter leur école à visage découvert, tout comme l’essentiel du personnel scolaire. Il est par ailleurs interdit aux employés de porter un signe religieux. Une directive qui s’étend « à toute personne qui fournit régulièrement des services » entre les murs d’une école, peu importe leur nature, ou encore qui fournit « des services aux élèves », même de façon ponctuelle et gratuite.

« Ainsi, pour fournir bénévolement des services dans l’école de son enfant dans l’une ou l’autre des situations qui précèdent, le parent doit respecter l’interdiction de port de signe religieux », confirme le ministère de l’Éducation, dans un courriel au Devoir. Une clause de droits acquis s’applique cependant aux parents qui fournissaient déjà bénévolement des services dans l’école de leur enfant avant le 30 octobre 2025, « sauf si l’entente en vertu de laquelle ces services sont offerts est renouvelée après cette date ». Ils devront alors retirer leur signe religieux ou cesser de s’impliquer dans leur école.

Dans de nombreux établissements, cette décision pourrait complexifier le travail du personnel scolaire, comme des directions d’école, la présence de parents bénévoles pour aider au rangement des livres dans les bibliothèques ou pour accompagner des enseignants lors de sorties scolaires permettant d’alléger, quelque peu, les effets de la pénurie de main-d’œuvre, évoquent plusieurs intervenants au Devoir.

« Discrimination par association »

Cependant, c’est dans les écoles alternatives — dont le nombre, en augmentation, approche la cinquantaine au Québec — que cette interdiction pourrait avoir le plus de répercussions. Car, dans ces établissements, l’implication bénévole des parents d’élèves, directement dans la classe de ces derniers, est obligatoire. Certaines écoles demandent d’ailleurs un nombre d’heures minimales d’implication bénévole aux parents.

Ainsi, si un parent ne peut plus s’impliquer dans une école alternative parce qu’il porte un signe religieux, « son enfant ne peut plus aller à cette école-là », relève le porte-parole du Regroupement des comités de parents autonomes du Québec, Sylvain Martel. « On va arriver à exclure des enfants de leur école en raison des croyances religieuses de leurs parents », déplore M. Martel, qui voit là « une sorte de discrimination par association ».

Une situation que dénonce le porte-parole du Réseau des écoles publiques alternatives du Québec, Pierre Chénier, qui a été mis au fait de cette situation par Le Devoir.

« Je trouve ça vraiment déraisonnable », lance-t-il, déplorant que cette interdiction vise ainsi des parents motivés par leur « bonne volonté » et leur « désir d’aider ». « Vraiment, je n’en reviens pas », poursuit M. Chénier. Selon lui, cette directive menace de « faire disparaître le modèle » unique des écoles alternatives, qui cherche « l’inclusion plutôt que l’exclusion ». 

Source: L’interdiction des signes religieux affecte l’implication des parents dans les écoles alternatives

The ban on wearing a religious sign, imposed on school staff, may particularly harm alternative schools in Quebec, since this directive also applies to volunteers, Le Devoir learned. It is because, in these institutions, the involvement of parents in their children’s class is mandatory.

On October 30, the Legault government passed its Bill 94, which aimed to strengthen secularism in the Quebec school network. Since then, students have had to attend their school with their faces uncovered, just like most of the school staff. Employees are also prohibited from wearing a religious sign. A directive that extends “to anyone who regularly provides services” within the walls of a school, regardless of their nature, or who provides “services to students”, even on an ad hoc and free of charge.

“Thus, to voluntarily provide services in his child’s school in any of the above situations, the parent must respect the prohibition of wearing a religious sign,” confirms the Ministry of Education, in an email to Le Devoir. However, an acquired rights clause applies to parents who were already voluntarily providing services in their child’s school before October 30, 2025, “unless the agreement under which these services are offered is renewed after that date”. They will then have to withdraw their religious sign or stop getting involved in their school.

In many schools, this decision could complicate the work of school staff, such as school principals, the presence of volunteer parents to help store books in libraries or to accompany teachers on school outings to lighten somewhat the effects of the labor shortage, say several speakers at Le Devoir.

“Discrimination by association”

However, it is in alternative schools — whose number, increasing, is approaching fifty in Quebec — that this ban could have the most repercussions. Because, in these institutions, the voluntary involvement of parents of students, directly in their classroom, is mandatory. Some schools also require a minimum number of hours of volunteer involvement from parents.

Thus, if a parent can no longer get involved in an alternative school because he wears a religious sign, “his child can no longer go to that school,” says Sylvain Martel, spokesman for the Regroupement des comités de parents autonomes du Québec. “We will be able to exclude children from their school because of the religious beliefs of their parents,” laments Mr. Martel, who sees this as “a kind of discrimination by association”.

A situation denounced by the spokesman for the Réseau des écoles publiques alternatives du Québec, Pierre Chénier, who was made aware of this situation by Le Devoir.

“I find it really unreasonable,” he says, deploring that this ban is aimed at parents motivated by their “good will” and their “desire to help”. “Really, I can’t believe it,” continues Mr. Chenier. According to him, this directive threatens to “make the unique model” disappear from alternative schools, which seeks “inclusion rather than exclusion”.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

“Légiférer sur la laïcité met à risque les guignolées, craignent les évêques du Québec”

2026/02/05 Leave a comment

Reminder of the risks of overly broad approaches:

“Les activités caritatives, comme les guignolées ou les comptoirs alimentaires, pourraient-elles devenir des victimes collatérales du projet de loi du gouvernement Legault « sur le renforcement de la laïcité » ? C’est du moins ce que craignent les évêques catholiques québécois.

Dans un mémoire qui sera présenté mercredi en commission parlementaire, l’Assemblée des évêques catholiques du Québec (AECQ) lève un drapeau rouge : « la définition des “pratiques religieuses” qui est utilisée dans le projet de loi est trop large et doit être précisée, car elle risque de limiter l’action charitable de plusieurs organismes de bienfaisance ».

Déposé en novembre, le projet de loi 9 « sur le renforcement de la laïcité au Québec » prévoit l’interdiction, dans une panoplie d’édifices publics, de toute « pratique religieuse ». L’usage de la voie publique ou d’un parc à des fins de « pratique religieuse collective » est également proscrit, à moins d’obtenir une autorisation exceptionnelle de la municipalité.

“Quand je me réfère à notre expérience ici, à Saint-Jérôme, au centre-ville, la cathédrale a donné plus de 20 000 $ pour des paniers de Noël. Elle a réalisé ça, entre autres, avec une guignolée au coin des rues par les Chevaliers de Colomb », a observé l’évêque de Saint-Jérôme-Mont-Laurier, Raymond Poisson, en entrevue avec Le Devoir en prévision du passage en commission de l’AECQ. « S’il fallait qu’on arrête de faire ça… »

Devant le ministre responsable de la Laïcité, Jean-François Roberge, mercredi, l’AECQ défendra l’idée que, plutôt que la « pratique religieuse », ce soit « l’enseignement religieux et le culte de toute profession religieuse » qui soient interdits dans les édifices publics et dans les rues. Sans quoi, estime Mgr Poisson, cela pourrait sonner la fin des activités caritatives pour plusieurs regroupements.

« Il y a des organismes qui nous offrent des subventions pour nos comptoirs alimentaires et vestimentaires. On en a dans beaucoup, beaucoup de nos églises », a-t-il ajouté. « Pendant la pandémie, ici, on a continué à livrer 200 boîtes de nourriture aux familles et ce sont les employés municipaux qui les livraient. On ne voudrait pas perdre ça. »

“Dans les neuf recommandations contenues dans leur mémoire, les 23 évêques membres de l’AECQ demandent le maintien des locaux de prières dans les universités et cégeps. Ils souhaitent aussi le retrait d’une disposition du projet de loi 9 prévoyant rendre conditionnel le financement public d’écoles religieuses.

« On a une liberté d’expression et c’est reconnu par des chartes. Je pense que l’État, peut-être, déborde de sa juridiction, ou a un peu trop d’ambition », a affirmé Mgr Poisson au téléphone cette semaine.”

Source: “Légiférer sur la laïcité met à risque les guignolées, craignent les évêques du Québec”

“Could charitable activities, such as puppets or food counters, become collateral victims of the Legault government’s bill “on strengthening secularism”? At least that is what Quebec Catholic bishops fear.

In a report that will be presented on Wednesday in the parliamentary committee, the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Quebec (AECQ) raises a red flag: “the definition of “religious practices” that is used in the bill is too broad and must be clarified, because it risks limiting the charitable action of several charities”.

Tabled in November, Bill 9 “on the strengthening of secularism in Quebec” provides for the prohibition, in a range of public buildings, of any “religious practice”. The use of the public road or a park for the purpose of “collective religious practice” is also prohibited, unless exceptional authorization is obtained from the municipality.

“When I refer to our experience here in Saint-Jérôme, downtown, the cathedral gave more than $20,000 for Christmas baskets. She achieved this, among other things, with a puppet around the corner of the streets by the Knights of Columbus, “observed the bishop of Saint-Jérôme-Mont-Laurier, Raymond Poisson, in an interview with Le Devoir in anticipation of the passage through the AECQ commission. “If we had to stop doing this…”

Before the Minister responsible for Secularism, Jean-François Roberge, on Wednesday, the AECQ will defend the idea that, rather than “religious practice”, it is “religious education and the worship of any religious profession” that are prohibited in public buildings and on the streets. Otherwise, according to Bishop Poisson, this could ring the end of charitable activities for several groups.

“There are organizations that offer us subsidies for our food and clothing counters. We have them in many, many of our churches, “he added. “During the pandemic, here, we continued to deliver 200 boxes of food to families and it was municipal employees who delivered them. We wouldn’t want to lose that. ”

“In the nine recommendations contained in their report, the 23 bishops members of the AECQ ask for the maintenance of prayer rooms in universities and CEGEPs. They also want the withdrawal of a provision of Bill 9 to make the public funding of religious schools conditional.

“We have freedom of expression and it is recognized by charters. I think the State, perhaps, overflows its jurisdiction, or has a little too much ambition, “said Bishop Poisson on the phone this week.”

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Renforcement de la laïcité: Les villes dénoncent des obligations « coûteuses et déconnectées »

2026/02/05 Leave a comment

Of note, when ideology meets reality:

Ces critiques virulentes proviennent de l’Union des municipalités du Québec (UMQ), qui représente des villes totalisant plus de 85 % de la population québécoise. Ses représentants ont témoigné mardi en commission parlementaire, dans le contexte où le projet de loi 9 est l’une des nombreuses pièces législatives que la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) souhaite adopter d’ici au déclenchement des élections.

« En politisant des enjeux ponctuels et en détournant des ressources essentielles, il compromet la capacité des gouvernements de proximité à répondre aux priorités concrètes de la population », déplorent les villes. De plus, « les situations impliquant des enjeux de laïcité sont décrites comme rares, ponctuelles et généralement réglées à l’aide des pouvoirs et outils déjà disponibles en vertu du droit municipal existant », ajoutent-elles.

L’adoption de nouvelles obligations législatives apparaît non seulement injustifiée, mais profondément déconnectée des réalités administratives et opérationnelles municipales. Le projet de loi 9 semble ainsi répondre à des préoccupations marginales, plutôt qu’à des situations concrètes nécessitant une intervention législative additionnelle.

 L’Union des municipalités du Québec

Le projet de loi 9 prévoit aussi que les municipalités devront permettre les prières de rue ou dans les parcs pour les groupes qui en font la demande « de façon exceptionnelle », par résolution du conseil municipal, si la pratique religieuse en question « ne compromet pas la sécurité des personnes, est de courte durée, est accessible à tous et n’entrave pas indûment l’accès à toute personne au domaine public ». Les prières individuelles ne sont pas visées.

« Cette orientation est inadaptée à la réalité municipale : les villes disposent déjà des pouvoirs nécessaires pour gérer ces usages de manière efficace, proportionnée et neutre, sans qu’un resserrement législatif uniforme ne soit requis », affirment les municipalités représentées par l’UMQ.

Source: Renforcement de la laïcité: Les villes dénoncent des obligations « coûteuses et déconnectées »

These virulent criticisms come from the Union des municipalités du Québec (UMQ), which represents cities totaling more than 85% of the Quebec population. Its representatives testified on Tuesday in the parliamentary committee, in the context that Bill 9 is one of the many pieces of legislation that the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) wishes to adopt between now and the elections are launched.

“It undermines the ability of local governments to respond to the population’s concrete priorities,” the cities lament. In addition, “situations involving secularism issues are described as rare, punctual and generally resolved using the powers and tools already available under existing municipal law,” they add.

The adoption of new legislative obligations appears not only unjustified, but deeply disconnected from municipal administrative and operational realities. Bill 9 thus appears to respond to marginal concerns, rather than concrete situations requiring additional legislative intervention.

The Union of Municipalities of Quebec

Bill 9 also provides that municipalities will have to allow prayers on the street or in parks for groups that request it “exceptionally”, by resolution of the municipal council, if the religious practice in question “does not compromise the safety of people, is short-lived, is accessible to all and does not unduly hinder access to the public domain for anyone”. Individual prayers are not targeted.

“This orientation is inappropriate for municipal reality: cities already have the necessary powers to manage these uses in an effective, proportionate and neutral manner, without uniform legislative tightening being required,” say the municipalities represented by the UMQ.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Le Devoir Éditorial | Bouchard-Taylor, un legs ignoré

2026/01/05 Leave a comment

Good editorial:

À l’hiver 2007, le Québec semblait littéralement au bord de la rupture. Une série d’incidents impliquant des accommodements religieux enflammaient le débat public. L’installation de vitres givrées au YMCA d’Outremont, un jugement de la Cour suprême autorisant le port du kirpan à l’école, le code de vie de la municipalité d’Hérouxville destiné aux immigrants : les manchettes s’enchaînaient, nourrissant une perception de crise identitaire. Dans ce climat d’anxiété collective, le premier ministre Jean Charest annonçait, le 8 février 2007, la création de la Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles, confiée à deux éminences : le sociologue Gérard Bouchard et le philosophe Charles Taylor.

M. Charest en appelait alors à une réflexion sensée. « Il est clair que le débat s’enlise et qu’il sert la division plus que la compréhension », rappelait-il au moment de propulser Bouchard-Taylor. Pendant des semaines, les deux commissaires ont sillonné le Québec, permettant à quelque 3400 personnes de participer aux audiences publiques qui faisaient souvent salle comble. Cette vaste consultation populaire a permis de prendre le pouls d’une société profondément divisée sur la question de son identité et de sa relation avec les minorités religieuses. Certains témoignages étaient empreints de préjugés et de peurs irrationnelles, d’autres exprimaient un désir sincère de préserver les acquis de la Révolution tranquille. L’exercice démocratique a été aussi cathartique qu’éprouvant.

Dans leur rapport final, Fonder l’avenir. Le temps de la conciliation, les deux commissaires arrivent à un constat aussi cinglant que libérateur : non, il n’y avait pas de véritable crise des accommodements raisonnables au Québec, et ce, malgré les apparences. Ce que les médias avaient présenté comme une avalanche de demandes déraisonnables formulées au nom de la liberté de religion relevait largement de la distorsion des faits. La commission Bouchard-Taylor conclut que, parmi les cas les plus médiatisés, 71 % s’éloignaient de l’exactitude des faits. L’emballement médiatique avait considérablement enflé la « crise ».

Les commissaires décèlent derrière cette enflure un malaise identitaire dont souffrent plus particulièrement les Québécois d’ascendance canadienne-française. Ceux-ci vivent difficilement leur double statut de majoritaire au Québec mais de minoritaire en Amérique du Nord, et craignent peut-être d’être submergés par les minorités culturelles et d’être dépossédés de leurs valeurs communes. La crise des accommodements camoufle donc une réaction de défense de plusieurs Québécois inquiets de perdre leur identité culturelle.

Le rapport Bouchard-Taylor propose une voie médiane fondée sur l’interculturalisme québécois, un modèle distinct du multiculturalisme canadien et de la laïcité fermée à la française. Les commissaires recommandent notamment d’interdire le port de signes religieux uniquement aux personnes en position d’autorité coercitive — juges, policiers, gardiens de prison, procureurs de la Couronne — tout en permettant leur port ailleurs dans la fonction publique, y compris pour les enseignants. Cette approche visait à équilibrer la neutralité de l’État avec le respect des libertés individuelles. La formule n’est pas retenue.

Sous la gouverne du Parti québécois, le Québec adopte en 2013 la Charte des valeurs, qui propose d’aller plus loin que les recommandations de Bouchard-Taylor. La nation n’en a pas fini de ses crispations identitaires, car le Québec s’entre-déchire autour de cette charte. En 2019, la Coalition avenir Québec présente enfin le projet de loi 21 sur la laïcité de l’État. Sur le modèle de la Charte des valeurs, on y interdit le port de signes religieux aux personnes en position d’autorité, y compris les enseignants du primaire et du secondaire. La loi fait l’objet de vives contestations.

L’adoption de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État marque l’aboutissement d’un processus qui a pris le chemin inverse de celui tracé par Bouchard et Taylor. Là où le rapport de 2008 appelait à la conciliation, à la nuance et au dialogue, le Québec a opté pour une solution législative plus rigide qui, si elle répond aux inquiétudes d’une majorité, pose des questions profondes sur notre capacité collective à vivre ensemble dans le respect de nos différences et force la mise à l’écart de certains groupes.

Le véritable héritage de Bouchard et de Taylor réside dans la démarche qu’ils ont incarnée. À un moment où le Québec aurait pu basculer dans l’intolérance et la xénophobie pure, ils ont rappelé l’importance de l’analyse rigoureuse, de l’écoute et du dialogue. Ils ont démontré que les perceptions pouvaient différer radicalement de la réalité et que les débats identitaires devaient être menés avec intelligence et compassion. Dix-huit ans après leur nomination, Bouchard et Taylor nous rappellent qu’une société mature ne se construit pas sur la peur de l’autre, mais sur la capacité à dialoguer, à comprendre et à chercher des solutions qui honorent à la fois les valeurs collectives et les droits individuels.

Source: Éditorial | Bouchard-Taylor, un legs ignoré

In the winter of 2007, Quebec seemed literally on the verge of rupture. A series of incidents involving religious accommodations inflamed the public debate. The installation of frosted windows at the YMCA of Outremont, a Supreme Court judgment authorizing the wearing of the kirpan at school, the code of life of the municipality of Hérouxville for immigrants: the headlines followed one another, feeding a perception of identity crisis. In this climate of collective anxiety, Prime Minister Jean Charest announced, on February 8, 2007, the creation of the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences, entrusted to two eminences: Sociologist Gérard Bouchard and Philosopher Charles Taylor.

Mr. Charest then called for a sensible reflection. “It is clear that the debate is getting bogged down and that it serves division more than understanding,” he recalled when propelling Bouchard-Taylor. For weeks, the two commissioners crisscrossed Quebec, allowing some 3,400 people to participate in public hearings that were often a fulle. This broad popular consultation made it possible to take the pulse of a deeply divided society on the question of its identity and its relationship with religious minorities. Some testimonies were imbued with prejudices and irrational fears, others expressed a sincere desire to preserve the achievements of the Quiet Revolution. The democratic exercise was as cathartic as it was trying.

In their final report, Founding the Future. At the time of conciliation, the two commissioners came to an observation as scathing as it was liberating: no, there was no real crisis of reasonable accommodation in Quebec, despite appearances. What the media had presented as an avalanche of unreasonable demands made in the name of freedom of religion was largely a matter of distortion of the facts. The Bouchard-Taylor Commission concludes that, among the most publicized cases, 71% were far from the accuracy of the facts. The media runaway had considerably inflated the “crisis”.

The commissioners detect behind this swelling an identity malaise suffered more particularly by Quebecers of Canadian-French descent. They hardly live their dual status as a majority in Quebec but as a minority in North America, and perhaps fear being overwhelmed by cultural minorities and being dispossessed of their common values. The accommodation crisis therefore camouflages a defensive reaction of many Quebecers worried about losing their cultural identity.

The Bouchard-Taylor report proposes a middle path based on Quebec interculturalism, a model distinct from Canadian multiculturalism and French-style secularism. The commissioners recommend in particular that the wearing of religious signs be prohibited only to persons in a position of coercive authority – judges, police officers, prison guards, Crown prosecutors – while allowing their wearing elsewhere in the public service, including for teachers. This approach aimed to balance the neutrality of the State with respect for individual freedoms. The formula is not retained.

Under the leadership of the Parti Québécois, Quebec adopted the Charter of Values in 2013, which proposed to go further than the recommendations of Bouchard-Taylor. The nation has not finished its identity tensions, because Quebec is torn around this charter. In 2019, the Coalition avenir Québec finally presented Bill 21 on the secularism of the state. On the model of the Charter of Values, it prohibits the wearing of religious signs to people in positions of authority, including primary and secondary school teachers. The law is the subject of strong challenges.

The adoption of the State Secularism Act marked the culmination of a process that took the opposite path from that traced by Bouchard and Taylor. Where the 2008 report called for conciliation, nuance and dialogue, Quebec has opted for a more rigid legislative solution that, if it responds to the concerns of a majority, raises deep questions about our collective ability to live together with respect for our differences and forces the exclusion of certain groups.

The true legacy of Bouchard and Taylor lies in the approach they embodied. At a time when Quebec could have turned into intolerance and pure xenophobia, they recalled the importance of rigorous analysis, listening and dialogue. They demonstrated that perceptions could differ radically from reality and that identity debates should be conducted with intelligence and compassion. Eighteen years after their appointment, Bouchard and Taylor remind us that a mature society is not built on the fear of the other, but on the ability to dialogue, understand and seek solutions that honor both collective values and individual rights.

From Bouchard lui-même: Quand l’espoir vient des citoyens

« En haut, en haut ! C’est un grand concept sociologique sophistiqué, ça, en haut ! », s’exclame-t-il d’un ton faussement bourru. Me sentant désarçonné au bout du fil, il éclate d’un grand rire.

Le ton est donné : interviewer Gérard Bouchard sera tout sauf ennuyant. Ce monument de l’histoire et de la sociologie a codirigé la fameuse commission Bouchard-Taylor sur les accommodements raisonnables, a enseigné à Harvard, a écrit de nombreux ouvrages. Et à 81 ans, le sociologue chéri des Québécois est vif, drôle, versant autant dans l’autodérision que dans les critiques acerbes.

Des critiques qu’il dirige beaucoup vers le gouvernement du Québec actuellement. C’est là, « en haut », qu’il déplore les plus grandes dérives. Mon intention n’était pas nécessairement d’amener mon interlocuteur dans l’arène politique, mais il y a sauté lui-même à pieds joints.

Lorsque je lui demande ce qu’il souhaite collectivement aux Québécois pour 2026, sa réponse est immédiate.

« Je souhaiterais que tout le débat sur l’identitaire perde enfin de l’actualité. L’identitaire est un sac vide. Cette affaire-là ne va nulle part. C’est un débat qui divise, mais qui n’ouvre pas sur grand-chose. »

— Gérard Bouchard

Il enchaîne en dénonçant la désinvolture avec laquelle, selon lui, le gouvernement Legault écarte les droits fondamentaux pour imposer sa vision de la laïcité.

« Ça relève d’un sentiment antireligieux, je ne vois pas autre chose, dit-il. L’idée qu’une société, pour être laïque, doit repousser le religieux dans ses derniers retranchements pour qu’il ne soit finalement plus visible du tout… Ce n’est pas un idéal pour une société, ça ! Ou alors, si c’est un idéal, ça en est un qui repose essentiellement sur la violation d’un droit fondamental. »

« On vit encore sur cette espèce de revanche que l’on prend contre les abus du clergé que notre société a subis jusqu’au milieu du XXe siècle, analyse-t-il. On avait de sacrées bonnes raisons de le faire, on a beaucoup souffert. Mais là, il faudrait en finir avec ça. On ne va quand même pas vivre sur ce ressentiment de génération en génération ! »…

“Up, up! It’s a great sophisticated sociological concept, that, at the top! “, he exclaims in a falsely gruff tone. Feeling distraught at the end of the line, he bursts out laughing.

The tone is set: interviewing Gérard Bouchard will be anything but boring. This monument of history and sociology co-led the famous Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodations, taught at Harvard, wrote many books. And at 81, the beloved sociologist of Quebecers is lively, funny, pouring as much into self-deprecation as in harsh criticism.

Criticisms that he directs a lot towards the Quebec government currently. It is there, “at the top”, that he deplores the greatest drifts. My intention was not necessarily to bring my interlocutor into the political arena, but he jumped there himself with his feet together.

When I ask him what he collectively wishes for Quebecers for 2026, his answer is immediate.

“I would like the whole debate on identity to finally lose news. The identity is an empty bag. This case is not going anywhere. It is a debate that divides, but does not open up much. ”

— Gérard Bouchard

He continues by denouncing the casualness with which, according to him, the Legault government discards fundamental rights to impose its vision of secularism.

“It’s an anti-religious feeling, I don’t see anything else,” he says. The idea that a society, to be secular, must push the religious to his last entrenchments so that he is finally no longer visible at all… This is not an ideal for a society! Or, if it is an ideal, it is one that is essentially based on the violation of a fundamental right. ”

“We still live on this kind of revenge that we take against the abuse of the clergy that our society suffered until the middle of the 20th century,” he analyzes. We had damn good reasons to do it, we suffered a lot. But now, we should end this. We are still not going to live on this resentment from generation to generation! “…

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, 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 ,

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

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 , , ,

Rioux | Les dix ans du Bataclan

2025/11/15 Leave a comment

More war of civilization commentary but correct that it is internal, not just external:

…Dix ans plus tard, l’idéologie qui a inspiré les assassins du Bataclan n’a cessé de progresser. Tout cela à la faveur d’une naïveté coupable, mais aussi, et c’est nouveau, d’intérêts politiques bien sentis. Certains partis étant prêts, pour rameuter une nouvelle clientèle, à faire l’impasse sur quelques vérités dérangeantes.

Aujourd’hui, constatent les meilleurs analystes, l’islamisme n’est plus un courant venu de l’étranger, comme plusieurs de ces assassins du 13 novembre arrivés par bateau de Syrie pour se mêler aux migrants qui débarquaient sur les côtes grecques. Il est devenu endogène et fleurit dans les banlieues de toutes les grandes villes d’Europe. Nos pays ont beau avoir délocalisé usines et capitaux, ils sont dorénavant capables de produire des djihadistes maison 100 % pure laine. Ce qui faisait dire à un spécialiste des stratégies militaires comme David Betz, du King’s College de Londres, que, face à l’effritement des consensus sociaux et de la confiance envers l’État, les conflits à venir ont de plus en plus de chances de ne pas être des guerres traditionnelles entre pays, mais des guerres civiles.

« Tout le drame, c’est que l’ennemi est devenu endogène et que nous n’avons plus la même capacité à le reconnaître », nous confiait l’ancien président de la commission parlementaire sur les attentats du 13 novembre, Georges Fenech.

Souhaitons que ces commémorations, par ailleurs nécessaires, ne servent pas à blanchir la conscience de ceux qui ont fermé les yeux et n’ont rien vu venir. Il ne faudrait pas que les victimes du Bataclan soient mortes en vain.

Source: Chronique | Les dix ans du Bataclan

… Ten years later, the ideology that inspired the Bataclan’s assassins continued to progress. All this thanks to guilty naivety, but also, and this is new, of well-felt political interests. Some parties are ready, to attract a new clientele, to ignore some disturbing truths.

Today, the best analysts note, Islamism is no longer a current from abroad, like many of these murderers of November 13 who arrived by boat from Syria to mingle with the migrants who landed on the Greek coasts. It has become endogenous and blooms in the suburbs of all major cities in Europe. Our countries may have relocated factories and capital, but they are now capable of producing 100% pure wool homemade jihadists. This made a military strategy specialist like David Betz of King’s College London say that, in the face of the crumbling of social consensus and confidence in the state, future conflicts are increasingly likely to be not traditional wars between countries, but civil wars.

“The whole drama is that the enemy has become endogenous and that we no longer have the same ability to recognize him,” told us the former president of the parliamentary committee on the November 13 attacks, Georges Fenech.

Let us hope that these commemorations, which are also necessary, do not serve to whitewash the conscience of those who closed their eyes and saw nothing coming. The victims of the Bataclan should not have died in vain.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Le Conseil national des musulmans se dit en faveur de la laïcité de l’État, mais pas des versions de la CAQ et du PQ

2025/10/23 Leave a comment

Interest interview, worth reading in its entirety:

…« Réussir l’interculturalisme »

« On est comme toutes les autres personnes de la société, on veut l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. Je suis un papa d’une jeune fille, je veux qu’elle ait exactement les mêmes opportunités et les droits que mes garçons. Ça doit être dit ! »

Aux yeux de Stephen Brown, la laïcité, « c’est l’idée que le gouvernement va sortir de la religion, qu’il va préconiser l’inclusion et la tolérance pour délimiter ou gérer les tensions interreligieuses à l’intérieur d’une société », fait-il valoir, se disant disposé à travailler avec les élus québécois dans le but de « réussir l’interculturalisme ».

« On parle souvent des musulmans au Québec, on parle plus rarement avec des musulmans au Québec. »

Source: Le Conseil national des musulmans se dit en faveur de la laïcité de l’État, mais pas des versions de la CAQ et du PQ

…” Succeed in interculturalism”

“We are like all other people in society, we want equality between men and women. I am a father of a young girl, I want her to have exactly the same opportunities and rights as my boys. It must be said! ”

In the eyes of Stephen Brown, secularism, “it is the idea that the government will leave religion, that it will advocate inclusion and tolerance to delimit or manage interreligious tensions within a society,” he argues, saying he is willing to work with Quebec elected officials in order to “successful interculturalism”.

“We often talk about Muslims in Quebec, we talk more rarely with Muslims in Quebec. ”

Filed under Interculturalisme, Laïcité, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts