Ravet | Une laïcité antireligieuse est une mauvaise voie

2025/07/10 Leave a comment

Important nuanced take on laïcité:

Le Rassemblement pour la laïcité est bien connu pour ses positions à l’égard de la religion, qu’il classe d’emblée comme facteur d’endoctrinement, de division et de conflits sociaux. De sa part, on sait toujours à quoi s’attendre de la religion, quelle qu’elle soit. Et le portait n’est guère reluisant. Se nourrissant exclusivement de ses pires expressions, il milite pour interdire toutes manifestations religieuses dans l’espace public au nom de la laïcité. Car selon sa conception de la laïcité, et la neutralité dont elle se réclame, tout ce qui relève du religieux devrait être refoulé le plus possible dans la sphère intime pour neutraliser les effets potentiellement néfastes sur la société.

Mais contrairement à ce qui est affirmé, la « laïcité » ainsi comprise n’est pas neutre à l’égard des religions, elle est farouchement contre. Les croyants sont d’emblée posés comme « objets » de la laïcité, jamais comme sujets, ni acteurs. Comment le pourraient-ils puisqu’ils sont la cible de ladite laïcité et que tout signe de croyance serait en soi signe de prosélytisme, d’embrigadement ou d’obscurantisme ?

Or, la laïcité n’est pas la propriété des non-croyants sauf à en faire une idéologie antireligieuse. Au nom du vivre ensemble et du bien commun, elle est une part commune à tous les citoyens, croyants et non croyants, nous renvoyant à notre humanité commune que nous sommes tous appelés à approfondir, à faire croître dans la part du monde qui nous est donnée. Les religions ont leur part à jouer.

L’article publié par huit membres du Rassemblement pour la laïcité (« Une réflexion sur la laïcité dans les cégeps s’impose », dans Le Devoir du 2 juillet) est symptomatique de cette orientation idéologique de la laïcité conçue au détriment de la religion et des croyants. Les auteurs peuvent ainsi affirmer sans justification à l’appui, comme si cela allait de soi, que « si la culture, ou même la politique, est bien au cœur de la vitalité académique des cégeps, il n’en va pas de même de la religion qui relève de croyances et facilite le cloisonnement communautaire ».

Cette affirmation sans nuances est éminemment réductrice puisqu’elle ne retient de la religion que ses manifestations sectaires. On pourrait, par ce même procédé, dénigrer tout autant la culture et la politique — qui relèvent aussi de croyances partagées, ce que feignent d’ignorer les auteurs — en ne retenant de celles-ci que leurs expressions fanatiques et sectaires. Cependant, s’il est possible de le faire aussi cavalièrement avec le religieux, c’est que s’impose de plus en plus une représentation sociale de la religion qui va dans cette direction.

Une réalité complexe

Le rapport d’enquête sur les cégeps Dawson et Vanier en est un bel exemple, qui reproduit les mêmes affirmations sans prendre le soin d’en donner les raisons, en ne citant qu’un article du Regroupement pour la laïcité sur un cégep et en ignorant un rapport de trois chercheurs universitaires portant sur 10 cégeps et 10 universités beaucoup plus nuancé. C’est inquiétant. Car on s’empêche ainsi de penser une réalité complexe qui a ses racines dans une part importante de la population.

Les médias ont d’ailleurs leur part de responsabilité dans ce phénomène en ne parlant généralement de la religion qu’en rapport à ses manifestations négatives, dogmatiques ou sectaires. Ce faisant, on ne se rend pas compte qu’on est en train de construire une société qui marginalise et invisibilise les « personnes concrètes » qui trouvent dans la religion une voie privilégiée d’humanisation — car elles n’ont pas droit de cité : cachez ce que vous êtes, car vous menacez le vivre ensemble. Un tel bannissement, en plus de favoriser le fanatisme religieux, qui se trouve conforté par cette exclusion sociale, peut faire obstacle à l’inculturation et à l’engagement citoyen de nouveaux arrivants qui proviennent de sociétés qui n’ont pas ce regard entièrement négatif du religieux et qui se sentent « dévalorisés » dans leur être même.

Comme rédacteur en chef de la défunte revue Relations, dans laquelle croyants et incroyants, ou « autrement-croyants », selon le mot heureux de Michel de Certeau, œuvraient conjointement pour une société juste, j’ai toujours plaidé pour ma part en faveur d’une compréhension de la laïcité qui n’est pas fondée sur l’invisibilisation des religions et des croyants, ni encore moins leur rejet, menant à faire de la laïcité une « religion dominante ». Le principe de neutralité religieuse propre à la laïcité ne vise pas à ignorer les religions, mais, au contraire, à accueillir sereinement ses expressions individuelles et collectives dans la sphère publique sans leur plaquer, sans autre forme de procès, les stigmates de l’anathème. Ce qui en est cependant exclu, dans l’espace public, c’est toute prétention, de leur part, à la vérité inquestionnable, à la domination, à l’embrigadement.

La laïcité ainsi comprise favorise l’humanisation de toutes croyances, tant culturelles, politiques que religieuses, en mettant de l’avant le travail interprétatif des croyances et leur mise en dialogue. Car la politique et la culture peuvent comme la religion devenir toxiques quand elles sont sous l’emprise idéologique qui sacralise une idée au point que l’humain est sacrifié sur son autel, et le réel réduit à cette idée.

Cessons donc de brandir l’épouvantail du prosélytisme ou du sectarisme religieux dans le but de promouvoir une laïcité qui serait en soi antireligieuse. La laïcité mérite mieux que ça.

Jean-Claude Ravet L’auteur, écrivain, a fait paraître «La nuit et l’aube. Résistance spirituelle à la destruction du monde» (Nota Bene, 2024).

Source: Idées | Une laïcité antireligieuse est une mauvaise voie

The Rally for Secularism is well known for its positions on religion, which it immediately classifies as a factor of indoctrination, division and social conflict. For its part, we always know what to expect from religion, whatever it may be. And the wear is hardly shiny. Feeding exclusively on his worst expressions, he campaigned to prohibit all religious manifestations in public space in the name of secularism. Because according to its conception of secularism, and the neutrality it claims, everything that is religious should be repressed as much as possible in the intimate sphere to neutralize the potentially harmful effects on society.

But contrary to what is claimed, the “secularism” thus understood is not neutral towards religions, it is fiercely against. Believers are immediately posed as “objects” of secularism, never as subjects or actors. How could they since they are the target of said secularism and that any sign of belief would in itself be a sign of proselytism, brigade or obscurantism?

However, secularism is not the property of non-beliefs except to make it an anti-religious ideology. In the name of living together and the common good, it is a common part of all citizens, believers and non-believers, referring us to our common humanity that we are all called upon to deepen, to grow in the part of the world that is given to us. Religions have their part to play.

The article published by eight members of the Rassemblement pour la laïcité (“A reflection on secularism in the CEGEPS is imposed”, in Le Devoir of July 2) is symptomatic of this ideological orientation of secularism conceived to the detriment of religion and believers. The authors can thus affirm without supporting justification, as if it were self-evident, that “if culture, or even politics, is at the heart of the academic vitality of CEGEPs, the same is not true of religion, which is a matter of beliefs and facilitates community partitioning”.

This unnuanted statement is eminently reductive since it retains from religion only its sectarian manifestations. We could, by this same process, denigrate culture and politics just as much – which are also shared beliefs, which the authors pretend to ignore – by retaining from them only their fanatical and sectarian expressions. However, if it is possible to do so cavally with the religious, it is because a social representation of religion that goes in this direction is increasingly necessary.

A complex reality

The survey report on the Dawson and Vanier CEGEPs is a good example, which reproduces the same statements without taking care to give the reasons, citing only one article of the Regroupement pour la la laïcité on a CEGEP and ignoring a report by three university researchers on 10 CEGEPs and 10 universities much more nuanced. It’s worrying. Because this prevents us from thinking about a complex reality that has its roots in a significant part of the population.

The media also have their share of responsibility for this phenomenon by generally speaking of religion only in relation to its negative, dogmatic or sectarian manifestations. In doing so, we do not realize that we are building a society that marginalizes and makes invisible the “concrete people” who find in religion a privileged way of humanization – because they have no right of citizenship: hide what you are, because you threaten living together. Such a banishment, in addition to promoting religious fanaticism, which is reinforced by this social exclusion, can hinder the inculturation and civic engagement of newcomers who come from societies that do not have this entirely negative view of the religious and who feel “devalued” in their very being.

As editor-in-chief of the defunct magazine Relations, in which believers and unbelievers, or “otherwise believers”, according to the happy word of Michel de Certeau, worked jointly for a just society, I have always argued for my part in favor of an understanding of secularism that is not based on the invisibilization of religions and believers, let alone their rejection, leading to making secularism a “dominant religion”. The principle of religious neutrality specific to secularism does not aim to ignore religions, but, on the contrary, to serenely welcome one’s individual and collective expressions in the public sphere without placing them, without any other form of trial, with the stigmas of the anathema. What is excluded, however, in the public space, is any claim, on their part, to the unquestionable truth, to domination, to embrigadement.

The secularism thus understood promotes the humanization of all beliefs, both cultural, political and religious, by highlighting the interpretative work of beliefs and their dialogue. Because politics and culture can become toxic like religion when they are under the ideological influence that sacralizes an idea to the point that the human being is sacrificed on his altar, and reality reduced to this idea.

So let’s stop brandishing the scarecrow of proselytism or religious sectarianism in order to promote a secularism that would in itself be anti-religious. Secularism deserves better than that.

Jean-Claude Ravet The author, writer, published “The night and the dawn. Spiritual resistance to the destruction of the world” (Nota Bene, 2024).

Filed under Interculturalisme, laicité, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Newcomers vs. born-and-raised Albertans: Turns out, they’re not all that different

2025/07/10 Leave a comment

Would be interesting to also have data contrasting political affiliation to see if same pattern holds (it may well). Measure of political integration:

….Conservatives have long fretted that international and interprovincial migrants will bring with them a tidal wave of views — and votes — at odds with traditional, right-leaning Alberta values. Some progressives, meanwhile, have been wishing and hoping for the day that happens.

So far, it hasn’t.

And it likely won’t, says pollster Janet Brown, even with the latest wave of people moving to the province.

“It’s a widely held belief that newer Albertans are different, but the data has never borne that out,” said Brown, who recently conducted a wide-ranging survey for CBC News that examined the beliefs and perspectives of people in this province.

The results were in line with polls she had done in years past; overall, Brown has found very little difference in opinion between Albertans who have lived all or most of their lives in the province and those who have moved here from elsewhere.

When it comes to many beliefs, in fact, the two groups are virtually indistinguishable.

Value statements

This most recent poll asked Albertans whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of value statements on a range of topics and issues.

You can see for yourself in the chart below just how similar the responses were.

Albertans who have always or mostly lived in the province are seen in the left-hand column, while Albertans who moved here from elsewhere are in the right-hand column.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wuJvs/1/

These results may come as a surprise to many Albertans, but not Brown.

As a pollster, she says the lack of difference between these two groups has been apparent for some time, even if others didn’t believe it.

“In the past I’d have liberal friends and they’d say, ‘Well, if we just wait for enough people to move from Ontario, then Alberta will become liberal,'” Brown said.

That has yet to materialize, she said, because “the people who move from Ontario aren’t a random, representative sample of people who live there.”

“Sometimes we find that new Albertans are more stereotypical than people who were born here,” Brown said.

Search: Newcomers vs. born-and-raised Albertans: Turns out, they’re not all that different

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Canada’s immigration system must put national security ahead of applicants: Expert

2025/07/08 Leave a comment

Understandable call which of course will prompt some equally understandable pushback. But strong security vetting is essential to maintaining public support for immigration. And while the examples cited pertain to immigrants from the Mid-East and Islamic countries, also applies more broadly to India, China and elsewhere:

Canada’s immigration framework needs to put national security ahead of the interests of applicants.

That’s among many issues experts say need to change as Canada wrestles with what they say is decades of ineffective and damaging immigration policy, as the country deals with increased global security threats from bad actors.

“We need to get back to a system that’s sane, we need to get back to a system that’s secure,” Toronto Immigration Lawyer Sergio Karas, of Karas Immigration Law, told the Toronto Sun.

“Security for Canadians and Canadian residents should be the first priority, not the last priority. Security should be first and the applicant’s application should be second.”

As Iran’s Islamic theocratic regime staggers under Israeli and American attempts to dismantle the terror state’s nuclear weapons program, reports of officials and members of the regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) taking refuge in Canada are growing.

In addition, concerns are also being raised over properly screening thousands of Palestinian refugees expected to stream into Canada, and if they hold undisclosed links to Palestinian terror groups like Hamas and the far-left Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) — the mother organization of Canadian terror group Samidoun.

Karas pointed to the case of Palestinian terrorist Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, who took part in the deadly 1968 hijacking of an El Al airliner in Athens.

Convicted and imprisoned in Greece, he was soon freed after a different Palestinian terror group hijacked another plane and threatened to kill everyone on board if Mohammad wasn’t released.

Mohammed immigrated to Canada in 1987, without disclosing his criminal history and ties to Palestinian terrorism.

After his lies were discovered, he filed a refugee claim before deportation proceedings could commence — sparking a nearly 25-year legal battle to stay in Canada, insisting he wasn’t a terrorist but a “freedom fighter” in battle with Israel….

Source: Canada’s immigration system must put national security ahead of applicants: Expert

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Des particularités québécoises à préserver en matière d’égalité des sexes et de laïcité

2025/07/08 Leave a comment

As is usually the case, overly simply characterization of multiculturalism and overly rigid approach to integration from a former member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

…La laïcité de l’État

Le modèle de laïcité québécois est aussi unique. Comme le disait si bien le regretté Benoît Pelletier, « non seulement il n’existe pas de religion d’État au Québec ni au Canada, mais, en plus, l’État ne doit pas exposer les citoyens à des signes ou symboles religieux qui entacheraient sa neutralité réelle, perçue et potentielle. Il ne s’agit pas d’une neutralité passive, voulant que tout soit permis en matière religieuse. Il s’agit plutôt d’une neutralité active, en vertu de laquelle l’État doit se comporter d’une manière qui démontre clairement que les religions ne s’immiscent pas dans sa composition et ses activités ».

De plus, la neutralité religieuse de l’État, lorsqu’elle existe ailleurs dans le monde, est à géométrie variable. Ainsi, les personnes désirant s’établir au Québec ont de fortes chances de provenir de pays peu familiers avec ce concept (théocraties ou pays ayant une « religion d’État » par exemple) ou encore qui pratiquent un autre type de laïcité tel le sécularisme. Il est donc important qu’elles comprennent et acceptent que le Québec mise sur la laïcité de l’État, soit la séparation de l’État et des religions, la neutralité religieuse de l’État, l’égalité de tous les citoyennes et citoyens de même que la liberté de conscience et la liberté de religion, pour favoriser le vivre ensemble en société.

Avant d’être québécoises, les personnes immigrantes doivent toutefois obtenir d’abord la citoyenneté canadienne. Or, le multiculturalisme canadien, jumelé aux accommodements religieux, favorise la pénétration des normativités religieuses au sein de l’État et encourage les interprétations fondamentalistes rarement favorables au droit des femmes à l’égalité et à la laïcité. C’est la raison pour laquelle la Loi sur l’intégration à la nation québécoise précise que « [l]a nation québécoise étant une société d’accueil distincte, elle possède son propre modèle d’intégration qui s’oppose à l’isolement et au repli des personnes dans des groupes culturels particuliers. Ce modèle est distinct du multiculturalisme canadien ».

Les personnes désirant s’établir au Québec doivent donc comprendre et accepter que le Québec mise sur son propre modèle d’intégration, qui comprend la laïcité de l’État, pour favoriser le vivre-ensemble en société.

Prochaines étapes

Le gouvernement du Québec travaille actuellement sur une Politique nationale sur l’intégration à la nation québécoise et à la culture commune, qui précisera comment les ministères et organismes québécois appliqueront les principes de la Loi sur l’intégration à la nation québécoise dans leur quotidien. Cette politique pourrait, par exemple, rendre le financement de certains projets conditionnel au respect des principes de la loi. On pense ici à l’aide financière accordée à un festival, mais aussi, possiblement, à celle accordée aux centres de la petite enfance (CPE), aux établissements d’enseignement privés subventionnés, au réseau collégial et au réseau universitaire.

Quoi qu’il en soit, cette politique est l’occasion de préciser comment l’égalité des sexes et la laïcité de l’État feront partie de la promotion du modèle québécois d’intégration à la nation québécoise tout en renforçant le sentiment d’appartenance de tous les Québécois à la nation québécoise.

Marie-Claude Girard: L’autrice est retraitée de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. Elle signe ce texte à titre personnel.

Source: Des particularités québécoises à préserver en matière d’égalité des sexes et de laïcité

… The secularism of the State
The Quebec model of secularism is also unique. As the late Benoît Pelletier said so well, “not only is there no state religion in Quebec or Canada, but, in addition, the State must not expose citizens to religious signs or symbols that would tarnish its real, perceived and potential neutrality. It is not a passive neutrality, wanting everything to be allowed in religious matters. Rather, it is an active neutrality, under which the State must behave in a way that clearly demonstrates that religions do not interfere in its composition and activities”.
In addition, the religious neutrality of the State, when it exists elsewhere in the world, is variable geometry. Thus, people wishing to settle in Quebec are likely to come from countries unfamiliar with this concept (theocracies or countries with a “state religion” for example) or that practice another type of secularism such as secularism. It is therefore important that they understand and accept that Quebec relies on the secularism of the State, i.e. the separation of the State and religions, the religious neutrality of the State, the equality of all citizens as well as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, to promote living together in society.
Before being Quebec, however, immigrants must first obtain Canadian citizenship. However, Canadian multiculturalism, coupled with religious accommodations, favors the penetration of religious normativities within the state and encourages fundamentalist interpretations that rarely favor women’s right to equality and secularism. This is the reason why the Law on Integration into the Quebec Nation states that “[the]he Quebec nation being a separate host society, it has its own model of integration that opposes the isolation and retreat of people in particular cultural groups. This model is distinct from Canadian multiculturalism.”
People wishing to settle in Quebec must therefore understand and accept that Quebec relies on its own model of integration, which includes the secularity of the State, to promote living together in society.
Next steps
The Government of Quebec is currently working on a National Policy on Integration into the Quebec Nation and Common Culture, which will specify how Quebec ministries and agencies will apply the principles of the Act on Integration to the Quebec Nation in their daily lives. This policy could, for example, make the financing of certain projects conditional on compliance with the principles of the law. We are thinking here of the financial assistance granted to a festival, but also, possibly, that granted to early childhood centres (EPCs), subsidized private educational institutions, the college network and the university network.
In any case, this policy is an opportunity to clarify how gender equality and state secularism will be part of the promotion of the Quebec model of integration into the Quebec nation while strengthening the sense of belonging of all Quebecers to the Quebec nation.
Marie-Claude Girard: The author is retired from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under gender, Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Darmanin: The need for cultural intelligence in anti-racism policy

2025/07/08 3 Comments

While the emphasis on a wholistic policies covering all groups is welcome, hard to see how “cultural intelligence” as a term improves the reality on the ground compared to other terminology and what concrete impacts on change it might have:

…What policymakers truly need is a more comprehensive framework: cultural intelligence. Cultural intelligence, or CQ, is a globally recognized way of assessing and improving effectiveness in culturally diverse situations. Unlike traditional cultural competence programs, cultural intelligence develops four core capabilities: CQ drive (motivation to work across cultures), CQ knowledge (understanding cultural differences without stereotyping), CQ strategy (planning effectively across cultural contexts), and CQ action (adapting behaviour appropriately). 

Cultural intelligence is a more holistic approach that recognizes culture as the broader context within which all identity categories operate. It acknowledges that effective policy must go beyond checking boxes for different demographic groups to understanding how cultural values, communication styles, and worldviews shape how policies are received and implemented. 

The cultural-intelligence advantage 

Cultural intelligence predicts success across domains relevant to policymaking: judgment and decision-making, negotiation, trust-building, innovation, and leadership. In policy contexts, culturally intelligent approaches create more effective, equitable, and culturally sensitive policies that resonate with diverse populations. 

Rather than asking whether a policy affects Black Canadians differently than other groups, a cultural-intelligence lens would require policymakers to understand how cultural factors shape the entire policy environment. This includes recognizing how cultural values and norms significantly shape policymaking, and how policies that are not culturally sensitive may be met with resistance or fail to achieve intended goals. 

Practical implementation 

Implementing cultural intelligence in policy work requires several key shifts. First, policymakers must develop cultural competence and sensitivity (CQ drive and knowledge) that enable them to better understand the needs of diverse cultural groups and develop policies that are responsive to these needs. This goes beyond demographic analysis to understanding how cultural frameworks shape policy reception and effectiveness. 

Second, policy development must incorporate cultural impact assessments (CQ strategy) and engage with diverse stakeholders to gather insights into cultural values and norms. This requires creating systematic processes for cultural intelligence among policymakers and public officials through targeted training and education that develops motivation, strategic thinking, and adaptive cross-cultural skills. 

Third, policy evaluation must regularly assess cultural responsiveness, checking in with policymakers to adjust based on how policies perform across different cultural contexts (CQ action). This is a fundamental shift from static policy lenses to dynamic, culturally intelligent governance. 

Moving forward together 

The EDI backlash does indeed represent a critical moment for policymaking. But rather than retreating into separate initiatives for marginalized groups, a more nuanced approach needs to acknowledge the interconnected nature of oppression while fostering bridges across communities. Cultural intelligence provides this framework by focusing on the cultural contexts that shape all identity experiences. 

This does not mean abandoning targeted anti-racism initiatives. It means embedding them in a broader cultural- intelligence framework that recognizes how culture shapes the entire policy landscape. When policymakers develop cultural intelligence, they become better equipped to design policies that address systemic racism while building coalitions across marginalized communities. 

The authors’ call for moral fortitude in the face of backlash is well-taken. However, moral fortitude alone is insufficient without analytical tools to understand and respond to cultural complexity. By embracing cultural intelligence as a foundational policy competency, institutions can move beyond fragmented approaches to build more effective, inclusive, and transformative governance systems that serve all Canadians equitably. 

The conversation initiated by the authors is an important step. The next step will be to broaden that conversation to include the cultural-intelligence framework, which can transform policy approaches in an increasingly diverse society. 

Source: The need for cultural intelligence in anti-racism policy

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Locaux de prières à Dawson et Vanier: Une étude importante absente du rapport d’enquête

2025/07/08 Leave a comment

Interesting omission:

« Il y a un manque de nuance flagrant dans ce rapport », constate Frédéric Dejean, professeur au département de sciences des religions de l’Université du Québec à Montréal.

Spécialiste des questions religieuses, il reste perplexe devant certaines observations faites sur les locaux de prière dans le rapport d’enquête visant les collèges Dawson et Vanier, dévoilé la semaine dernière.

Surtout, il s’étonne de voir que ses travaux, qui portent précisément sur cette question, ne figurent nulle part dans le document.

Avec deux autres professeurs de l’Université de Sherbrooke, M. Dejean a étudié il y a quelques années les pratiques d’accommodements religieux dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur, dont les locaux de prière.

La demande venait directement des ministères de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieur, qui ont financé l’étude.

Au total, les chercheurs ont mené une centaine d’entrevues dans 17 cégeps et universités à travers la province, qui ont servi à élaborer un guide sur les accommodements religieux destiné aux intervenants et aux gestionnaires.

Les résultats de l’étude ont été transmis au gouvernement caquiste en 2019. « On a fait un travail qui donnait un état des lieux assez juste en matière de locaux religieux », affirme Frédéric Dejean.

Le rapport d’enquête sur les collèges Dawson et Vanier, rédigé par des fonctionnaires de la Direction des enquêtes du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, n’en fait pourtant aucune mention, bien qu’il s’attarde longuement sur la question des locaux de prière

Pour le chercheur, c’est un problème. Certaines informations rapportées ne correspondent pas à ce qu’il a observé dans ses recherches.

Conclusion sans base scientifique

Un passage du rapport affirme que les locaux de prière ne font « qu’alimenter un climat de radicalisation, de repli communautaire et de méfiance réciproque à l’intérieur du cégep ».

Cette information, présentée « comme une vérité qui ne se discute pas », n’a aucune base scientifique, soutient Frédéric Dejean.

Elle provient d’une lettre ouverte signée par un groupe de militantes québécoises en faveur de la laïcité publiée dans les médias en 2023, comme le rapportait La Presse.

« Ce n’est pas du tout un texte de recherche », critique le professeur.

Plus loin, le rapport soutient que les salles de prière peuvent être vues « comme un privilège, voire un élément facilitant la radicalisation et le prosélytisme », encore une fois sans référence. 

Frédéric Dejean déplore que le rapport ne s’appuie pas sur des données probantes pour aborder « un sujet aussi sensible et complexe ».

Selon ses recherches, la réalité est beaucoup plus nuancée. « Il y a énormément de cégeps, universités qui ont des locaux religieux. Dans la plupart des institutions, ça se passe très, très bien. »

S’ils peuvent parfois représenter un « irritant », les accommodements religieux ne constituent pas un « problème majeur » au sein des établissements d’enseignement, concluait l’étude à laquelle il a participé. 

Mais il ne faut pas « non plus être complètement naïf », souligne le professeur, qui travaillait au collège de Maisonneuve lorsqu’un groupe d’élèves radicalisés étaient partis combattre en Syrie. 

Pour cette raison, l’étude recommandait aux directions qui fournissaient des espaces de prière d’effectuer un suivi serré de leur utilisation. 

Il est à noter que les collèges Dawson et Vanier n’ont pas participé à l’étude. L’échantillonnage incluait toutefois d’autres établissements anglophones, comme le collège Champlain. 

Laïcité de l’État

Contacté par La Presse, le cabinet de la ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, Pascale Déry, a affirmé qu’il ne commenterait pas la façon dont a été réalisée une enquête indépendante.

Commandée par la ministre, l’enquête visait à évaluer si les collèges Vanier et Dawson avaient pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la sécurité des élèves, dans le contexte du conflit explosif au Moyen-Orient.

Le rapport a finalement conclu que les deux cégeps anglophones ont agi en conformité avec les encadrements légaux et ministériels.

Il a toutefois ouvert la porte au gouvernement pour qu’il resserre certains règlements et lois s’appliquant à l’ensemble du réseau collégial, notamment la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État.

À la sortie du rapport, la ministre Pascale Déry a déclaré qu’elle n’hésiterait pas à « encadrer ou corriger certaines pratiques ».

Source: Locaux de prières à Dawson et Vanier Une étude importante absente du rapport d’enquête

“There is a glaring lack of nuance in this report,” says Frédéric Dejean, a professor in the Department of Religious Sciences at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

A specialist in religious issues, he remains perplexed by some observations made on the prayer rooms in the investigation report for Dawson and Vanier colleges, unveiled last week.

Above all, he is surprised to see that his work, which deals precisely with this issue, does not appear anywhere in the document.

With two other professors from the University of Sherbrooke, Mr. A few years ago, Dejean studied the practices of religious accommodation in higher education institutions, including prayer rooms.

The request came directly from the Ministries of Education and Higher Education, which funded the study.

In total, the researchers conducted about 100 interviews in 17 CEGEPs and universities across the province, which were used to develop a guide on religious accommodations for stakeholders and managers.

The results of the study were transmitted to the Caquist government in 2019. “We did a job that gave a fairly fair inventory in terms of religious premises,” says Frédéric Dejean.

The investigation report on Dawson and Vanier Colleges, written by officials from the Investigations Directorate of the Ministry of Higher Education, does not mention this, although it dwells at length on the issue of prayer rooms

For the researcher, this is a problem. Some of the information reported does not correspond to what he observed in his research.

Conclusion without scientific basis

A passage in the report states that the prayer rooms “only feed a climate of radicalization, community withdrawal and mutual distrust within the CEGEP”.

This information, presented “as a truth that cannot be discussed”, has no scientific basis, says Frédéric Dejean.

It comes from an open letter signed by a group of Quebec activists in favor of secularism published in the media in 2023, as reported by La Presse.

“This is not a research text at all,” criticizes the professor.

Further on, the report argues that prayer rooms can be seen “as a privilege, even an element facilitating radicalization and proselytism”, again without reference.

Frédéric Dejean regrets that the report does not rely on evidence to address “such a sensitive and complex subject”.

According to his research, the reality is much more nuanced. “There are a lot of CEGEPs, universities that have religious premises. In most institutions, it’s going very, very well. ”

If they can sometimes represent an “irritating”, religious accommodations are not a “major problem” within educational institutions, concluded the study in which he participated.

But we must not “be completely naive either,” says the teacher, who worked at Maisonneuve College when a group of radicalized students went to fight in Syria.

For this reason, the study recommended that directions that provided prayer spaces closely monitor their use.

It should be noted that Dawson and Vanier Colleges did not participate in the study. However, the sampling included other English-speaking institutions, such as Champlain College.

Secularism of the State

Contacted by La Presse, the office of the Minister of Higher Education, Pascale Déry, said that it would not comment on the way in which an independent investigation was carried out.

Commissioned by the Minister, the investigation aimed to assess whether Vanier and Dawson Colleges had taken all the necessary measures to ensure the safety of students, in the context of the explosive conflict in the Middle East.

The report finally concluded that the two English-speaking CEGEPs acted in accordance with the legal and ministerial frameworks.

However, he opened the door to the government to tighten certain regulations and laws that apply to the entire collegiate network, including the Act respecting the Secularism of the State.

At the release of the report, Minister Pascale Déry said that she would not hesitate to “frame or correct certain practices”.


Filed under Interculturalisme, laicité, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Marcus Kolga: University of Toronto education project risks reinforcing Russian disinformation

2025/07/05 Leave a comment

Sigh. Historical amnesia:

…Titled “Post-Soviet Canadian Diaspora Youth and Their Families,” the project claims to explore the integration experiences of youth whose families came to Canada from countries colonized and oppressed by Soviet Russia. While its stated intent may indeed be to foster a deeper understanding of these communities, the project’s language and conceptual framing are historically inaccurate, politically insensitive, and risk reinforcing harmful Kremlin-aligned stereotypes about the very groups it aims to study.

By lumping together all nations once occupied by Soviet Russia into a single “post-Soviet” identity, the project risks distorting the unique histories, cultures and political experiences of Canadians who are of Baltic and Ukrainian heritage, as well as all nations that were violently subjected to Soviet cultural annihilation. Worse, this framing unintentionally echoes Russian propaganda efforts that seek to blur the line between occupier and occupied, casting doubt on the legitimacy of these nations.

The project defines the Soviet Union as “formerly the largest country in the world,” and a “multinational and multicultural country … experimenting (with) communist ideology.” This portrayal omits critical context about the violent and repressive nature of Soviet colonization. There is no mention of the mass deportations, forced famines or repression that defined millions of lives under Soviet Russian rule.

Particularly disturbing is the project’s inclusion of a map that depicts Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as part of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, most North American textbooks marked these nations differently to denote their illegal occupation. The map used by OISE more closely resembles those found in Soviet schoolbooks, presenting occupation as full annexation and thereby indirectly legitimizing Russia’s imperial conquest.

While this may seem like a simple and innocent error, it reflects a deeper failure to recognize that the Baltic nations didn’t just “transition to different, non-communist forms of statehood” in 1991, as the project claims. These were independent nations illegally invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940, a pattern Russia repeated with its 2014 occupation of Crimea. Their reassertion of independence in 1991 was not the birth of new states, but the restoration of sovereign ones whose continuity Canada rightly recognized. Then-prime minister Brian Mulroney was the first G7 leader to formally re-establish diplomatic ties with the restored Baltic governments.

This key fact in Canadian foreign policy is ignored. As then-prime minister Justin Trudeau stated in 2016: “Canada never recognized the Soviet Union’s occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and always supported their struggle to restore independence during decades of Soviet occupation.”…

Source: Marcus Kolga: University of Toronto education project risks reinforcing Russian disinformation

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Content changes for the 2026 Census of Population: Ethnic or cultural origins, religion, immigration, citizenship and place of birth

2025/07/05 Leave a comment

The most notable change, IMO, is the decision to collect religious affiliation data ever 5 years, instead of every 10:

Religion

Changes evaluated in the  2024 Census Test

  • Statistics Canada evaluated the inclusion of the question on religion in the 2026 Census to address the increased demand for more frequent data on religious groups (i.e., every 5 years rather than every 10 years).
  • The list of examples was reviewed and updated to ensure relevance for the 2026 Census.

Resulting approach for the  2026 Census of Population

  • The questionnaire will include the same question on religion as the 2021 Census, with an updated list of examples directly in the questionnaire to reflect the highest-frequency responses in the previous cycle.
  • The extensive list of examples provided via hyperlink will remain the same as in 2021.

Why are these questions asked?

A question on religion has been included in the Census of Population every 10 years since 1871, reflecting a long-standing, continuing and widespread demand for information about religious affiliation and diversity in Canada.

Information on the religion of the population is commonly used by governments, as well as by religious groups, denominations and associations across the country. For example, these data support the planning of programs and inform decisions on where to establish places of worship such as churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Additionally, this information is used to evaluate the need and potential for separate religious schools in some provinces. It also provides insights on the diversity of Canada, highlights the unique experiences of various religious groups and supports efforts to combat hate crimes.

Current trends and data gaps for this topic

Religion is a core dimension of ethnocultural diversity in Canada. Combining religion with other variables, such as ethnic or cultural origins, racialized groups, languages, and immigration data, is essential for conducting intersectional analyses and providing a detailed portrait of the diversity of the Canadian population.

Historically, data on religion have been collected every 10 years, with the most recent data being from the 2021 Census. Statistics Canada heard from key stakeholders and data users that there was an increased need for benchmark data on religious groups to respond to the rapid changes in Canadian society through immigration and the increased diversity of the population, as summarized in 2026 Census of Population Content Consultation Results: What we heard from Canadians. The 2021 Census measured the rapid growth of some religious groups since data were last collected in 2011. For example, the proportion of the population who reported being Muslim, Hindu or Sikh has doubled in the last 20 years. In addition, the share of the population reporting no religious affiliation, or a secular perspective (atheist, agnostic, humanist and other secular perspectives) rose from 16.5% in 2001 to 34.6% in 2021.

To ensure that the census measures important trends in society, continues to produce relevant and high-quality data, and meets the increased demand for more frequent data on religious groups, Statistics Canada considered including the question on religion in the 2026 Census to increase the frequency of data collection. Canada is an increasingly diverse country, and the inclusion of this question on a more frequent basis will better measure the growing religious diversity in the country. One minor change was introduced: the list of examples presented directly in the questionnaire was updated to reflect the highest-frequency responses in the previous cycle.

These changes have been carefully analyzed, discussed with stakeholders and guided by expert advice to preserve the relevance and overall quality of the data on religion, as well as to ensure that legislative and policy requirements continue to be met.

Source: Content changes for the 2026 Census of Population: Ethnic or cultural origins, religion, immigration, citizenship and place of birth

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with

Une réflexion sur la laïcité dans les cégeps s’impose

2025/07/03 Leave a comment

Discussion of some of the excesses of student organizations:

….« Comment peut-on considérer qu’une salle de prière constitue un droit acquis dans un collège qui doit respecter les articles 2 et 3 de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État stipulant que les principes de la laïcité doivent être respectés en fait et en apparence ? » demandent avec raison les enquêteurs.

En effet, bien que les établissements d’enseignement supérieur ne soient pas soumis à la directive du ministère de l’Éducation (MEQ) interdisant les pratiques religieuses dans les écoles, ceux-ci sont néanmoins tenus de respecter les principes de la laïcité, dont la neutralité religieuse. Mais voilà, l’ambiguïté persiste : la neutralité religieuse consiste-t-elle à accommoder toutes les religions, ou bien à n’en accommoder aucune ? Concrètement, dans le cas des lieux de prière, faut-il, comme le suggère l’agente des services sociaux du collège Vanier, répondre aux demandes religieuses des étudiants de toutes les confessions ou bien, comme l’exprime clairement la directive du MEQ, n’en considérer aucune ?

Dans cette directive du MEQ, on peut lire que « l’aménagement de lieux utilisés à des fins de pratiques religieuses dans une école […] est incompatible avec le principe de la neutralité religieuse de l’État ». L’interdiction de salles de prière y est notamment justifiée par le respect de la liberté de conscience des élèves qui doivent être protégés contre les pressions directes ou indirectes les incitant à se conformer à une pratique religieuse, et parce que de tels accommodements sont de nature à entraver le bon fonctionnement des écoles.

Tous ces arguments sont également valables pour les cégeps. Bien que plus âgés, les étudiants sont pour la plupart toujours mineurs à leur arrivée au collège. Par ailleurs, on ne peut ignorer que ces salles de prière ne sont pas toujours des lieux de recueillement paisibles, mais deviennent parfois des foyers de radicalisation et des lieux de recrutement pour des conflits à l’étranger.

Songeons, par exemple, au collège de Maisonneuve, qui fut, en 2015, le foyer de recrutement d’étudiants pour le djihad en Syrie. Afin de répondre à leur demande, la direction du cégep avait mis à la disposition des étudiants une salle pour les prières du vendredi, ce qui n’a fait qu’alimenter le climat de radicalisation, de repli communautaire et de méfiance réciproque à l’intérieur du cégep.

En conclusion de leur rapport, les enquêteurs recommandent de « mettre en place les mécanismes appropriés afin de s’assurer du respect et de l’application des articles 2 et 3 de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État ». On ne peut que seconder cette recommandation ! Mais encore faut-il que la neutralité religieuse soit clairement définie, non pas comme une porte ouverte à toutes les demandes religieuses, mais bien comme l’absence de toute reconnaissance de celles-ci et du prosélytisme religieux dans les cégeps.

Et pour commencer, aucune accréditation ne devrait être accordée à un club étudiant à vocation religieuse. Du reste, la Loi sur les cégeps ne prévoit aucunement une telle chose.

Source: Une réflexion sur la laïcité dans les cégeps s’impose

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Adams and Parkin: Our elbows may be up, but have Canadians really changed?

2025/07/02 Leave a comment

Notable shift:

…Even more concerning, our continuing social values research has picked up a striking mood shift in Canada over the past two years (originating before the start of Mr. Trump’s second term), in the direction of a more hard-nosed survival-of-the-fittest mindset. We’ve become less willing to prioritize progressive ideals – such as openness to immigration, gender equality and environmental sustainability – ahead of material concerns such as financial security. This is true particularly of younger Canadians, and also of first- and second-generation immigrants whose shift of support to the Conservative Party in the Toronto suburbs cost the Liberals their majority in the recent election (and could cost them victory in the next one if the same mood prevails). 

We arrive then at Canada Day after months of profound anxiety and significant political change that oddly haven’t changed us that much. We are still the same country facing the same centrifugal challenges with new ones added to the mix. If and when the threat from the U.S. subsides, a long list of other thorny problems will come into clearer view.

All the more reason to welcome Canada Day – yes, to celebrate, take a break from politics and world events, and count our blessings in the company of family and friends, but also to rest up and ready ourselves to take on more challenges ahead.

Source: Our elbows may be up, but have Canadians really changed?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →