Regg Cohn | The debate over Toronto’s ‘bubble zone’ bylaw reveals a glaring double standard

2025/07/17 Leave a comment

Indeed:

Toronto’s new “bubble zone” bylaw keeps rubbing some progressives the wrong way.

Which way, one wonders, is the wrong way?

That depends on how people see right from wrong — but also right-wing from left-wing. For this controversy is increasingly about ideology — and identity.

Lest we forget, the bubble debate goes way back — long before the conflict in the Middle East was superimposed upon a Canadian template. It predates the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre and hostage-taking, and the Israeli counterattacks and overkill that followed, and the antisemitic outbursts that have long been out of control.

In the beginning was the abortion debate, pitting the right to harass against the right to choose. Put another way, bubble zones were first conceived in the context of zygotes, not Zionists (What is a Zionist? A supporter of self-determination for the Jews of Israel, which defines most Jews in Canada).

Progressives, legislators and judges long ago agreed that pregnant women in distress deserved better than to be tormented on their way into an abortion clinic. So-called free speech was restricted so that vulnerable women could do what they were legally entitled to do, under protection of law.

Later, bubble zones were extended to protect medical professionals — doctors, nurses, clinicians, assistants — who were trying to keep people healthy, not just in abortion clinics but vaccination clinics. The courts have consistently upheld the right of freedom from harassment from the right to free speech in such circumstances, where pro-choicers (and pro-vaxxers) have no choice but to be at a clinic.

Toronto’s new bubble bylaw came into effect last month after a year of bitter debate on city council. It sparked much hand-wringing on the sidelines from self-styled civil libertarians about the value of uncivil discourse, and from self-styled progressive protesters about the virtue of unpleasant demonstrations.

This month, we learned that more than a dozen Jewish schools and synagogues have sought and received anti-protest protections, requiring protesters to keep 50 metres away during service hours. Vaughan Mayor Steven Del Duca led the way with a similar bubble zone, albeit 100 metres wide, after a series of ugly confrontations that he believed crossed a line outside synagogues.

Why shouldn’t religious minorities have the same protection accorded to doctors or nurses, pregnant women or vaccine patients? If Canadians don’t believe in compelled speech, why compel worshippers to face hateful protests or violent incidents that recur with disturbing frequency?

This glaring contradiction about who deserves bubble zones — and who doesn’t — reminds me of the awkward irony that infuses the anti-abortion movement in America: Life begins at conception and cannot be aborted, but capital punishment is a fitting punishment for those on death row, we are told in the same breath.

It seems a bubble zone is a lightning rod and a litmus test. But this doesn’t pass the smell test.

Many Muslims feel vulnerable after a London family of four was killed by an attacker in 2021, said Sheila Carter, who co-chairs the Canadian Interfaith Conservation and also works with Islamic Relief Canada, adding: “We should, as Canadians, be able to move forward safely, freely, happily with whatever faith we are,”

Ask civil libertarians, however, and they insist that free speech is an absolute — abortion excepted.

Anaïs Bussières McNicoll of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association argued against Toronto’s bubble zone by quoting an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that protests are a time-tested way of “redressing grievances.”

Really? How could Canadian Jews, whose schools have been targeted, address grievances against a foreign government — unless one believes school-age Jews, like all Jews, have magical powers to transcend borders?

Bussières quoted approvingly from another court ruling that protesters must not be barred “from public space traditionally used for the expression of dissent because of the discomfort their protest causes.” But the House of Commons isn’t a house of worship or a classroom, so when did people at prayers or students at school become “traditionally” fair game for the “discomfort” of hateful confrontations on their sabbath?

Let’s not confuse the thought police with the right to be protected. Banning books is bad because people should be exposed to diverse ideas and can choose what they want to read; people at prayers have no such choice if they are going to a mosque or synagogue.

I don’t have to persuade progressives of the need for abortion bubbles, because they (and I) support them: They cheerfully back a bubble to shield pregnant women from religious zealots at an abortion clinic, yet they reflexively oppose an anti-bullying bubble to protect religious people from overzealous protesters.

To be clear, protest has its place in a public space. But no one, whether prayerful or pregnant, should be compelled to endure unwanted harassment — be it at a medical clinic or a house of worship.

Source: Opinion | The debate over Toronto’s ‘bubble zone’ bylaw reveals a glaring double standard

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Peter Menzies: Travis Dhanraj’s CBC resignation reveals the truth about media ‘diversity’ in Canada 

2025/07/16 Leave a comment

Of interest:

…While this “public attack on the integrity of CBC News” was something that, according to Kelly, “saddened” Dhanraj’s former employer, it made him a hero to conservatives who have long complained the Crown corporation bears a prejudice towards them and their causes.

But they should be careful about rushing to conclusions. Dhanraj’s complaints may delight by confirming their opinions, but there are always at least two sides to a story (even though in his blog last week, CBC editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon insists that is not always the case).

Commentators on the right, however, didn’t hesitate. They took full advantage of the CBC’s blushes, joining the chorus by adding their voices to those of Dhanraj and Marshall to decry their competition’s imbalance while proudly displaying their own. The irony that one publicly-funded outlet could be demanding balance from another publicly-funded entity because it is publicly funded was not lost on me. But among the more compelling voices was that of Julia Malott, a transwoman who doesn’t run with the herd. She expressed gratitude in the National Post for Dhanraj’s willingness to allow their contrary views to be part of his (now cancelled) show.

Dhanraj isn’t the first journalist of colour to run into trouble with a publicly licensed employer for not complying with managerial expectations. Jamil Jivani, now the Conservative Member of Parliament for Bowmanville-Oshawa North, made a similar case against Bell Mediafollowing the termination of what was clearly an unhappy spell for him as the only full-time black host on that company’s Newstalk 1010 and iHeart radio network.

“There was an expectation that because he’s Black he should have been saying and doing certain things—because in Bell’s mind he was checking this token box, and when they realized they weren’t getting the kind of Black man they wanted, that’s when he was out the door,” said his lawyerat the time—the same Kathryn Marshall who is now representing Dhanraj.

She said it was “outrageous” that white media executives used diversity as a wedge to fire their only black radio host.

That matter was, in the end, quietly settled. The same hush could not save Bell’s blushes in the matter of Patricia Jaggernauth, an Emmy award-winning host who dragged the vertically-integrated behemoth before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

That case was not related to editorial perspectives, but was focused on what the commission referred to as “a pattern of discrimination in pay,” which, when you think about it, doesn’t exactly lighten the DEI load.

Dhanraj said in his departure letter that he “was fighting for balance” and in response was “accused of being on a ‘crusade.’”

Both can be true.

And if they are, that’s exactly the sort of crusade the nation needs to bring real diversity, balance, and objectivity to its newsrooms. Let’s go.

Source: Peter Menzies: Travis Dhanraj’s CBC resignation reveals the truth about media ‘diversity’ in Canada

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Federal envoy urges Ontario to act on antisemitism in its public schools

2025/07/16 Leave a comment

Of note:

Canada’s special envoy on antisemitism says Ontario school boards need to take seriously incidents of anti-Jewish bigotry targeted at students in public schools.

Deborah Lyons commissioned a survey of nearly 600 Jewish parents in the province, and found hundreds of children were subjected to incidents including antisemitic bullying and blame for the carnage of Israel’s military conduct in the Gaza Strip.

The survey logged 781 incidents between October 2023 and January 2025 that Jewish families reported as antisemitic, such as children chanting Nazi slogans and giving salutes, and teachers telling students that Israel does not exist.

Of the reported incidents, 60 per cent involved what the survey deemed “extreme anti-Israel sentiments,” such as describing Israel as “fundamentally a racist state, that it is committing genocide in Gaza.”

The other 40 per cent involved anti-Jewish attitudes writ large, such as denying the Holocaust, or describing Jews as cheap or having control over the media.

Lyons’ office approached various Jewish groups to promote the survey to their members and ask them to complete it.

Some parents reported moving their children to different schools, or having their children remove things that identified them as Jewish while attending school.

The report marks a rare move of federal rapporteurs singling out issues outside of Ottawa’s jurisdiction.

The Ontario government said antisemitism is unacceptable in its schools.

“We expect school boards across the province to focus on student achievement and creating supportive classrooms,” wrote Emma Testani, press secretary for provincial education minister Paul Calandra.

“We will continue working with our education partners to keep politics out of the classroom and ensure schools remain focused on helping students succeed.”

Michael Levitt, a former Liberal MP who runs a Jewish advocacy group, called the survey “a searing indictment” of how the education system treats Jewish students.

“While the Ontario government and some school boards are making an effort to bring antisemitism training and Holocaust education to staff and students, our education system must do more to root out antisemitism and hold perpetrators accountable,” wrote Levitt, head of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Canada has endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which has attracted controversy among academics and free-speech advocates.

The IHRA definition says it is anti-Jewish to single out Israel for criticism not levelled at other countries, to deem the creation of Israel “a racist endeavour” or to compare Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Pro-Palestinian groups have said the definition could be used against those who accuse Israel of implementing an apartheid system and intentionally starving people in Gaza.

Source: Federal envoy urges Ontario to act on antisemitism in its public schools

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

McWhorter: It’s Time to Let Go of ‘African American’

2025/07/15 Leave a comment

Makes sense given recent immigration from Africa in contrast to descendents of the slave trade:

I’m no fan of performative identity politics, and I think racial preferences are long past their expiration date. Yet I don’t think the New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani did anything wrong when, as was reported last week, he checked off “Black or African American” on a college application. As a man of South Asian descent who spent the first part of his life living in Uganda, he was within his rights to call himself African American. The problem is that the term appeared on the application, or anywhere else. Plenty of Black people have never liked it, and ever more are joining the ranks. It’s time to let it go.

“African American” entered mainstream circulation in the late ’80s as a way to call attention to Black people’s heritage in the same way that terms like “Italian American” and “Asian American” do for members of those groups. The Rev. Jesse Jackson encouraged its usage, declaring: “Black does not describe our situation. In my household there are seven people and none of us have the same complexion. We are of African American heritage.” In 1989 the columnist and historian Roger Wilkins told Isabel Wilkerson: “Whenever I go to Africa, I feel like a person with a legitimate place to stand on this earth. This is the name for all the feelings I’ve had all these years.”

Since that time, the United States has seen an enormous change in immigration patterns. In 1980 there were about 200,000 people in America who were born in Africa; by 2023 there were 2.8 million. So today, for people who were born in Africa, any children they have after moving here and Black people whose last African ancestors lived centuries ago, the term “African American” treats them as if they are all in the same category, forcing a single designation for an inconveniently disparate range of humans.

Further complicating matters is that many Africans now living here are not Black. White people from, for example, South Africa or Tanzania might also legitimately call themselves African American. As for the community that Mamdani grew up in, it dates back to at least the late 19th century, when South Asians were brought to Uganda to work as servants for British colonizers. “Mississippi Masala,” the movie for which Mamdani’s mother, the filmmaker Mira Nair, is perhaps best known, tells the story of South Asian Ugandans expelled from the country in 1972 by the dictator Idi Amin. Feeling just as dislocated from the only home they had ever known as I would feel if expelled from the United States, they would be quite reasonable in viewing themselves as African Americans after settling here.

A term that is meant to be descriptive but that can refer to Cedric the Entertainer, Trevor Noah, Elon Musk and Zohran Mamdani is a little silly.

And not just silly but chilly. “African American” sounds like something on a form. Or something vaguely euphemistic, as if you’re trying to avoid saying something out loud. It feels less like a term for the vibrant, nuanced bustle of being a human than like seven chalky syllables bureaucratically impervious to abbreviation. Italian Americans call themselves “Italian” for short. Asian Americans are “Asian.” But for any number of reasons, it’s hard to imagine a great many Black Americans opting to call themselves simply African.

To the extent that “African American” was designed to change perceptions of what “Black” means, it hasn’t worked. The grand old euphemism treadmill has done it in. Again and again we create new terms hoping to get past negative associations with the old ones, such as “homeless” for “bum.” But after a while the negative associations settle like a cloud of gnats on the new terms as well, and then it’s time to find a further euphemism. With no hesitation I predict that “unhoused person” will need replacement in about 2030.

At an earlier point in its life cycle, “African American” could at least be argued to have an air of pride and lineage, free of any historical association with inferiority. Back in the day you could imagine it sung to the same melody as Alexander Hamilton’s name is in the opening song to the musical about him: “A-le-XANder HA-mil-ton”; “A-fri-CAN a-MER-i-can.” But these days “African American” and “Black” strike the same note.

In 2020, when a Black man in Central Park asked a white woman to leash her dog, she dialed 911, warning him, “I’m going to tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life.” There was nothing euphemistic in the way she used that term.

But all along we’ve had a perfectly good word to describe Black people: Black. We should just use that.

Black power! Yeah. But African American power? Do we imagine Lorraine Hansberry and Nina Simone explaining how it feels to be “Young, Gifted and African American”? And would we want to?

Let Mamdani and other people — of all shades — born in Africa or about a generation past it call themselves African Americans. But here, over centuries, descendants of African slaves have become something else — and proudly, I hope. In American parlance, we are Black. And proud. And (you knew it was coming) say it loud.

“Black is beautiful.” Yes. Truly, “African American” isn’t.

Source: It’s Time to Let Go of ‘African American’

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lederman: We need to talk about antisemitism

2025/07/12 Leave a comment

Comments highlight need:

…What is happening in Gaza is catastrophic. But comparisons to the Holocaust are inaccurate, unnecessary and damaging. And, arguably, antisemitic.

Would any of this be okay if it was directed at any other minority group? 

One could argue it’s Zionists being targeted, not Jews. But most Jews are Zionists, believing a State of Israel has a right to exist. Further, too often, “Zionist” is a convenient substitute for “Jew.”

Criticism of the Israeli government is absolutely fair. But veering into antisemitism does nothing for the worthy Palestinian cause. If anything, it taints it. It is distracting, divisive and counterproductive. 

The same “fixed it” social-media crowd might write, about this column, “I’m not reading all that. Free Palestine.”

Yes, Palestinians deserve to be free. And Jews in Canada deserve to feel safe in their own country.

Source: We need to talk about antisemitism

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Morton: Why Hiring Professors With Conservative Views Could Backfire on Conservatives

2025/07/11 Leave a comment

Interesting argument. But greater ideological diversity and openness would be welcome:

…Conservatives have criticized identity-based affirmative action because, they suggest, it imposes an expectation on students of color that they will represent what is presumed to be, say, the Black or Latino view on any given issue, which discourages freethinking. Admitting students for viewpoint diversity would turn the holding of conservative ideas into a quasi-identity, subject to some of the same concerns. Students admitted to help restore ideological balance would likely feel a responsibility to defend certain views, regardless of the force of opposing arguments they might encounter.

For professors hired for their political beliefs, the pressure to maintain those views would be even greater. If you had a tenure-track position, your salary, health insurance and career prospects would all depend on the inflexibility of your ideology. The smart thing to do in that situation would be to interact with other scholars who share your point of view and to read publications that reinforce what you already believe. Or you might simply engage with opposing ideas in bad faith, refusing even to consider their merits. This would create the sort of ideological echo chamber that proponents of viewpoint diversity have suggested, often with some justification, leads to closed-mindedness among left-leaning professors…

Jennifer M. Morton, professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania

Source: Why Hiring Professors With Conservative Views Could Backfire on Conservatives

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

StatsCan: The role of social connections in mitigating the harms associated with discrimination, 2023/2024

2025/07/11 Leave a comment

Makes intuitive sense that social connections mitigate impacts of discrimination:

In 2023/2024, 45% of all racialized Canadians reported experiencing discrimination over the previous five years. While discrimination has been related to negative mental and physical health, lower levels of life satisfaction and reduced hopefulness about the future, these outcomes become less pronounced when victims of discriminatory acts have strong personal support networks.

Among racialized Canadians who reported experiencing discrimination in the previous five years, one-third (33%) reported having a high level of life satisfaction (scoring 8 or higher on a 10-point scale). This proportion increased to 47% among victims with strong family connections and to 49% for those with strong friend connections. Mental health outcomes and future outlook also fared better when victims had personal support networks.

These results are based on the new study released today, “Softening the blow of discrimination: The role of social connections in mitigating the harms associated with racism and discrimination,” which used the Survey Series on People and their Communities to look at the role of family and friends in mitigating the harms associated with discrimination among racialized Canadians. The study also examined how family and friend relationships can influence discrimination victims’ perceptions of other Canadians and broader Canadian society.

Source: Study: The role of social connections in mitigating the harms associated with discrimination, 2023/2024

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with , ,

Conservatives call for investigation into CBC after journalist resigns over ‘performative diversity, tokenism’

2025/07/11 2 Comments

Interesting that Dhanraj represented by right leaning activist lawyer Marshall:

The Conservative party is calling for a parliamentary committee to investigate the CBC after journalist Travis Dhanraj resigned over the public broadcaster’s alleged “performative diversity, tokenism, a system designed to elevate certain voices and diminish others.”

Dhanraj was the host of Canada Tonight: With Travis Dhanraj on CBC. But he resigned on Monday, involuntarily, he says, because the CBC “has made it impossible for me to continue my work with integrity.”

“I have been systematically sidelined, retaliated against, and denied the editorial access and institutional support necessary to fulfill my public service role,” he wrote in his resignation letter. “I stayed as long as I could, but CBC leadership left me with no reasonable path forward.”

On Wednesday, Rachel Thomas, an Alberta Conservative member of Parliament, wrote a letter to the chair of the House of Commons standing committee on Canadian heritage, saying that Dhanraj’s claims have “reignited concerns about the organization’s workplace culture.”

The letter calls on the chair, Ontario Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner, to recall the committee.

“It is critical that we hear testimony from Mr. Dhanraj, CBC executives and Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Steven Guilbeault,” the letter states.

Kathryn Marshall, Dhanraj’s lawyer, told National Post in an interview that they welcome the attempt to recall the committee for hearings….

Source: Conservatives call for investigation into CBC after journalist resigns over ‘performative diversity, tokenism’

Filed under bias, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Musk’s A.I. tool has a hate problem

2025/07/10 Leave a comment

Not all that surprising, unfortunately:

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Grok, has been spreading antisemitic conspiracies — including that Jews promote hatred toward white people and control Hollywood. It also praised Adolf Hitler.

The posts came days after Musk boasted that Grok had improved “significantly.”
How it works: “Chatbots like Grok are based on large language models that comb through massive databases of online content to produce written answers to questions or prompts based on common responses it finds,” explains our Arno Rosenfeld. “But their creators can also instruct the models to respond in specific ways.”

Context: Musk performed what appeared to be a Nazi salute during an inaugural rally for Trump, and followed the incident with a series of Holocaust jokes on X, the social media platform he owns. In response to the rise in antisemitic and hateful content, many major Jewish organizations have left the site.

Fallout: The Anti-Defamation League called the posts — some of which have now been deleted — “irresponsible, dangerous and antisemitic.”

Source: Musk’s A.I. tool has a hate problem

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

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 ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →