Le Devoir Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

2025/12/06 Leave a comment

Valid critique of the union defending the undefendable:

…Il faut avoir le courage de revenir à la base : de quoi Bedford est-il le nom, au juste ?

Le scandale de Bedford, c’est d’abord le fait de profs qui ont refusé d’enseigner la science, la technologie ou l’éducation à la sexualité, ont rejeté le français comme langue d’usage, ont pratiqué le déni d’assistance et l’humiliation des élèves éprouvant des difficultés d’apprentissage, ont refusé de se plier au principe de l’égalité filles-garçons en classe, ont harcelé et intimidé leurs collègues et leurs directions, ont piétiné la laïcité.

C’est cela qu’on veut dans nos classes ? Car c’est bien ce dont il s’agit ici, ne le perdons pas de vue.

Il y a déjà eu un rapport — dévastateur — d’un psychologue industriel dépêché sur les lieux en 2021. Il y a eu une enquête de cinq mois — tout aussi dévastatrice — de la Direction générale des affaires internes, au fil de laquelle 70 personnes ont été rencontrées. Un plan d’action ambitieux. Surtout, il y a eu 11 comités d’enquête, un pour chaque prof pour éviter tout amalgame fortuit, raccourci de facilité ou contamination malheureuse, dont certains sont toujours en cours.

Même le politique a joué ses cartes sans tricher ni plastronner. On peut reprocher bien des choses au gouvernement Legault, qui a multiplié les bourdes et les reculs inacceptables en éducation. Reste que, dans cette affaire, ses deux ministres, M. Drainville d’abord, Mme LeBel ensuite, ont fait les choses dans l’ordre, sans pression indue.

Qu’est-ce que l’Alliance voudrait de plus ?

Hélas, elle n’en dit mot. Elle se réfugie derrière l’article 47.2 du Code du travail, qui l’oblige à défendre ses membres. Il est vrai que cet article la pousse rudement dans les câbles. Mais ce n’est pas un absolu : il arrive qu’un syndicat se range derrière des preuves accablantes. L’« opacité » qui la pousse aujourd’hui à se lever pour ce noyau dur est-elle fondée, solidement harnachée sur des faits et non sur des impressions montées en épingle ?

Il est permis d’en douter, d’autant que l’Alliance comme le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, d’ailleurs, n’auront pas spécialement brillé, allant jusqu’à renvoyer les plaintes des professeurs intimidés à leur délégué syndical… qui était lui-même membre de la clique contrôlant l’école Bedford.

Impossible de ne pas voir une dissonance dérangeante entre la fermeté d’un discours syndical qui refuse de faire son autocritique et la négation des besoins fondamentaux des plus vulnérables, une rengaine que le conflit à la Société de transport de Montréal (STM) a usée de triste manière.

À Bedford, des collègues professeurs et des patrons ont été intimidés des années durant. Surtout, des élèves ont été privés de leur droit le plus fondamental à une éducation de qualité dans un « milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire » exempt d’intimidation ou de violence. Car Bedford, c’est d’abord ça : un milieu détourné de sa mission première au détriment de ceux-là mêmes qui l’habitent. Et il faudrait que cela puisse encore être défendu ?

Source: Éditorial | De quoi Bedford est-il le nom?

… You need to have the courage to go back to the base: what is Bedford’s name, exactly?

The Bedford scandal is first of all the fact of teachers who refused to teach science, technology or sex education, rejected French as a language of use, practiced denial of assistance and humiliation of students experiencing learning difficulties, refused to comply with the principle of girl-boy equality in the classroom, harassed and intimidated their colleagues and their management, trampled on secularism.

Is that what we want in our classes? Because that’s what we’re talking about here, let’s not lose sight of it.

There has already been a report – devastating – of an industrial psychologist dispatched to the scene in 2021. There was a five-month – equally devastating – investigation by the Directorate-General for Internal Affairs, in the course of which 70 people were met. An ambitious action plan. Above all, there were 11 committees of inquiry, one for each teacher to avoid any fortuitous amalgamation, shortcut of ease or unfortunate contamination, some of which are still in progress.

Even the politician played his cards without cheating or cheating. We can blame many things on the Legault government, which has multiplied the blunders and unacceptable setbacks in education. However, in this case, his two ministers, Mr. Drainville first, Mrs. LeBel then, did things in order, without undue pressure.

What more would the Alliance want?

Alas, she doesn’t say a word. She takes refuge behind Article 47.2 of the Labor Code, which obliges her to defend her members. It is true that this article pushes her roughly through the cables. But this is not an absolute: sometimes a union ranks behind overwhelming evidence. Is the “opacity” that pushes it today to stand up for this hard core founded, solidly harnessed on facts and not on pin-mounted impressions?

It is permissible to doubt this, especially since the Alliance as well as the Centre de services scolaires de Montréal, moreover, will not have particularly shone, going so far as to return the complaints of intimidated teachers to their union delegate… who was himself a member of the clique controlling the Bedford school.

It is impossible not to see a disturbing dissonance between the firmness of a union discourse that refuses to make its self-criticism and the denial of the basic needs of the most vulnerable, a line that the conflict at the Société de transport de Montréal (STM) has worn out in a sad way.

In Bedford, fellow teachers and bosses have been bullied for years. Above all, students have been deprived of their most fundamental right to quality education in a “healthy and safe learning environment” free of bullying or violence. Because Bedford is first of all this: an environment diverted from its primary mission to the detriment of those who live there. And should it still be able to be defended?

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister, Michel David: Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Miller certainly provoked a firestorm in Quebec, and now being convened by the OL committee in Ottawa. Will see how this plays out but Miller was certainly the strongest Liberal immigration minister and started the sorely needed reductions in levels and other policies. And he’s right that decline in French spoken at home simply reflects immigrant mother tongues:

…But in the meantime, backed by Carney, Miller might have at least done something quite useful here just by calling attention to the fact that the French-language debate in Quebec is a festival of over-torqued hokum.

When a purebred oaf like Legault calls you a full-of-shit disgrace, chances are good you’re on the right track. Same goes for the Parti Québécois and its presumptive next premier of Quebec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who on Tuesday assailed Miller as “one of the architects of the greatest decline of French in recent Quebec history.”

That’s many bushels of bananas. It’s a whole shipping container-full. As not-very-successful former immigration Miller noted outside the cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Ottawa been more than happy to indulge Quebec politicians’ desire not just for language restrictions, but for ever-greater francophone immigration to Quebec.

Miller didn’t mention, but could have, that Quebec officialdom is now annoyed by many of these francophone immigrants because they insist on believing in their strange God. Miller could have mentioned, but did not, that if native-born Quebecers aren’t going to have a lot more babies, and if Quebec doesn’t want francophone immigrants from anywhere other than Metropolitan France — and only atheists, at that — then it really might be screwed in the long term.

But as I say, Miller didn’t say that. To my knowledge, Miller has never disputed that the “French fact” in Quebec has downside risks. Rather, as he said on Tuesday, he rejects the “dogma that some political parties want to impose claiming that French is in total decline.” I hope he doesn’t shut up about it, because he’s right, and people really need to hear it.

The “Louisianisation” narrative is garbage. Every four years the Census reports essentially flat numbers on knowledge and use of French in Quebec: In 2021, Statistics Canada found, 94 per cent of Quebecers said the they knew how to speak French; 78 per cent claimed French as their mother tongue (not that mother tongue should matter, if Quebec nationalism is civil rather than ethnic); 79 per cent said they spoke French most often at home; 85 per cent said they spoke French most often at work.

Needless to say, that’s nothing whatsoever like Louisiana. French isn’t even Louisiana’s first second language.

Miller’s crimes against Quebec’s idea of political correctness don’t end there. He has gone so far as to suggest the fact that he speaks Swedish at home with his wife (she’s Swedish; they didn’t just take it up as a hobby) has no negative knock-on effects with respect to the state of French in Quebec. And of course that’s true as well. You’re just not officially allowed to say it in Quebec, which is the only place in the developed world where multilingualism is seen officially (though of course never by officials with respect to their own children) as a bad thing.

Miller has also been sworn into cabinet, in the past, while holding both a Bible and a Koran — a symbol of solidarity with Muslims, he said, but also a double-whammy in a province whose politics is obsessed with both secularism and with the threat of Islam.

The Liberals’ Quebec blind spot is especially remarkable considering how reliable their electoral results in that province are. But if Miller wants to be the minister who shakes things up, speaks truth to nonsense, about the state of play in his home province, I think we should wish him Godspeed.

Source: Chris Selley: Marc Miller, renegade heritage minister

Michel David in Le Devoir:

…Il ne fait aucun doute que M. Miller aime sincèrement la langue française, qu’il parle admirablement, mais cela ressemble davantage à l’amour de l’esthète pour les beaux objets, qui ont l’avantage de se laisser admirer sans faire d’histoires. Le problème est que les histoires de langue sont au cœur de son nouveau mandat.

Le déclin du français au Québec a toujours été contesté au sein de la députation anglo-montréalaise du Parti libéral du Canada. La députée de Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, avait dû quitter le comité permanent des langues officielles pour l’avoir nié. Son collègue de Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, s’était opposé à la nouvelle version de la Loi sur les langues officielles, craignant plutôt pour les droits des anglophones du Québec.

Sans le nier, M. Miller met des bémols au déclin du français. Au recul de la proportion de ceux dont c’est la langue maternelle, parlée à la maison ou encore au travail, il oppose la hausse du pourcentage de ceux qui sont en mesure de le parler.

Un plus grand usage du français dans l’espace public n’exclut cependant pas la nécessité de maintenir une masse critique suffisante de francophones de souche pour assurer le développement d’une culture française, même si tout le monde reconnaît la richesse de l’apport des diverses communautés.

M. Miller fait valoir qu’il y a eu des progrès depuis l’adoption de la Charte de la langue française (1977). À ce compte, on pourrait répliquer à ceux qui n’ont pas accès à un médecin de famille que la situation s’est améliorée quand même depuis l’instauration du régime d’assurance maladie (1970).

La réaction du premier ministre Legault aux « conneries » de M. Miller, avec lequel il avait déjà un contentieux, a peut-être été excessive, mais la recrue de Mark Carney n’en a pas moins ruiné d’un coup les efforts du successeur de Justin Trudeau pour dissiper la fâcheuse impression que le Québec et le français ne l’intéressent pas.

Le ministre québécois de la Langue française, Jean-François Roberge, a manifestement compris que cela risquait aussi d’apporter de l’eau au moulin souverainiste. Sa réaction aux propos de M. Miller a été bien différente de celle de M. Legault. « Bien, c’est bon, s’il est tanné du déclin du français, il va nous aider à le régler […]. Le Canada, ce n’est pas facile tous les jours, mais on y arrive », a-t-il déclaré.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a d’abord réagi avec une modération inhabituelle, constatant simplement que M. Miller est « un gars qui a travaillé très fort contre le Québec dans plusieurs dossiers ». Quelques heures plus tard, son naturel belliqueux a repris le dessus, mais l’objet de sa colère était pour le moins étonnant.

Dénoncer, en disant avoir « honte », la « vacuité intellectuelle », « l’aplaventrisme » et la « déloyauté » d’une « partie substantielle » du milieu culturel québécois, dont les représentants ont salué la nomination de M. Miller, n’est certainement pas la meilleure façon de le rallier à la cause de l’indépendance.

Le chef du Parti québécois devrait prendre acte du fait que le Québec n’est pas encore souverain. Tant qu’ils envoient 40 % de leurs impôts à Ottawa, il ne faut pas s’étonner que les Québécois, y compris les artistes, cherchent à obtenir la part qui leur revient.

Source: Michel David | Miller, l’esthète «tanné»

There is no doubt that Mr. Miller sincerely loves the French language, which he speaks admirably, but it is more like the aesthete’s love for beautiful objects, which have the advantage of being admired without making a fuss. The problem is that language stories are at the heart of his new mandate.

The decline of French in Quebec has always been contested within the Anglo-Lonreal deputation of the Liberal Party of Canada. The MP of Saint-Laurent, Emmanuella Lambropoulos, had to leave the Standing Committee on Official Languages for denying it. His colleague from Mont-Royal, Anthony Housefather, had opposed the new version of the Official Languages Act, fearing instead for the rights of English speakers in Quebec.

Without denying it, Mr. Miller puts flats on the decline of French. To the decline in the proportion of those whose mother tongue is spoken at home or at work, it opposes the increase in the percentage of those who are able to speak it.

A greater use of French in public space, however, does not exclude the need to maintain a sufficient critical mass of native Francophones to ensure the development of a French culture, even if everyone recognizes the richness of the contribution of the various communities.

Mr. Miller argues that there has been progress since the adoption of the Charter of the French Language (1977). To this account, we could reply to those who do not have access to a family doctor that the situation has improved since the introduction of the health insurance plan (1970).

Prime Minister Legault’s reaction to Mr. Miller, with whom he already had a dispute, may have been excessive, but Mark Carney’s recruit has nevertheless ruined Justin Trudeau’s successor’s efforts to dispel the unfortunate impression that Quebec and France are not interested in him.

The Quebec Minister of the French Language, Jean-François Roberge, clearly understood that this also risked bringing water to the sovereignist mill. His reaction to the words of Mr. Miller was very different from Mr. Legault “Well, it’s good, if he is tanned by the decline of French, he will help us settle it […]. Canada is not easy every day, but we can do it,” he said.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon initially reacted with unusual moderation, simply noting that Mr. Miller is “a guy who has worked very hard against Quebec in several cases”. A few hours later, his warlike naturalness took over, but the object of his anger was surprising to say the least.

Denounce, by saying that they have “shame”, the “intellectual emptiness”, “aplantrism” and “disloyalty” of a “substantial part” of the Quebec cultural community, whose representatives welcomed the appointment of Mr. Miller, is certainly not the best way to rally him to the cause of independence.

The leader of the Parti Québécois should take note of the fact that Quebec is not yet sovereign. As long as they send 40% of their taxes to Ottawa, it is not surprising that Quebecers, including artists, are looking to get their share.

In La Presse, Déclin du français Marc Miller devra s’expliquer devant le comité des Langues officielles

La motion, adoptée jeudi à l’unanimité par les membres du comité, exhorte le ministre Miller à « témoigner pour une période de deux heures concernant sa position sur le déclin du français au Canada, incluant au Québec » au plus tard le 12 février. 

L’adoption de cette motion fait suite aux propos tenus mardi par le ministre Miller, qui s’est dit « assez tanné » du débat public entourant le déclin du français, le qualifiant de « généralement identitaire et électoraliste ».  

Le ministre Miller était déjà attendu jeudi devant le Comité permanent des langues officielles pour répondre aux questions entourant l’étude sur l’usage du français par le premier ministre Mark Carney, mais M. Miller n’était pas autour de la table lors de la rencontre, à la grande surprise du député conservateur Joël Godin.

The motion, adopted unanimously on Thursday by the members of the committee, urges Minister Miller to “testify for a period of two hours regarding his position on the decline of French in Canada, including Quebec” no later than February 12.
The adoption of this motion follows the remarks made on Tuesday by Minister Miller, who said he was “quite tanned” with the public debate surrounding the decline of French, describing it as “generally identity and electoralist”.
Minister Miller was already expected Thursday before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to answer questions surrounding the study on the use of French by Prime Minister Mark Carney, but Mr. Miller was not around the table during the meeting, much to the surprise of Conservative MP Joël Godin.



Filed under Interculturalisme, Language, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Levitt: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

2025/12/05 Leave a comment

More such conversations needed.

…Recently, I had the pleasure, along with 1,600 people, of listening to two leading commentators share their insight on current issues. NYU’s Scott Galloway and CNN’s Van Jones were the keynote speakers at an event in Toronto hosted by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the human rights organization I head. At a time of widespread antisemitism, high-profile pundits — non-Jewish and Jewish, like these respected American observers — addressing this scourge is more vital than ever.

In this limited space, it’s hard to do full justice to the hour-long discussion, moderated by Canadian journalist Steve Paikin, but the following two excerpts give a sense of the thought-provoking conversation.

Responding to Paikin’s question about whether the U.S. is facing the prospect of a civil war, Jones, a prominent Black political analyst, gave a sobering perspective.

“We are being torn apart by a couple of different factors,” he said. “The most important one is that social media companies have decided to make a bunch of money off of dividing people and now they’re waging a shadow war, a grey war, against the West, primarily on TikTok, and they’ve come up with a novel strategy, never before heard of, called ‘Blame the Jews.’

“This is brand new,” he added caustically, “and unfortunately people are stupid enough to fall for it. I keep telling people that blaming the Jews isn’t the oldest trick in the book, blaming the Jews is literally older than books … Whenever they attack Jews, it’s never about the Jews. It’s always some other thing going on. Why are they picking on the Jews? It’s always because it’s another agenda. And so there’s this very nefarious agenda to divide the West, to divide us, to have us turn on each other rather than turn to each other and one of the ramifications of that is this uncivil war in our country.”

For his part, Galloway, a bestselling Jewish author, professor and entrepreneur, was equally astute. Asked why so many U.S. universities had become cauldrons of hate, targeting especially Jewish students, he didn’t mince words.

“A lot of the fault lies with campus leadership,” he said. “In trying to come to grips with American history, unfortunately, we’ve created the very reductive construct of the oppressed and the oppressor. Figure out who you are based on your identity and that categorizes you as the oppressor or the oppressed. What we’ve done is we’ve basically trained a generation [to think] that you’re one or the other. The most reductive or lazy way of thinking for identifying an oppressor, which we’ve taught kids on campus, is that your level of oppression is directly correlated to how rich and white you are. And unfortunately, Jews have been conflated with the richest, whitest people in the world.”

Referring to the anti-Israel encampments on campus, which often openly and enthusiastically embraced antisemitism, he added:

“If I went down to the square at NYU and I said, ‘Burn the gays!” or ‘Lynch the Blacks!’ my academic career would be over by the close of business that day. There would be no need for [discussing] ‘context.’ We wouldn’t be talking about the First Amendment. My career would be over. It became clear to me that on campuses through a series of well-intentioned teachings that went too far, it ended up where free speech never became freer as long as it was hate speech against Jews.”

Long may the insightful voices of Jones and Galloway resonate far and wide. We need more like them speaking out candidly and people giving them the attention they deserve.

Source: At a time of widespread antisemitism, thoughtful conversations are vital

Filed under Antisemitism, Interculturalisme, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

StatsCan: Racialized Persons with Disabilities

2025/12/05 2 Comments

Good infographic highlighting the similarities and differences between visible minorities and not visible minorities.

Findings that I found of interest:

  • Racialized minorities more likely to have sensory disabilities and less likely to have mental health-related disabilities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities were less likely to live alone than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Racialized persons with disabilities aged 65 years and over were more likely to receive help with daily activities than their non-racialized counterparts;
  • Similar proportions of racialized and non-racialized persons with disabilities reported feeling lonely

Infographic like: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2025051-eng.pdf?st=-P0yrkeu

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Khan: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

Valid issue but nuclear option more theoretical than practical:

…Is it time for the nuclear option to be met by a thermonuclear one? Some have urged the federal government to see the provinces’ notwithstanding clause and raise them disallowance – the federal power to nullify a provincial law deemed unjust. And Senator Peter Harder has tabled Bill S-218, which places guardrails on the use of the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, including prohibiting pre-emptive use. 

A Charter statement must accompany an infringing bill which indicates which rights are infringed, the potential effects of the bill, and why Section 1 of the Charter cannot be used instead. Section 1 allows for reasonable limits on rights. There must be full debate. Finally, a super-majority in the House is required for passage.

Bill S-218 has sparked interest at the provincial level. Manitoba’s government has tabled legislation that would require full judicial scrutiny of any future government use of the clause, making sure the public is fully informed of a court’s inquiry. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew vows his government will never use it: “The reason is simple – because we respect human rights as they are articulated in the Charter.” 

If only other premiers were so respectful of Canadians’ rights.

Source: The notwithstanding clause has unleashed a runaway train

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

2025/12/03 Leave a comment

Arguably not needed given existing laws but recent occupations, obstructions, demonstrations supporting Palestinians have veered into explicit antisemitism and harassment of Jewish communities. The exemption should not be akin to a “get out of jail” card:

Opposition Conservatives say a deal between the governing Liberals and the Bloc Québécois to remove a religious exemption from Canada’s hate-speech laws, in exchange for passing a bill targeting hate and terror symbols, is an “assault” on freedom of speech and religion….

The Conservatives on Monday slammed the removal of that exemption as an attack on freedom of religion and of free speech, with the party quickly putting together a petition, which was circulated by its Members of Parliament.

“Liberal-Bloc amendments to C-9 will criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts,” Poilievre wrote on social media. “Conservatives will oppose this latest Liberal assault on freedom of expression and religion.”

Conservative Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner called on all other parties to oppose the amendment.

“I think it’s an unabashed attack on religious freedom,” Rempel Garner said.

Ontario MP Marilyn Glaudu, who serves as the Conservative critic for civil liberties, in a video on X, said the proposed change amounted to an “attack on people of faith.”

Fortin, the Bloc MP, agreed that the change will curb freedom of expression. However, he argued there must be limits on speech that propagates hate.

“I think this freedom of expression needs to be limited. You’re free to do what you want until you start harming others,” he said.

The bill itself seeks to create new offences around the intimidation and obstruction of sites used by an identifiable group, such as a religious or cultural centre, as well as make it a crime to promote hate by displaying hate symbols like a swastika, or those linked to listed terrorist entities.

The proposed amendments come amid widespread criticism about the Liberals’ bill, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council calling for it to be withdrawn, along with dozens of advocacy groups. Critics warn that the new offences create the risk of police cracking down on lawful protests, and could lead to a targeting of Muslim and other racialized groups.

When it comes to the proposed removal of religious defences from hate speech laws, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA’s fundamental freedoms program, said it raises concerns.

She pointed to how that defence is only available to criminal law dealing specifically with the wilful promotion of hatred and no other offence, even speech-related ones, such as public incitement to hatred, or uttering threats.

“The speech that needs to be criminalized in Canada is already criminalized, and there is no religious exemption applying to that,” she said.

She said the association has for years held concerns around the provision, targeting “the wilful promotion of hatred,” given how broadly it can be applied.

“The concept of hatred is subjective,” she told National Post in an interview on Monday, “so we are always worried about risks of abuse and censorship of unpopular or offensive opinions through this provision. So we fear that removing this religious exemption might gradually erode the protections and increase the scope of this provision.”

Steven Zhou, spokesman for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said in a statement on Monday that it was “gravely concerned and surprised” about the reported deal to remove the exemption for religious beliefs, saying that doing so “opens the door to a deeply troubling censorship regime.”

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

“It is a significant change to the law, and one that was not previously the subject of a great deal of discussion or debate by Parliament,” Ross said on Monday. “We hope that further consideration is given before such a move is made.”

As part of the deal with the Bloc, the Liberals are also expected to back off plans to eliminate the need for a provincial attorney general’s sign-off to pursue a hate-propaganda prosecution. The move will likely be supported by both the Bloc and Conservatives.

Fortin, Bussières McNicoll and Al-Qazzaz all said they agreed with maintaining the additional check and balance before charges are laid, which could have a cooling effect on freedom of expression.

Quebec’s Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, who has called on the federal government for years to remove the religious exemption defence, celebrated the deal between Liberals and Bloc on social media.

Source: Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

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

Girard | Une laïcité sagement bonifiée, A wisely improved secularism

2025/12/03 Leave a comment

Positive and comprehensive assessment from a former director of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (I would disagree with the “wisely” as it over simplifies the lived experiences of women):

…En droit québécois et en droit canadien, la dignité humaine est aussi protégée. Les dispositions du PL 9 concernant les vêtements religieux qui couvrent le visage semblent donc aussi conformes aux Chartes.

En plus d’être légitimes, les principales propositions du PL 9 bonifient le modèle de laïcité de l’État choisi par le Québec pour assurer sa neutralité religieuse. Cela est d’autant plus important que la laïcité de l’État est une des conditionssine qua non pour mettre fin aux inégalités qui touchent les femmes telles qu’elles sont promues par les grandes religions monothéistes. En s’assurant de la neutralité religieuse de l’État, la laïcité protège certains lieux publics de l’influence des pratiques religieuses sexistes auprès de ses citoyens.

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

Source: Idées | Une laïcité sagement bonifiée

… In Quebec law and Canadian law, human dignity is also protected. The provisions of PL 9 concerning religious clothing that covers the face therefore also appear to be in accordance with the Charters.

In addition to being legitimate, the main proposals of PL 9 improve the state’s model of secularism chosen by Quebec to ensure its religious neutrality. This is all the more important as the secularism of the State is one of the qua non conditions to end the inequalities that affect women as they are promoted by major monotheistic religions. By ensuring the religious neutrality of the state, secularism protects certain public places from the influence of sexist religious practices among its citizens.

The author is a retired member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under Interculturalisme, laicité, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

ICYMI – Jamie Sarkonak: The CRTC’s top-down diversity mandate comes for Big Streaming ICYMI

2025/12/03 2 Comments

While some like Sarkonak find this ill-thought, there is a history behind these initiatives as many government programs overly favoured previous beneficiaries or incumbents rather than ensuring better representation. And having good or better data is a basic (the Employment Equity Act relative success is arguably largely based on public diversity reporting:

…In addition, the Broadcasting Act now states that the broadcasting system should support programming created by and for non-white communities. While it didn’t outright state that quotas and demographic tracking were now required, that’s increasingly how it’s being interpreted.

In its decision to mandate the collection of diversity statistics, the CRTC notes that some television and radio broadcasters are currently required to include statistics on the presence of women in “key production roles” and track spending on content by Indigenous and official language minority producers.

It considers those data collection initiatives a success, and thus, “the Commission is of the view that the report lends itself well to be expanded to gather information on all equity-deserving groups (specifically, racialized people, people with disabilities and individuals who identify as 2SLGBTQI+, in addition to women).”

Big online streamers operating in Canada under this new regime will have to submit these diversity statistics as part of this. The current lack of data, the CRTC complained, “results in a partial picture of production spending and representation of equity-deserving groups in the production sector.” That information is important because it helps to “monitor compliance and trends and to ensure policy goals are met, especially when it comes to representation of equity-deserving groups.”

We aren’t at the point where the CRTC is ordering Netflix, HBO and Paramount+ to spend a minimum proportion of their production budgets on “diverse” shows and production teams, but we’re awfully close. In 2022, the CRTC ordered the CBC to do just that with its budget for commissioned TV and documentary programs. This year, the English side of CBC was required to dedicate 30 per cent of spending in that category to “diverse” production teams.

Last year, the CRTC also announced that it would be taking a five per cent cut from online streamers to redistribute to industry groups in Canada whose missions include the advancement of DEI in broadcasting. And in July, the CRTC tweaked its funding formula for online news to incentivize coverage of “diverse” communities….

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: The CRTC’s top-down diversity mandate comes for Big Streaming

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Allen: This was just the latest attempt to silence Palestinian voices in Canada. But these stories should be heard

2025/12/02 Leave a comment

Agree:

The recent attack by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) on the Canadian Museum for Human Rights for daring to include an exhibit on the Palestinian Nakba is the latest attempt to suppress the Palestinian narrative in Canada. It follows B’nai Brith Canada’s effort to prevent the Palestinian flag from being raised at Toronto City Hall, even though Canada recently recognized Palestine as a state. This turned a peaceful, one-day gesture of pride for Palestinians into a political storm that served only to sow further divisions between Jews and Palestinians at time when polarization is already at an all-time high.

These are not isolated incidents but rather they reflect a pattern in which mainstream Jewish organizations exert pressure on institutions and community leaders to silence Palestinians and those who support them.

The Jewish community in Canada is absolutely entitled to safety, dignity, and protection of its rights. They marched in celebration of Israel’s independence and to remember the victims of Oct. 7. This was important for the community. Why then should anyone object to the desire of Palestinians in Canada to tell their story?

…Canada must not allow itself to become a place where human rights institutions are bullied into erasing Palestinian history, or where gestures of inclusion are treated as existential threats. Museums must be free to tell the truth. Cities must be free to recognize the communities who live in them. Canadians must be free to hear every side of a story without intimidation.

Silencing Palestinians will not bring safety. It will not prevent antisemitism. It will not produce justice. Demanding equality and dignity for one group cannot come at the expense of another.

Let the museum speak. Let the flag fly. And let Palestinians — and all who stand with them — be heard.

Source: Opinion | This was just the latest attempt to silence Palestinian voices in Canada. But these stories should be heard

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Liberal deal with Bloc means hate-speech laws will lose exemption for ‘sincerely held’ religious belief

2025/12/02 Leave a comment

This will create considerable debate and will likely lead to court challenges. A good faith or “sincerely held” clause should not be a “get out of jail” card, but in the end, it will depend on context and specifics, and would to extreme religious extremists and positions:

The Liberals have agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate-speech laws to secure Bloc Québécois support to help pass its bill targeting hate and terror symbols, National Post has learned through a source close to the talks.

Currently, the law exempts hateful or antisemitic speech if it based in good faith on the interpretation of a religious text, but that immunity is set to be removed. Additionally, the Liberals are expected to back off plans to eliminate the need for a provincial attorney general’s sign-off to pursue a hate-propaganda prosecution.

The removal of the religious exemption is expected to come via an amendment to the Criminal Code in the form of Bill C-9 at the parliamentary justice committee that will be supported by both the Liberals and Bloc, a senior government source confirmed.

The source was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss party negotiations publicly.

“We do have Bloc partnership,” the source said. “The bill is in a place now, even with those Bloc amendments, that everyone is happy,” they added in reference to Liberal and Bloc MPs.

Bill C-9, which fulfilled a campaign promise Prime Minister Mark Carney made during the spring election, was his minority government’s first major justice bill introduced earlier this fall by Justice Minister Sean Fraser.

It seeks multiple changes to the Criminal Code to confront the issue of hate, with the Liberals citing a rise in police-reported incidents in recent years, particularly in the wake of sustained anti-Israel protests over the last two years.

Chief among the proposed changes is creating a new offence for intimidating someone to the point of blocking their access to a place of worship or another centre used by an identifiable group, as well as criminalizing the act of promoting hate by displaying a hate or terror symbol, such as one tied to a listed terrorist organization or a swastika.

The Opposition Conservatives have lambasted the current effort as censorship, saying provisions already exist within criminal law to counter hate, and that the bill’s proposal to remove the requirement for a provincial attorney general’s (AG) consent to lay a hate propaganda charge took away an “important safeguard,” according to the party.

The Liberals are now expected to accept another amendment eliminating that change from the bill entirely. That, too, was a Bloc request.

When the bill was first presented back in September, the Liberals argued that removing the AG requirement would help streamline the process of laying hate propaganda charges, while critics said it was an additional check on a charge with serious implications for free speech.

Once the amendments are passed, the Liberals and Bloc are expected to vote the bill through committee and the House of Commons. However, it is unclear when the justice committee will debate clause-by-clause amendments to the bill.

The House is scheduled to rise on Dec. 12.

The original text of the bill did not contain changes to the existing religious defences for hate speech, but the Bloc has consistently raised the need for it to be addressed.

Currently, Section 319 of the Criminal Code contains an exemption stating no person shall be convicted of promoting hateful or antisemitic speech if they expressed “in good faith” an opinion “based on a belief in a religious text.”…

Source: Liberal deal with Bloc means hate-speech laws will lose exemption for ‘sincerely held’ religious belief

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →