Urback: A wedge has emerged on religious freedom. Pierre Poilievre is on the right side of it

2025/04/11 Leave a comment

Someone needs to ask Poilievre regarding the niqab to see if his approach applies arguably to more extreme attire, where public opinion is more opposed:

….Mr. Poilievre has been clear about his opposition to Bill 21 since he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2022. And to his credit, he said the same thing, in French, just last week during Radio-Canada’s Cinq chefs, une élection program. “We shouldn’t have a state that forces people to wear or not wear something,” he said. When pressed by one of the interviewers on whether that should include people in positions of authority, he noted that a member of the RCMP that has been assigned to protect his family wears a turban. “He’s ready to save my life. He’s ready to save my children’s lives by giving his. Am I going to say that he shouldn’t have a job because he wears a turban? I don’t agree.”

Few outside of Quebec took note of Mr. Poilievre’s response, with the exception of one particular network: the Punjabi edition of OMNI Television. In a subsequent one-on-one interview, the reporter asked Mr. Poilievre a similar question, to which he gave a nearly identical response. “I don’t think the government should tell people what clothing to wear,” he added.

Mr. Carney, by contrast, has declined to say anything of substance on the law. When asked earlier this month what he thinks of expanding Bill 21 to include volunteers and whether he thinks the law is discriminatory, he replied in French, “I don’t have an opinion on that.” The question for him, he said, is about the government’s pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause as it relates to Bill 21. It’s about as safe a response as one can muster considering the remarkable wave of support Mr. Carney is currently riding in Quebec.

There is a path to electoral success for Mr. Poilievre outside of Quebec (though it would help if the Bloc could regain some of the support it’s been bleeding to the Liberals), as demonstrated by the Harper Conservatives in 2011. The Harper government, however, had the incumbent advantage in that election, and it succeeded in part because of the skilled and co-ordinated outreach to immigrant communities led by Jason Kenney, who had been minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism.

Mr. Poilievre’s defence of religious freedom will resonate in areas such as Brampton and Mississauga, which contain some of the most ethnically and religiously diverse federal ridings in Canada, but at the moment, the Liberals are projected to sweep much of the region. These areas are accessible, though; they are Progressive Conservative ridings provincially, and did vote Conservative in the 2011 election, which, granted, was a political lifetime ago. It will take more than one story about Mr. Poilievre’s personal RCMP detail, obviously, and it would be ignorant to presume that voters in the region would swing over just one issue, but this is one particular wedge that carries with it deep meaning for millions of people across Canada. And it just so happens that Mr. Poilievre is on the right side of it.

Source: A wedge has emerged on religious freedom. Pierre Poilievre is on the right side of it

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Christian nationalism is rising. So is the Christian resistance

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Of interest. Not quite Gillead but alarming nevertheless:

Amanda Tyler didn’t need President Donald Trump to tell her that Christian nationalism was on the rise. She had seen it reshape churches, rewrite textbooks and realign politics.

But when Trump took the podium last month for his second inaugural address, claiming divine intervention in the assassination attempt — “I was saved by God to make America great again” — she saw something even more unsettling.

The standing ovation.

It wasn’t just applause for a president. It was a moment of ecclesiastical fervor, a collective confirmation that America had not just an elected leader, but an anointed one.

Tyler, a lifelong Baptist and executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, was unsettled but unsurprised. She is leading a growing movement within Christianity that is resisting Christian nationalism — not from the outside, but from inside the church itself. “We’re disgusted to see our faith being used to justify discriminatory policies of all kinds,” Tyler said in an hour-long phone conversation.

A fight from within

Christian nationalism — the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed accordingly — has always been woven into the country’s DNA. But in recent years, it has moved from the margins to the mainstream, carried by Trump’s presidency and a base that sees his political survival as divinely ordained.

For decades, opposition to Christian nationalism came mostly from secular organizations, civil rights groups and religious minorities. Now, Christians themselves are leading the charge.

Across denominations — Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and even conservative evangelicals — a coalition of faith leaders is pushing back against a movement they believe is not just a political threat, but a theological one. They argue that Christian nationalism doesn’t just corrupt democracy — it corrupts Christianity.

Tyler’s campaign, Christians Against Christian Nationalism, has drawn over 40,000 signatories, many from churches that once considered themselves apolitical. Her position, she believes, carries unique weight. “Our Jewish and Muslim colleagues tell us, ‘You can speak with more authority on how Christian nationalism is not reflective of Christianity.’”

For Tyler, 47, the fight is also personal. She is married to a Jewish man, and together they are raising their son in an interfaith household. “I feel a different sense of vulnerability for them than I do for myself,” she said.

That vulnerability has been heightened by the growing push to codify Christian nationalist ideas into law. She has seen firsthand how Christian privilege manifests in ways that marginalize others. “It’s a form of othering,” she said, pointing to the fact that public schools close for Christian holidays but not for Jewish or Muslim ones.

Texas as a test case

The push to codify Christian nationalism into law is accelerating. Texas, where Tyler lives and fights these battles daily, has become a proving ground.

In 2021, the state passed a law requiring public schools to display donated “In God We Trust” posters. Two years later, lawmakers approved unlicensed religious chaplains to counsel students.

Now, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants to mandate the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a proposal modeled after a Louisiana law that has already been blocked in federal court. In Oklahoma, parents are suing the state superintendent — the son of a Christian minister — for ordering schools to teach the Bible.

Last fall, Tyler joined Jewish community leaders to challenge the Texas State Board of Education’s decision to infuse Bible lessons into subjects as varied as math and poetry with their Bluebonnet curriculum. The board approved Bluebonnet by a single vote.

Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has seen these battles escalate. “If the public school can play religious favorites,” he said, “then my tradition might benefit this week and be demonized next week.”

Chancey, a United Methodist who also works with Christians Against Christian Nationalism, added: “Christians differ theologically among themselves. The schools might not teach the Bible stories the way that parents would like.”

From the pulpit to the White House

The movement is no longer just shaping school curriculums — it is influencing federal priorities.

A 2023 poll found that 52% of Americans who attend religious services weekly either identify as Christian nationalists or sympathize with the movement; a separate survey the year before showed 45% think the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Now, with Trump’s return to power, those numbers aren’t just statistics — they are a governing blueprint.

The ideological framework for much of this agenda is detailed in Project 2025, a conservative guidebook that overlaps significantly with Christian nationalist priorities. It calls for aggressive immigration crackdowns, the rollback of LGBTQ+ rights, bans on abortion and pornography. These policies are designed to enshrine biblical principles and a particular moral order into law.

Several high-profile lawmakers have openly embraced Christian nationalism. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene wear the label proudly. House Speaker Mike Johnson promotes many of its tenets. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s new Secretary of Defense, sports tattoos inspired by the Christian Crusades — the medieval wars against Muslims.

Jesus as ‘political mascot’

The belief that America was divinely chosen has deep roots. Political leaders in the early 1800s mythologized the Founding Fathers as quasi-prophetic figures, with George Washington often recast as a Moses-like prophet. During the Cold War, as the United States sought to distinguish itself from the “godless” Soviet Union, Congress added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and declared “In God We Trust” the national motto.

But this moment feels different for Tyler. She believes Christian nationalism now poses an existential threat to American democracy itself. She argues that it undermines pluralism and twists religion into a tool of power. “It’s a gross distortion of the teachings of Jesus,” she said. “Jesus was all about love — loving our neighbors, loving everyone without regard to difference. Christian nationalism takes Jesus and turns him into a political mascot.”

Despite being the dominant religious group in the country — 68% of Americans who identify with a religion are Christian, as have been all 45 U.S. presidents — Christian nationalists insist they are under attack as an embattled minority.

“It isn’t logically consistent,” Tyler said, exasperated. “One can’t both be a majority faith in the country and also be a persecuted minority.”

A test for religious freedom

Now, that belief in persecution is shaping federal policy. This month, Trump announced a new federal task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias,” led by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Critics say the initiative is more about advancing Christian nationalism than protecting religious freedom.

“If Trump really cared about religious liberty,” said Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “he’d be addressing antisemitism in his inner circle, anti-Muslim bigotry, and hate crimes against religious minorities.”

Tyler, meanwhile, sees the political contradictions. “I’m concerned about how this task force could be weaponized to enforce a particular religious viewpoint by the government,” she said. She finds it hypocritical that this initiative is happening at the same time the administration is dismantling DEI offices, under the guise of eliminating bias.

A test of church and state separation

For many, opposing Christian nationalism is not just a political stance — it is a theological necessity. Tyler knows that many American Christians see no contradiction between their faith and politics. That’s why she tries to meet them with empathy.

“It’s important to resist and reject Christian nationalism as an ideology,” she said, “without demonizing individuals who hold to some of its principles.”

She sees her new book, How to End Christian Nationalism, as both an extension of her faith and a call to action. The founders, she argues, got it right. “The best arrangement, the arrangement that they chose, was to disestablish religion,” she said. “To be sure that the government would not take sides when it comes to picking between religions, or even picking religion over no religion.”

As Trump embarks on his second term, Tyler believes the next four years will test the strength of the separation of church and state. “I think all Americans, regardless of religious belief, should defend free speech and freedom of religion in these moments,” she said. “But also religious leaders and communities really need to have the courage to continue to speak from their traditions, including when it’s unpopular or challenging of power.”

Source: Christian nationalism is rising. So is the Christian resistance

Filed under Religion Tagged with , , , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec [laïcité in education]

2025/02/19 Leave a comment

Legitimate concerns regarding Bedford and the influence of more fundamentalist Muslim educators:

L’école Bedford nous a offert un concentré des dangers qui guettent l’école québécoise : déni de laïcité, refus de l’égalité hommes-femmes, gouvernance scolaire anémiée, mépris des besoins particuliers de certains élèves et incompétence pédagogique. Ce quintette délétère est au cœur du plan d’action rendu public vendredi. Les experts Jean-Pierre Aubin et Malika Habel invitent le gouvernement Legault à faire de Bedford l’aiguillon d’une réforme qui dépasse les frontières de cette école prise en otage par un clan dominant d’enseignants d’origine principalement maghrébine.

Leur ambition est justifiée. Un si grand mal ne saurait s’accommoder d’une réponse simpliste. Même s’il constitue un cas atypique tant par sa gravité que par son intensité, Bedford n’est pas un cas unique, comme en témoignent la poignée d’enquêtes ouvertes dans la foulée de la mise au jour du scandale, et alors que 11 de ses professeurs sont toujours en examen, avec plein salaire. Cela en fait au contraire le laboratoire idéal pour tester les limites des leviers prévus à la Loi sur l’instruction publique (LIP).

Si on arrive à Bedford à faire en sorte de clarifier une fois pour toutes la différence « entre discipline et violence », entre « bienveillance et laxisme », entre « difficultés d’apprentissage et paresse intellectuelle », comme le prescrivent les deux experts, c’est qu’on sera en mesure de faire de même partout au Québec. Qui s’élèverait contre cet objectif à l’heure où l’école connaît une telle crise de confiance ?

L’accent a été largement mis sur la proposition de soumettre l’ensemble des enseignants québécois à une évaluation de leurs compétences tous les deux ans. À raison, c’est l’épine dorsale de ce plan, qui cherche à rétablir les équilibres délicats entre la nécessaire préservation de l’autonomie professionnelle de l’enseignant et l’indispensable assurance de sa responsabilisation.

De telles évaluations sont courantes dans la plupart des milieux de travail. Pour les parents comme pour les élèves, cette mesure fait miroiter la promesse d’un programme enfin suivi à la lettre et d’un climat en classe conforme aux attentes. Pour les enseignants eux-mêmes, elle ouvre la porte à une uniformisation des pratiques professionnelles, ce qui évitera, par effet de domino, qu’une majorité ait à souffrir les guerres de chapelle que des groupes minoritaires voudraient leur imposer, comme ce fut le cas à Bedford.

Bien accueillie par le ministre de l’Éducation comme par le Centre de services scolaire de Montréal, la mesure, et plus largement le plan d’action qui l’encourage, a suscité quelques réticences, notamment de la part de la Centrale des syndicats du Québec (CSQ), qui s’élève contre l’imposition généralisée de solutions forgées sur mesure pour Bedford. À ses yeux, les leviers législatifs existants sont suffisants pour superviser et évaluer adéquatement le travail des enseignants. Si cela n’a pas été fait à Bedford — et si ce n’est pas toujours fait ailleurs, comprend-on entre les lignes —, c’est « faute de temps et de ressources », argue la CSQ.

Il est vrai que la pénurie de personnel et les compressions dans les services aux élèves mettent en péril la qualité éducative du réseau. Le ministre de l’Éducation aurait tort de s’imaginer qu’il peut effacer ces facteurs fragilisants de l’équation. Mais ce que conclut le rapport d’enquête comme le plan d’action, c’est qu’il est aussi trop facile pour les directions d’écoles de passer outre aux leviers législatifs actuels, que ce soit par manque de temps, faute de conviction ou même sous la pression d’un corporatisme malavisé.

C’est pourquoi vouloir mettre les écoles à l’abri de dérives comme celles qui ont permis l’instauration d’un climat de peur et d’intimidation à Bedford passe par un dépoussiérage législatif, défendent les deux experts. Ceux-ci prescrivent notamment l’ajout d’une clarification des concepts de culture et de religion dans la loi. Partisans d’une ligne franche, ils recommandent d’y inscrire noir sur blanc que l’école doit être préservée de toute manifestation du fait religieux, pendant et après les classes. Ils suggèrent aussi d’évaluer la possibilité d’y intégrer l’obligation de parler français dans tous les espaces susceptibles d’être fréquentés par les élèves.

Ce faisant, le duo fait preuve d’une bonne dose de courage en affirmant sans détour ce que plusieurs, y compris des intervenants en éducation, se refusent à reconnaître. À savoir que les leviers prévus dans la LIP ne suffisent plus, dans le contexte explosif de 2025, à offrir aux élèves un milieu d’apprentissage sain et sécuritaire à l’abri de toute forme d’intimidation ou de violence.

Ce plan, qui s’accompagne d’un projet pilote pour en tester les grandes lignes, compte, en plus de ses impératifs législatifs costauds, des appétits financiers qui risquent de poser de grands défis au ministre. Bernard Drainville jongle déjà avec la « discipline » prescrite par le ministre des Finances pour affronter un contexte budgétaire jugé difficile, sinon sombre. Il ne faudrait pas que cette ligne dure ait le dessus sur un dépoussiérage dont on ne devrait pas faire l’économie pour les élèves du Québec.

Source: Éditorial | Un laboratoire pour le Québec

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

While definitions, preferably robust, are helpful, not sure the degree to which they “stem the tide of hate.” This definition, while generally helpful, sidesteps issues when religious or ethnic cultures conflict with what most would consider fundamental human rights:

…The criteria proposed by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia(CBMI) provide a valuable framework for distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamophobic discourse. These criteria address key dimensions that help us assess the nature and intent behind the critique. These dimensions are organised into eight key areas:

  • Monolithic versus diverse: Legitimate criticism acknowledges the diversity of thought and practice within Islam, avoiding generalisations. Islamophobia, on the other hand, often portrays Islam as monolithic and static.
  • Other versus interdependent: Legitimate critique recognises that Islam is part of a complex, interconnected world; whereas Islamophobia often portrays Islam as separate, “other” and irreconcilable with Western societies.
  • Inferior versus different but equal: Legitimate criticism considers different cultures as equal and different. Islamophobia, on the other hand, positions Islam as inferior to other cultures and religions.
  • Aggressive enemy versus cooperative partner: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some elements of some Islamic traditions may be problematic while still recognising that Muslims as a community are generally peaceful. Islamophobia paints Islam and Muslims as fundamentally aggressive and hostile.
  • Manipulative versus sincere: Legitimate criticism acknowledges that some people use any religious tradition for personal and political gains, but does not to assume that all adherents of those traditions are dishonest. Islamophobia assumes that all Muslims are manipulative or insincere in their beliefs and practices.
  • Rejection versus reciprocal exchange and critique: Legitimate criticism must be open to engaging with and debating Muslim criticisms of Western societies. Islamophobia often dismisses Muslim voices altogether.
  • Defending discrimination versus its opposition: Legitimate criticism would oppose all forms of discrimination — including those directed at Muslims. Islamophobia defends or ignores discriminatory behaviour against Muslims.
  • Rational criticism versus problematic anti-Muslim discourse: Legitimate criticism recognises that criticism of ideas is one thing, but anti-Muslim hate speech is a problem. Islamophobia, on the other hand, normalises and promotes anti-Muslim discourse.

These criteria are crucial in understanding what constitutes Islamophobia and what does not. For example, while criticising specific Islamic doctrines is valid, using such critiques to stereotype all Muslims as violent or fanatical crosses the line into Islamophobia. Similarly, while a discussion of the role of religion in politics is important, denying the basic human rights of Muslims is clearly Islamophobic.

The importance of clarity and cooperative action

The CBMI criteria offer an important framework that helps us differentiate between fair critique and prejudiced bigotry. Just as a clear definition of Islamophobia and criteria for legitimate criticism of Islam are crucial for combating prejudice against Muslims, a similar effort is required to establish a robust and well-understood definition of antisemitism — along with an understanding of what constitutes legitimate criticism of Judaism and of the State of Israel — in order to combat antisemitism effectively. I believe that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism(JDA) is one such definition.

Clear definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism — along with adherence to the CBMI criteria and JDA guidelines — are not just an abstract academic concern but a practical necessity. Without such robust definitions, it is difficult to identify and counter Islamophobic and antisemitic acts and rhetoric. When Islamophobia is not recognised, its consequences can be dire, as is evidenced by the tragic events in Christchurch.

Source: If we want to stem the tide of hate, we need robust definitions of Islamophobia and antisemitism

Filed under Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Akkad: Biden was a failure. Trump will be a catastrophe

2025/01/27 Leave a comment

Remarkably simplistic analysis, assessing Biden only by his action and inaction with respect to Israel and Gaza. No mention of Ukraine, no mention investments in the American economy etc. Also telling is his silence on Hamas and the October 7 killings and hostage taking, which affected both white and brown Israelis:

…But a deranged right-wing capitalizing on the empty dissociation of neo-liberal politics is not some uniquely American phenomenon. It is coming for Canada, it is coming for Germany, it will fester everywhere the performance of great virtue accompanies the absence of substance. There is immense cruelty on the way, and given how quickly the CEO class has positioned itself in total fealty to the Trump administration, there will be little institutional resistance. If only as an act of pre-emptive penance to future generations’ history books, it will be important to document this cruelty, to not become desensitized. Just as it is important to document the cruelty that has led us here.

Joe Biden spent his much of his final few days as President trying to frame his administration as a successful one. It’s what Presidents do. There’s nothing interesting or novel about it, and anyway many of his predecessors have presided over the killing of faraway brown people in much greater numbers before retiring comfortably into the role of respected elder statesman. What is perhaps most fascinating about this particular bit of reputation massage is that it may well mark the last time any such administration is able to even pretend its success isn’t dependent on ignoring the suffering of distant others. Because distance is a relative thing. Today the town that burns is by chance someone else’s, but not for long. Today the crops fail elsewhere, but not for long. Today the drone executes a child in another part of the world, but not for long.

Today, America loves you back.

Source: Biden was a failure. Trump will be a catastrophe

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Racism, Religion Tagged with , , , ,

Feds call on Islamic group to cancel alarming conference while security agencies consider terrorist designation

2025/01/15 Leave a comment

Wonder whether any of the organizers or planned attendees are Canadian citizenship who have taken the citizenship oath without obviously meaning it. Apparently, event has now been cancelled:

The federal government is calling on members of a controversial Islamic group to cancel their conference scheduled for this weekend while Canada’s security and intelligence agencies decide if it should be listed as an official terrorist entity.

A public outcry from civic leaders and Jewish organizations have attacked plans by Hizb ut Tahrir Canada to resurrect its annual Khilafah Conference, which calls for governments to be overthrown to invoke a Muslim caliphate where everyone lives under Islamic Shariah law.

Ottawa has now added a federal reprimand to the list of concerns over the agenda and ideology of the group, which is a branch of a strict international organization that is already banned in several countries.

“Reports of the upcoming Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) conference, scheduled for January 18, 2025 in Hamilton, Ontario are deeply concerning. Hizb ut-Tahrir has a documented history of glorifying violence and promoting antisemitism and extremist ideology,” David J. McGuinty, the new minister of Public Safety, and Rachel Bendayan, associate minister of Public Safety, said in a statement posted on social media.

“Its celebration of attacks on innocent civilians, including October 7th, and its support for banned terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are entirely contrary to Canadian values of peace, inclusion, and respect for diversity. We unequivocally condemn their activities and the holding of such a conference — and call on the organizers to cancel their booking.”

“We have been assured that law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, are monitoring the event closely and that all appropriate Canadian laws, including those pertaining to hate speech, will be enforced. Further, we can confirm that our security and intelligence agencies are currently assessing Hizb it-Tahrir (sic) for listing as a terrorist entity under Canadian law,” the statement continued.

A spokesman from Hizb ut Tahrir Canada could not immediately be reached for comment Monday evening. (The Canadian group often does not use a hyphen in its name like the international group usually does.)

The organization previously denied it was a public danger and said it was not involved in terrorist violence.

“Hizb ut Tahrir categorically rejects the use of violence or material means in its methodology. The accusations linking the party to terrorism, extremism and violent activities are fabrications aimed at tarnishing its reputation,” the group’s previous statement said.

Source: Feds call on Islamic group to cancel alarming conference while security agencies consider terrorist designation

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

A Long Fight to Keep a Closer Eye on Madrasas Unravels in Pakistan

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

Not exactly great preparation for the future and progress:

They draw millions of poor Pakistani children with the simple promise of free education, meals and housing. For devout families, they offer Islamic learning rooted in ancient tradition.

But to the Pakistani government and Western counterterrorism officials, the religious seminaries known as madrasas also represent a potential threat. The institutions have long been accused of contributing to violence and radicalization, supplying recruits for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.

Now, Pakistan’s Islamic schools are at the center of an intense political clash — one that jeopardizes years of hard-won progress toward bringing the seminaries under the government’s regulatory umbrella.

The conflict goes back to 2019, when the government enacted a sweeping overhaul requiring madrasas to register with the Ministry of Education. The effort, meant to increase accountability for institutions that have historically operated with minimal state oversight, was strongly backed by Pakistan’s military but faced vehement resistance from Islamist political parties.

In October 2024, the largest of those parties, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, secured a deal with the government to end the registration requirement. Under the agreement, madrasas would be registered as they had been before 2019, under a colonial-era law governing charitable, scientific and educational groups. That law provides little oversight of curriculums, activities or funding.

In exchange, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam agreed to support unrelated constitutional amendments on judicial appointments that had set off a firestorm of controversy.

As the end of the year approached, however, the government had still not implemented the change. It cited concerns that reverting to the older system could undermine counterterrorism efforts, weaken oversight and breach international commitments to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

The delay triggered threats of anti-government protests in Islamabad, the capital, adding to the government’s challenges amid frequent marches by supporters of Imran Khan, the ousted prime minister.

“We are firm on the agreed madrasa registration terms and will ensure they are upheld,” Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, warned in Parliament last month. “If the government deviates, the decision won’t be made in Parliament, but on the streets.”

Late last week, the government finally approved the new registration provision, allowing madrasas to choose between modern oversight and the colonial-era framework. The move, in effect, discards the 2019 efforts to reform religious schools in favor of short-term political stability.

When Pakistan was created 77 years ago, madrasas numbered in the dozens. They gained prominence and grew significantly in the 1980s, when U.S. and Arab funding transformed them into recruitment hubs for Islamic volunteers to fight Soviet forces in neighboring Afghanistan. Today, there are about 30,000 madrasas in Pakistan…

Source: A Long Fight to Keep a Closer Eye on Madrasas Unravels in Pakistan

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Bouchard: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

2024/12/16 Leave a comment

Always interesting to read Bouchard, with his sensible analysis and recommendations:

Je suis fermement opposé aux pratiques qui viennent d’être exposées dans nos écoles. Elles sont nettement contraires aux valeurs de notre société et il faut y mettre fin. Mais de quelle façon ?

Parti en guerre contre l’islamisme (« On va se battre ») comme si une vague déferlait sur le Québec, M. Legault veut immédiatement sortir l’artillerie lourde : durcir la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, l’enchâsser dans une constitution, utiliser la disposition de dérogation, « sortir » la religion des écoles et des lieux publics. Il y a certes un problème, mais une intervention précipitée, mal calibrée, pourrait l’aggraver plutôt que de le régler. Nous connaissons mal la situation, des enquêtes viennent tout juste de commencer. Voici quelques questions à considérer.

1) Quelle est l’ampleur du problème ? Gardons-nous de généraliser hâtivement. Nous savons actuellement que moins de vingt écoles sont concernées. Est-ce la pointe de l’iceberg ? Ou l’iceberg lui-même ? Qu’en est-il des 2757 établissements primaires et secondaires recensés au Québec ? Et qu’en est-il des universités et des cégeps ? Nous l’ignorons.

En passant, ce que nous savons des dérapages provient du travail des médias. Sinon, quand le public en aurait-il été informé ?

2) Quelle est la source du problème ? Les situations dénoncées peuvent être imputables à diverses causes : a) les responsables, à tous les niveaux décisionnels, en étaient informés, mais ont choisi de les cacher ; b) les responsables immédiats le savaient et ont fait leur devoir, mais leurs messages se sont « perdus » plus haut ; c) des responsables, à un niveau quelconque, ont jugé que les pratiques concernées ne méritaient pas qu’on s’y attarde ; d) des acteurs, victimes d’intimidation, se sont tus. Encore là, nous ne savons pas.

Il s’agissait peut-être de peu de choses au départ. Le problème a pu s’accentuer à la faveur de l’inaction prolongée des gestionnaires. Dans le cas de l’école Bedford, on sait que les transgressions avaient cours depuis sept ans. Il est troublant que le ministère de l’Éducation n’ait pas été saisi de ces écarts ou que, l’ayant été, il n’ait rien fait.

3) Un problème d’intégration culturelle ? Il paraît clair que des éléments très localisés (jusqu’à preuve du contraire) d’un fondamentalisme islamique s’activent dans les écoles. Fondamentalisme ? J’entends par là le fait de a) reconnaître une priorité absolue à des valeurs religieuses ; b) se fermer à tout assouplissement ; c) s’adonner à l’endoctrinement.

Ce semble être un phénomène neuf ici. Aucune mention n’en a été faite au cours des nombreuses consultations conduites auprès de la communauté scientifique et auprès du grand public par la commission que j’ai coprésidée avec Charles Taylor.

Nous faisons face à un choc culturel. Qu’il soit ou non le fait d’une nouvelle génération, il témoigne d’un rejet de valeurs primordiales promues par notre société. Nous devons mieux connaître les conditions dans lesquelles des catégories de croyants en viennent à se comporter d’une manière inacceptable dans des institutions aussi névralgiques que le système scolaire.

4) Interdire les prières en public ? Qu’entend-on exactement par là ? On parle des attroupements de fidèles accomplissant un rituel religieux sur un trottoir ou une place. Qu’est-ce qu’un attroupement : deux personnes ? Cinq ? Dix ? Visera-t-on aussi le dévot qui, devant l’oratoire Saint-Joseph, s’arrête pour faire une génuflexion et le signe de la croix ? Qu’entend-on par « lieux publics » ? Par « prières » ? Comment démêler le religieux et le spirituel ? Et qu’advient-il des droits fondamentaux ? Enfin, toutes les religions seront-elles visées ? On aura noté que le premier ministre ne parle que des « islamistes ».

Bonne chance aux spécialistes qui rédigeront les nouvelles directives. Et bonne chance à ceux et celles qui devront les appliquer.

5) « Sortir » le religieux des écoles ? Comment procédera-t-on ? Il faudra distinguer l’endoctrinement et l’enseignement des religions, statuer sur les anciens séminaires laïcisés subventionnés par l’État et qui abritent une chapelle encore active. Et si notre premier ministre est cohérent, il devra fermer les écoles religieuses. Osera-t-il le faire ? Sinon, qui le prendra au sérieux ?

Selon un texte de Radio-Canada (avril 2022), notre gouvernement subventionnerait cinquante établissements privés ayant « une vocation religieuse explicite ».

6) Quoi faire ? Comment ? Comment contrer les expressions répréhensibles de convictions profondément enracinées dans le religieux ? Cette tâche appelle de la prudence et du doigté dictés par une approche réfléchie, expérimentée. Possédons-nous les outils psychologiques et sociologiques requis ?

Nous avons un centre de prévention de la radicalisation créé par la Ville de Montréal depuis une dizaine d’années. Il a fait ses preuves, surtout à l’échelle des individus, sauf erreur. Disposons-nous d’une expertise spécifique sur le plan collectif ? Saurons-nous traiter correctement des réalités aussi complexes, potentiellement explosives ?

7) Une déchirure sociétale à la française ? Des interventions à l’emporte-pièce pourraient donner à court terme l’illusion d’un succès, mais elles pourraient aussi activer le feu qu’on voulait éteindre. Évitons, si possible, de reproduire ici la situation de la France : un clivage profond, terreau de violences, devenu ingérable.

Au premier ministre de jouer…

Quel parti va prendre M. Legault ? Cédant à l’émoi du moment et en quête d’un gain électoral facile, va-t-il choisir d’en découdre et risquer de provoquer un durcissement, d’ériger un mur ? Ou optera-t-il pour la prudence afin d’y voir plus clair avant d’agir ?

Ce texte n’est pas une invitation à la complaisance ou à la mollesse. C’est une invitation à donner une chance à la prévention (sensibilisation, mises en garde, négociations, mises au pas, sanctions au besoin) avant de recourir à l’artillerie lourde. C’est une invitation à bien baliser le parcours avant de s’y engager. Et n’excluons pas que le cadre juridique actuel, appliqué rigoureusement, puisse offrir les moyens de ramener les choses à l’ordre. C’est ce que croient plusieurs juristes.

Source: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

I strongly oppose the practices that have just been exposed in our schools. They are clearly contrary to the values of our society and must be put to an end. But in what way?

Gone to war against Islamism (“On va se battre”) as if a wave was sweeping over Quebec, Mr. Legault immediately wants to take out the heavy artillery: toughen the Law on the Secularism of the State, enshrine it in a constitution, use the exemption provision, “take” religion out of schools and public places. There is certainly a problem, but a hasty, poorly calibrated intervention could aggravate it rather than solve it. We do not know much about the situation, investigations have just begun. Here are some questions to consider.

1) What is the extent of the problem? Let us be careful not to generalize hastily. We currently know that less than twenty schools are affected. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Or the iceberg itself? What about the 2757 primary and secondary schools identified in Quebec? And what about universities and CEGEPs? We do not know it.

By the way, what we know about skids comes from the work of the media. Otherwise, when would the public have been informed?

2) What is the source of the problem? The situations denounced can be attributed to various causes: a) those responsible, at all decision-making levels, were informed, but chose to hide them; b) the immediate officials knew it and did their duty, but their messages were “lost” above; c) those responsible, at some level, judged that the practices concerned did not deserve to be dwelling on; d) actors, victims of intimidation, fell silent. Again, we don’t know.

It may have been a few things at the beginning. The problem may have been exacerbated by the prolonged inaction of managers. In the case of the Bedford School, we know that the transgressions had been taking place for seven years. It is disturbing that the Ministry of Education has not been seized of these discrepancies or that, having been, it has done nothing.

3) A problem of cultural integration? It seems clear that very localized elements (until proven otherwise) of Islamic fundamentalism are being activated in schools. Fundamentalism? I mean a) recognizing absolute priority to religious values; b) closing to any relaxation; c) indocting indoctrination.

It seems to be a new phenomenon here. No mention of this was made during the many consultations conducted with the scientific community and with the general public by the commission that I co-chaired with Charles Taylor.

We are facing a cultural shock. Whether or not it is the fact of a new generation, it testifies to a rejection of primordial values promoted by our society. We need to better understand the conditions under which categories of believers come to behave in an unacceptable way in institutions as neuralgic as the school system.

4) Prohibit prayers in public? What exactly do we mean by that? There is talk of crowds of worshippers performing a religious ritual on a sidewalk or square. What is a crowd: two people? Five? Ten? Will we also aim at the devotee who, in front of the Saint-Joseph oratory, stops to make a genuflection and the sign of the cross? What is meant by “public places”? By “prayers”? How to disentangle the religious and the spiritual? And what happens to fundamental rights? Finally, will all religions be targeted? It will have been noted that the Prime Minister only speaks of “Islamists”.

Good luck to the specialists who will write the new guidelines. And good luck to those who will have to apply them.

5) “Take out” the religious from schools? How will we proceed? It will be necessary to distinguish the indoctrination and the teaching of religions, to rule on the old secularized seminars subsidized by the State and which house a chapel that is still active. And if our prime minister is consistent, he will have to close religious schools. Will he dare to do it? Otherwise, who will take it seriously?

According to a text from Radio-Canada (April 2022), our government would subsidize fifty private institutions with “an explicit religious vocation”.

6) What to do? How? How to counter the reprehensible expressions of convictions deeply rooted in the religious? This task calls for prudence and tact dictated by a thoughtful, experienced approach. Do we have the necessary psychological and sociological tools?

We have a radicalization prevention center created by the City of Montreal for about ten years. It has proven itself, especially at the level of individuals, unless I am mistaken. Do we have specific expertise at the collective level? Will we be able to properly deal with such complex, potentially explosive realities?

7) A French societal tear? Cookie-cutter interventions could give the illusion of success in the short term, but they could also activate the fire we wanted to put out. Let’s avoid, if possible, reproducing here the situation of France: a deep cleavage, a breeding ground for violence, which has become unmanageable.

It’s up to the Prime Minister to play…

Which side will Mr. Legault? Giving in to the emotion of the moment and in search of an easy electoral gain, will he choose to fight and risk causing a hardening, erecting a wall? Or will he opt for caution in order to see more clearly before acting?

This text is not an invitation to complacency or softness. It is an invitation to give prevention a chance (awareness, warnings, negotiations, steps, sanctions if necessary) before resorting to heavy artillery. It is an invitation to mark the course before committing to it. And let’s not rule out that the current legal framework, rigorously applied, can offer the means to bring things back to order. This is what many lawyers believe.



Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Legault se présente comme un rempart devant la menace Trump et la menace «islamiste»

2024/12/07 Leave a comment

Suspect there is support beyond Quebec given some of the disruptions of Gaza demonstrations that involve prayer:

Au terme d’une saison politique marquée par des entorses à la laïcité dans les écoles québécoises, il a dit songer à légiférer pour interdire la prière dans l’espace public. « Moi, de voir du monde à genoux dans la rue faire des prières, je pense qu’il faut se poser la question. Je ne pense pas que c’est quelque chose qu’on devrait voir », a-t-il déclaré au moment de clore les travaux parlementaires pour la pause des Fêtes.

« On regarde toutes les possibilités, incluant l’utilisation de la clause dérogatoire. On ne souhaite pas voir des prières dans les rues », a-t-il ajouté. À son avis, la prière doit se faire « dans une église, dans une mosquée, mais pas dans les lieux publics ». « De voir des gens qui prient dans les rues, dans des parcs publics, ce n’est pas quelque chose qu’on souhaite au Québec », a-t-il soutenu.

….« Les exemples qu’on a vus, c’était de l’islamisme, ce n’était pas d’autres religions », a-t-il dit à propos des cas médiatisés d’écoles publiques dans lesquelles des enseignants ont transgressé les principes de la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État.

À un journaliste qui lui demandait de faire la nuance entre l’islam (une religion) et l’islamisme (un mouvement politique et religieux), M. Legault a offert une réponse au sujet des valeurs québécoises. « Écoutez, je ne suis pas dans la tête de ces gens-là pour voir c’est quoi, leur volonté, mais ce que je sais, c’est que quand on empêche à une petite fille de faire du sport, ça ne respecte pas les valeurs du Québec. »…

Source: Legault se présente comme un rempart devant la menace Trump et la menace «islamiste»

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

2024/11/30 Leave a comment

Thorny issue, given some of the examples where appears needed and others where more questionable:

Ottawa a démontré peu d’ouverture à une demande du ministre de la Justice du Québec, Simon Jolin-Barrette, qui ne veut plus que le Code criminel permette à des individus de se livrer à de la propagande haineuse « sous le couvert de la foi ». Pour toute réponse, le gouvernement Trudeau a suggéré au ministre québécois de collaborer à l’avancement d’un projet de loi fédéral sur « les préjudices en ligne ».

Le ministre Jolin-Barrette a envoyé une lettre jeudi à son homologue canadien, Arif Virani, afin de lui demander d’abroger deux articles du Code criminel qui contreviennent, selon son interprétation, au principe de laïcité de l’État.

Ces articles — 319 (3) (b) et 319 (3.1) (b) — font partie d’une courte de liste d’exceptions pouvant être évoquées face à des accusations d’avoir fomenté volontairement la haine ou l’antisémitisme. Ils permettent à un accusé de se défendre en faisant valoir le fait d’avoir, « de bonne foi, exprimé une opinion sur un sujet religieux ou une opinion fondée sur un texte religieux auquel il croit », ou d’avoir « tenté d’en établir le bien-fondé par argument ».

De l’avis du ministre Jolin-Barrette, « cette justification est actuellement exploitée pour légitimer des propos discriminatoires ou incendiaires sous le couvert de la foi ». « Ce genre de discours contribue à un climat toxique, menaçant la sécurité et le bien-être des personnes visées », a-t-il écrit au ministre Virani.

Le cabinet du ministre Virani a fait suivre une réponse au Devoir. La directrice adjointe aux communications, Chantalle Aubertin, y a écrit qu’en guise d’« action décisive », Ottawa avait présenté la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne, « une mesure globale visant à lutter contre la propagation des discours haineux, tant en ligne que dans nos communautés ».

« Nous apprécions les observations du ministre Jolin-Barrette et restons déterminés à travailler ensemble pour trouver des solutions », a-t-elle ajouté. « Nous l’encourageons à collaborer avec les parlementaires afin de soutenir l’avancement de la Loi sur les préjudices en ligne en comité, garantissant ainsi que nous disposons des outils nécessaires pour combattre efficacement la haine », a ensuite suggéré Mme Aubertin….

Source: Québec exige la fin de l’exemption religieuse pour la propagande haineuse

Ottawa has shown little openness to a request from Quebec’s Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, who no longer wants the Criminal Code to allow individuals to engage in hateful propaganda “under the guise of faith”. For any response, the Trudeau government suggested that the Quebec minister collaborate in the progress of a federal bill on “online damage”.

Minister Jolin-Barrette sent a letter on Thursday to his Canadian counterpart, Arif Virani, asking him to repeal two articles of the Criminal Code that, according to his interpretation, contravene the principle of secularism of the State.

These articles – 319 (3) (b) and 319 (3.1) (b) – are part of a short list of exceptions that can be raised in the face of accusations of having voluntarily fomented hatred or anti-Semitism. They allow an accused to defend himself by asserting the fact that he has, “in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text in which he believes”, or that he has “tried to establish its merits by argument”.

In the opinion of Minister Jolin-Barrette, “this justification is currently exploited to legitimize discriminatory or incendiary remarks under the guise of faith”. “This kind of speech contributes to a toxic climate, threatening the safety and well-being of the people targeted,” he wrote to Minister Virani.

Minister Virani’s office forwarded a response to the Duty. Assistant Director of Communications, Chantalle Aubertin, wrote that as a “recisive action,” Ottawa had introduced the Online Injuries Act, “a comprehensive measure to combat the spread of hate speech, both online and in our communities.”

“We appreciate Minister Jolin-Barrette’s comments and remain determined to work together to find solutions,” she added. “We encourage her to work with parliamentarians to support the progress of the Online Damages Act in committee, thus ensuring that we have the necessary tools to effectively combat hatred,” Ms. Aubertin then suggested.

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →