Quebec’s values debate is revealing – Articles

Starting with a highly critical commentary by Andrew Cohen, arguing that the debate reflects Quebec as an “adolescent” society, then progressing to criticize the federal leaders, save Justin Trudeau, for not taking a strong stand.

Quebec likes to think it looks to Europe. If so, it is becoming less like Europe as a social democracy and more like Europe as an anxious democracy, worried about the challenges of diversity.

Quebec’s values debate is revealing.

In Le Devoir, Jean-Claude Leclerc, provides some useful history to Quebec’s ongoing sensitivity to religion and the other, and is equally critical of the proposed approach:

Personne ne va monter aux barricades au nom du principe de la séparation de l’Église et de l’État. Et surtout, à quoi une autre déclaration sur l’égalité entre les sexes pourrait-elle bien s’appliquer, alors qu’il s’agit, en l’occurrence, d’inégalité visant d’abord et avant tout des femmes. Plus souvent victimes de violence. Plus nombreuses à vivre dans la pauvreté. À devoir se faire proches aidants. Et bien sûr à être encore sous-représentées dans les institutions de l’État, à commencer par l’Assemblée nationale.

Entre-temps, d’aucuns se demanderont sans doute en quoi l’État qui exclut l’Église de la définition des valeurs peut prétendre imposer les siennes à toute une société.

Laïcité et valeurs québécoises – De Maurice Duplessis à Pauline Marois

And another, shorter historical perspective, from Stéphane Baillargeon of Le Devoir, going back five years to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, noting just how lively the debate is, and while the media plays a role in heightening the issue, the media is also responding to popular concerns.

Charte des valeurs québécoises – Brûler pour ne pas s’éteindre

Islamic conference cancelled by Montreal convention centre

While I find many of the comments of the speakers as reported repulsive and bordering on hate speech, I do not favour banning such speech, whether from Islamic or other fundamentalists, or extremists on the other side of the debate (e.g., the Ann Coulters and Pamela Gellers of the world). Better to have the ideas out there, debated, denounced, criticized, demonstrated against. Our democracy is strong and vibrant enough.

While I agree with Imam Salam Elmanayi on letting people speak, stronger language than distasteful would be more appropriate for a leader in the community.

Islamic conference cancelled by Montreal convention centre – Montreal – CBC News.

Charte des valeurs québécoises – Round-up

While irresponsible and playing to xenophobia, seems to be working politically for the PQ, particularly among francophones. Early days, and we will see how the debates and discussions play out, but not encouraging.

Sondage Léger-Le Devoir – La Charte relance le PQ | Le Devoir.

A strong opinion piece in Le Devoir by a group of academics noting the exclusionary nature of the proposed Charter:

Nous sommes fiers de l’héritage culturel et politique distinct du Québec. Cet héritage inclut la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne, qui garantit déjà les droits individuels, notamment l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes ainsi que la liberté de conscience. D’ailleurs, ces principes sont plus que des « valeurs » subjectives : ils forment des impératifs de justice. Il est désolant que le gouvernement tente de porter atteinte à ces impératifs à des fins électorales en attisant des tensions […]. Nous attendons plutôt de nos décideurs qu’ils se fassent les porteurs d’une vision s’appuyant sur notre héritage dans l’élaboration de politiques publiques justes, inclusives et ambitieuses.

Charte des valeurs québécoises – Une mauvaise réponse à un faux problème

And general commentary in The Toronto Star about the Charter, origins and likely impact:

In Quebec, religious ‘accommodations’ debate heats up

And good commentary by Doug Saunders of the Globe and Mail, noting just how counterproductive an approach to integration such a Charter represents:

Worse, though: If we take seriously the goal of eradicating religion from public life, this is a terrible approach. Any smart politician knows that the way to get voters to switch sides is not to insult them for having the stupidity to support the other party. It’s to make your side seem welcoming. This applies doubly in the battle against religious authority: We’re not going to convert people by humiliating and enraging them.

And the non-confrontation approach is working – fantastically so. The past 10 years saw the proportion of Canadians without religion rise by more than 50 per cent, to a quarter of the population; the same is happening in every developed country.

We didn’t make this progress by insulting the religious; rather, we got here by tolerating them and making secular reason appear the more moral and humane option. … The way to win an argument is not by ordering your opponents to shut up. It’s by getting them on your side.

 Quebec’s slapdash bid for secularism doesn’t even work 

One Canada vs. the multicultural mosaic – Local – The Prince Albert Daily Herald

Commentary by Salim Mansur, one of the critics of Canadian multiculturalism, building upon former Prime Minister Diefenbaker’s vision of “unhyphenated” Canadian identity.

Mansur mischaracterizes Canadian multiculturalism as being anything goes, all cultures equal etc. He fails to acknowledge that recognizing other cultural identities within common Canadian legal and other frameworks, integration can be enhanced as it is not an absolute either/or requirement. Again, while cultural expressions like food and folklore, or a general tolerance for religious symbols (save the niqab), these all take place within a Canadian context. Yes, there are excesses, some individuals and groups push for more, but major deepening of multiculturalism to allow religious based family courts or funding for faith-based schools were rejected). The Canadian model works better than any of the European models with range from unitary (France) to deep multiculturalism (Holland at one time).

He is right, of course, that today’s world – free communications, specialty TV channels, cheap travel – make it easier for people to maintain their identity of origin. And he is right to flag the risks of excessive accommodation to overall integration.

Not a balanced article but one view.

One Canada vs. the multicultural mosaic – Local – The Prince Albert Daily Herald.

Islamic fundamentalism: Stories of zealotry | The Economist

Short review of Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here: Untold Stories From the Fight Against Muslim Fundamentalism, by Karima Bennoune. Captures some of the harrowing and destructive stories of fundamentalist excess. Quote:

She is not alone in noticing that Western responses to Islamic troubles often fall into one of two traps: they either blame the religion or blame the West for stunting the Muslim world. But this raises the question of what an appropriate response to Islamic travails should look like. Ms Bennoune seems to imply that the West would do well to encourage non-fundamentalist readings of Islam. If the weed of fundamentalism cannot be uprooted, then it is wise to make sure that the other plants in the garden are in good health.

Islamic fundamentalism: Stories of zealotry | The Economist.

Hijab is elephant in the room | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Tarek Fatah on the hijab and civil marriage ceremonies. I tend to think he is right here, for civil ceremonies, the official is performing an official function with legal functions, so Bouchard-Taylor approach of neutrality of the state should be applied.

Where Tarek goes to far, is conflating the hijab and the niqab, and assuming that every woman who wears the hijab is in servitude and a victim of misogyny . The reality is more complex, and the key issue is whether women wearing the hijab are participating in broader society – and many are – and which are not. And to make things more complex, some women wear hijabs with style almost a fashion accessory, some with basic black to signify perhaps more deeply their faith.

And treating the hijab as dramatically different that other religious signs does not make sense, as all religions have gradations of believers, practices and ways of doing things, ranging from more to less integration. And it is in the practical integration into wider society that is important.

On the niqab, no patience, at it does symbolize rejection of wider society in a way that the hijab does not.

Hijab is elephant in the room | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun.

Canada giving $1.2M for religious freedom in Nigeria, Central Asia – Politics – CBC News

Seem like reasonable projects to fund.

Canada giving $1.2M for religious freedom in Nigeria, Central Asia – Politics – CBC News.

Islamic scholars experience diversity of Muslim practices at U of T summer program | Toronto Star

Interesting account of  the El-Tawhid Juma Circle Mosque, a LGBTQ-friendly mosque, where women can lead prayers and men and women can sit together. An illustration of the diversity of Islam, although such centres are very much the minority (and not surprising, easier to start in countries like Canada).

Will be interesting to see over time whether the Muslim Canadian population follows the trend of other major religions with more faith centres open to more inclusive policies or not.

Islamic scholars experience diversity of Muslim practices at U of T summer program | Toronto Star.

Des manifs s’organisent contre la venue de prédicateurs islamistes | Fabrice de Pierrebourg | Montréal

Another illustration of the diversity of Islam in Canada, and appropriate that demonstrations take place to signal what is acceptable discourse in Canada.

Des manifs s’organisent contre la venue de prédicateurs islamistes | Fabrice de Pierrebourg | Montréal.

The freedom to discriminate

An interesting and thoughtful piece, questioning the general principle that taxpayer funds should not support organizations that discriminate in their hiring practices.

The challenge with allowing such discrimination is that while the author and others may be comfortable with their particular charity and religion, would they be comfortable with other charities and religions imposing their beliefs on their staff while using taxpayer funds (e.g., not allowing gays, unequal treatment for women, only hiring within your own community)?

The secular, human rights-based approach, is more appropriate for government funding of services; it does not mean that faith-baith organizations cannot contribute, as many do, but that they do so in a context of an open, non-discriminatory society.

But a useful raising of a different perspective.

The freedom to discriminate.