Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom | Toronto Star

One of the historic anomalies in Ontario is a publicly funded separate Catholic school system that was part of the initial bargain of Confederation. A recent court decision allows students to opt-out of religious instruction. Tom Walkom of the Star:

The public sphere is inclusive. Religion is not. With religion, you are either in or out. You are either part of a body of believers or you are not.

Some religions, including Christianity, welcome converts. Many preach tolerance toward other faiths.

But in virtually every religion, there is a fundamental distinction between those who accept certain precepts as true and those who do not. And non-believers are — by definition — wrong.

Ontario’s Catholic schools have already found it hard to navigate the tricky path between church orthodoxy and public acceptability, most recently over the issue of gay-straight student clubs.

Thanks to a 1997 court decision, they have managed to retain the right to discriminate in employment. Catholic schools need not hire non-Catholic teachers.

But if they can’t make their students experience even a little bit of Catholicism — if, in order to qualify for government support, they are simply public schools with a dress code — why bother?

Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom | Toronto Star

Chris Selley in the National Post:

The Progressive Conservatives at least tried to address this bizarre inequality: Leader John Tory proposed extending funding to schools of other religions, and was trounced for his efforts by an electorate that then instantly forgot about the issue. They won’t go down that road again. That the Liberals and New Democrats can live with a single, publicly funded religious school system that considers homosexual acts “objectively disordered,” and buses students to pro-life rallies, only gets more astonishing every year.

One might thank Mr. Erazo for shining some light on this absurdity. But alas, nobody’s paying any attention. You can’t stop Ontario’s march of incoherent progress.

Get on your knees and opt-out

Chris Selley: Pauline Marois’ alternate reality, Farzana Hassan’s Endorsement of the Charter

Good summary by Chris Selley of some of the reasonable accommodation issues that have arisen in Quebec over the past years, and a reminder that the proposed Charter would not address any of them:

But finally, this week, Mr. Couillard seemed to gain some traction. “If the PQ is saying you can’t work with something on your head that doesn’t please certain people, the logical conclusion is that you will be fired if you don’t do it,” he said. Indeed. Also: If you lower the speed limit on Highway 401 from 100 to 90, people might get tickets for going 100. Also: If you mandate a six-month minimum sentence for people who grow six marijuana plants, people might get six-month sentences for growing six marijuana plants. See how this works?

The incoherence is to some extent understandable. Like all effective wedge policies, the PQ’s secularism charter invites people to project content, motivations and outcomes on to it that aren’t really there. Janette Bertrand thinks it will prevent rich Muslims from taking over private swimming pools and barring women from them. Commentator Tarek Fatah thinks it will combat “Saudi-based Islamism” — which it theoretically might, if indeed Saudi-based Islamists are “us[ing] the freedom of religion clauses enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ‘impose their political agenda’ in Quebec,” but which hardly explains it targeting Jews and Sikhs as well.

Chris Selley: Pauline Marois’ alternate reality | National Post.

And Farzana Hassan’s different take in The Sun, similar to Tarek Fatah’s (I say ‘Vote PQ to save Canada’!).

While I can understand the visceral fear some have given past experience in their country of origin (and have spent enough time in Saudi Arabia and Iran to appreciate this), I can’t understand just how far Tarek and Farzana take this fear.

For example, the nurse who took my blood sample this week wore a hijab. She works in a mixed environment, provides service to women and men, and whether or not she chooses to wear a hijab is irrelevant, as it is for others who provide public services of other faiths who wear a kippa, turban, or cross.

Part of our national identity includes religious freedom, subject of course to the balance of other freedoms, and religious “headgear” is largely not a problem (apart from the niqab):

Many religious people do not feel obliged to wear or display their religious symbols at work, one of the exceptions being devout Muslims, who have distinct religious attire they consider mandatory.

In fact, the Quebec charter seems mainly aimed at fundamentalist Muslims, who often seek to advance a political agenda rather than simply express pious serenity through their dress.

In my view, invoking the notwithstanding clause to counter this assertive religiosity is desirable.

Using the Quebec values charter would help check the spread of patriarchal values and the virtual segregation of women.

If you are a hijabi or niqabi worried about this, rest assured Islam does not mandate the veiling of women.

Marois may appear xenophobic to some and a liberator to others, but her nationalistic zeal has shown Canada a way to preserve its own identity.

The rest of Canada should also move to ban such religious symbols from public display.

Sun News : Quebec’s values charter is a good idea.

 

Rights tribunal says immigrant who failed engineering exam three times was discriminated against

Another example of reasonable accommodation gone wrong. While it is valid to question whether Canadian requirements are completely objective or do have some inadvertent bias, the reality of working in Canada requires common standards. Given that the person in question failed the exams three times, hard to accept that he had not been given an adequate chance:

It’s all well and good to laugh. Unlike many of the poor schmoes human rights tribunals put through the wringer, the engineers have the money to defend themselves. APEGGA will appeal the ruling, and some superior court will hopefully blow it to smithereens. But these clay pigeons cost a lot of money. At the end of the day, legalities aside, Mr. Jiwaji wants to ensure the employment of an incompetent engineer under the banner of human rights. In the court of popular opinion, it’s not clear how long Canada’s current human rights apparatus can survive decision-making like that.

Chris Selley: Rights tribunal says immigrant who failed engineering exam three times was discriminated against | National Post.

Citizenship Act Revocation: Commentary

Strong commentary on both sides of the political spectrum on the revocation and related provisions of the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act, starting with Chris Selley of the National Post:

Grown-up countries clean up their own messes. You don’t “strengthen Canadian citizenship,” as Bill C-24 purports to, by making it easier to revoke, by kicking your junk into another country’s closet. You strengthen Canadian citizenship by holding wayward or treasonous citizens to account, and by demanding fair and equal treatment for even the most unpopular, thereby reinforcing the obligations they violated. Mr. Khadr’s case showed us how far Canada has to go. The Conservatives propose to take us even further in the wrong direction.

Chris Selley: Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post.

Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, in addition to their previous criticism of the revocation provisions, note additional problems with differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians:

The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship. Whether the government acts on the threat is not the issue; it is enough that people will be made insecure and apprehensive by the possibility that the government may arbitrarily decide to launch revocation proceedings against them if they leave Canada too soon, or remain away too long. That’s not a way to foster a citizenship of commitment. That’s how to foster a citizenship of fear.

I had viewed this provision as more symbolic than enforceable, but Macklin and Waldman have a point as this could be deemed fraud should a naturalized citizen leave Canada for professional or personal reasons. CIC may not today be able to enforce such a provision. However, as the government implements its plans for exit controls, this may change. As many Canadians, both naturally-born and naturalized, live abroad, often for reasons that most would consider valid (i.e., not just “citizens of convenience”), this provision bears greater scrutiny.

Citizenship reforms a serious threat to rights of all Canadians

Lastly, a reminder that not all share this concern. Kevin Hampson in the Mayerthorpe Freelancer, strongly supports the revocation measures:

Being Canadian is a privilege, not a right—that’s the message. Those are much better terms on which to welcome newcomers.

Finally, despite the Toronto Star’s alarmism, it is just and proper to strip citizenship from people who engage in terrorism. Thomas Walkom’s characterization of this view as “radical” shows the extent of his esteem for Canadian citizenship.

Walkom suggests that thousands of Canadians could have their citizenship revoked. Here’s a tip: don’t want to lose your citizenship? Don’t become a terrorist.

“Yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s hero,” Walkom shrugs. To which we reply: If Canada in the future celebrates Islamic terrorists as heroes, Walkom will have worse things to worry about than Bill C-24.

Canada’s new Citizenship Act is long overdue

Still haven’t seen much commentary in French language media. Will also be interesting to see how ethnic press covers this (how I miss the ethnic media press scan at CIC).

Quebec Values Charter Commentary: Francine Pelletier, Chris Selley, Louise Arbour

Good commentary on Quebec and the values charter by Francine Pelletier:

Certains diront que le PQ a fait preuve de génie à si bien exploiter ce qu’Hubert Aquin appelait « la fatigue culturelle du Canada français », le sentiment d’insécurité qui colle à la peau des Québécois francophones d’un certain âge. C’est cette même frilosité que dénonçait d’ailleurs le chroniqueur Marc Cassivi de La Presse cette semaine, se désolant du caractère « blanc francophone » de la télé québécoise. Le Québec n’est ni moins métissé ni moins accueillant que bien des coins d’Amérique, mais la peur de l’Autre — ou si vous voulez, la peur de disparaître — y est plus manifeste. Le PQ l’a très bien compris. Malheureusement, plutôt que de tenter de nous hisser hors de ce guêpier, il nous y enfonce.

Crise d’identité | Le Devoir.

Some other commentary of note, starting with a good piece by Chris Selley, reminding that the sky may not in fact be falling:

It doesn’t look much like the first step of a revolution, really. And Occam’s Razor suggests a simple reason for that: Every time a pollster asks Quebecers if the “values charter” is a priority for them, they say no. The Léger poll last month found the issue was most pressing to just 14% of Parti Québécois voters, never mind the others. An even stickier wicket is that when Ipsos asked in October whether public servants should actually lose their jobs if they refuse to take off their religious symbols, just 38% of Quebecers said yes — many fewer than ostensibly support the law that would compel them to do so.

It all suggests that unexciting could yet win the day in Quebec. The charter might become law, but when it comes time to fire that renowned kippa-wearing surgeon, and hijab-wearing day care workers start bidding tearful farewells to their charges, Quebecers’ better angels might leap back into action. Hospitals and universities might simply disobey the charter, as they’ve promised to do, and there mightn’t be any political profit in demanding enforcement.

At this point, we would have to call that a win. We can hope. But what a spineless spectacle Quebec’s politicians would have given us along the way. Just 20% of intended Liberal voters support the charter; just 10% consider it the most important issue, and presumably most are opposed. Still Mr. Couillard can’t find his way to simply opposing an incoherent and buck-naked political provocation from a desperate and unpopular government fronting a sovereignty movement that’s running on fumes. One hopes he at least has trouble sleeping.

Chris Selley: How Quebec’s secularism debate could still fizzle | National Post.

Louise Arbour, former Supreme Court judge and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is particularly damming:

«Il est particulièrement odieux d’en faire payer le prix à des femmes déjà marginalisées et pour qui l’accès à l’emploi est un facteur clé à la fois d’autonomie et d’intégration», écrit-elle en référence aux musulmanes qui portent le hijab, dans une lettre publiée en exclusivité par La Presse.

Mme Arbour y critique vivement le projet de loi mené par Bernard Drainville.

Les Québécois doivent se garder d’être charmés par un certain nationalisme rétrograde et continuer à s’ouvrir sur le monde, plaide-t-elle.

«La Charte de la laïcité nous incite à céder au chant des sirènes, illustre Mme Arbour. Ce chant évoque l’image nostalgique d’une société homogène catho-laïque, où «nos» symboles religieux nous paraissent inoffensifs […] alors que ceux des «autres» feraient au contraire peser une menace permanente sur nous.»

Des conséquences odieuses, dit Louise Arbour

Chris Selley: Canada’s secret ‘values’ debate | National Post

Chris Selley of the National Post on treatment of evangelicals versus other religions. While some of his points are valid, he may be going to far in stressing expression of religious freedom compared to other rights. My general test is to substitute other religions, race, or orientation and see how it lands, remembering that the effect on others is where the balance of rights question arises.

But I agree with him that open discussion is better than hiding things. Far better that Professor Grayson of York U went public over the accommodation issue to help society discuss the “reasonable” in reasonable accommodation:

Yet in the Rest of Canada, politicians aren’t advocating legal changes. They seem to have started simply proclaiming certain opinions unpresentable, or even un-Canadian — ”This is Canada, pure and simple,” a scandalized Liberal MP Judy Sgro said of York’s position — while ignoring the obvious ramifications of their positions were they consistently applied. Worse, they’re not consistently applying them and they show no signs of starting. As ever, many on the Canadian centre-left seem to be indulging a paranoid obsession with evangelicals, and it’s just as discreditable as Quebec politicians’ paranoid obsession with Muslims. Ugly as it is, at least Quebec’s “values” debate is playing out in the light of day.

Chris Selley: Canada’s secret ‘values’ debate | National Post.

In defence of Jason Kenney | National Post

A good overview putting some of the critiques in a broader context. Yes, the changes have been significant and, in many cases overdue, and a number of others less defensible. But his great political skill has been able to operate at two levels at the same time: developing and encouraging support among the numerous ethnic communities in Canada while pursuing some major policy changes that make immigration more restrictive for non-economic immigrants.

One of my own ‘tests’ of how immigration and the related issues of citizenship and multiculturalism are perceived in a country is the presence or absence of strong anti-immigration lobbies or political parties. While we have a range of critics of immigration policies, naturally enough, we have no major organized opposition to Canada as an immigrant-based country.

All Canadian political parties are engaged with immigrants and new Canadians, with any wedge politics to increase support among ethnic communities, not to create a split with the ‘mainstream’.

The dynamic in Quebec is different, and more influenced by European debates and tensions.

In defence of Jason Kenney | National Post.

Chris Selley: Resisting multiculturalism, one packed lunch at a time | National Post

Yet another eruption over what should be a non-issue – bringing halal or kosher food to an amusement park. And fairness does not have to mean identical treatment.

Chris Selley: Resisting multiculturalism, one packed lunch at a time | National Post.