The province and its native francophone population finds itself in the uncomfortable situation of needing immigrants to fill the void caused by a falling birthrate, yet cannot abide by those immigrants who are welcomed, but who fail to fully adopt the language, mores, values and convention of the host state.
It isn't a problem indigenous to Quebec, all western societies face the very same problem to varying degrees, but in Quebec the problem of assimilation is exacerbated by the choice of two competing cultures,
The spectre of the disastrous European immigration experiment looms large over the debate and Quebecers look with trepidation at the rise of Islam in Europe and the perceived threat of a growing community seen as disloyal, distinct and dangerous.
It's a nasty conundrum, Quebec needs immigrants, but doesn't like the ones who are accepted, specifically Muslims, who are seen as a threat to social cohesion.
I won't get into the immigration question here, except to say that in choosing immigrants based on language, Quebec has boxed itself into a corner. By trying to fix its language problem through selective immigration, where French speakers are selected before more qualified immigrants, Quebec may do itself more harm then good.
It's a Catch-22 where it seems that Quebec cannot solve its language situation without affecting its social situation. As they say, Damned if you do, or damned if you don't.
Since the political decision to continue accepting these French speaking immigrants seems to over-ride social and economic issues, it falls to suppression of faith as the only manner to stem and reverse the perceived tide of the 'Islamization' of Quebec.
While any such effect, if it exists at all, is vastly overblown, the perceived notion or urban myth that Muslims are a threat, is something militants and the PQ are determined to face-off against.
And so Quebec is taking its lead from France, where the Muslim population has reach over 10% of the population and where their large urban pockets amplifies the community's influence in many key cities.
In France (as in many European countries), it isn't a case of turning off the spigot of immigration, the Muslims are already installed in large enough to 'pose a problem'
The problem is not that they are Muslim, but that a significant number of them are religiously observant and whose many core beliefs are at odds with the principles of French society. Where those principles clash, (like the equality of men and women), the orthodox Muslims are (or are perceived) to be unbending and therein lies the rub.
And so France is imposing a solution in which it is attempting to damper the zeal of observant Muslim by edict. By banning traditional garb in public, the government sends a clear and unambiguous message, that observant Muslims are not welcome in France and as these restrictive rules are promulgated, those who are observant are forced to abandon their orthodoxy or go underground. To ordinary Frenchman the first solution is preferable, but the second acceptable.
All these measures are justified by the notion of separation of Church and state, a concept that harks back to the American Bill of Rights of 1791, an act amending the United States Declaration of Independence, which was a keystone in advancing and codifying the concept of the government staying out of the religion business.
It fell to Thomas Jefferson to expand on the concept in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut, in1802, a part of which is reproduced below.
It is important to note that while modern politicians in France and Quebec reference the concept of the separation of Church and State, they fail to understand or deliberately misinterpret exactly what is or should be implicit in that policy, that is, that outside government people are free to choose what and how to believe."Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson
While the state may act neutral in its position on religion, banning individuals from expressing their beliefs in public, is a direct violation of the covenant of the separation of Church and State.
Today the anti-religion Ayatollahs of Quebec seek to pervert the concept of separation of Church and State in order to banish religion from all walks of public life, using the state to bludgeon the faith out of the observant by means of restrictive regulations based on contrived and fitted rules that hold that any contact with the state must be sanitized from religion in the name of separation.
In a society like Quebec where the State contols our education system from daycare to post-secondary education, our entire health system, our political system and where one-thid of workers are in the direct or indirect employ of the government, enforcing such limitations is a direct attack of the right to practice one's faith free from state interference.
The new anti-religious Ayatollahs in the PQ and the Francophone Press make no bones about their visceral hatred of religion and openly admit that they want religion out of the lives of Quebecers, largely because they see it as a competing force for the alter-religion that they themselves promote, that of sovereignty.
It was with some amusement tinged with sadness that I watched a television advertisement paid for by the Quebec government promoting tolerance towards gays and lesbians.
It seems that in its wisdom the government believes the general population needs to be more accepting towards gays and lesbians,( a good idea) all the while asking the public to be intolerant towards other minorities, those who are religiously observant.
In one such commercial, two men openly kiss in the arrivals area of the airport while the announcer challenges viewers who feel uncomfortable with the scene.
I wonder if the government would dare run the same advertisement featuring a Hasid family or a man wearing a turban or Hijab clad women, again asking for the public to modify its perception.....Fat chance of that!
In Quebec, led by the PQ and the anti-religious Ayatollahs in the Press, a campaign of 'salisage' is underfoot, meant to discredit and humiliate the religiously observant, based on the idea that these people are social misfits, out of tune and step with society in general and thus a threat to good order (read: the march towards Independence) .
How else could this drivel ever find its way into the main press.
"For an immigrant, a good way to integrate is to respect the customs of the host society. This obviously implies greater discretion in expressing his beliefs in public spaces that come as contrasted with it. This is nothing but a sign of respect to the host society. -Mathieu Bock-Coté Link{fr}{PW}
"Ostentatious religious symbols are not primarily a sign faith. If that were the case, the signs could be discreet. Rather they meant to have a political impact. They are a provocative and formalized declaration of a refusal to integrate. It is a showdown by those who wish to break the host society and force it to capitulate. -Mathieu Bock-Coté link-{fr}{PW}I'd expect a statement like this from the religious police in Saudi Arabia or Iran, certainly not in any North American context.
In an article by journalist Richard Martineau he calls the turban affair a victory for 'Extremists' a term that is shocking by its connotation. The idea that these Sikhs are a somehow dangerous and violent fifth column, based solely on religious garb, can only be described as racist.
Pardon my ignorance, but my interpretation of an extremist in the religious context, is someone who resorts to violence or terrorism to further their ends.
I'd hardly characterize our local turban-wearing Sikhs as extremists, nor would I characterize a Quebecer wearing a kippah, or a women wearing a Hijab as such.
It seems that hate and intolerance is alive and well in the PQ and their trusted media dogs.
So I'm not uncomfortable calling these haters, Ayatollahs.
They emulate the very worst traits of the religious bosses in Iran and Saudi Arabia where not conforming to state-mandated standards is a punishable act under the law.
We're not far from that in Quebec, if ever the PQ pass their Quebec values legislation, banning religious regalia in public.
Let's go back to something else the illustrious Thomas Jefferson said in regards to the religious affinity of others;
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."This goes to the essential debate, in other words what is the big deal about a turban on the soccer field, a kippah worn by a doctor, or a scarf worn by a cashier at the license bureau?
There are many things we don't like or agree with in life, be it rock music, punkism, religious orthodoxy, country music, rock music, left or right wing politicians etc. etc.
Is it reasonable to suppress a concept, a lifestyle, a political opinion or a religious persuasion based only on the fact that the majority is against it?
That is exactly what the Ayatollahs of Quebec, Iran and Saudi Arabia are telling us.
Conform or get the Hell out....
