It is a debate fraught with danger, with the distinct possibility that things will get awfully nasty.
As for me, I can honestly see the point of view of each camp and so I am the proverbial fence-sitter, watching the events unfold, feeling like a fan watching a hockey game between two teams that I have no interest in.
I am reminded of the scene in the movie Fiddler on the Roof, where the protagonist Tevye, is called upon to referee a difference of opinion.
Let's start with something that we all should believe in, that is that religious freedom is a tenant of a free and democratic society. We are free to worship or not worship as we see fit.
But that being said, religious freedom is not absolute and where religious beliefs run counter to the law of the land, it is the civic law that prevails, something that some religiously observant people disagree with.
Religious laws and customs that provide for female circumcision, forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, some animal and all human sacrifices or restrictive education are not allowed. Parents cannot refuse a blood transfusion or a necessary medical procedure for their children on religious grounds, while ironically, they can refuse it for themselves. There is a fine line of reasonableness that our society walks in order to satisfy our right to religious freedom and yet insure our basic human right to health, happiness and well-being.
But that being said, religious freedom is not absolute and where religious beliefs run counter to the law of the land, it is the civic law that prevails, something that some religiously observant people disagree with.
Religious laws and customs that provide for female circumcision, forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, some animal and all human sacrifices or restrictive education are not allowed. Parents cannot refuse a blood transfusion or a necessary medical procedure for their children on religious grounds, while ironically, they can refuse it for themselves. There is a fine line of reasonableness that our society walks in order to satisfy our right to religious freedom and yet insure our basic human right to health, happiness and well-being.
Restricting religious garb in public certainly runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights but the new Premier has already stated that he's prepared to use the infamous 'Notwithstanding Clause' to sidestep those charter protections.
This represents an affront to many, who believe that opting out of the Charter is a legalized cheat.
However, it's important to note that Quebec never signed on to the Charter, which was rammed down its throat by the rest of the country.
So among Quebec francophones, both federalist or sovereigntist, using the Notwithstanding Clause is considered not only morally justified, but rather as some sweet revenge.
One of the main reasons the Parti Quebecois' Charter of Secularism failed, was because it painted too broad a stroke, banning all manner of religious garb for public and para-public employees.
The edict would apply to nurses, doctors, teachers, clerks and support staff in hospitals, government-run senior citizen residences and in fact anybody who directly or indirectly received a paycheque that ultimately came from government.
It was too ambitious a project for a minority government, which also rejected a CAQ compromise, a promise for legislative support in return for limiting such a ban to those public employees in positions of power, like police and judges.
And so now that the CAQ is in power it should be no surprise that it wants to enact a law similar to what they proposed, that is, that restrictions on religious garb be placed on those public employees in positions of power.
Why?
Well, let us consider the secularist's point of view, which is that those who wear religious garb in public, likely hold the view that God's law supersedes the law of the land, something that someone who doesn't believe in God would have a hard time accepting. It actually isn't the garb that is in conflict, but the point of view that the garb or symbols represent.
When I went to cegep, the very first year that Vanier college came into existence, we attended classes in what was clearly a Church beforehand and where crucifixes dotted the campus with the school and the government holding that these were historic and cultural symbols. Fair enough.
I had a teacher who was a nun (that probably couldn't be permitted today,) who gave a course in children's literature. She was a kind, affable, well-read and informed person who just happened to wear a full nun's cassock while teaching class.
It did not bother or offend me, but I am forever reminded of an incident in a class where a female student was called upon to give an interpretation of a fairy tale and where her slant was that the story was an allegory for sexual power with a reference to an erect penis.
It was here that I said to myself...Whoa! This should get interesting, and it did.
The teacher had great difficulty discussing the subject and was clearly uncomfortable. She steered the discussion away from sex, but most in the class (I assume) felt as I did, that her deep religious beliefs affected her teaching, and not in a good way.
It wasn't that big a deal, but something that I remember.
And so with a judge who wears a hijab, turban or a kippa, it is fair to question whether their deep religious beliefs, beliefs that may hold that God's law trumps our civil law, will adversely affect their decision. It's a fair concern.
People who wear religious garb publicly remind us of their deep devotion to God and the accompanying baggage. While it is a personal statement made for personal reasons, there is a message that is impossible to ignore.
In some respects, it is similar to someone who wears a "Black Lives Matter" or a "Greenpeace" t-shirt. You know where these people are coming from and that is fine.
But it isn't fine for a judge to wear these articles of clothing in a court, (that is why they wear a black frock.) They may hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, but should not display them openly, lest they give the impression that their judgments will be based on these core beliefs, rather than the civil law.
The same can be said of a teacher or policeman whom all have the right to believe what they will, but should not wear those beliefs on their sleeves, lest they give the wrong impression.
And so one can understand the point of view that those public employees in a position of power (including teachers in public schools) be reasonably restricted from wearing religious paraphernalia.
But the idea that employees at the license bureau or the SAQ, or those mopping the floor in a hospital or treating patients as a technician, nurse or doctor should be restricted from wearing religious symbols is pretty much indefensible. One would have to believe that a nurse in a hijab, a doctor in a kippah or a technician in a turban could possibly have their religious beliefs impede or give the impression that the religious views could impede them from providing equal service to all.
As for the secularists who want to ban religious symbols in public buildings, especially in the National Assembly where a crucifix that sits over the speaker's chair is causing a big stink, they should remember that while the crucifix may have a Catholic heritage, there are plenty of other symbols that would have to be treated the same.
Does all this also have to go, or can we agree that these symbols have become historical vestiges that no longer have a religious connotation?
The same goes for our Quebec flag which clearly displays a Christian cross.
Should we be obliged to change the name of streets and towns that have a Christian appellation? Should the crucifix on top of Mount-Royal be removed?
Most Quebecers of francophone heritage have little affinity for the Church, with less than 5% attending church services regularly and few marrying in church or marrying at all. Baptism rates are falling precipitously and it is fair to say that the Catholic Church is pretty much done in Quebec or will be within another generation.
Why then the attachment to symbols of the past that underscored Quebec's strong bond between church and state?
Likely the answer lies not in the affinity to the Catholic Church but rather in the outrage many Quebeckers feel in being told to erase their history.
But a caveat ....
A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about an incident I witnessed in a Canadian Tire.
A young Muslim female cashier was accosted by an old francophone bag who castigated the girl for wearing a hijab, a symbol, according to her of the young girl's enslavement.
The girl was driven to tears and I could not resist intervening, unloading on the racist bitch in the most unpleasant and cruel intervention I could muster.
This resulted in the manager intervening, removing the bleary-eyed cashier and leaving myself and the insulter to fend for ourselves.
It wasn't pleasant for any of us.
This is what we are to expect, vigilantes empowered by public policy unloading on innocent citizens based on their religious convictions.
Are you ready for that?
But a caveat ....
A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about an incident I witnessed in a Canadian Tire.
A young Muslim female cashier was accosted by an old francophone bag who castigated the girl for wearing a hijab, a symbol, according to her of the young girl's enslavement.
The girl was driven to tears and I could not resist intervening, unloading on the racist bitch in the most unpleasant and cruel intervention I could muster.
This resulted in the manager intervening, removing the bleary-eyed cashier and leaving myself and the insulter to fend for ourselves.
It wasn't pleasant for any of us.
This is what we are to expect, vigilantes empowered by public policy unloading on innocent citizens based on their religious convictions.
Are you ready for that?
@editor
ReplyDeleteyour best bit ever as far as i'm concerned. i wouldn't be surprised if this one gets sent around massively.
“And so with a judge who wears a hijab, turban or a kippa, it is fair to question whether their deep religious beliefs, beliefs that may hold that God's law trumps our civil law, will adversely affect their decision. It's a fair concern.”
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not. A judge does not suddenly appear in their position out of thin air. They are appointed there after a long track record of rigorous qualification. Furthermore, you appear to be saying that judges in fully Muslim, Sikh and Jewish countries/areas are constitutionally incapable of rendering impartial judgements.
By and large, wearing so-called “religious garb” is very often simply due to a cultural tradition rather than from any deeply-held religious conviction.
Similarly, *NOT* wearing “religious garb” in no way changes one’s religious viewpoint in any event, which further renders the whole point moot.
[Place loud snicker here] Yo, El gatto, you write "A judge does not suddenly appear in their position out of thin air. They are appointed there after a long track record of rigorous qualification." Ya, sure. There are enough bigots on the bench to throw that little "factoid" into disarray. Some of them could teach Hitl-rsim 101 and 201 à la fictitious judges like Friedrich Hofstetter, Werner Lampy, Emil Hahn and Ernst Yawning in the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremberg.
DeleteMr. Berlach has written about this in previous blogs about rabid bigoted judges who held nothing but contempt for minorities. These judges claiming to be handcuffed by N@zi doctrine freely and willfully sentenced people to their deaths whether they were guilty of crimes against the state or not. Too, those accused who had riches were often confiscated by the judges.
When that housewife, Pauline Marois, was the Premier of Racism, attacking minorities in religious garb or those who dared speak "That foreign Language" according to then Minister of Education, Diane de Corcey, were the scurvy of the state.
Ohhhhhhhhh...those CAQers are going to make for very entertaining television. Look what has happened to network news in the good ol' U.S. of A. Prepare yourselves...this is only the beginning.
@the cat
Deleteyou seem to think that religious outfits should be allowed for judges as wearing the outfit or not won't change what the person thinks.
What do you think of the obligation judges have to wear black robes? this is imposed on them so they look neutral.
do you think judges should be allowed to run a trial in jeans and tshirt, as the black robe surely won't change their thinking and after all they have a "long track record of rigorous qualification" ?
I have to agree with Cat. In the end this whole debate is about optics..image..but in the end nobody really knows what is going on in many peoples heads. There are some incredibly old-fashioned judges in this country who have antiquated views on many subjects yet wear no religious symbol.
ReplyDeleteNot sure why this is such a priority with the government. I think in terms of immigration we want to make sure we dont take in too many people such that our resources are not stretched such as what is now happening in Montreal with the schools, and we want to try to bring in quality skilled immigrants which fill as many vacant jobs as possible and we want them to integrate as quickly as possible in society. I know many immigrants from all over the world who have integrated very well and are skilled.
We dont want the ghetto situation they have in France where there are frankly too many unskilled Muslims all living together in HLM areas with high unemployment and so on who operate as if they are still in their native country.
As I implied above, complicated, judges are appointees and serve at the pleasure of those whom appointed them. Rigorous qualification, my ass!
DeleteIndeed there are good judges, and others who I'm sure are the Devil's servants.
@complicated
Delete"Not sure why this is such a priority with the government."
it's not. the day after he got elected a journalist asked legault if he intended to follow through with his promise of forbiding religious outfits for judges, police, etc. of course he said yes, it's been in his program for years! but stupid journalist made it sound like this was the number one thing on his list. so you got tricked by low quality news reports complicated. it happens to the best.
To all of you: There are journalists who aren't worthy of cleaning my toilets...same goes for judges and most cushy government job appointees.
ReplyDeleteI have been asking this question since the [i]Charter of Values days[/i], but I never get a logical answer of it. I hope that I can be enlightened here.
ReplyDeleteCharter of Values, secularism, laïcité or whatever they wanna call it. One of main subject in this discourse is the wearing of religious symbols by person in power. I wanna take Sikh's turban as an example. It is generally accepted in many jurisdictions around the world that people of Sikh faith are allowed to wear their turban and keep their beard neatly when they are wearing uniforms.
British Army allows this, so are U.S. Army, Australian Army, Canadian Forces, RCMP, OPP, many Canadian municipal police forces, the list goes on. On the other hand, it is proposed that peace officers in Quebec - provincial and municipal - of Sikh faith will not be allowed to wear their turban. It is posited that by wearing their turban, such officer will not be able to serve the population fairly.
Now, my question then, if in all those jurisdictions around the world there is no major social tension caused by Sikh people wearing turban while in service, why would that be a problem in Quebec?
This is not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know.
PART I
DeleteTroy, my best advice is for you to go through many of the commentaries prepared by this creator, Philip Berlach. I can't give you a scientific or heavily researched answer, except the majority who make up the population of Quebec, those who are all of White, Roman Catholic, French mother-tongued and several generations of those first three criteria.
My experience, having lived the first 25 years of my life in Quebec as a minority (i.e., not all of the four criteria established above - I am white, my mother tongue is English and I'm not a Roman Catholic), and I was a second generation Quebecer until I chose to leave Quebec in my mid-twenties. My decision to leave was the summer Bill 22 was brought into law. It created two classes of citizens, one for the Old Stock Québécois (i.e., those who meet the four criteria established above) and «les autres» or "other", i.e. those who do not meet the four criteria.
The way I see it to this day, the Old Stock were defeated and misled by the likes of corrupt politicians, and worse yet by an even more patriarchal and evil Roman Catholic church. Between the two, the Church kept the population ignorant, pregnant and perpetually poor and at the mercy of the Church. They had large families they could not afford to keep, applied enormous pressure for members of these oversized families where they could push for one or two...or even more of the children to enter their clergy.
PART II
DeleteMany promulgated their hatred of others who were not of their ilk. A particularly viscerally hateful man of the Church, Abbé Lionel Groulx, especially promulgated his toxic hatred of Jews, Protestants (English, especially) and others spewed his evil interpretation, and like Adolf Hitler and sadly U.S. President Donald Trump of today, too many downtrodden souls revered his words, or at least adopted the scapegoats Groulx created.
Circa 1960, a full 200 years after England's General Wolfe defeated France's General Montcalm, this eventually led to the British North America Act of 1867, and French was recognized as an official language of the original four provinces making up Canada. After 200 years of being duped by the likes of the Church and corrupt politicians, the Old Stock majority finally came into their own by nationalizing the Electrical grid and other institutions that were very successfully run by the minorities, especially the British.
For over 40 years from around 1960, the founding of the Quiet Revolution, while the Quebec majority was over time shedding the oppressive influences of the Church and an endless barrage of corrupt politicians. Perhaps 40 years is an arbitrary amount, but their indoctrination by an evil Church took a long time to fully shed.
PART III
DeleteThe majority needed "new" scapegoats (same ol' scapegoats, really) upon whom to inflict their resentment, backwardness and ignorance, so they started to revise their history and have been in the process of destroying all symbols and history of whom they saw as their oppressors, English especially and minorities, who better educated themselves, followed a stronger, more fruitful work ethic than their downtrodden majority. Their first big foray was to promote separatism from the rest of Canada, and coupled with it to remove every word of English off all signage, private and public, large or small, lit or unlit, painted or handwritten. They have destroyed the homes and landmarks established by the major builders of Canadian society in Quebec, like Van Horne's house (he was a major builder of the railroad) and a number of English clubs and landmarks representing their elite society.
The result was nationalism, or more correctly, separatism. They wanted to, and many still do want to rid themselves of the minorities, and all who remain or are to come are expected to adopt their way of life. Their follow-up to the pro-French Bill 22 was Bill 101, a more imposing law that attempted to, as mentioned above, smite everything English especially. They were slightly less hostile towards other white minorities (and I mean, slightly).
The majority always been hostile towards non-whites, trying to get new immigrants from those African Francophonie countries, Haiti and other French speaking black majority nations to live their way. The government attempted to condition the Francophonie immigrants to shop at Quebec owned shops, the Caisse Populaires vs the Canadian major chartered banks, etc.
I think Mr.Sauga has summarized it pretty well. Les Quebecois have been brainwashed from birth indirectly or directly via their parents or the french media, in the past the RC church, politicians and so on to fear the outsiders at first the english but then other nationalities.
DeleteWhy..because their culture was threatened to disappear when they lost to the english and this inflicted some sort of societal trauma on them that still lingers into today. Its almost like a PTSD on a grand scale..like they just cant get over the fact they lost that battle and now are totally outnumbered on the continent.
I think in the past 40-50 years it has kind of morphed somewhat into the protection of les quebecois in terms of their entitlements and specifically I see it as protection of them to have 90 percent of the government or pseudo governmentéunion protected jobs in this province. These jobs offer all sorts of protections that private sector workers can only dream of..basically you will never get fired barring something absolutely atrocious, great benefits, great pension, and maybe most importantly not having too work too hard, etc. I think again this PTSD pushes a lot of Quebecois towards jobs where they are PROTECTED. However when you are PROTECTED you become lazy and inefficient.
I work for a government agency..wont say at which level..but comparing the work ethic and attitude of Quebecois workers here (in general) versus where I worked at in the rest of Canada is quite stark. Here its normal to call in sick when you are not sick and it happens at three times the rate or more as the rest of Canada and the managers turn a blind eye to it. Its normal and almost seen as a virtue to do the bare minimum at work and also to leave early as much as possible if the boss isn't around. Its normal to complain all the time about their privileged work conditions even though 90 percent of society has it much worse. The use of english is a constant source of frustration to many of these workers even though we have constant contact with the rest of canada in various dealings..as if the rest of canada (77 percent of the population) should be the ones bending over backwards to speak and use french. And on and on..its an incredible entitlement mentality and I really think this religious symbol law is just another way to make it difficult for non Quebecois to work here in Quebec and encourage them to leave.
On another note I live in a city which has a substantial anglophone population yet the workers for the city are about 80 percent francophone..why is that? Most of these workers do not live in the city and have no real connection to it other than their job and believe me I dont think a more priviliged group of people exist than those who work for municipal governments. My dealings with them just confirm what an incredibly lazy, inefficient, borderline rude at tmies, spoiled and over paid group of people they truly are which reflects why our property taxes are so high. I think there is a conscious effort by the majority francophone staff to maintain their majority when hiring eve in a predominantly anglophone city.
So in conclusion I still believe that many Quebecois want to be PROTECTED at all costs because of this global PTSD affliction. They need to be in a job and situation where they can more or less work as much or little as they want with they pay they want and so on and o course speak only their language. So this global fear has actually transformed them now into a people very dependant on the government to fulfill their needs hence any law that PROTECTS them more from any outside threat is supported.
"because their culture was threatened to disappear when they lost to the english and this inflicted some sort of societal trauma on them that still lingers into today. Its almost like a PTSD on a grand scale"
DeleteI didn't know it until recently, but sociology and anthropology have a name for what the lingering Pequism essentially is - a "crisis cult". Zionism is another example of a crisis cult, and so is Ukrainian ethnic nationalism which came out of a decades-long hibernation in 2014 following the coup in Kiev.
Trapped and adski: I hope you read my PART IV, even though you cut in after PART III.
DeleteAdski, I take exception to your calling Zionism a crisis cult. Same for Ukrainians as well. You forget that less than a century ago, there was a dictator with a stupid looking moustache that started a world war responsible for killing or permanently injuring well in excess of 50-60 million people, with the intent of rendering certain peoples in the world extinct. It cause great angst on our planet for those who were not directly in that war. Jews were the dictator's archenemy, with Slavs, Gypsies and others not too far behind.
Another dictator with a very full moustache in another country (that the stupid moustached dictator very mistakenly turned on) attempted to starve to death, if not exterminate, the Ukrainians. Am I missing something in history, adeski? Did anyone try to smite the French speakers in Quebec? I know there was an attempt at assimilation of the French speakers that failed miserably circa 1839. With modern technology enabling people to communicate instantaneously today, any attempt to duplicate the 1839 plan would be defeated in a matter of hours.
Sorry, adski, your "crisis cult" comparison between apples and oranges just doesn't float, simple as that, so I hope you now put that notion to bed.
Trapped: From what I have learned, it's probably not as easy to pull fast ones as it used to be. A close relative of mine used to be in the parapublic sector, and he was there for the tail end of the "real gravy train", to the point where he and his colleagues were test cases for implementing quantitative metrics. He had to document and log every activity he did, and after taking the time to describe his bowel movements in detail (i.e., colour, texture and odour), he was excused from having to log further. This was the model to implement metrics into many government jobs. He was fortunate to have started working there, and retire in his mid-50s with full insurance and RREGOP benefits. He told me about people who would go on salary insurance for two years (the max allowed), come back for a day, then go back on salary insurance another two years.
While I can write volumes on the parapublic frolics, your eloquent soliloquy of Quebecism makes me want Quebec to separate all the more, just so I can joyously watch what Quebec does without federal government largesse to enable them to live the life they enjoy now.
I am not questioning a reality of collective crises, as it is true that entire groups of people can be targeted for extermination, e.g. Native Indians in the 19th century.
DeleteI do not question that collective response is sometimes needed, since the targets of attacks are often collectives, not individuals.
Francophones were targeted for cultural extermination, sort of like the Scots with Scotland groomed to become a theme park of sorts. Yes, this is not as bad as physical extermination, but it can be argued that it is an extermination of the soul achieved by stripping people of the feeling of self-worth and self-respect, and a collective response is sometimes inevitable even in the moments of cultural threats.
What I do deplore is that groups under stress or threat are easy targets for charismatic demagogues
and that these groups may adopt cultish practices and behaviors (i.e. become crisis cults). Pequism is one example of one such cult, though it is now on the wane and has never caused as much damage as some other political cults in history.
PART IV
ReplyDeleteMuch to the chagrin of the majority, the newcomers could not be conditioned. They wanted to and did establish their own communities import and buy their own missives and live life on their own terms. The majority was even more frustrated by non-French speaking immigrants who, while forced by Bill 101 to attend French instruction schools, too chose to go their own way. Worse yet, they still watch English TV shows, listen to English music and many speak English in the home and have English speaking friends. Their bilingual preparation and way of living puts them in better position for jobs as many in the majority don't learn English, and the government does its darnedest to prevent them from learning English.
Today, with most of those of the majority who lived through the Quiet Revolution dying off (mercifully), it seems English is being more tolerated, albeit barely, because there are still many of the majority who through intergenerational ignorance and hatred, pass down the past as they see it and suffer paranoid delusions of how if those who make up the majority become a weaker majority, their "race" as they call themselves will be sucked up by the English speakers surrounding them. The only way they see as preserving their "race" is to oppress others who are not of their ilk.
It took the imbeciles who make up this paranoid bunch within the majority over 50 years to learn they can't get rid of English, so now they're attacking those who hold dear religious symbols that are not Roman Catholic as infiltrators of the state. You can rest assured in another few decades the paranoid within the majority will find another symbol of antagonism, but I'll either be gone or too old to give a damn.
Troy, I hope my hypothesis goes towards answering your question.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete