Charter of Quebec Values- Manufacturing Dissent

With all the sound and fury in the Press over the proposed Quebec Charter of Values, one might be led to believe that the issue is of paramount importance to Quebecers.
It isn't...
In a Leger poll conducted before the grand debate was launched by the Parti Quebecois, this is what preoccupied Quebecers;

Quebec Priorities

1. Control Government Spending........51%
2. Lower taxes and tariffs.....................44%
3. Fight Corruption................................43%
4. Job creation.......................................38%
5. Supply cheaper oil and gas..............24%
6. Supply end-of-life assistance...........22%
7. Fight social inequality.......................18%
8. Fight greenhouse emissions..............9%
9. Strengthen Bill 101..............................9%
10. Adopt a Quebec Charter of Values....7%
11. Sovereigntist governance..................3%
12. Non of the above................................ 1%

It's a bit sad to see the Parti Quebecois use this Charter of Secularism as a wedge issue manufactured to reap political rewards, by basically appealing to the lower nature of people.

Here is a translation of an article "Statistiques laïques" written by Jérôme Lussier 
for L'actualité  magazine.
If you read French, please do the author the courtesy of reading the original article by clicking on the link.

Some Interesting statistics on the Issue of the Day in Québec…

• Number of circumcisions performed for cultural or religious grounds in Quebec hospitals in the last five years : 0.

• Number of excisions and stonings in Hérouxville practiced during the century prior to the publishing of the Code of Conduct" in 2007, which prohibited stoning and female circumcision: 0. 

• Number of Canadian and Quebec laws currently in violation of the principles of neutrality and secularism of the state : 0.
   
• Number of Canadian and Quebec laws that currently allow attacks against men, women and children for cultural and religious reasons : 0.
   
• Item number of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982 ), which explicitly affirms and protects the equality of men and women in Canada : 15.
   
• Item number of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Quebec (1975), which explicitly affirms and protects the equality of men and women in Quebec: 10.
   
• Homicide and/or assaults forgiven by the courts of Quebec and Canada last year in deference to religious or cultural beliefs of the accused : 0.
   
• Number of judicial or administrative decisions made ​​under Sharia , the Talmud or the New Testament, in Quebec, in the past five years: 0 .
   
• Number of Bills of Islamic inspiration currently debated in the House of Commons or the National Assembly : 0.
   
• Number of Canadian and Quebec laws that currently discriminate against men, women and children, by applying religious principles : 0.

• Number of Quebec officials reprimanded in the past five years for having used their jobs and their religious symbols for the purpose of proselytizing : 0.  

• Number of users of public services in Quebec who have demonstrated over the past 10 years, that they had been under-served because of religious symbols worn by government officials : 0.

• Number of persons injured by a turban, a veil or a yarmulke at a sporting or cultural event held in Canada during the last 10 years : 0.
   
• Number of persons injured by a religious symbol worn in public in Quebec last year : 0.
   
• Number of people whose human rights were violated last year in response to requests for religious or cultural groups in Quebec : 0.
   
• Number of provinces that have seen fit to adopt a 'charter of secularism' to implant a secular government, or any "Charter values ​​" to implant their provincial values ​​: 0.
   
• Number of religions for which a beard is a religious symbol : 1 (minimum).
   
• Number of religions for which a wig is a religious symbol : 1 (minimum).
   
• Number of religions for which long hair is a religious symbol : 2 (minimum).
   
• Parti Québécois proposals on the procedure that will determine which employees may (or may not ) have a beard , wig and long hair ( in particular,)  why , and in what context : none.
   
• Rationale of the Parti Quebecois in linking the wearing of some religious symbols and incompetence or bias in the performance of official work : none.
   
• Percentage chance that the PQ Bill  on 'Quebec values'  is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter and/or the Quebec Charter : 100% .
   
• Nationality of Bachir Lazhar , aka 'Monsieur Lazhar' the last teacher character to have entertained us: Quebec Algerian. (Percentage of Muslims in Algeria : 99%. )
   
• Number of reasonable accommodations crises identified by commissioners Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor in 2008 , compared to a " media frenzy " and " erroneous or partial perception of practices found on the ground" : 0.
   
• Probability that the PQ without viable economic success or to assert its political project, has decided to conduct the next election on the backs of immigrants : high.

Manufacturing dissent..... that's what its all about.

It's hard to read the above and not laugh at the rank stupidity and naked manipulation of a government intent on creating division in order to survive.

The 'need' for a so-called Charter of Values is directly related to the immigration disaster that is also directly related to the government's ill-suited plan to bring in French speaking immigrants at all costs.

Doesn't anybody see the irony of each year, bringing in scads of orthodox Muslim immigrants with few skills and then complaining about orthodox Muslims immigrants with few skills.

It's like ordering takeout food, complaining about the poor quality and taste and then ordering the same meal from the same restaurant again and again, all the while chastising the restaurant owner.
DON'T COMPLAIN.....YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING.

The self-self-delusion is maddening and worse, shameful.

How can the PQ  tell us, and how can we accept with a straight face, that a crucifix is not a religious symbol if it is in the National Assembly or on top of Mount Royal, because it is actually a patrimonial item?

Under this rationale, perhaps the Jews can argue that a kippah isn't a religious symbol but merely a patrimonial heritage.
After all, Jews have been wearing kippahs in this province for over two hundred years, a lot longer than the crucifix in the National Assembly which was installed in 1936 and the Cross on Mount Royal which was installed in 1924.
The idiotic rationale of the crucifix not being a crucifix made by Bernard Drainville , actually makes me think of the game Twister.
Read: National Assembly’s crucifix is a Duplessis-era bond between politics and religion


Mr. Drainville and former PQ Premier Bernard Landry are both on a campaign to salvage Quebec's sinking reputation, demanding that politicians and journalists who oppose the potential law  'raise the debate' and refrain from calling the law and Quebecers themselves xenophobes and racists.
Good luck with that...
Read: PQ to Trudeau: don't compare us to American racists
Read; Bernard Landry blasts 'Quebec bashing' over secularism charter

These gentlemen should understand that the hackneyed theme of 'Quebec-bashing' plays only in paranoid Quebec.
At any rate, I must say I'm impressed with Mr. Landry's chutzpah in assuming that anyone in the federal government or in fact anyone at all in the ROC gives a rat's ass what he thinks or in any way will be influenced by his demand.

Both Drainville and Landry should practice defending Quebec's good name, because frankly, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The story of the kippah ban will be of particular interest to the American media, controlled influenced populated by many Jews.
The first time a big American newspaper or television or news magazine runs this story, it will be epic.....I promise.
Remember 60 Minutes?

Quebec Not Very Accommodating

A half a dozen years back, a cabane à sucre  was taken to task for making an accommodation to a large group of Muslims who asked that pork not be used in the preparation of their meals.
Since the group was rather large and represented an important and profitable booking, the owner agreed. Why not?

A good time was had by all, the owner very happy to provide a service for which he was well-paid and the Muslims happy for the social outing that represents an important aspect of Quebec culture and history.

But not everyone was amused, in fact the Quebec Association des restaurateurs de cabanes à sucre was horrified that the traditional recipes which included pork were bastardized in order to make a religious accommodation.
The president, Hermine Bourdeau-Ouimet, opined that pork is part of the pleasure at the cabane à sucre and that there shouldn't be any question of modifying the traditional menus. Link{fr}

In another cabane à sucre, 260 hundred Muslims were celebrating a day at the sugar shack and asked that the dance floor be used for prayer for about ten minutes.
The only other group in the hall was about twenty non-Muslims who were told to get off the dance floor for the short period that the prayers were offered,
Incensed, that group stormed out in a huff.
When the owner was questioned by the press over the incident, he remarked casually that there were close to 300 Muslims and twenty Christians and if the majority didn't rule, their money certainly did.

And so was born in Quebec the debate over religious accommodations.

Should we or shouldn't we.

If you believe the polls, most Quebecers don't want to make what are commonly known as 'reasonable accommodations,' a clever euphemism for 'reasonable religious accommodations', fearing that it will somehow lead to a breakdown in society and destroy the all important social cohesiveness, that is the cornerstone of the nationalist narrative.

As a society, we are in fact, very in tune with the concept of reasonable accommodations, just not with reasonable accommodations that involve religion.

The leading anti-religious-accommodation journalist of the Journal de Montreal Richard Martineau makes this point about the religiously observant.

"You chose to follow the tenets of a religion? ..... Then assume the consequences.

Maybe your choice will prevent you from eating in restaurants in La Ronde because you won't find halal or kosher meat ...
And maybe your choice will prevent you from bathing in a public lake, because in Quebec there isn't separation between the sexes.

It's your choice.  
A company does not have to bend over backwards to accommodate you.
If God is so important to you, you should accept without complaint the sacrifices that the religion you have chosen .

This is the price to pay." Link

To many this argument makes sense, but it does show an incredible naïvete by someone who hasn't a clue as to what a business is all about, which is selling as much product or services at a profit, as one can.
If a group of 300 customers made a request for square dancing music to be played while they dine, then square dancing music it would be.
Maybe not to Mr. Martineau, but to any smart businessman.

If you believe in what Mr. Martineau wrote above about personal choice and living with the consequences, then you would have to agree that no accommodation should be offered to a large group of vegetarians who wished to arrange an afternoon at the cabane a sucre, because it too would entail a menu modification.
 After all, like the Muslims, it is a personal choice that vegetarians make not to conform with mainstream Quebec society and so they too should be forced to live with the consequences.

But I'm pretty sure that if faced with the question of vegetarians, Mr. Martineau would find room in his heart for an accommodation.

How about a large Yoga group, which asks that the dance floor be liberated for ten minutes so that they could do some limbering up exercises. Considering that 260 of the 280 guests are part of this Yoga group, is it really unreasonable or just good business?

Such is the folly of the debate over reasonable accommodations, because by definition an accommodation that is reasonable should be supported by all and contrarily we should all be against an unreasonable accommodation.

Of course we make accommodations all day long, the old standby that the rules should apply equally to all, is nothing but a pipe dream. We make these accommodations because they are the right thing to do.

We allow those with limited mobility to park closer to entrances and reserve parking spots just for them, excluding others.
The special prices at the movies for students or senior citizens is an accommodation that discriminates based on age.
The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts both discriminate against the opposite sex.
Golf clubs that don't allow women in the dining room may be seen as dinosaurs, but fitness clubs that bar men are seen as progressive.

All of a sudden accommodations don't seem so absurd, but when those accommodations revolve around religion, the atheist majority, led by Mr. Martineau see red, the debate always returns to so-called concept of equality, where we in fact violate those rules every day.

And so to the decision made by the La Ronde amusement park in Montreal (owned by Six Flags) to no longer allow Kosher or Halal food to be brought into the park by guests, can be seen in the Quebec context.
After a newspaper story detailing the horror, an online petition demanding that the amusement park end the religious accommodation was signed by 19,000 people who had nothing better to do with their time. Read a story  See the petition

Incidentally another petition, asking the La Ronde to sell healthier food received less than six hundred signers. Link
It is a sad commentary on what drives public debate in Quebec.
I bet if you asked these 19,000 petitioners if it would be okay for La Ronde to sell Halal or Kosher food, the majority would say absolutely not.
Why? Dunno.

The venue has a firm no outside food policy, which is fair for a business that makes much of its money selling food.
Unlike other venues who do offer kosher food, there isn't enough business in Montreal to warrant the investment and so La Ronde caved to the pressure and reversed a policy that did allow food to be brought in.

In a massive show of support, the Richard Martineau's in the media applauded this policy, citing the old chestnut of equality. If Jews and Arabs can bring in food, why not the Christians?

There is of course an easier solution to the problem and as the old saying goes, where there's a will, there's a way.

Like the airlines, the amusement park could have patrons pre-order kosher or Halal or in fact a vegetarian plate from a published menu, perhaps 24 hours before coming. Customers could pay for their purchases online and pick them up at a designated counter.
Not a big deal, certainly not brain surgery.
I'm not sure how many people would actually use the service, but if it were to be underused, the park could then successfully argue that it is unnecessary.

As I said, where there's a will, there's a way.

Unfortunately, in Quebec, there is a lack of will.

Léger Poll: Smoke, Mirrors and Statistical Errors

I can't say I'm a big fan of the Léger Marketing group, a company that in my opinion, skates awfully close to the offside line in producing opinion polls that are tailored to provide results that clients demand.

Sneaky? Dishonest?
How about the way the company cleverly hides the French accent aigu (é) in their logo, preserving its Quebec pedigree here, while obscuring the fact that it is a Franco-Quebec company to clients in English North America.
There must be some research out there that holds that French diacritical marks on names are a turn-off to Anglophones, even the mighty  Céline Celine Dion caved and got rid of the accent in her name, perhaps like Léger, believing that they would be more presentable to the massive English-language world.

At any rate,  Léger struck out rather badly in the last Quebec election, woefully underestimating Liberal party support, highlighting the fact that the four-percent margin error that they reserve for themselves, is a lot more critical than they intimate.

"With two days until Quebec's provincial election, the  separatist Parti Quebecois remained poised to win a majority government, according to an exclusive Leger Marketing poll conducted for QMI Agency. The last QMI Agency poll before Quebecers vote on Sept. 4 placed the PQ in the lead at 33%, with the CAQ in second at 28% and the Liberals at 27%.
The percentages for all three major parties remained unchanged since the last Leger poll, which was published on Aug. 24." Link

We all know that the results of the election were much closer than Léger predicted and that the six percentage point difference between support for the PQ and the Liberals as predicted, was a far cry from the less than one percent (PQ-31.95%.....Lib -31.20%) which was borne out on election day.
This incidentally was outside the margin of error, although I'm sure Léger would argue that it wasn't because the Liberal party strength was under-reported by about 4% and that the PQ strength was over-reported by 2%, both within the margin of error, when considered individually.
Adding the two numbers together the difference was indeed about 5%-6%, outside the margin, but I guess it's a case on interpretation.
You say ta-may-toe, I say ta-mah-to

Interestingly, when I spoke to Liberal party insiders, they told me that one of the reasons that Jean Charest called the last provincial election was because their own internal party polling numbers showed the Liberals and the PQ neck and neck.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure that the Léger poll actually affected the razor-thin outcome of the election, as some voters, considering the poll in the closing days of the campaign were motivated or demotivated to go out and vote.
There is also a  minority of fence-sitters who actually are swayed to vote for the predicted winner.
Had Léger not published the inaccurate polling projections, we might very well have elected a minority Liberal government!

To be fair, other polling companies have done as abysmally poor of late, wrongly predicting the outcomes in both the recent Alberta and British Columbia provincial elections, in both cases botching the predictions  so badly that they actually projected the wrong party as winners and this, not by a tiny margin. Read a story about these polling failures

All these polling disasters confirm the fact that polling has actually become less and less accurate over the years, something surprising in a world where technological breakthroughs has led to better and more accurate results in just about every field of human endeavor.

There are many reasons for this decline in polling accuracy. The cell phone age makes it harder to contact a targeted sample, where landlines of the past, pinpointed exactly where people lived. People today have also become less and less predictable, often changing their minds often before an election. Also, there is a dramatic drop in the number of people willing to participate in opinion polls, with privacy a very real and modern concern.
And so today, interpreting the shrinking numbers is as important as the numbers themselves.
Given the significantly higher numbers of undecided and non-responders, pollsters can no longer just ignore them and have to 'weigh' their impact, determining if they share a statistically significant disposition, substantially different form those who responded to the poll.

It isn't an easy task and we've seen pollsters in all three provincial elections badly misinterpret what information they had, where the undecided and unresponsive skewed widely towards the party that held power before the election.

Of all types of opinion polls, political polls should be the most accurate, after all, those being questioned are simply asked whether they will vote for party or candidate A, B or C.
Nothing complicated there, or so it seems and yet pollsters are getting it wrong at an alarming and expanding rate.

All this takes me to question the results of a poll that asks much more complicated questions, public perceptions on policy, where the nature of the questions may well determine or 'skew' the outcome itself, which is exactly what happened in the poll commissioned by the PQ and conducted by Léger, to 'determine' Quebecers' position in relation to religious accommodation.

This poll was commissioned by a PQ government with an agenda, wherein the poll is meant to validate and bolster support of their particular point of view over accommodations.
These types of polls are never be published if the conclusions aren't supportive and quite frankly, therein lies the rub.
Pollsters are expected to deliver supporting results and those that do are rewarded with repeat business, those that don't, are cast aside.

More often than not, the actual polling questions are dishonestly skewed to favour an expected result, it is the dirty secret of the industry.

Let us take for example this question;
"Do you agree that immigrants have a negative influence on our economy"

..and lets us compare it to this question;
"Do you agree that immigrants have a positive influence on our economy"

It is basically the same question, asked  from the opposite point of view, but in a perfect world, we could expect that  if 60% of respondents agreed with the first question , then only 40% of respondents should agree with the second.
 But it just doesn't work that way at all, the nature of the question may very well result in 60% of the sample agreeing to both questions!

To be fair, the pollster should actually have asked this question;
"Do you believe that immigrants have a positive or negative influence on our economy"

In polling, the devil is in the question, and asking the right question is the crux of fairness, while asking a loaded question, an exercise in spin.
By the way, I'm not sure that even the third question above is indeed fair as well, because the question implies that immigrants are different.
We can  reference Werner Heisenberg's  Uncertainty Principle which tells us that the very act of observing, changes the result.

In fact a polling question that reflects bias, can never yield meaningful results.

• Do you agree that  Jewish people are by nature controlling? 
• Do you agree that devout Christians are intolerant?
• Do you agree that Pro-Life activists are dangerous?
• Do you agree that Native Canadians are lazy?
• Do you agree that Canadian Muslims pose a threat?

Really?
Can these loaded questions ever yield statistically valid data, or does the very nature of the question skew towards statistical manipulation?

And so we come to the poll commissioned by the Quebec government in respect to the debate over accommodations.
I must say, gentle readers, that I am outraged and furious at the crass manipulation and dishonesty of the entire Léger/Quebec government poll.

The very first question and the keynote of the entire poll is this gem.
Do you agree that:
"Putting an end to unreasonable accommodations favours social cohesion and integration" 

Are you kidding me?
I haven't  seen a more loaded and dishonest query, since the last referendum question.
If I was to answer the question, I would have to respond affirmatively because I don't believe in unreasonable accommodations, in fact who actually does?

Let me rephrase the question a little differently;
"Refusing to give into unreasonable demands by your children builds familial cohesion." 

Who would disagree with that statement?

We all define 'unreasonable accommodations" differently, what is reasonable or unreasonable to one person, may or may not be to another.
But however we define 'unreasonable', we certainly would not be in favour of it!
I'm surprised anybody at all answered the question with a NO!

The rest of the poll builds on the same negative theme and cascades down to the point of ludicrousness where by the end, 60% of those queried, agreed that private schools should be included in provisions of a potential law that limits religious accommodations.

Think of the implications...
It would mean that private Catholic and Jewish schools would not be allowed to teach religion and that a Crucifix or Star of David could not be displayed nor worn by teachers! In a Muslim school, teachers would be barred from wearing a hijab and teaching the Koran!

And by the way, according to the poll, 62% of Francophones and 28% of anglophones believe that doctors should not be allowed to treat patients while wearing a kippa (skullcap) or hijab.
I could only imagine the international scorn such an interdiction would raise. Bizarrely, it would put Quebec in the same class as Iran and Saudi Arabia when it comes to religious tolerance!

How have we arrived at this intolerant juncture.
Well, the PQ has harped on the subject so long and so loudly, that Quebecers are actually now frightened by immigrants, egged on by a public debate over what good Quebecers should or should not tolerate.

Polls like this help fan the flames of intolerance.
Public discussions by politicians about how they are going to come down on Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and other minorities adds fuel to the already toxic level of xenophobia.
It's sad and disgusting.

The entire poll is crafted to yield certain results that the government wants in order to push ahead.
By the way, you can view the entire poll HERE, but it is in French.

......One last comment on the poll.

There appears to be a serious statistical error.
When the responses of 'Anglophones' and 'Allophones' are added to yield a combined percentage called 'Non-Francophones,' the results appear to be erroneous.

Simply put, Léger pollsters forget to put more statistical weight on the more numerous Anglophone responses.

As indicated in the poll, 58% of Anglophones and 70% of Allophones were in agreement with the statement. Combining the two yields, according to the Léger, yields 65%, which is statistically incorrect.

Consider two groups of people.
Group A consists of ten fat people averaging 200 pounds each.
Group B consists of six thin people averaging 150 pounds each.

In order to find the average weight for everybody, you'd have to add up all the pounds and divide by the total number of people.
Group A (10 x 200lbs,=2,000lbs.) + Group B (6x 150lbs=900lbs) = 2,900lbs divided by 16 people=181 lbs. average.

What Léger appears to have done is to just take the average between the 200lbs average of Group A and the 150lbs average of group B, yielding a 175 lbs., an error a first semester statistician would never make!
For those mathematically inclined here's a deeper explanation.
All the following numbers are extrapolated directly from the diagram.

Of the 324 Anglophones who were queried, 12% declined to answer, leaving 285 who did respond, of which 58% or 165 were in agreement with the statement.
Of the 179 Allophones that were queried, 6% declined to answer, leaving 165 who did respond, of which 70% or 116 were in agreement with the statement. 
Between the two groups, 450 people responded, of whom 281 agreed with the statement.
That yields 62% NOT the 65% indicated in the poll.

With the error corrected, the grand total also changes from 70% to 68.2%  By the way, this error is reproduced in every single question.

Readers, I promise you this.
Somebody at Léger is going to read this post and if I am wrong, I will hear about it immediately.
If I am wrong I will apologize.

If I am right, there will be a deathly silence.

Hypocrisy Reigns in Religous Debate

A ruling by Quebec's Tribunal des droits de la personne ordered an end to the practice of Christian prayers before city council meetings in the city of Saguenay, as well as demanding that the city remove the crucifix hanging in the debates hall. The decision is sending shock waves throughout Quebec. The court concluded that the mayor and council have deliberately attempted to impose their religious views on the public at the expense of their duty of neutrality. LINK{FR}

The city of Saguenay and it's fiercely religious mayor Jean Tremblay has fought tooth and nail against the idea of in any way removing affirmations of the Christian faith in the city administration.

The mayor was so annoyed that the city was hauled before the tribunal, that at a press conference, he directed some injudicious comments towards the plaintiff, Alain Simoneau and the Mouvement laïque québécois (Quebec secular movement,) which backed the case.

The judge was so annoyed with the recalcitrant mayor that she added $15,000 in punitive damages to  the original $15,000 compensation for his 'illicit and intentional' behaviour. LINK{FR}

See my previous blog piece - Saguenay Mayor Leads Idiot Parade in Religious Debate

The litigious mayor, has already announced that the city will appeal the decision and is asking the public to make donations to finance the court battle. He's come under fire for wasting city resources and has already spent almost $60,000 defending his and council member's right to pray before meetings. He is what lawyers like to refer as 'litigious,' a lawyers ultimate 'wet dream.' Mayor Tremblay has also undertaken other expensive legal battles which includes at least one protracted appeal to the Supreme Court.

Click to see donation page

The city has added a page on its municipal website to collect funds for its legal defence fund and has already collected $23,000 in just two days.
Hmm....seems to me that putting up an image of Jesus shilling for money might also be a violation of the separation of church and state, but I'm just asking.......

The court ruling has quickly sparked a debate over the Crucifix in the National Assembly where politicians have already voted in favour of keeping the Christian symbol above the speakers chair, under the guise that it is part of Quebec 'heritage' and doesn't necessarily represent support for any certain religion. Hmmmm.......

Kathleen Weil, the NDG anglo sellout Minister of Justice, was one of the first to give an interview supporting the Crucifix and repeated the fiction that it wasn't a 'religious' symbol.

Lousie Beaudoin, the PQ hardliner has also given an interview and asked the rhetorical question as to why it is okay to accommodate other religions, but not that of the majority.

A good question, except when did Beaudoin ever support religious accommodations for minorities?

The Crucifix in the National Assembly remains problematic and understandably leads to all sorts of problems as in the recent case of a Montreal cabbie who wants to preserve religious paraphernalia in his cab.
Yesterday news came that the Jewish cabbie had a fine upheld in court in regard to decorating his cab with Jewish religious articles. The taxi authority has rules against these types of expressions and it seems to me like a good idea not to turn cabs into shrines to Allah, Jehovah, Jesus or Shiva.
Now if the taxi authorities could only regulate the music that cabbies play on their radio, I'd be very appreciative. ....but I digress!  

"Mr. Perecowicz said he will appeal and is ready to take the case as far as the Supreme Court. He says it's unfair that he cannot display his Jewish prayer scroll in his cab, while a crucifix hangs over the speaker's chair in Quebec's National Assembly." LINK

He might have a point.

The issue seems to have sparked quite an emotional reaction across the province with two cities, Laval and Trois-Rivieres, already refusing to apply similar rulings in their town halls. 

The thorny issue of religion in public life has rocked many other countries and is not a Quebec-only debate. Recently Italy is appealing a European Court of Human Rights ruling that crucifixes be removed from schools. It has also employed the same cockamamie argument that the crucifix is a historic heritage symbol and thus can be displayed in every classroom. Greece and Russia have joined 10 other countries as third-parties in support of Italy. Link

The issue is contentious because Quebeckers have embraced public secularism in an attempt to check the influence of those with profound religious beliefs from having too much influence in public policy. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But the advancement of secularism is a two-edged sword, as the Mayor of Saguenay found out. If you want to ban Hijabs and Niqibs in public you have to get rid of the cross. Anything else is hypocrisy.

The small but plucky Mouvement laïque québécois is taking advantage of the confused situation to advance their program of removing all religion, even Christianity,  from public life.

Although less than 6% of Quebeckers attend Church on a regular basis, it  doesn't stop them from considering themselves 'Catholics' just the same.

How the situation can possibly resolve itself remains a mystery. Clearly the majority want Quebec society to reflect its Christian heritage without forcing Christianity upon anybody.

That being said, it means the tolerance of other religious symbols and it entails making certain religious accommodations, something most are against.

As they say on the street, you can't suck and blow at the same time!

If we listen to the secular extremists, we'd have to rename every street bearing a Christian appellation, remove the Crucifix from Mont-Royal and every public building and school in Quebec. Christian holidays including Easter and Christmas would no longer be paid public holidays. The government would be barred from offering any public funding to schools that included religious instruction.

I don't accept that concept, considering that people of faith pay taxes too and as such can expect to have those taxes support schools that follow government mandated courses, in addition to religion. To deny them this right is to impose by taxation, a form of secularism.

Next there are those who want to maintain Quebec as a Christian state (like the Mayor of Saguenay) with Christianity as the state religion. Schools would go back to teaching Christianity and those of a different mind could opt out of classes. Again, I'm not particularly in favour of that.

Then there are those who'd like to maintain the status quo, where the state is officially secular but remains attached to its Christian heritage. Religion is taken out of schools but private schools providing religious instruction remain subsidized. Minorities can expect some accommodations, but not those that conflict with the general tenets by which secular society operates.

It's a wishy washy solution that I sort of believe is the best answer. 

Let's be honest, the whole question is a toughie. I think anybody who has a sure solution is probably a hardliner.

Good News!........Standing Firm on Religious Accommodation Pays Off

The question of religious accommodation sparks fierce debate and at its extreme, pits ultra-conservatives who believe that no accommodation should be offered against ultra-liberals who believe that freedom of religion is paramount and that accommodation is a fundamental right.

Most Canadian's are middle-of-the-roaders, believing that reasonable accommodations are fair as long as they don't violate Canadian values. It's an eminently reasonable position and reflects the common good sense and fairness that is the hallmark of Canadian society.

And so it is, that the kirpan represents a contentious issue among those who are in the middle, (those on the extreme ends of the debate have long established their positions) who rightfully fret over the dilemma of whether or not to provide the accommodation. There is room for difference of opinion and fair debate, even among those who are not dogmatic.

But there are some accommodations that all Canadians should object to, accommodations that are in direct contradiction to Canadian values of equality, respect and fairness.

In Quebec, the Hasidic community, a 10,000 member sect of fundamentalist Jews has been systematically refusing to educate their children in accordance with minimum standards as designated by the education department.
It isn't a case of minor differences, the Hasids impose upon their children a regimen of up to 35 hours per week of religious study, leaving just six hours to accommodate the three R's and all the other basic subjects.

I'm sure that most Canadians would agree (perhaps not the Montreal Gazette Editorial board) that an average of just one hour a day for French, English, math and science is just not 'kosher.'  Many might argue that such a situation can easily be considered child neglect or abuse.

The Hasids may disagree, but Canadians have long accepted that the government can impose compulsory schooling for both boys and girls as well a syllabus that both public and private schools must abide by.

The Quebec government has been aware of the academic 'problem' in Hasidic schools for years, but has treaded lightly, fearful of being accused of antisemitism.

Polite attempts by the government to prod the schools into any sort of compliance has failed miserably, with the Hasids employing legal delaying actions as well as threatening the government that the communities would up and leave the province, casting the aspersion that Quebec is intolerant.  And so the stalemate has endured for years, up until last year when the government found its backbone and initiated legal proceedings.

The ongoing debate over accommodations and language has cast the Hasids directly into the media spotlight and the press has been up in arms over the fact that the Hasids don't teach French in their schools with lessons provided in Hebrew, Yiddish and English exclusively, much to the chagrin of the you-know-whos. 

And so last year, emboldened by a of dose of language 'Dutch Courage' the government moved to have the school's public funding withdrawn and in some cases, the licenses revoked.
The Hasids reacted as they always have, by stonewalling and threatening legal action. But alas for them, these tactics did not work.

Faced with the very real possibility of having their school de-funded, a blow that would effectively close the institutions, the Hasids in one school did the impossible.

Instead of fighting, they decided to switch. They decided to comply.  Amazing!

After consulting their spiritual leader in Jerusalem, who gave his blessing to their plans to integrate, the Belz Hassidic community, which runs the religious school, undertook measures to fall in line with the education department's demands.

The school enacted the teaching of French from the earliest grades on  and extended classes until 6:45PM to make room for the other mandatory subjects, hitherto ignored or given short shrift.
Unqualified teachers were replaced by qualified French teachers able to teach the standard curriculum.
Another massive concession was the school's commitment to teach science. As you know fundamentalist schools (of all religious stripes)  have somewhat of a problem with this.

The changes at the school are epic, changes that the school is actually quite proud of.

"To integrate, we need to be able to communicate with the man in the street and in the stores" noted one school official.

 Read the whole story (fr)

Wow! That's quite a change.

If there are lessons to be learned it is that sometimes a government needs to stand up and just say "NO"
In this case the Hasids, in the face of a committed government position, decided that it was time to change and meet the government half-way.
The community will always remain devoutly Hasidic, but perhaps better educated and better able to function in a French Quebec. That is basically all the education department demanded.

Everyone is a winner.
It shows that religious communities can make concessions without destroying their beliefs.

If the government remains firm with the Sikhs over the kirpan, it's only a matter of time before that community accepts that compromise is necessary and that they cannot wear the dagger in certain public situations.

When they do comply, they will find that their religious piety hasn't been affected, they will remain Sikhs who venerate God in their own way. It will be a change, but a small one and eventually it will be no big deal.

Nothing is written in stone, religious customs can and do evolve, but sometimes a push is needed. Those liberals who advocate in favour of the kirpan in public are enablers who delay the inevitable integration of Sikhs in mainstream society.

If there is a moral to this story, it is "Just say No"

Like a child who refuses to eat his dinner and is faced with the same plate at each subsequent meal by parents who are even more stubborn, eventually the child eats. It's called good parenting.

Ultra-religious communities cannot maintain certain practices and remain good citizens. Our society is open and pluralistic, but there are limits which must be defended if our societal values are to be protected.
It doesn't mean that we want to impose secularism upon the devout, not by a longshot. Nobody is asking Sikhs or Hasids to abandon their faith.
We are ready to compromise and accommodate, but compromise is a value that these communities have to adopt as well. 

Remaining firm and upholding the shared beliefs that make us Canadian is a noble enterprise. The lesson that we learned in the above story is that they ultra-religious communities can also can evolve to share those values, while remaining true to their core beliefs.

Let us not fall into the liberal trap that says that we must accommodate at all costs.

It's too expensive a price to pay.

Crucifix in Parliament is a Large Cross to Bear For Pauline Marois

While everyone was watching the Olympics, Pauline Marois leader of the Parti Quebecois, Quebec's sovereignists opposition party debated Gerald Bouchard (of the famous Bouchard/ Taylor commission) over 'reasonable accommodations' on the popular CBC French language programme "Tout le Monde en Parle"

Madame Marois and her separatist PQ party have been pushing the principle that religion should be removed from government and para-public institutions. This policy was crafted not so much to reflect Quebec's disengagement from the Catholic Church, but rather to put a check on orthodox Muslims, Hassidic Jews and Sikhs whose orthodoxy frightens and annoys most old stock French Quebeckers.

The debate rages on over the principle of 'reasonable accommodations,' a concept wherein exceptions are made in public policy to accommodate people on the basis of religious convictions.

An example of a religious accommodation is a patient asking that she be seen by a female doctor, for modesty purposes. Another accommodation is to allow the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, a public institution to continue to serve Kosher food only.

Some accommodations are tiny, some are big, but most Quebeckers are tired of them all and in opinion poll after opinion poll, hold by a large majority that no religious accommodations should be tolerated at all.

The issue cuts across political lines, with the most radical sovereignist part,  Quebec Solidaire,  solidly in favour of allowing accommodations, while The Parti Quebecois  proposes that no religious dress or signs be worn by employees in court, government offices, schools or para-public facilities in general. This means that no niqabs, hijabs, kippas, turbans or large or ostentatious crosses would be allowed.

While this position appears fair and seemingly impacts all religions equally, it's clear that the proposal targets Muslims who are just about the only religious minority that works for the government in any numbers. (You're never going to get served by a Hassid at the license bureau!) This  'fair' proposal was attacked by Mr. Bouchard on the television show and Pauline Marois did some neat tap dancing to explain that while the province should project a religiously neutral face, Christian symbols and customs should be maintained.

Crucifix in Quebec Parliament

Mr. Bouchard asked Ms. Marois that if her policy was to be put in force, whether the Crucifix that sits over the Speakers chair in the Quebec Parliament would have to come down to reflect this new secularism.

Errrr. Noooo, because..err.....well.....you see..... uhmmm.......

"Because it is part of Quebec Heritage!" The Crucifix.... it should stay. It is part of Quebec's history which shouldn't be erased!" She finally blurted out.

And so a new policy is born.
Christian symbols are no longer necessarily Christian, when they are part of Quebec's heritage

Serge Charbonneau reminds us in a piece on vigile.net that the Crucifix was installed by  the Premier of Quebec Maurice Duplessis back in 1936;

"The crucifix was introduced by Duplessis to affirm that the leadership of the Quebec government  was "guided" by the hand of God himself through his humble disciple."

So much for the Crucifix not being a religious symbol.

By the way the Jewish General Hospital, built  by the Jewish community, opened it's doors in 1934 and always served kosher food. Do you think that Madame Marois would also consider this a part of Quebec heritage that should be maintained? Not likely.

During the Bouchard/Taylor Commission, the Jewish General Hospital was a popular target of so-called secularists, who even objected to the name. The fact that almost every large city Quebec has a "Hotel Dieu" or "Notre Dame" hospital is beside the point, those names represent Quebec heritage, according to the PQ.

The position of the Parti Quebecois remains laughably hypocritical.

Crucifix over Mont-Royal

Referring to Quebec 'heritage'  to justify a policy of supporting Christian symbols is a clumsy cop-out to maintain the status quo, while barring the public display of other religions, traditions and culture.

 And so in the new secular Quebec, no religion will be favoured except that the 15,000 place names based on the Christian bible will remain. We can continue to live on Saint Andre Street, on Jesus Island, near the Saint Lawrence River. The celebration of Christian holidays as the only officially paid religious holidays will remain. Crucifixes in public buildings, including schools, hospitals and government offices will remain and  Christian prayers may be recited before town council meetings.

And of course no religion will be favoured over another, at least not officially, according to Madame Marois....

Unreasonable Reaction Over Reasonable Accommodations

I told you last week that the secularist 'victory' over the niqab clad women would open the floodgates of intolerance towards minority religions in Quebec and unfortunately it has already begun to manifest itself. The press is on a frenzied mission to root out any sort of accommodation towards minority religions and common citizens are already taking pot shots at these minorities in public with open season having already been declared on women wearing any sort of a head covering.

A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Education made a deal with a couple of Hasidic schools whereby they could stay open on the weekend to allow enough time to teach religion as well as the full  course load as provided by the Ministry. To accommodate this, she was forced to change the law that banned school from teaching on the weekend. Instead of designating the days on which school must be taught, she changed the formula to that of a prescribed amount of hours and left the schedule to the discretion of the schools.

It seemed like a good idea at the time and the only ones affected were those schools who wanted to benefit from increased instruction time. The Minister unfortunately explained her decision as a step to battle the drop-out rate, when in reality, it was just a cover story used to hide the accommodation she made for these nine Hassidic schools.
When the opposition found out about it, all Hell broke lose, although I still can't understand what it is exactly those opposed are complaining about.
The change to the law affects nobody except those schools and school boards who want to benefit from the new flexibility. Those who aren't interested need not make any changes at all.
The provincial teachers union quickly gathered a 25,000 name petition against the idea and has complained that the whole provincial structure is being changed to accommodate just nine schools, although they don't explain how and what the effect is. 

Pauline Marois of the PQ, added fuel to the fire by making the outrageously false statement in Parliament that the law would render Christmas and Easter as ordinary as any other day of the year, a statement designed to raise the hackles of Quebec Francophone Christians (most of whom ironically don't practice their faith.)
Either she is extremely stupid and uninformed or she intentionally is attempting to make political hay by hitching her star to the intolerance movement. You'd think she'd know that Christmas and Easter are statutory holidays, days when schools may not be open, regardless of the Education act.

And so the example of intolerance is being set by those who should know better and this mood has spilled over into the public.

Now a row has broken out in an Anglo minor hockey league over the scheduling of a playoff game on the first night of Passover, a holiday that almost all Jews, practising or not, celebrate at the family Seder table.
A team representing a west island community that is predominantly Jewish and whose hockey team consists of 10 Jews out of the 15 players, has requested that the playoff game be postponed by one day. The team was told by the league that no accommodation could be made, a spokesman claiming that it's an impossible task to schedule 700 games and take into consideration every community's holidays.  Therefore no exceptions would be allowed (except Christmas, of course.)

The truth, however is somewhat different. There are only a couple of games left as the league winds down its season and there are only a few teams left in the playoffs. Two other teams still competing offered to switch their scheduled game day with the Jewish team and its opponent. Everybody cooperated in the spirit of sportsmanship and tolerance. There would be no adverse effect on the schedule and the Jewish team could continue their playoff run.
Still the league said no to the arrangement. Play on the original date or forfeit. Nice....

These are the small accommodations that are disappearing with this new wave of political animosity towards minorities, encouraged by those who preach secularism, as long as it doesn't apply to Christians.

The media storm surrounding the debate is unprecedented with the mood of the public shifting rather quickly against any accommodation at all. Yesterday, Premier Charest, usually a firm supporter of accommodations announced that he'd be drafting a law that would effectively bar any woman from wearing the veil in any public or para-public building. This includes hospitals and schools as well as government offices.

A spokesman for the Montreal Muslim Council complained that the measure is a bit of an overkill and reminded reporters that the law would apply to less than two dozen Quebec Muslims who wear the veil. He openly questioned where this would all takes us.

We have just learned that an Outremont Hassidic synagogue was broken into over the weekend and ransacked. The moronic perpetrators, likely boosted by the public clamour,  painted Swastikas on the pulpit. They couldn't even get their hate message quite right and failed to accurately depict a proper Swastika. It's strange that not one newspaper article about the incident mentioned that fact.

I'm afraid we are experiencing a fateful tipping point.

It's going to get worse and its going to get lot uglier.

Islamaphobia Rears it's Ugly Head in Longueuil

A current topic in the French Quebec media is the push towards official secularization and the separation of religion and government. While the goal of eliminating overt connections with any particular religion seems reasonable enough, it is in realty, nothing more than a back door attack on Muslims and other immigrants that look different from old-stock Quebeckers.
One of the proposals being promoted is that government employees be barred from wearing religious symbols or clothing while serving the public. The idea has roots in the French law that bars religious regalia in schools and by public employees.

A big push is underway to enact similar legislation in Quebec, as many Quebeckers are frightened that Muslims are changing the traditional face of Quebec, particularly in Montreal. Those militating for such measures are clearly in store for a disappointment, any such law would be overturned by the Supreme Court. Canada is not France and such laws are clearly unconstitutional.

Many are also furious about concessions known as 'reasonable accommodations' made by public employees, mostly benefiting Muslims and Hasidic Jews whereby for example, a Muslim woman may ask to be served by a women instead of a man.

Last week, an idiot from Longueuil (a Montreal suburb) decided to push back. In a story published last Friday in LE Devoir (French)  a certain Michel Robichaud demanded his very own reasonable accommodation. He demanded that he not be served by a Hijab wearing, government employee when applying to renew his Medicare card in a government office.

A brouhaha ensued between the troublemaker and the director of the office and I can only imagine the utter humiliation suffered by the employee involved.
Imagine the hurt that this fool inflicted on an innocent government clerk, who was just trying to make a living through honest work.

The manger of the office was rightly furious at the grandstanding antics undertaken  at the expense of one of his employees and told the complainer that if he didn't want to be served by the Hijab wearing woman he should get back into the waiting line, THE BACK OF THE LINE!

For Mr. Robichaud this reaction was manna from Heaven, he had gotten his wish fulfilled, a media event.
The story was carried by the Le Devoir which actually reported favorably on the complainer's position.

Of course  Mr. Robichaud who was spoiling for a fight and lodged an official complaint with the Régie d'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) about his treatment, who told him in no uncertain terms what they thought of him.
Mr. Robichaud told reporters that the agency representative told him that the response he got was consistent with the agency policy.  
"She said that they had not refused to serve me, but rather it was I who refused to receive the service. Under the principle of reasonable accommodation, the RAMQ allows it's employees to wear the Islamic veil, regardless of the opinion of the person being served."

"She also told me that my complaint was inadmissible because no law has ever been passed declaring Quebec a secular state.  continued Robichaud. "By invoking the neutrality of the state,  I had no legal basis, she said. Which law are you referring to she asked? 

I hope that this racist attitude doesn't spread but I fear the seeds of discord have already been planted.

Last year I was in a Canadian Tire store in St. Laurent standing in the check out line when a grandmotherly type Francophone standing in front of me, started up with the teen aged cashier wearing a Hijab.
"My dear, don't you realize it's a symbol of oppression?"
The girl was mortified and stood in stunned silence during the lecture.

I was furious at the bullying and figuring that what's good for the goose is good for the gander,  I decided to make it my business to ruin her day as well.

I moved in close and inches from her face let loose a loud barrage of insults that scared the crap out of her. 
"VA CHIER, ESPECES DE P'TIT RACISTE!!!!

Maybe I shouldn't have done it, but it felt right at the time. 
Come to think of it, it still feels right today.

Video Friday- Bouchard-Taylor Reasonable Accomodation Highlights

I added subtitles to this hilarious compilation of various characters who spoke at the famous Bouchard-Taylor Commission in 2007. The commission sought to seek a consensus on the subject of immigrants, and the type of accommodations that Quebec society should make to embrace their cultural differences.

Props to INFOMAN, Quebec's very own sarcastic comedian à la Steven Colbert, who put the compilation together. Catch him on French TV's Radio Canada.

Enjoy!