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.

C'mon.... Give Christians a Break!

I'm not a big fan of Saguenay mayor, Jean Tremblay, the man in the eye of the storm regarding prayers at city council meetings, but that being said, he was elected by the good townsfolk of his constituency and he seems to enjoy their support. Read the background story.

The question of prayers before council meetings seems like a cut and dried issue in our society that is moving towards secularism, though no real political debate has ever really been undertaken and no societal consensus ever reached against retaining aspects of our Quebec Christian heritage and beliefs in Judeo-Christian principles that has been and remains the basis of our society.

The principle of separation of church and state is well established and accepted by all. The days where the senior members of the Catholic church advise or influence the government in any way are long gone and even secularists would stipulate to that.
To maintain that conserving the crucifix in Parliament or placing a Christmas tree on the front lawn is an assault on that separation of powers is unsupportable.

Perhaps secularists are inspired by the American system that strictly forbids any public display of faith, but that doesn't mean that those rules are necessarily suited to us.
A free and democratic state is one where society is ordered according to the wishes of the majority, within reason, of course.
We recognize that this majority can sometimes, in a moment of excitement or delirium, make mistakes, so we voluntarily limit what we can do by way of a constitution.

And so we have a Constitution that defines what we can do, a Parliament that enacts laws within the constraints of that constitution and an independent judicial system that insures that everyone is obeying the rules. It's a pretty good system.

Human rights tribunals were established to insure that individual members of society are treated fairly under the law. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
When, for example, a group of Black people are systematically refused entrance to a night club, in an attempt by management to keep the premises 'white,' it is an appropriate job of the Human Rights commission to intervene on behalf of citizens that have been wronged.

But our Human Rights Commissions (all across Canada) have degenerated into nothing less than out of control, unsanctioned extra-Parliamentary political bodies which have usurped power to impose an ultra-liberal, ultra-feminist, secularist agenda on society.

Unlike our established court system, these tribunals are anything but impartial, believing in principle that society must change to suit the individual and that personal rights are more important than societal rights. It's a viewpoint not shared by most of us, yet because we have abdicated political power to these commissions instead of respecting our elected Parliament to decide these issues, we are now reaping the rewards of that folly.

If the majority of citizens want to have a Christmas tree on the front lawn of Parliament or a short Christian prayer before a meeting, as a people, it is our choice to decide. Society belongs to the people, not Human Rights Tribunals.

Now if as a majority we decide that everyone be obliged to convert to Christianity, our constitution and our courts will set us right. It's a fair system of checks and balances, rules that the Star Chamber Human Rights Commission completely sidestep.


The good citizens of the Lac-St-Jean region are 98% Catholic and although most don't go to church each week, almost all of them consider themselves Christians and would probably tell you that they agree with a little Christian prayer at the beginning of council meetings. If enough citizens disagree, there is always the choice of the ballot box. It's called the democratic system.

There are those, who in wishing to impose secularism on everyone, argue that favouring one religion over another, or favouring religion over the absence of religion, is necessarily unfair.

I cannot say with certainty that the mayor has done anything of the sort. He offers a Christian prayer at the beginning of the meeting, where the majority is Christian, but should a secularist demand a silent moment of reflection from the mayor, I'm sure he'd indulge. If perhaps a Jew or a Muslim or Native would on occasion ask for the opportunity to bless the works of the council, I'd hope he'd also be accommodating.

It seems to me that our Human Rights Tribunals, right across the country have placed Christians and Jews firmly in their sights, siding with the secularists, radical Muslims and ultra-left-wingers who wish to impose a different brand of society on the majority.

How is it that not one secularist complained about the Native participation at the Vancouver Olympic Games opening ceremonies? The natives presented various dances of a religious nature where their own native Gods were entreated for various supplications on behalf of all?
Could you imagine the clamour if a Christian priest recited the Lord's Prayer or a Jewish rabbi offered  a short prayer of good luck in Hebrew?
Before the ceremony would be over, I imagine there'd be a slew of Human Rights complaints filed right across the country by secularists!

Years ago a Christian wouldn't be caught dead in a mosque or synagogue. Jews, Muslims and other minority religious denominations would stick strictly to themselves.
Today there's hardly a wedding in a church, mosque or synagogue that doesn't include guests of different faiths. We as a people have progressed where we are no longer afraid to accept the faith of others.
It's a good thing.

Christmas trees in front of City Halls cause offense only to those who are radicals.
In front of some Montreal suburban town halls with significant Jewish populations, a large lighted candelabra celebrating the Jewish holiday of Channukah is offered. Who is offended? Only radicals.

When the Chinese celebrate their faith with a public parade celebrating the New Year, according to their faith, who doesn't want to participate?
 
The truth is that our society has progressed to where we accept and even celebrate each others culture and faith. To take that away would diminish all.

Many years ago, when my son was a toddler, he was often frightened by the 'scary' parts in some movies, even those rated PG. Sitting beside me he would take both his hands and cover his eyes for the duration of the scene. It was a good solution. I don't think it would have been reasonable for me to complain to the theatre to eliminate these scenes.
To secularists who are offended by a thirty second prayer, here's my advice- Stick your fingers in your ears!

If secularists are offended by a short prayer, too bad. It is a Human rights Commission tenet that when an individual is offended, all society must change to accommodate them. What hogwash!

Many things in society offend me as well, I learn to live with it.

It is high time that the Quebec government take the bull by the horns by declaring exactly how we define our society. We need legislation clearly stating who and what we are. These choices are up to our elected Parliament to decide, after a vigorous and open debate.

There is no shame in declaring ourselves a society that recognizes its Christian past and one that maintains its core belief in Judeo-Christian values.

That being said we must tell all our citizens clearly that religious freedom is a sacrosanct pillar of our society, but that not every archaic religious practice can be tolerated in modern society.

There are some people who do not believe in the above. Fair enough.
But they are the minority and it is incumbent on them to accept the terms of society as defined by the majority.

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.

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!

When are Reasonable Accommodations Unreasonable?

This week Montreal's daily La Presse published the results of a poll that sampled Quebeckers opinion on the 'Reasonable Accommodations" debate, as it is known in Quebec. The results were not unexpected, with a large majority against the idea of making any concessions to non-white or non-Christian minorities.

Ever since Quebec became home to a large amount of non-Catholic immigrants, friction has been building. The majority of Quebeckers believe that it is not only incumbent upon newcomers to use French as their primary language, but also to adopt the values of Quebec society as well.
What that means in practice is that immigrants are expected to give up the 'old ways' of their homelands and embrace 'Quebec' values and mores.

Last year, in response to a backlash against immigrants, the Quebec government set up a comission (BOUCHARD-TAYLOR) to look into the reasonable accomodation debate. The commission turned into a bit of a fiasco and became a forum for yahoos and racists to vent their rage at minorities and immigrants.

By the way, what is a reasonable accomodation?
Simply put, it is special treatment for an individual or group that is not afforded to the majority.

Here are some examples of what I'm sure you'll agree with me are reasonable accommodations;

• Wheel-chaired bound people are provided exclusive use of specially designed bathrooms.
• Children and seniors who generally have less money than every one else are given discounts that others cannot share.
• Blind people may take their seeing-eye dogs into public buildings and on public transportation that ban animals.

Let's review the La Presse poll.

ACCORDING TO YOU, DOES QUEBEC AFFORD TOO MANY, TOO LITTLE OR JUST ABOUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS?
Too much 68%
Enough 16%
Not Enough 7%
Don't know 8%

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BOUCHARD TAYLOR COMMISSION CLARIFIED THE SITUATION IN REGARDS TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS?
Yes 7%
No 72%
Uncertain 21%

DO YOU PERSONALLY MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS BASED ON RELIGION?
Almost every day 5%
A couple of times a month 9%
A couple of times a year 17%
Rarely 40%
Never 30%

SHOULD A PERSON BE ALLOWED TO WEAR A RELLIGIOUS MEDALLION...

IN SCHOOL? IN PUBLIC PLACES

Yes 19% Yes 35%
No 76% No 59%
Uncertain 5% Uncertain 7%

At WORK? IN HOSPITAL

Yes 19% Yes 25%
No 74% No 70%
Uncertain 7% Uncertain 5%

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A DIFFERENT MENU CAN BE OFFERED IN A DAYCARE?
Yes 37%
No 57%
Uncertain 5%

....THAT A FEMALE DOCTOR BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST?
Yes 37%
No 59%
Uncertain 4%

....THAT A MALE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST?
Yes 14%
No 81%
Uncertain 5%

....THAT BOYS AND GIRLS BE SEPARATED IN SWIMMING POOLS?
Yes 7%
No 90%
Uncertain 3%

....THAT A HOLIDAY FOR A NON-CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY BE PROVIDED?
Yes 34%
No 57%
Uncertain 9%

....THAT A PRAYER ROOM BE PROVIDED IN A PUBLIC BUILDING (CEGEP, UNIVERSITY, AT WORK ?)
Yes 20%
No 76%
Uncertain 4%

....THAT THE HIJAB BE ALLOWED TO BE WORN WHILE WORKING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE?
Yes 64%
No 28%
Uncertain 8%

So how do you compare?

Let me finish today's post with a case of reasonable accommodation which I'll let you be the judge of;

A local mosque makes a request of city council to install loudspeakers into the minaret so that they can call people to prayers. You've all seen the scene on television where a loud droning voice is played over a loudspeaker ad nauseum. For a non-Muslim it's quite grating.
The Imam promises that out of respect for the community and as a compromise, they will only use the system once a week, on Friday's and sometimes on special occasions and holidays.

The council considers the request. One or two liberal councillors seem to be okay with the idea, but the majority are outraged.

"Let them keep their religion to themselves. Why bother the whole neighbourhood?"
"We're not the Middle East here!"
"It's an unacceptable intrusion."
"It's noise pollution"
..and so on and so on....

How would you vote?

If you are like most, you'd probably vote against the request. If you are of that mind I'd like you to consider this;
.
.
.
.
.

Should Church bells be banned?

What's reasonable to you, may not be reasonable at all. It's a matter of perspective and so the debate rages on.