Will Toronto benefit from the Quebec Charter of values fisaco?

[toraerach]

What exactly is the government's position on this. I would love to hear how they justify it.

It's constitutionally mandated and no provincial government has had the guts to take on the largest religious denomination in the province.

It made sense at one point. The province was mainly Protestant with a Catholic minority. Protestantism was being taught in public schools and the idea of abandoning that was unthinkable to the majority population, so the separate school system was created as a form of accommodation. Not that it wasn't controversial - it probably wouldn't have happened had Quebec not fought for religious minority rights along with language minority rights during the Province of Canada/Confederation period. When the Protestant system dropped religion, the Catholic system didn't and here we are. It's time to end public funding to these schools, but it's not going to be an easy job for any of the political parties - the Liberals are historically strong in Catholic communities, the PCs need votes from the more conservative side of the Church and the NDP doesn't want to upset the Catholic teachers' unions.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not quite, the analogy would be allowing a government employee to wear a confederate flag lapel pin while on the job. Does it affect the service? Not necessarily, but is this fair to any tax-paying citizen who would be sensitive to the symbol?? Why not side-step the issue all together, in a way fair to all?

As far as I know, the confederate flag isn't an article of faith that is required per religious tenets.

... but we are talking about symbols, not people... symbols that stand for faiths and belief-systems that condemn others that don't conform to them. This may not bother you but it might bother someone who is sensitive to the ideology being symbolized. Again, why not side-step the issue all together?

See above response. Our constitution has set forth what's permissible (i.e. freedom of religion) and what isn't. Practice of faith is.

This isn't the issue. Nobody is arguing that the presence of religious symbols will affect the level of service. A confederate flag flying over a state capitol doesn't affect what happens within either. It's about appropriateness and inclusivity. The absence of personal expressions of religious belief (or any personal beliefs) allows all to participate regardless of such beliefs.

A confederate flag flying over a state capitol is a statement made by the government - which belongs to a whole different category from practice of faith at a personal level.

They feel there is justification. They also feel they have a justification to favour the French language (legally). Why judge them according to your values? Isn't that rather oppressive? Look, it's easy for people in Ontario to sit on a high horse regarding Quebec because collectively we value absolutely nothing about our history or cultural traditions, to the point of denying them completely. This is fine, but let's at least have some perspective to understand that this is a delusion relatively unique to us. Most jurisdictions have some policies in place to preserve, celebrate - which is to say give preferential treatment to - some aspects of 'traditional' culture there, and this doesn't make them all xenophobic Nazis. The key to all of this is context, of course.

That's kind of funny - you at once deny our right as the collective to judge and yet expounded their (questionable) right to do so. Quebec belongs to the Canadian state and is governed by Canadian laws.

AoD, I just don't think these little personal expressions have a place in the context we are discussing. To wear a symbol is to make a statement or take a position and I don't think this is appropriate in the public sector. Besides, it would be hypocritical of me to say the rainbow flag is fine (because I believe in it and think everybody else should) but a religious symbol isn't. Again, I think I just prefer to side-step the issue and create a space that is friendly to all by being empty of any symbolism beyond that of 'peace, order and good government'.

Everything we do, wear, speak of is a transmitter of symbolism and signs - eliminate that, and you eliminate the humanity in our bureaucrats and public servants. I personally do not want policy made and services provided by automatons (even if they are pretend automatons) far removed from the reality of humanity. Besides, what are the universal symbols of "peace, order and good government" anyways? Does that mean I can wear a peace sign and a happy face instead?

Be careful of judging and stereotyping others. In Ontario we discriminate based on religion by preferentially funding a separate catholic school board. Some might consider this 'disgusting' too. We have our justifications though too, right?

We do as a historical artifact, and not because we went out of our way to create this policy solution to a perceived problem at the current day and age.

Again, i'm hesitant to label Quebec a racist xenophobic place merely because it promotes some collective values in some contexts. I think there are a few more lines i'd need to see crossed before I would make this call.

Promotion of "collective values" (of questionable effiacy, of a questionable subpopulation) that requires the diminishment of personal freedoms (and quite possibly, in contravention of our laws). I don't know about you, but I think I would feel far more xenophobia than seeing what, 5% of the population in hijabs or wearing turbans.

AoD

 

[Johnny Au]

It is disgusting. They actually teach impressionable young kids creationism alongside evolution (which is presented as unproven theory), on the dollars of people that know better.

...that, as well as teaching children that homosexuality is evil, non-Christians are evil (including atheists), violent media is evil (although public secular schools discourage students from consuming them), eating red meat on Fridays is evil, and so on and so forth, all on taxpayers' dollars.

 

[Peepers]

As far as I know, the confederate flag isn't an article of faith that is required per religious tenets.

Neither is the Burka or Niqab. Check out the below picture showing Afghanistan women in the 1970's vs today. These symbols of oppression are relatively new phenomenon.

What has happened in Afghanistan is happening now in the west. In the UK even non-Muslim women are being forced to wear hijab's as a condition of employment:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eadscarf-theyre-NOT-Muslim.html#ixzz2fRqOQEKS

Are we going to go the way of "Great" Britain and other European countries or is Canada going to take a stand against these symbols of oppression?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What you have here is an individual being forced to wear something as a condition of employment - which is coercive (but hardly unknown, given the prevelance of uniforms). It has nothing to do with the individual choice of a government employee to wear something as part of the faith and prevented from doing so. Confounding the two is fundamentally dishonest.

And it is ironic that you should bring up Afghanistan - it is the exemplar of a state using its' authority to dictate what its' citizens should and shouldn't wear.

AoD

 

[Hipster Duck]

I'm loosing a sense of what people's positions are here. It seems like everyone is pretty much in opposition to the specifics of the PQ plan.

OK, thank you for being one of the few people to recognize this. Nobody, so far, on this thread, has categorically stated that they support this specific legislation and I wish other people wouldn't accuse us of this.

Beyond the abstract question of secularism vs. religious pluralism, what actual policies are the pro-secular people suggesting we impose that aren't already imposed? As has already been stated, no one in Canada is subject to Sharia law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the legal equality across lines of gender, race, and sexuality.

I'm not suggesting we impose any policies right now, because the threat to Canada's secularism is not really under attack by any religious groups. However, we should be vigilant and respond to those threats if they ever materialize from whichever groups, religious or otherwise. If maintaining tolerance means being intolerant of the intolerant, I don't see anything hypocritical in that.

A larger point, and this is hinted by Tewder, is that - whatever we think of the actual specifics of their laws - the deeper intent of "xenophobic" laws in European countries is that those countries do not need to subscribe to a multicultural identity because they have an identity: France is the ancient home of the French people, and the collective values that they stand for. Netherlands is the ancestral home of the Dutch; and the territory called 'The Netherlands' is the cradle of the indigenous Dutch culture. If new groups of people migrate to the territory called the Netherlands and begin cultural practices that offend the sensibilities of the native Dutch, then the native Dutch have a right to call them out on that.

In North America (including Quebec) we don't have that leg to stand on because we, ourselves, are settler states built on the ancient, ancestral home of Aboriginal people. How would we proceed?

1. Within lands that have Aboriginal title (eg. reservations, maybe entire provinces like Nunavut), I think that Aboriginals have the right - just as the Dutch do - to call out foreign cultural practices that are insensitive to Aboriginal values.

2. For the rest of Canada, we should enter a balanced dialogue to try to craft a new set of values - one that's mindful of all the groups who live here - but then we have to stick to it and defend it. This will be our new identity. We can finally drop this silly nonsense about multiculturalism, which has the danger of either trending toward Euro-centric values with a multi-ethnic veneer or moral relativism where anything goes.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hipster:

For the rest of Canada, we should enter a balanced dialogue to try to craft a new set of values - one that's mindful of all the groups who live here - but then we have to stick to it and defend it. This will be our new identity. We can finally drop this silly nonsense about multiculturalism, which has the danger of either trending toward Euro-centric values with a multi-ethnic veneer or moral relativism where anything goes.

Except that we already more or less did have that convo, and the result is quite Canadian - i.e. do what you want within a broad framework offered by the Charter, subscribe to the general belief in peace, order and good government, and above all be polite about it. This "way of life" is our identity. As the Brits suggested in one of their diplomatic reports for Thatcher - "“the Canadians are a people of the extreme centre." Perhaps we should take note of what outsiders have seen in us and frankly adopt it as our own

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That has to be one of the best summaries of Canadian identity that I've seen AoD.

 

[ssiguy2]

I don't think this will lead to any mass movement of people or businesses from Montreal to Toronto like Bill 101 did. Most of the people who have gotten tired of the endless language and culture battles in Quebec have already left.

The only thing that may arise out of this is that fewer NEW immigrants into the country make choose Quebec and those that were thinking of Montreal would definitely not go out West but rather straight to Toronto.

 

[MisterF]

Well, to be factual on this argument, Quebec has one of the highest rates of identified religion in the nation. Most people identify as Catholic in the province. While they may not attend Church (they have one of the lowest attendance rates in North America) they do identify with a particular faith at rates close to Newfoundlanders.

One thing I've noticed about a lot of Catholics is that they tend to think of their Catholicism as almost an inherent trait. A lot of people think of themselves as Catholic even if they don't practice or believe in God. It has as much to do with cultural background as how you worship.

I'm an atheist. But I love Christmas. It's a cultural institution in my household and Christ rarely makes an appearance, except in the music during the season (which I don't find offensive at all considering I'm a non-believer). I know many Jews as well that celebrate Xmas, not for the Christ-symbology but for everything else it has come to mean - togetherness, family, generosity, food and gift giving.

I'm kind of the same way. Christmas has pagan origins so there's no reason that it can't have a secular present. In a secular society Christmas is as much a celebration of Christ as July is a celebration of Julius Caesar. It's as Christian as you make it. And because of that I have no problem with people calling it Christmas rather than a generic "the holidays" - acknoledging its name isn't a promotion of Christianity.

But I have to disagree with you about the music. Nothing is worse than Christmas music. Just ear-bleedingly horrible stuff.

Neither is the Burka or Niqab. Check out the below picture showing Afghanistan women in the 1970's vs today. These symbols of oppression are relatively new phenomenon.

This is entirely cultural and has nothing to do with the religion per se. Many Muslim societies (not all of them) interpret the Quran literally but it wasn't so long ago that it was the same with Christian societies. Most traditionally Christian societies don't revolve around the Bible anymore, but that's a cultural change that happened in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

A larger point, and this is hinted by Tewder, is that - whatever we think of the actual specifics of their laws - the deeper intent of "xenophobic" laws in European countries is that those countries do not need to subscribe to a multicultural identity because they have an identity: France is the ancient home of the French people, and the collective values that they stand for. Netherlands is the ancestral home of the Dutch; and the territory called 'The Netherlands' is the cradle of the indigenous Dutch culture. If new groups of people migrate to the territory called the Netherlands and begin cultural practices that offend the sensibilities of the native Dutch, then the native Dutch have a right to call them out on that.

In North America (including Quebec) we don't have that leg to stand on because we, ourselves, are settler states built on the ancient, ancestral home of Aboriginal people. How would we proceed?

1. Within lands that have Aboriginal title (eg. reservations, maybe entire provinces like Nunavut), I think that Aboriginals have the right - just as the Dutch do - to call out foreign cultural practices that are insensitive to Aboriginal values.

2. For the rest of Canada, we should enter a balanced dialogue to try to craft a new set of values - one that's mindful of all the groups who live here - but then we have to stick to it and defend it. This will be our new identity. We can finally drop this silly nonsense about multiculturalism, which has the danger of either trending toward Euro-centric values with a multi-ethnic veneer or moral relativism where anything goes.

Canada's culture goes back just as far as the British because it's just a branch of British culture in a new land. It has evolved on a different continent and has a new name, but that doesn't mean that it's not an old culture. Or you could put it this way: modern British and Canadian cultures are both vastly different from medieval British culture to the point where they'd be unrecognizable to someone from the past. The culture hasn't stayed the same in Britain any more than it has here. And attempts to define and preserve the culture at different points in time have all failed.

Britain isn't really the ancestral home of the British people, it's the home of various Germanic colonizers who conquered the ancestral home Celtic peoples and were themselves affected by waves of Norse and Norman invaders. France isn't the ancestral home of the French people, it's the home of Frank colonizers who conquered the ancestral home of the Gauls. And on and on it goes.

The silly nonsense of muliculturalism is largely a myth, because the programs that it funds actively encourage people to learn about other cultures and integrate into a larger society. The myth seems to be working because I can't think of another country that integrates immigrants from non-Western societies as well as we do. I'm not saying that we shouldn't celebrate our culture, I'm saying that the fact that we don't try to set our culture is stone is an integral part of our culture. This story puts it better than I can:

For the most part, multiculturalism in Canada fosters social cohesion by placing all cultures on an equal footing. It creates common values, such as tolerance, that can be shared by the many different members of society, despite the fact that many citizens originate from a variety places with disparate religious backgrounds. In other words, multiculturalism can be defined as an approach that aims to assist with the integration of immigrants and minorities, remove barriers to their participation in Canadian life and make them feel more welcome in Canadian society...

 

[Tewder]

As far as I know, the confederate flag isn't an article of faith that is required per religious tenets.

Please don't take that out of context, clearly i was using this as an analogy only, of a cultural symbol that would incite very different feelings and emotions from one individual to another.

Perhaps another analogy in our own context would be the monarchy?

Our constitution has set forth what's permissible (i.e. freedom of religion) and what isn't. Practice of faith is.

That's kind of funny - you at once deny our right as the collective to judge and yet expounded their (questionable) right to do so. Quebec belongs to the Canadian state and is governed by Canadian laws.

As I've said before the Quebec proposal is flawed, no question. However, the broader concepts of 'religious neutrality' in government and of the legal right in Quebec to set reasonable exceptions to basic freedoms (notwithstanding clause) are open for debate. Consider the Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-quebecs-secular-charter-constitutional-nine-legal-experts-weigh-in/article14324825/?page=all

Though the overwhelming response to the Charter of Values is negative, much of this revolves around the specifics of the flaws in how Quebec is going about this, which we are all agreed on. If Quebec were not 'favouring' catholic symbols the response would be less clear, at least.

Also, not one of the legal experts has addressed the prohibitions on homosexuality promoted by the major religions. These ideologies are discriminatory, justified by religious faith and dogma. The fact that this is invisible in the debate leads me to feel the legal interpretations here are fundamentally heterosexist and thereby flawed. If you consider Nathalie Des Rosiers in the above article:

Prohibiting the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by civil servants violates their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. But both charters accept that the state may violate the rights of people for good reasons, in a manner that is “reasonable in a free and democratic society.” To determine whether a measure is reasonable, a court must be convinced that a) there is a pressing state interest at stake and b) the measure is rational and infringes the freedom as little as possible.

It could be argued that symbols that represent ideologies that are demonstrably discriminatory against any other segment of the population might satisfy (a) above, which might be another argument in favour of 'religious neutrality' in the government.

Promotion of "collective values" (of questionable effiacy, of a questionable subpopulation) that requires the diminishment of personal freedoms (and quite possibly, in contravention of our laws). I don't know about you, but I think I would feel far more xenophobia than seeing what, 5% of the population in hijabs or wearing turbans.

All laws represent 'collective values', which involve the limiting of freedoms and compromise... to which:

As the Brits suggested in one of their diplomatic reports for Thatcher - "“the Canadians are a people of the extreme centre." Perhaps we should take note of what outsiders have seen in us and frankly adopt it as our own

Agreed. By definition though it requires enormous compromise to be so firmly and extremely 'of the centre', and compromise is indeed also one of the hallmarks of Canada (as opposed to often polarized unshifting extremes south of the border, for example). Personally, I see 'religious neutrality' in the government sector as a reasonable compromise. Religious groups should also be capable of compromise, evolving within a modern Canadian context to allow their adherents to adapt to different contexts as required.

 

[CN Tower]

Not only would Muslim women's head coverings have to be removed but same with turbans and even yamakas/kippahs. Come on over folks!

I can't imagine how that would ever pass scrutiny in the Supreme Court of Canada, nor should it. What a slippery slope it would yield.

 

[Johnny Au]

Let's take a look at what is now England. For a long time, it was a Celtic homeland. When the Romans conquered it, Bouddica, Queen of the Iceni, tried to push them back. However, the Romans stayed there until their empire collapsed, leaving a legacy of Roman-influenced place names. For example, Bath was named for a Roman bath.

The Roman settlement of Eboracum later became the Norse settlement of Yorvik, which later became York.

The real homeland of what we call English people is actually northern Germany/southern Denmark. English people were an amalgamation of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (the amalgamation is called the Anglo-Saxons). The Anglo-Saxons just conquered the Celtic people (and many were intermarried) and created England out of it.

Interestingly enough, Dublin was founded by Vikings, not Celts.

Now you know that conquering foreign lands is for a long time part of Anglo-Saxon blood, right until very recently, and that English is a Germanic language with numerous borrowings from other language families.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Canada's culture goes back just as far as the British because it's just a branch of British culture in a new land. It has evolved on a different continent and has a new name, but that doesn't mean that it's not an old culture. Or you could put it this way: modern British and Canadian cultures are both vastly different from medieval British culture to the point where they'd be unrecognizable to someone from the past. The culture hasn't stayed the same in Britain any more than it has here. And attempts to define and preserve the culture at different points in time have all failed.

Britain isn't really the ancestral home of the British people, it's the home of various Germanic colonizers who conquered the ancestral home Celtic peoples and were themselves affected by waves of Norse and Norman invaders. France isn't the ancestral home of the French people, it's the home of Frank colonizers who conquered the ancestral home of the Gauls. And on and on it goes.

Great response! I'm not sure if HipsterDuck was actually advocating the view that European nations are rooted in some kind of "primordial culture", or if he was just stating that this is the ideology that Europeans themselves subscribe to. Either way, there has been so many studies showing how notions of "French-ness" or "English-ness" or "German-ness" are just modern inventions created to prop up governments. France pioneered this trend in the 18th and early 19th century with a sometimes violent assimilation of all the ethnic and linguistic minority groups living within its artificially created boundaries. Hitler represented an extreme version of this, mixed in with the brutal effectiveness of 20th century technology. All of these xenophobic laws created in European seem to me to be an attempt to safeguard these established notions of nationality in the face of globalization which has extended our daily lives well beyond those 19th century national borders.

It's very interesting to compare European notions of nationality with American notions of nationality. I've heard it said that European nationality is based on the notion of common ancestry and American nationality is based on dedication toward an ideal (embodied in the founding documents). Therefore, Americans can accuse each other of being "un-American" - that is, unfaithful to the ideals of the country - but Brits don't accuse each other of being "un-British". In the 1940s and 50s when the US government was cracking down on 'un-American' communists, Churchill famously said that the British Communist Party was made up of Brits, and he would never be afraid of another Brit.

 

[Tewder]

Great response! I'm not sure if HipsterDuck was actually advocating the view that European nations are rooted in some kind of "primordial culture", or if he was just stating that this is the ideology that Europeans themselves subscribe to. Either way, there has been so many studies showing how notions of "French-ness" or "English-ness" or "German-ness" are just modern inventions created to prop up governments. France pioneered this trend in the 18th and early 19th century with a sometimes violent assimilation of all the ethnic and linguistic minority groups living within its artificially created boundaries. Hitler represented an extreme version of this, mixed in with the brutal effectiveness of 20th century technology. All of these xenophobic laws created in European seem to me to be an attempt to safeguard these established notions of nationality in the face of globalization which has extended our daily lives well beyond those 19th century national borders.

It's very interesting to compare European notions of nationality with American notions of nationality. I've heard it said that European nationality is based on the notion of common ancestry and American nationality is based on dedication toward an ideal (embodied in the founding documents). Therefore, Americans can accuse each other of being "un-American" - that is, unfaithful to the ideals of the country - but Brits don't accuse each other of being "un-British". In the 1940s and 50s when the US government was cracking down on 'un-American' communists, Churchill famously said that the British Communist Party was made up of Brits, and he would never be afraid of another Brit.

Notions of 'French-ness' or 'English-ness' are not modern inventions, the roots reach back hundreds of years (the Académie Francaise itself goes back to 1635)... and to suggest that France or England are without defining 'ideals' is simply wrong. Think of Magna Carta, the Edict of Nantes or the Declaration of the Rights of Man, among many many others, ideals in fact which were among the very foundations for notions of democracy and rights in America... and for that matter is America really all that different in its approach to its national identity than they are in Europe? I mean, how were American borders or American identity any less artificially created?

As for xenophobia, extreme nationalism in the absence of defining ideals can obviously lead to bad things given the right circumstances but not all notions of national identity are xenophobic. On the contrary, it may be the defining ideals of a nation's identity that stops bad behaviour?

I think it's also a mistake to believe that European identities are frozen in time, immutable. On the contrary, over the twentieth century many European nations became as embracing of diversity as America, relaxing old clichés and updating their national mythologies to become more inclusive. Think of the image of Britain as projected during the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2012 Olympics. It was hardly all bowler hats and 'Rule Britannia' bravado, as it may once have been.