Those wearing the kippa, the hijab or the turban shall forever be barred from jobs

In Quebec, equality for minorities just talk

May 25, 2008

Quebecers have gone bonkers over immigrants and religious minorities for no good reason.

That’s the conclusion of the commission on reasonable accommodation. But co-chairs Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor say so diplomatically, while telling Quebecers what they need to hear.

Calm down, there’s no crisis, only a perception of one, fed by sensationalist media. Minorities are not making unreasonable demands. Hijab, halal, kosher, kippas and kirpans are no big deal.

Seeing the religious certainty of some Sikhs, Muslims and Jews, you fear “the return of religion.” But what you see is “in no way comparable” to the Catholic church’s power in the past.

Immigrants are good for Quebec. They are more educated than you. Stop discriminating against them, especially in the workplace.

But Taylor and Bouchard make two highly questionable recommendations. Both spring from their rejection of Canadian multiculturalism in favour of Quebec’s politically correct interculturalisme. They don’t define the latter any better than the Quebec government ever has, except as a cover for the supremacy of the French.

Most Canadians support the primacy of the language in Quebec. Many reluctantly accept Quebec as a distinct society. The House of Commons even voted to designate Quebec “a nation” (Stephen Harper’s gimmicky formulation).

Now, Taylor and Bouchard talk of the primacy of “the majority ethnocultural group, i.e., Quebecers of French-Canadian origin.” Ironic, given that many complained to the commission about the ethnocentricism of minorities.

Inwardness is bad for minorities but good for the majority.

Such contortions were inevitable, given Quebec’s refusal to accept the central Canadian reality that all citizens, and cultures, are equal.

In not confronting that reality, Bouchard and Taylor trip into their second dubious conclusion.

The president and vice-president of the National Assembly, as well as provincial judges, Crown prosecutors, police officers and prison guards, should be barred from wearing religious signs and clothing on the job. But not teachers, health professionals and students.

This is a sop to two powerful groups: the Bloc Québécois and the Council on the Status of Women. Both had told the commission that the “neutrality of the state” required it to ban religious symbols.

So, Taylor and Bouchard suggest removing the crucifix from the National Assembly and ending prayers at city councils, but add:

“We acknowledge that certain duties may imply a duty of self-restraint.” Thus, the aforementioned officers “could be required to relinquish their right to display their religious affiliation in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality that their function requires.”

Thus, those wearing the kippa, the hijab or the turban shall forever be barred from those jobs.

This is so absurd that it runs counter to the commissioners’ own persuasive assertions elsewhere: “The right to freedom of religion includes the right to show it.

“By prohibiting the wearing in the public service of any religious sign, we would prevent the faithful from certain religions from engaging in careers in the public service, which would contravene freedom of conscience and religion, and would largely complicate the task of building a public service that reflects Quebec’s population. …”

The Taylor-Bouchard justification for such discrimination is unsustainable in the court of logic or law. It’s hard to imagine that these two intellectual giants would not see that. We can only conclude that they are trying to square the circle, dragging Quebecers into accepting pluralism (and the equality that it entails), while keeping interculturalism (with its premise of the dominance of the majority).

That Bouchard and Taylor could not hide the contradictions at the heart of the Quebec enterprise was exposed when Jean Charest led the National Assembly in unanimously voting to keep the crucifix. Expect municipalities to continue with their prayers. Expect the opposition to continue playing identity politics.

Strip away the sophistry and what we see is not pretty: Old-stock Quebecers have abandoned Catholicism and swear by secularism, but they refuse to give up their quasi-religious tribalism and its dogma of making others subservients to it.

Toronto Star

Why we must say no to the veiled threat in our schools

Sunday May 25 2008

Of all the problems you’d least want to land on your desk when you’ve just been made Minister for Education, responsibility for deciding whether Muslim schoolgirls should be allowed to wear the hijab in Irish schools must be pretty near top of the list. The good news for Batt O’Keeffe is that it doesn’t take very long to say no.

He is going to say no, right?

The issue has arisen because the principal of one of the largest secondary schools in the country called on the Minister for Education to issue guidelines on the matter.

This isn’t the first time Gorey Community School has sought advice either. Principal Nicholas Sweetman wrote to then Education Minister Mary Hanafin last October, after a Muslim couple asked that their child be allowed to wear the hijab in class. Permission was given by the school, but in the meantime teachers wanted official guidance from the government. None was forthcoming, save for some typical buck-passing about it being the business of the board of governors, blah, blah.

Now the school has asked again for the issue to be cleared up, and O’Keeffe has passed the matter (with a sigh of relief, no doubt) to junior minister Conor Lenihan, who is in charge of integration.

Let’s not hold our breath either way. It’s another of those issues which governments would rather went away quietly. Heads down; with any luck, it’ll all blow over.

It won’t. This child’s parents have been given permission to send their daughter to school in a hijab, so there’s nothing to stop other Muslims parents demanding the same “rights” from other schools. And if they’re refused permission? The Department of Education can’t shunt this one off on to individual schools for ever.

“Suppose a child comes here wanting to wear the full veil,” asks Mr Sweetman. “Do I say yes or do I say no? And why do I say yes or no?”

To read more please click

Allow hijabs, ban prayers at council meetings: report

Sara Asfour (right) attends College Jean Eudes where she has had to remove her hijab to attend school, while her sister Hebah is permitted to wear hers at Institut Reine Marie.

The crucifix is out. The hijab is in. Preaching reconciliation with Quebec’s minorities, the long-awaited Bouchard-Taylor report on the integration of immigrants recommends removing the crucifix from the Quebec legislature, allowing students to keep wearing their hijab, kippas, turbans and even kirpans in class, and banning prayers at city council meetings.

But the controversial report, written by scholars Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor, also spells out what should be considered unreasonable demands by religious groups for special treatment.

For example, they can’t refuse that a male doctor attend to a female patient, or ask that boys and girls be segregated in swimming classes. It would also be “absurd” to take down the cross on Mount Royal or an old building that have long been converted to secular use, the chairmen of the $5-million commission say.

“Our recommendations are in keeping with what is commonly called ‘the path Quebec has followed’,” Taylor , a McGill University professor emeritus of philosophy, said in a statement Thursday, releasing the report after a series of leaks in The Gazette.

“We are proposing neither a break nor a radical shift but only measures to facilitate intercultural relations and the normal development of a pluralist, modern society,” Taylor said before addressing the media at a Montreal news conference.

Added Bouchard: “We must rightly insist on secularism and interculturalism, but we must adopt vigorous measures to more broadly foster the integration of immigrants and combat discrimination. Our consultations reveal that members of the ethnic minorities are seeking employment much more than accommodation.”

Titled “Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation,” the report runs 307 pages long.

Among its 37 recommendations, judges and cops should not be allowed to wear religious symbols, the government should produce “a multi-denominational calendar” of religious holidays, and “step up measures” recognizing foreign skills and diplomas in the workforce, and more funding should be freed up for immigrant women.

And the report recommends new policy: Quebec should adopt “basic texts” that define “open secularism” and “typically Quebec-style interculturalism,” the commissioners say.

In its recommendations, the commission takes no official position on the French language, deeming “this theme to be on the margin of its mandate.”

However, in the body of the report, it’s emphasized that French should be better taught in schools and to new immigrants – and so should English.

At a lock-up Thursday, journalists were given a chance to read the full report in French as well as two news releases and a list of the report’s 37 recommendations. Also included was a 95-page abridged version of the report, available in English and French.

All the documents – as well as a dozen studies the commission ordered specially from independent experts on various aspects of the accommodation question – are now available on the commission’s website. www.accommodements.qc.ca.

The much-anticipated report has been the talk of the province this week after parts of the final draft were reported in The Gazette since last Saturday and then posted in their entirety on the newspaper’s website.

Thursday’s release mirrors word-for-word the contents of the draft’s three last chapters that were excerpted by The Gazette.

In the draft – dated two weeks before Thursday’s report went to the printers – as well as in Thursday’s official report, Bouchard and Taylor discuss what they call the media-fanned flames of the accommodation crisis that began in March 2006. That was when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Gurbaj Singh Multani, an orthodox Sikh teenager who wanted to keep wearing his kirpan (a small, sheathed dagger under the shirt) to school.

Other controversies followed, involving demands and deals made with orthodox Sikhs, Hasidic Jews and hijab-wearing Muslim women, mostly over issues of clothing they say is part-and-parcel of their religion.

The crisis came to a head in Jan. 2007 with the publication of a “code of life” by the village council of Herouxville, in which foreigners were advised that public stonings, burnings and genital mutilation of women are not allowed in the community.

Fearing unrest over immigrants and religious minorities on the eve of a divisive provincial election campaign, several days later Premier Jean Charest hastily announced he’d name a special body to defuse the crisis: the Bouchard-Taylor commission.

From mid-September to late December, the two scholars – Bouchard is a historian and sociologist and Taylor is a philosopher – criss-crossed the province. They took their road-show to 17 cities and held a series of live-to-TV-broadcast public hearings attended by more than 3,500 people.

They also received over 900 briefs from individuals, interest groups, political parties and university academics, among others. In early January the commissioners sat down to digest the material and begin writing their report. Their deadline, originally set for March 31, was extended to May 31 after the Charest government agreed to give them more time.

Montreal Gazette

National Post

The Canada

Canada

If Muslim men like the veil so much, let them wear it

If Muslim men are so keen on seeing their headscarf introduced into Irish society, they should wear it as well as their women. Let them cover up, too.

Otherwise there must be no place for the hijab in civic life here. Not in banks, hospitals or libraries, not in the guards or civil service and most definitely not in schools.

You hear a constant stream of hooey about why we can’t ban the headscarf. But this is not about Islamophobia. It’s not about prejudice on race or religion grounds. It’s not about equating the Muslim scarf with terrorism. It’s not about denial of civil rights.

Here’s what banning the headscarf is about: the State demonstrating our belief in gender equality. It’s about removing a symbol of repression and submission. Showing we don’t condone marks of separation — either between men and women, Muslim and Christian, or native born and immigrant.

And it’s about refusing point blank to make allowances for anything which could lead to a creeping erosion of women’s rights.

Today the hijab which covers the hair and shoulders, tomorrow the niqab or full-face veil, the day after the burqa hiding everything from tip to toe — described as a mobile prison by women obliged to wear it.

To read more please click

Muslim head scarf no threat to Quebec values, report says

Muslim head scarf no threat to Quebec values

Jeff Heinrich , Canwest News Service

Published: Monday, May 19

MONTREAL – The Muslim head scarf is no real threat to Quebec values and most women in the province wear it by choice, not out of coercion. That’s what a commission on the integration of immigrants concluded after a year of study costing $5 million.

In the final draft of their report – which was submitted to the provincial government Monday and is expected to be made public at a news conference Thursday – scholars Gerard Bouchard and Charles Taylor say Quebec society will have a lot to lose if it restricts the wearing of the Muslim head scarf strictly to the home and outdoors.

Saying the province’s 130,000 Muslims, especially Arab Muslim immigrants, are “along with blacks, the group that is the most touched by different forms of discrimination” in Quebec, Bouchard and Taylor plead for an end to bickering over the hijab.

“Let’s finish with the head scarf, which has caused so much distress in the last few years,” the commission’s chairmen say in their report, parts of which The Montreal Gazette obtained last week.

“In light of a great number of unequivocal testimonies, we can take it for granted – believe us – that the young girls or women who wear it give it various meanings and are motivated in contrasting ways, some of which, it’s true, don’t jibe with the dominant values of our society.”

In a footnote, the professors explain some of those different meanings: “Sometimes it signifies submission and oppression, pure and simple, sometimes prudishness, respectability and modesty, and sometimes a way of affirming one’s identity or autonomy or even feminism.”

“But by trying to combat these situations, isn’t there a risk that we’ll harm other citizens who made a perfectly clear choice? How is it possible to disentangle the two? And in the end, what happens to the freedom of each and every one to display her deeply held convictions, as long as they don’t impinge on the rights of others and don’t lead to anybody being put out?”

Devout Muslim women – a small minority of Quebec Muslims overall – suffer intimidation and discrimination in the Quebec job market for wearing the hijab “because employers fear getting demands for accommodations,” the commissioners say, recounting testimony from several Muslims in public hearings last fall.

They cite the case of a young hijab-wearing woman studying to be a pharmacist who “saw her job applications rejected by 50 pharmacies before she was finally able to land a job with an Arab pharmacist.”

The commissioners also write that the hijab is a lightning rod for a wide range of opponents in Quebec, all of whom see it in a negative light.

“Diverse voices are raised to denounce the Muslim head scarf: those of radical feminism, those of republican egalitarianism and – we heard various ways of it being expressed – also those of intolerance.”

That condemnation shouldn’t happen, they say.

“The freedom to manifest one’s religion or one’s conviction is recognized by all the great international legal conventions and by the Quebec charter (of human rights and freedoms),” they say in a footnote.

In another footnote, Bouchard and Taylor talk of some Quebecers’ “often irrational” opposition to the hijab, which they see as a denial of a woman’s femininity, a symbol of her submission to men and to God, or simply a restrictive piece of clothing that would be better left in a drawer.

They quote from a brief submitted to them in November by a woman during their 17-city tour of the province: “In 2007, in Quebec, when a Muslim women wears the veil, I tremble,” the woman wrote.

The hijab should be greeted in day-to-day life as a possibility to connect with someone with a different way of life, according to Bouchard and Taylor.

They also say it’s wrong to think that all veiled Muslim women are somehow under a man’s thumb.

“There’s a strong feminist current among Muslim women. It follows an original path and is a model that differs from Quebec feminism. It goes along with the wearing of the head scarf.”

Lest anyone think the veil is a sign of Muslim extremism – even a subtle form of terrorism – the commissioners try to set the record straight.

“A word on fundamentalism and the threat of terrorism,” they write. “There is, indeed, among Muslims in Montreal, a small minority of rigorists who are solidly rejected by their religious brethren. It’s true that in this type of milieu the germs of terrorism can appear. The threat is therefore not non-existent. What is the right attitude to take?

“Our position is this: Let’s let the police do what they can to disrupt the terrorist threat wherever it is – and it does exist. For the rest, as citizens, we have the duty to treat people equitably and without reproach.”

The Canada

Canada

Danish government in row over head scarves in court

Danish Government in row over Head Scarves in Court

By JAN M. OLSEN –

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Denmark’s government said Wednesday it will prepare legislation that would bar judges from wearing Islamic head scarves and religious symbols in court.

While the law would also ban crucifixes, Jewish skull caps and turbans, it highlights ongoing debate over Islamic traditions in Denmark, an issue that gained world attention in 2006 when Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad triggered violent protests in Muslim countries.

Although there are no known cases of a judge in Denmark wearing a traditional Muslim head scarf known as a hijab, Justice Minister Lene Espersen said the law was needed because judges “must appear neutral and impartial” in court.

The new legislation has created a rift in Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government. It was prompted by discussions over a set of dress code guidelines issued last year by the court administration, which noted that Danish law does not bar judges from wearing head scarves.

The guidelines went largely unnoticed until the government’s ally, the nationalist Danish People’s Party, decided to politicize the issue last month.

The party, known for its anti-Muslim rhetoric, created a poster showing a woman wearing an all-encompassing burqa and holding a judge’s gavel. The party urged the government to introduce legislation ensuring that courts remain “neutral instances in the Danish judiciary.”

Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen’s Liberal-Conservative coalition was sympathetic to the idea, but Immigration Minister Birthe Roenn Hornbech broke with the party line.

Roenn Hornbech wrote an opinion piece in a Danish newspaper saying lawmakers have no business regulating the dress of judges.

The premier criticized her Wednesday, saying her article was “unfortunate” and should have been cleared with him first.

Danish Muslim groups have been quiet on the issue, although the Muslim Council of Denmark said this month no one should be disqualified from a job “because of one’s clothes, religious beliefs or political views.”

The justice minister said the government bill, to be presented later this year, would be directed at judges, and would not affect prosecutors, defense lawyers or other court officials.

The Associated Press