I was going to write a long blog post on this but since so much has been written about it I think this captures the spirit and intent of the proposal succinctly.
The bottom line on Quebec's proposed values charter is that you can visit a hospital named after a saint with a crucifix in the lobby and be guaranteed not to be treated by a Muslim doctor in a hijab because they want to remove religious symbols from public institutions.
I think we all have friends, relatives or acquaintances that are caught up in Islamophobia and regularly send out e-mails warning that the Muslims are immigrating and breeding and going to take over the country.
Their usual solution to the "problem" is to force the minorities to abandon their "evil ways" and adapt to the majority culture, essentially for them to assimilate.
It seems to me that, from their point of view, their solution is misguided.
Should they not be welcoming newcomers, respecting their beliefs and accommodating the cultures of the minorities as much as possible while helping them integrate into our multicultural society.
At least that would be the precedent I would want to set if I saw myself as part of a majority that was soon to be displaced and become the minority.
So what is an atheist who believes in a single secular public school system supposed to think about noon hour Muslim prayers in public schools.
The answer should be simple but first let us look at the context.
In the province of Ontario there are two publicly funded school systems, one for a specific religion and one for everybody else (all other religions and non-religious persons). If one did not have an understanding of the province's constitutional history, one might assume the religion with the separate school system was the largest religious group in the province, but actually it is the second largest group that gets special treatment.
This religion has it's own school system where they are allowed to indoctrinate students in their religion and adopt policies that provide "when there is an apparent conflict between denominational rights and other rights, the board will favour the protection of the denominational rights".
While the Roman Catholic Church, and it's separate school boards, may be exempt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, Section 29), I cannot ignore it.
Thus, as long as one religion is allowed to have it's own publicly funded school boards in which to indoctrinate students, the minimum reasonable accommodation that should be made for other religions, in the name of equality, is to allow them to use school facilities for prayer services for the convenience of students, as long as no one is compelled to attend such services.
The real solution, of course, is a constitutional amendment to remove discriminatory rights given to one religion and provide for one secular public school system in Ontario, as has been done in other provinces, including Quebec.
Let us be clear the President of the United States is not a stupid man who speaks without thinking and when he speaks of "we", unless he makes it clear he is talking about some specific group like the Democratic Party or his family, he is speaking of the American people. So when he says
"The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else's religion is contrary to what this country stands for,...It's contrary to what this nation was founded on, and my hope is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it."he is clearly stating that Islam is "someone else's religion", not the religion of Americans and thus that Muslims are not real Americans. Indeed he is accepting the religious right's assertion that, despite what the Constitution of the United States says and what the founding fathers intended, the United States is a Christian country and Americans are Christians.
Any day can be Burn A Religious Text Day. Just take the day and look for some historical atrocity or crime committed on that day and determine who committed it and their religion. Then burn their religious text. It's really quite simple.
For example September 11 is the anniversary of the brutal 1973 coup by Augusto Pinochet against the democratically elected government of Chile and the assassination of President Salvador Allende. I couldn't find Pinochet's religion, but he went to a seminary school taught by brothers, and after all it is South America, so we will assume he was Catholic. Anyway, facts are not important on Burn A Religious Text Day. The important thing is to insult all the members of a religious community, supposedly to right a wrong committed by one or a few of the members of that community. So in that case we would burn the Bible. I would suggest burning the New Testament because burning the Old Testament would be the same as burning the Qur'an, since the messages in both of them are so similar. And, apparently, there already is a Burn The Koran Day.
So that's it. Happy Burn A Religious Text Day everybody.
This statement from the Canadian Council of Imams — signed by almost 40 senior Muslim religious leaders — will be read during Friday prayers in hundreds of mosques across Canada.
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF IMAMS DECLARATION
We, the imams who have signed below, hereby affirm and declare the following fundamental points:
1. We believe in the oneness of Allah (God) and in the oneness of humanity and that all the Messengers of God, including the final Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), have taught human beings how to come closer to God and closer to one another. Islam is a religion of nature and humanity, one that teaches that a person cannot be a good Muslim until he/she becomes a good human being. All human beings are equal, and all of them are the children of Adam and Eve (peace be upon them). The best Muslim is the one who is good to his/her family and neighbours and one who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue.
2. We believe in peaceful coexistence, dialogue, bridge building, and cooperation among all faiths and people for the common good of humanity. Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, regardless of their creed, ethnicity, race, or nationality. The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws. Islamic rulings do not – and should not – contradict natural laws. Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings.
3. We believe in the preservation of all the necessities of life. Islam upholds the sanctity of religion, life, intellect, family/society, and property.
4. We believe that the well-being of our fellow citizens is the well-being of Muslims, and that the well-being of Muslims is the well-being of our fellow citizens. Being law-abiding people is part of the Islamic practice, and following the pristine teachings of Islam leads to good citizenship.
5. We believe in gender equity and each man and each woman’s divine right to education, social contribution, work, and treatment with respect and dignity. Men and women complement each other, and healthy relationships between them are essential to a healthy society.
6. We believe that it is the right of every individual adult person to determine for themselves their conduct towards and within their society (for example, in matters of dress or good manners), and their personal conduct in matters of faith and belief as well, as long as their conduct does not threaten the common good. Likewise, we believe that every society must be allowed to express and celebrate humanity's profound cultural diversity, as long as the expression of that diversity does not include the compulsion of any individual to violate their own human rights, or their personal values, or their human nature, or otherwise threaten the common good of all people.
7. We believe and strongly encourage Muslims to seriously engage in civic life and contribute to their communities and society as much as they can.
Source: Canadian Council of Imams - CANADIAN COUNCIL OF IMAMS DECLARATION
Further Information:
CBC News - Canada - Canadian Imams denounce Islamic radicalism
Why we needed an Imams' declaration for peace - CNN.com
Though some will think this question is in poor taste I think it is an interesting one.
Many were very surprised when the two leading contenders for the United States Democratic Party nomination for President turned out to be a white woman and a black man. Until then conventional wisdom was that the United States was not ready for a black, or a female, President.
Hilary Clinton’s case is unique, as the wife of a former President, but of course there are other factors at play there as well.
In the case of Obama, while racism may not be as rampant in the United States as it once was, presidential elections can be won by very narrow margins and it would only take a small percentage of voters who would never vote for a black candidate to defeat him. Yet, he may become the Democratic nominee.
Part of the reason for that may be that the racism dynamic in the United States appears to be changing. Racism, though expressed in hate, is based on fear. Traditional racism in the United States was born with the end of slavery as white men began to fear free black men - afraid they would seek revenge for slavery, defile their women and take their jobs. It may have been irrational but it was used by many to their own personal and political advantage and justified by religion.
With 911, or more precisely, the response of the United States government to 911, the racism dynamic was changed. It is no longer white vs black but Christianity vs Islam. It may be just as irrational but it is just as real.
Indeed those using racism to attack Obama are not doing it on the basis of his blackness but are trying to label him as a Muslim. They put undue emphasis on his middle name, “Hussein”, which is of Arab origin and by inference Muslim. As well they refer to his alleged “Muslim father”, although Biography.com states “His father, Barack Obama, Sr., was born of Luo ethnicity in Nyanza Province, Kenya. He grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British. Although reared among Muslims, Obama, Sr., became an atheist at some point.”
But the Muslim labeling appears not to be having any significant effect on voters and his blackness appears to be seen as an asset rather than a liability.
If Barack Obama is elected President it will be on his own merits and his ability to reach the minds and souls of the American people with his message of change, but it may very well have been made possible by the changing dynamic of racism in the United States
Canada is not a police state. The police cannot simply tell people to do something because they are the police. They must have legal authority. And neither can other government officials. It does not matter whether everyone thinks that requiring voters to show their faces is a good thing, whether it be the Prime Minister, all political parties, all Muslim organizations and leaders and veiled Muslim women themselves, or even a Parliamentary committee, if the law does not provide the authority election officials cannot require Muslim women to show their faces to vote.
Perhaps the law should be changed. But if the law is to be changed to require photo identification of voters then it must apply to all voters. So why was it not applied to all voters when the act was amended. Perhaps it was because many voters, particularly the poor and disadvantaged, do not have photo identification and requiring it would effectively disenfranchise many of the poor from voting. Do we want to do that simply because veiled women make some people uncomfortable.
And what of those who vote by mail, who do they show their face and photo identification to. Indeed, mail in ballots are a greater concern because there is no guarantee of a secret ballot, one of the basic principles of democratic elections, when mail in ballots are used.
Perhaps we should stop and think before implementing knee jerk reactions to what is in reality more of a theoretical, rather than real, problem.
It appears that I have been duped into believing that the Prime Minister actually understood the legislation that his government proposed and passed.
The amendments to the act do not establish photo identification as mandatory.
Bill C-31 states:
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to improve the integrity of the electoral process by reducing the opportunity for electoral fraud or error. It requires that electors, before voting, provide one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and address or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer showing their name and address, or take an oath and be vouched for by another elector.
And for more certainty it states:
21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:
Elector to declare name, etc.
143. (1) Each elector, on arriving at the polling station, shall give his or her name and address to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk, and, on request, to a candidate or his or her representative.
Proof of identity and residence
(2) If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:
(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or
(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address.
The Fifth Column apologizes. It should know better than to take Stephen Harper at his word.
The Canada Elections Act has recently been amended to require photo identification of voters. Elections Canada, the body responsible for enforcing the Act, has ruled that "electors wearing face coverings for religious practices" do not have to provide photo identification when voting but can provide two pieces of "authorized" identification or be "vouched for" by another elector. Is this a reasonable interpretation of the act. Requiring photo identification becomes rather redundant if one cannot compare the photo to the elector.
What is "reasonable accommodation in these circumstances. According to the Globe and Mail a number of Canadian Muslim organizations have criticized Elections Canada's handling of the issue. "Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which says it is the country's largest Muslim organization, said Muslim groups were not consulted about the rule change. If they had been, he said, he would have told officials that the small minority of Muslim women - perhaps as few as just 50 of Canada's 750,000 Muslims - who wear the niqab would have no problem showing their faces to a female election worker to verify their identity."
It seems that all that was required was consultation with the people affected and a much more reasonable accommodation, one that does not conflict with the spirit, if not the letter of the law, could have been made.
