The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The integration of immigrants and forced secularism, how far is too far?
21stCentury
Call me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered User regular
Call me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered User regular
I come from the Province of Quebec, a province with, let's be honest, a rather bad reputation. Recently, Quebec Premier Pauline Marois has started making a lot of noise about a "Charter of Quebec Values" and secularism.
In a nutshell, after debates about reasonable accommodations based on ethnicity and religion, the Parti Quebecois decided that the best way to unite Quebecois people old and new is to implement a charter of common Quebecois Values.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/08/25/marois-charter-quebec-values.html
Basically, enforcing secularism, and helping new immigrants integrate to Quebec life, which is good, right?
Maybe not entirely. See, there is evidence that there will be a lot of hypocrisy regarding this charter, that it may ban religious attire of some religions while leaving other unscathed... And by "others", i mean Catholicism.
See, at the National Assembly of Quebec, the legislative body of the province, is not without controversy. The main legislative chamber is well known for the inclusion of a large crucifix. There have been campaigns to remove it in the name of secularism and the crucifix was ruled a "part of the Quebec patrimony" in other words, it's not a religious thing, it's a national culture thing. totally different, right? And in several cities, they still have a prayer before municipal assembly, which was also ruled as secular because no specific god is invoked, just "The All-Powerful".
So here's the big question, Is a charter of national (or provincial... whatever) values a good idea for integration in a society where the majority religion is considered a part of society and, therefore, seen as above secularism?
And, while we're at it, should it be necessary for public sector workers to abandon some tenets of their religion to work?
Personally, i think the whole thing is hypocritical. It's all about trying to make sure immigrants stop "looking" like immigrants and stay in their own communities rather than integrate in Quebec society entirely. it's all about the old "Out of sight, out of mind" thing. it's the belief that to integrate in our society, you need to integrate with our majority religion and not your own religion. Plus, the thing will definitely affect some people more than others. For instance, if they ban headscarves, it will only affect Muslim women, as they can't really ban "Muslim beards", which will inevitably lead to less muslim women working in the public sector, which definitely won't help anyone. Then, there's the question of how far-reaching the forced secularism for public-sector workers is. Will it prevent municipal workers from wearing a turban? Will it prevent nurses and teachers from wearing crucifixes? it's still not clear, but then... is there a "right" level for that?
I also think that the best way for new immigrants to integrate in a new society isn't to force them to shed away their own culture and religion to take up that of the majority. I don't think a "charter of state-sponsored value" will do anything other than make us look like bigots, like the mayor of a small Quebec town who voted for a "code of conduct" that was basically "anti-sharia" in a town that was overwhelmingly, if not entirely, white and catholic.
In a nutshell, after debates about reasonable accommodations based on ethnicity and religion, the Parti Quebecois decided that the best way to unite Quebecois people old and new is to implement a charter of common Quebecois Values.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/08/25/marois-charter-quebec-values.html
(Emphasis mine)Quebec Premier Pauline Marois says her party's planned "Charter of Quebec Values," which would include a ban on religious headwear for public employees, will be a uniting force for the province.
In her first public comments on the controversial proposal since details were revealed last week, Marois rejected any suggestion the new rules would be a source of division among the population.
Leaked details include a plan to prohibit public-sector workers from donning turbans, kippas, hijabs and visible crucifixes.
Instead, Marois said the charter will help bring Quebec together, much like Bill 101, the province's landmark legislation aimed at protecting the French language.
The charter will affirm, once and for all, the equality between men and women, she said, and it will reflect not only "universal" values, but Quebec values as well.
"It will become, I'm certain, a strong uniting element between Quebecers," Marois said Sunday at a gathering of young PQ members in Quebec City. "We're moving forward in the name of all the women, all the men, who chose Quebec for our culture, for our freedom and for our diversity."
Leaked details, published in a media report last week, include a plan to prohibit people like doctors, teachers and public daycare workers from donning turbans, kippas, hijabs and visible crucifixes.
Marois said the charter would be the culmination of a long process that began a half-century ago with the secularization of Quebec's public institutions, such as schools.
She didn't take questions from reporters after her speech.
Past polls have suggested such a charter would be popular in Quebec, but last week's new details drew an angry response from some pundits and minority groups.
The PQ, which is planning to bring forward the legislation this fall, has a minority government and it's not clear yet whether the plan will get support from opposition parties.
Philippe Couillard, the new Quebec Liberal leader who has been highly critical of the idea, said Sunday he would try to be "constructive" in dealing with the charter.
But he accused the PQ of trying to distract voters from more important issues.
"I see this as quite an obvious attempt to move citizens' attention away from jobs and the economy," he said.
Basically, enforcing secularism, and helping new immigrants integrate to Quebec life, which is good, right?
Maybe not entirely. See, there is evidence that there will be a lot of hypocrisy regarding this charter, that it may ban religious attire of some religions while leaving other unscathed... And by "others", i mean Catholicism.
See, at the National Assembly of Quebec, the legislative body of the province, is not without controversy. The main legislative chamber is well known for the inclusion of a large crucifix. There have been campaigns to remove it in the name of secularism and the crucifix was ruled a "part of the Quebec patrimony" in other words, it's not a religious thing, it's a national culture thing. totally different, right? And in several cities, they still have a prayer before municipal assembly, which was also ruled as secular because no specific god is invoked, just "The All-Powerful".
So here's the big question, Is a charter of national (or provincial... whatever) values a good idea for integration in a society where the majority religion is considered a part of society and, therefore, seen as above secularism?
And, while we're at it, should it be necessary for public sector workers to abandon some tenets of their religion to work?
Personally, i think the whole thing is hypocritical. It's all about trying to make sure immigrants stop "looking" like immigrants and stay in their own communities rather than integrate in Quebec society entirely. it's all about the old "Out of sight, out of mind" thing. it's the belief that to integrate in our society, you need to integrate with our majority religion and not your own religion. Plus, the thing will definitely affect some people more than others. For instance, if they ban headscarves, it will only affect Muslim women, as they can't really ban "Muslim beards", which will inevitably lead to less muslim women working in the public sector, which definitely won't help anyone. Then, there's the question of how far-reaching the forced secularism for public-sector workers is. Will it prevent municipal workers from wearing a turban? Will it prevent nurses and teachers from wearing crucifixes? it's still not clear, but then... is there a "right" level for that?
I also think that the best way for new immigrants to integrate in a new society isn't to force them to shed away their own culture and religion to take up that of the majority. I don't think a "charter of state-sponsored value" will do anything other than make us look like bigots, like the mayor of a small Quebec town who voted for a "code of conduct" that was basically "anti-sharia" in a town that was overwhelmingly, if not entirely, white and catholic.
0
Posts
WoW
Dear Satan.....
i know that quebec has a kind of strange relationship with Canada and France (resentful and contemptuous of Canada, jealous and feelings of inferiority towards France), but it strikes me that they've seized upon what is probably the absolute worst of French public policy for guidance here.
Doesn't federal Canada have something to say about this kind of religious discrimination, or are they still afraid to contradict Quebec out of fear of another secession movement?
Lex solis is probably the biggest part of that.
Well, it's apparently within the Provincial government's jurisdiction, because all Harper had to say was basically "Sigh, here they go again, trying to start trouble."
As for the "secession movement", i don't think Canada of that anymore since it's still political suicide to actually try to go for another referendum. The PQ is a minority government and the sovereigntists are still a minority in the province. It's the PQ's Platform to try and make it possible to eventually, maybe, ask Canada if it could be okay to perhaps secede at some point, sure, but they're not ready for another referendum.
Plus, there are a lot of people outside of Quebec who want to get rid of Quebec because they see this province as a nest for socialists and leeches.
I'm not for sovereignty, i think the country isn't perfect and that the two solitudes need to reconcile their differences, but that without Quebec, the country would probably slide even further towards the right. I don't think that's good.
Quebec is weird politically... but i digress.
Here's an article on Harper's response to the Charter of Quebec Values.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Enforced secularisation: Sunday not a regular day off, no Xmas cards or parties, no other winter festivals whose popularity has grown in order to match Christmas, no US Declaration of Independence with Creator mentioned etc etc
The All-Powerful is Judeo-Christianism pretending it's being inclusive - how about pantheists, e.g. Hindus or Shintoites? Or ones without worship of a god, such as Buddhism?
We don't even notice how big an influence this is on even the athiest of us.
Like, "let's just make everybody the same (read: like us)! Surely if we get rid of all this messy diversity we can all get along!"
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I think Canada does very well on immigrant assimilation too.
Quebec is always a weird case since they are perpetually (or, at least, for the past many decades) trying to "preserve their culture" through various laws and such, which leads to problems with just about everything, including immigration.
These are real issues with religion in the West.
Funny hats are not.
Unfortunately for anti-immigration folk in Quebec, it is not enough to merely require that immigrants speak French, because France conquered a vast colonial empire across Africa. It does so happen that many of these people are Muslim.
But I daresay that within two decades, emigration from Central Africa is liable to increase, and this area - Cameroon, etc. - may contain a great very many Francophone Christians. Many are Roman Catholic, even. At that point even the pretence of embracing diversity will have to be discarded.
Eh, I don't know.
I personally think that tribal signifiers shouldn't be used by public employees (I know I would feel as if I had to ask a nun for a building permit and I imagine it is worse for someone outside of the dominate culture) but would make an exception for people who sincerely believed that that clothing was necessary for their free exercise of religion.
I think individuals should be scrutinized on their work performance when they're at work and wearing a religious symbol, rather than judged by the symbol they're wearing and thus assuming they're not doing their job right somehow.
The onus is on the individual to not let their personal values change how they interact with others on the job, but it's also on the rest of us to not assume they're doing that.
We're not talking about nuns here, though.
We're talking about normal people who wear specific garb as required by their religious beliefs.
I mean, honestly, if you're weirded out by someone wearing a crucifix pendant or a headscarf, it's not their responsibility to change.
And even then, how would you separate Sikhs who sincerely believe they need to wear a turban to be a saint-soldier from those who are wishy-washy about it?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
The point of the government being neutral to its citizens is inclusiveness. Being "weirded out" by a giant Ten Commandments in front of a court house isn't a big deal but people feeling excluded is a big deal even if the processes inside the building are perfectly fair.
Same with government employees. If a Muslim goes to get a building permit from someone with overtly Christian signifiers then they are going to feel excluded (yes I know this will probably happen anyway.) and that is going to change their behavior. If we can mitigate that without shutting people out of government jobs then why wouldn't we?
First, the turban thing is something you shouldn't need to ask for.
Second, well, i agree that the Ten Commandments doesn't have its place in front of a courthouse just as much as a crucifix doesn't have it's place at the seat of legislative power or a prayer before municipal assembly. They should be removed because they're not people symbols but because they're organizational symbols. They're not worn by people, they're worn by organizations that should not have a religious affiliation.
Lastly, i think that if a Muslim is getting a building permit and the clerk wears a religious signifier that isn't Muslim, they shouldn't feel excluded because, and this is important, the people who work somewhere don't necessarily share the same religious affiliation and philosophy as the organization at large.
To me, the Organization must stay neutral, but you can't ask the people who work in it to be neutral. it shouldn't be a workplace necessity to completely deny something as important to a person as religion. And i say that as an atheist.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
You don't stop being of a particular religion if you don't wear signifiers. All that is being asked of people is that adhere to a dress code if it doesn't conflict with their religious beliefs. That, to me, isn't a huge thing to ask to make cultural minorities don't feel discriminated against.
But still, I can't see any reason or argument why any religious belief should be deserving of getting an exception to some rule anymore than any personal beliefs one might have. It's saying that, because my beliefs are not based on some fiction some dudes wrote a couple thousands of years ago, they are not worth respecting as much as someone else's beliefs based on a religion.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
When the eight hour work day started thousands of cultures started to die, and as we come into the modern workforce we must give more and more of our past cultural identities in order to be accepted and to thrive in today's modern work environment. The reason most white Americans are just some kind of amorphous "white people," is because to compete and stay competitive in a modern economy they had to sacrifice most everything that was uniquely part of the culture that they came from. People who were unwilling to do this got left behind. Culture takes a lot of time to develop and maintain, and that time must be spent with people who grew up with either that culture or a similar one. Modern life is not friendly to older cultures, and we should expect to see them die out as time goes on.
You must understand, that competition is about a lot more than how hard you work. It's about what your willing to sacrifice. It's a lot easier to sacrifice social norms and ideas and a way of being that comes from a far off place than it is to do just about anything else that will make you more competitive. You really don't have to force secularism though, modern life has been created in such a way that it will eventually force almost all people to look and act in a small subset of manners that is foreign to most people, or to leave modern society. The latter option does not seem possible any longer.
All else being equal between two individuals who are competing, the one that is willing to sacrifice more will win. Such is the nature of competition. Culture is a liability, one that you must be willing to discard on the altar of capitalism if you hope to climb the ladder of prosperity.
Oh good, so people from cultures and religions that do not have specific imagery or dress requirements get an unfair advantage. Awesome.
The turbans we are talking about are an absolute requirement* and could take many highly qualified people out of the labor pool in many jobs. Unless it presents a safety concern a business is putting itself at a competitive disadvantage.
Allowing bullshit that does not impact the job to determine hiring, retention and promotions produces bad results, even if you leave out that you are harming people.
*I only have limited direct knowledge from visiting a temple once so please correct me if I am wrong.
What of your culture have you been required to discard?
Goddamn.
EDIT: To expand on my semi-facetious point, there are several reasons why a person might wear a turban, and most of them are only tenuously connected to religion. Sikhs don't cut their hair, so the turban is more about containing it neatly than making any kind of religious statement. There are various muslim turban-wearing traditions with differing degrees of religious motivation. There are Indian Hindus that will wear turbans (though generally only occasionally) with no religious motivation at all.
Similarly hijab is generally a function of an (often, but not necessarily religion-related) requirement or intent for modesty, rather than a specific injunction to wear a particular garment (though there are traditions where this is the case!)
I have only ever met one person that wore a kippah. I'd imagine that if dress codes were the concern Jews would have more of an issue with those periods where (depending on tradition) shaving and hair cutting is forbidden.
Sooo... really what I'm getting at is maybe people should realise that people don't tend to wear a turban, or hijab, or whatever with the specific intent of making a statement that they are a follower of a certain religion. Unlike, say, the wearing of a crucifix.
The cynical part of me thinks that these kinds of laws are a reaction from a Christian majority that is unhappy that it is no longer the default assumption that a randomly selected person of the majority ethnic group is also part of their religious group.
And this charter thing doesn't somehow? It's the exact action of oppression.
Nah, the mounties are federal, this is provincial. Fashion SQ would be the proper term.
now, for the serious mouthful...
Well, firstly, just because you worked in a situation where people had to shed a very important part of themselves to just get the job doesn't mean it's a good thing or even okay. If a private sector company decides to ban headscarves or turban, that's not "forced secularism", it's straight up religious discrimination, because not every religion has obvious clothing.
And there's another thing. Where do you place the line? Mormons can wear their temple garments to work and no one has to know, but a Sikh can't wear a secret turban. A Muslim man can have a beard, but a Muslim woman can't have a headscarf? Unless you want to ban all beards because some beards are religious? Would you feel oppressed if your boss had a turban? What if he had a beard?
This i can agree with, but there is an important difference. When a person is wearing a religious item, it reflects on them, and it should reflect on them alone. When they decorate their workspace, it's like putting religious clothing on the organization 9or, at least, a part of it) which should remain secular because, as far as I know, businesses generally aren't capable of having a religion.
Okay, for the sake of argument, i'll accept your statement that says that cultures died... Was that a good thing? Do we want to keep imposing the sacrifice of culture and self in the name of business? I don't think it's a good thing at all.
And cultures didn't die. Frenchmen and Germans are still extremely culturally different. Canadian and Americans are very culturally different. And that's not going even further. Provincial/state cultures, sub-cultures, political cultures, etc. They're still alive and well, they keep growing and changing, they are all still alive. To force people to shed away their religions, philosophies and culture is needless and cruel. Especially because the only people who will really be affected are people in the minority. They are going to be asked to shed away their identity in order to not make you feel uncomfortable.
That is... A mouthful... i'm not sure i understand your point, honestly. Are you saying that modern society is creating a singular culture that is different from every culture before and that everyone on the planet will be forced to conform to? Because that is kind of insane to me. National cultures aren't dying, immigrants should get to keep their cultures when moving to a new country and to force the culture of the many onto the few is, well, cruel and discriminatory. It's basically treating a subset of people differently, as borderline criminals for refusing to forget who they are.
But is that a good thing? is it a good thing that some people should have an advantage in life because they're not particularly attached to their birth culture? Or worse, that some people should have an advantage in life because they were born in the majority culture and, as such, have next to nothing they need to sacrifice?
i mean, hell, you seem to have gotten a bad experience from working with mormons without you being one... How would you feel if you had worked in a completely different culture? Say... in Germany?
Now, would you say that it's better to force people to shed away their identity? If you had to sacrifice your identity as an American, how would you have felt?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
What a curious use of the term 'fair'.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Advocating for Don't Ask Don't Tell 2: Religious Boogaloo seems like a bad idea to me.
Language laws that prevent people from speaking their native language are the very definition of xenophobia and racism and it's shameful that a Canadian province is allowed have such laws on the books.
This isn't the topic at hand, but AFAIK, the language laws don't prevent people from speaking any language. They mostly legislate who can go to anglophone schools and signage. And you have to understand, before they Law 101 was passed, there were swaths of Montreal that were just... Anglophones-only. Hell, there are still a lot of places in Montreal where you English is the majority language.
Thing is, if we don't prevent immigrants from learning English, they won't learn French and, as it happens, they'll just never leave their little communities in Montreal, which, i hope you agree, is kinda reductive and bad. It really reduces their opportunities.
Edit: But this isn't the Language Laws debate Thread... So let's not... like, debate language laws. They're not perfect, but they're not 100% horrible.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
I think it has a nice ring to it
I consider the issues completely intertwined as it's all about immigration, but okay, we'll pretend that yelling at immigrants to learn French (English!) or go back where they came from isn't 100% horrible.
There needs to be a balance between allowing religious expression and maintaining a recognizable uniform for representatives of public works and emergency services. That is, I can understand the argument against, say, a police officer wearing a turban instead of a policeman's cap, but the rest of the uniform is unique enough that I think it should be allowed.
There is also the side of public safety. Veils should not be permitted for photographs of any kind of government ID because the point is to make the person identifiable. An ID with no picture is not an ID. If veils are permitted, we may as well stop requiring photographs for government ID. I understand this will exclude some people from participating in much of society, but this is that rare case where the public good outweighs the personal restriction.
There needs to be a line separating individual expression from organizational expression, as has been said. Restricting all kinds of individual expression is pretty heinous, so long as that individual expression isn't hampering a person's duties.
Secularism is kinda more difficult, but as long as you don't try to force others to follow your religion (or break the laws) i will merely silently sneer at you for following a religion, but try to force me to obey your religious rules and there will be trouble.