It's the 21st century. How far have we come in respecting the diversity of a modern pluralistic Canada? Many would argue not far at all.
Last week, we saw the beginnings of an uproar over the Bank of Canada producing a $100 bill with the image of an Asian woman looking through a microscope. Focus groups heavily criticized the design. Thus when Asian immigration and the incalculable good it has done for this country is at an all-time high, the Bank of Canada seemed to acquiesce to racist attitudes and decided to forgo the design.
Also last week, the largest Protestant denomination in the country, the United Church of Canada, at their General Assembly passed a resolution waffling on the proposition that Israel is a Jewish state. Essentially this denies Jews self-determination to the exclusion of any other nation on Earth.
Ominously, the Canadian government appears to target Roma refugees as false claimants and denies them and others long-held health care. The action provoked the usually apolitical doctors, pharmacists and others to take action. Even Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel spoke out in support of Roma refugees.
And in Quebec, Pauline Marois, who may be the next premier, releases a policy statement in the midst of a provincial election stating that turbans, kippahs and hijabs will be forbidden to public servants while a crucifix would be allowed as a symbol of Quebec's historical and cultural past.
Of course such action would be in direct violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, though Quebec could very well impose the Notwithstanding Clause. Whether or not such anti-faith laws come into being is almost beside the point. More germane is the fact that in modern 21st-century Canada, a political leader feels no compunction whatsoever in openly suggesting laws be developed that would sustain state sponsored religious discrimination.
What could she be thinking? Can it be that all we have worked toward in the last number of decades that has made Canada an accepting, multicultural nation has been for naught?
And where are the voices of Canadians who should be speaking out boldly against such intrusions of our freedoms? Those who have been so vocal in denouncing Canada's anti-hate laws in favour of total and unfettered free speech are ominously silent. Faith leaders who are not affected by such a draconian policy seem to have taken a vacation. Complacency and compliance as opposed to outrage and defiance has gripped too many of us.
Step back for a moment and consider what might happen if Marois were to get her way. Observant Sikhs, Jews and Muslims would no longer be able to get jobs in the public service. Those already employed would have a choice to make: either they abandon their firmly held beliefs, leave their jobs or defy the edicts and risk fines, jail or both. Is it possible that in the year 2012 we have regressed to a point where we no longer need accept those who are different from us?
It is still within living memory that a former Quebec government, under then Premier Maurice Duplessis, mercilessly targeted Jehovah's Witnesses, encouraging Quebec police to raid and lock down their Houses of Worship.
This action was undertaken through the infamous Padlock Act passed by the Quebec Legislature in 1937. Its original target was to be Communists; however the law was used extensively to persecute Jews, trade unionists, other "subversives" and of course Jehovah's Witnesses. It has been recognized as one of the most regressive laws in Canadian history.
To be sure, Quebec was not alone in its history of racism and bigotry. Ontario had restrictive land covenants in place that forbade Jews and people of colour from owning land till the 1950s; British Columbia's attitude toward the Doukhobors in the 1960s was highly questionable, and we cannot overlook our relationship with Canada's original people, the First Nations, where bigoted attitudes led to terrible and even deadly consequences.
One would hope that the days of Duplessis and politically motivated religious discrimination are far behind us. Yet the disdain and intolerance demonstrated so avidly by Pauline Marois threatens to bring us back to darker, more foreboding times. Like the other vestiges of bigotry appearing today, this must be firmly rejected
Follow Bernie Farber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@berniefarber
The United Church did no such thing. The statement specifically affirmed the Israeli right to statehood. It specifically said that it denounced anyone that said otherwise. Liar. What it said was that what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is wrong. And that's NOT anti-semitic any more than saying what America is doing in Guantanamo (NOT SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME) is anti-American.
Council Affirmations:...
"Denounces all questions of Israel’s right to exist or that seek to undermine its legitimacy as a state."
6) Acknowledge with deep regret the past policy of the General Council calling on
Palestinians to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state as a prerequisite to peace.
Further on, it says:
Denounces all questions of Israel’s right to exist or that seek to undermine its
legitimacy as a state.
Seems like a contradiction, but it isn't. Recognition of Israel's right to exist (which the Council affirms) by Palestine isn't necessary for peace. Peace can be achieved without attempting to force Palestine to accept something they are not ready to accept. In fact, it only hampers the problem.
Should all the other generations be ashamed at what they made of the country? What culture is Canada? A nation built of immigrants. Shall all immigrants past present and future be considered pretenders? Or just those not so fair of skin and fearing the correct god?
As an atheist I am uncomfortable with all religion. But fairly equally so. Separation of religion and state is definitely my desire. But not separation of the religious from earnestly, fairly serving their state or being employed by it. So much of patriotism is imagining a better time, wishing it to be again and blaming those who imagine and wish differently for reality. I don't care what costume someone wears, as long as they treat me fairly. Adorned in religious garb or fickle fashion. Be good to one another and ones country.
Little integration, islands of different nationalities, weird churches going up here and there. How the heck is this helping us wih our Canadian idendity? Not surprising in my many travels, people don't really know what is a Canadian. Australia has the courage to take a different route, more power to them.
Separation of state and religion, also goes for the government, it's subsidiaries, schools and whatever else in the public domain.
Some if not all religions are so incredibly fiction based, that you have to wonder how intelligent people believe such incredible stories. So intrusion?
Frankly, as a non-believer, religion is based on nothing more than fantasy.
As for the article, the Parti Quebecois is wrong and most of us here don't support it's views, just as most Canadians don't support Harper. Remember he was elected with a big majority with 39% of the vote. Something is fishy in our electoral system. Same goes for Marois, who can get a majority with 37%, she is falling rapidly though in the polls, which will make things interesting.
The americans have their faults, but 51% is the majority, no less. Same with most European countries.
So, the end result, we don't have a PM, that has the support of the population be it provincial or federal.
But she does come by it honestly. Anti-semistism and racism are not something that is new in this province. As far as prohibiting certain minorities from being hired in the civil service, the banishing of outward religious symbols won't make any difference as the chances of someone of a minority group getting a job in the civil service is so slight it may be called accidental.
but you know this don't you? you're just trying to force your agenda and make everything about Bill 101 because for some reason it is your pet peeve.